Project 2; Creating a Drawing machine which draws any form of data fed into it, collected at Dover.
My partner and I chose ‘The Art of Conversation’ as our focus; recording the conversations we heard around the town, and translating this, rather directly, into an ‘artwork’.
This video served only as a background to our presentation, quickly thrown together- not a fine/ interesting example of film!
Architecture imitating art….or is that the other way around..
Architecture is a tantamount to Visual communication. From producing details and plans as drawn instructions to the builder, to producing beautifully rendered 3D images to woe prospective clients; without the drawing we are nothing.
Anthony Vidler, in writing Architecture’s Expanded Field, proposes that Architecture is subject to influences and overlaps / bleeds into with other art forms and/or professions.
In short, he finds architecture itself to be a juxtaposition between the landscape and sculpture; influenced by nature, site, location, urbanity, and the monumentality and artistically of sculpture.
He asks the question as to how each field (art/ sculpture, architecture) can maintain their individual identity / integrity when they are bleeding into one another’s field. I find this interfacing has manifested itself, in part, due to the digital age - would architects like Gehry take on such sculptural challenging forms on a scale were it not for the high-tech methods of computer based experimentation and exploration he has to hand? Probably not.
But I digress.
The problem Vidler identifies is this; if the lines are blurred between art and architecture (be that due to digital advances or not) the question of use and usefulness then arises. This is something I have often thought about garish, sculptural works of architecture such as Gehry’s, and even experienced first hand; the building is a carved form he clearly longed to achieve yet at the expense of usefulness - you are left with useless spaces and abnormalities in the building that frankly wouldn’t exist would he have dared to consider the spaces more so than the overall form. This contrasts incredibly to the beliefs I hold, and indeed the texts from Stan Allen and William Mitchell (last week) where the architecture should be (to an extent) network-based and driven by the user.
Having said this, Expanded Fields’ has it’s uses; new methodologies and theorising aren’t simply a dilution, but can have successful outcomes, e.g. Darwin’s theories in biology and evolution influencing the natural whiplashes and flora of Art Nouveau.
Technology to date might not have resolved the “problematic dualisms that have plagued architecture” for years, but to look at technologies “less in order to blur distractions”, who is to say that they mightn’t, in time, help us to understand the climatic, economic and social ecologies which influence architecture?
When landscape met urbanism…
Terra Fluxus asks us to consider the hybrid of Landscape and Urbanism. Landscape today is more important than ever, in vogue even. Not merely vegetation, earthworks, planning etc., but the conceptual scope of landscape; theorising sites, territories, ecosystems, networks, infrastructure, interactions and organisation. However, this landscape/ Urbanism hybrid - how does one affect or alter the other?
Nature is soft, benevolent, soothing and ‘moral’. Landscape isn’t nature however, untouched by mankind; even a field of crops has been affected by human activities, but with intimate responsibility. City is deemed to be corrosive and hard - activity, money, population, transport, built upon, cultures, government, power.
The point of interest is how these two come together, particularly at the interface where they meet. (The High Line, NYC, is a great (small scale) visual example of this, if not a little contrived.) How ‘city’ or seemingly unrelated subjects change will in turn affect our attitude to landscape; economic, political, cultural, academic changes will all condition the way in which we practice Landscape urbanism.
For example, if central government change their policy on environmental factors, this will have a knock on effect on economics and culture, and call for a greater interest in landscape urbanism policies.
And therein lies the problem of this hybrid; people, culture, neighbouring bodies etc tend to get in the way. For the theory to work, you would require a totalitarian government who owned all the land, a static population and culture, and a steady economy, over a prolonged period. The minute one of these is disrupted, equilibrium is lost - for landscape urbanism work you need total control.
On a more literal scale, landscape urbanism needs levels of control too; large, open spaces with an undetermined program can often lead to poor quality, useless spaces, which, in turn, can give rise to those with vested interests seeking ownership and using spaces for programmes of use which were never originally intended (think politics/ multinationals ‘grabbing’ spaces)
A stimulating program requires the impregnation of landscape with some physical structure, ranging from rail tracks to the site, to railings for H&S. It’s not just a case of planting a few trees here and there; by using materiality and architecture to synthesis a program of use you can control and influence how people will act with the landscape and the space, a true relationship with public space and urban ecology.
Prevention is better than Cure
Cradle to Cradle theory is an indisputable ideal. To create something which functions well, costs little environmentally to install/create, produces low waste during its’ lifetime, and then feeds into the life of something new when it’s own is over (think of the nitrogen cycle say in nature) is utopian design.
William McDonough is, in my humble opinion, a modern day hero, not only of architecture, but of the environment and handling the media. As opposed to hugging trees in his Birkenstocks, he deals with global companies like Ford and Gap, not to mention master planning for the Chinese Govt, and manages to bring his environmentally aware architecture and principals to the kind of capitalist giants (or in china’s case, commi regimes) by having the business savvy to know that; if you can package it prettily enough, make it clean, make it green, it doesn’t matter, but if you can do all this AND make it cheaper than the next guy, then you win the contract. This is what appeals to me about McDonough; as well as being an innovator, and one with a conscience, he also has his footing in the real world; he understands money, the media, and how to get his idealistic principals realised and into being.
This commercial pragmatism and real-life application of his principals are what sets him apart from so many theorists; McDonough’s writing is accessible.
Meanwhile, Guattari is more of a stanch theorist, an absolutist, awaiting social revolution, for the political and cultural realms to be put into order so he can ‘apply’ his theory; whilst he is singing from the same hymn sheet as McDonough, I frankly lost the will to live (momentarily) wading through his theorising, which, whilst relevant, soon sickened me, as though I were chomping endlessly through bowls of metaphorical spaghetti based around one word/ idea; repetitive, lengthy and heavy duty.
C2C thinking though - I think I could go for second helpings….
End of Project summary video for proposed Herne Bay Pier Redevelopment. A light-hearted overview, to hopefully hold your attention.
Turn up the volume for full impact!
You can take the people out of Architecture….but I wouldn’t
This is a brave one to tackle. Urbanism, according to the OED, is “the way of life for people that live in a large city”. Simple. Perhaps the simplicity of this statement should be alerted to architects; the way of LIFE for PEOPLE.
Architects tussle with the difficulties of the concepts of architecture and urbanism; the desire to ‘fix’ it via architecture. This has been feverishly obvious in the recent project in our own studio - the architect has a desire to prematurely go beyond the issue of people and how they live, and remedy the apparent problems with an architectural wonder-fix!
Yet again I am slightly embarrassed to be entering a profession which can, at times, get so wrapped up in its own self-importance to ignore the primary reason as to our existence; we want to create places FOR PEOPLE to use and exist within/around etc etc. All too quickly we jump into the designing-out of a problem before we Really understand what it’s all about. In particular in ‘urban’ spaces. The trouble is trying to tame the creativity, which is integral to good architecture, until the point where we understand the issues and the problems. Of course, trying to tame creativity when presented with a new project is like taking an alcoholic into a bar and asking them to sit there for a few days before they can have a drink! The temptation is all too much, and inevitably ideas will appear, be they aesthetic, concept driven or whatever, and it’s difficult to restrain a designer to say ‘right, lets look at the facts, and THEN see what we’ll do”.
Coincidentally, the lecture I attended this week featuring retail architect Susan Williamson from Cornerstone Strategies showed that this achievable. Her consultative role deals with hard-core demographics and transactional analysis, going on for as long as three years sometimes, that will find the voice of the people, and their needs, usages etc and often has to tell clients what what they set out to build, is actually not workable or required, and what is infact needed is something completely different, sometimes not even a piece of architecture at all.
I must remember to cool it before I start scribbling next time…
The City to Urban Society
Lefebvre’s writing put me in mind of a more grounded, realistic version of Georges Perec ‘Species of Spaces’. It could just be the french philosophising époque going to my head, but I found this a genuinely interesting read. The transition from 0% wilderness before man to 100% ‘critical zone’ of urbanised society was a thought ahead of it’s time; whilst he can pull on the factual change of progression (agrarian rural to the political city to the mercantile city, to the industrial city) he was not to know of the urban conclusion whereby the rural society was there only to serve the urbanity populous. I find this is probably spot on.
A new thought to me was that politics were involved in Urban spread; it makes absolute sense now in hindsight, but I never thought about the connection before. For example, in Western Europe, we see the spread of wealth and concentration of people around industrialised areas of natural resource (linen, coal, cotton etc) or in the mercantile cities around the bays and coastal areas, but when looking at the spread of wealth/ urbanisation in Russia, it’s very thinly and evenly spread; because of Communism. It never occurred to me before, but of course, it makes perfect sense.
However nowadays, the accelerated urban growth in city slums of the developing world completely overrides the ability for urban planning. The concept therefore that architects etc can strategically and ultimately plan for Urbanism is a nonsense - one must realise that, with a complex issue like immigration/ movement of people from rural to urban society, that Urbanisation and Planning cannot be an accomplished/ finite task; Lefebvre asks us to instead look at Urbanisation as a HORIZON; something you’re compelled to move towards but that will never reach a fixed point. This is the challenge to modern architectural thinking.
Urbanism is a social practice - not merely an architectural one. Even the Stirling prize is socially involved; money, people, workers, visitors, and yes, architects, are all involved. Therefore, our role as an architect is what exactly? Is it to create buildings, for which we’ll achieve recognition and kudos from our peers? Or is it more of a social issue than we might realise? I think the answer to the latter question can only be yes, and that architectural hunger and ego mustn’t overpower the bigger picture of urbanisation if we wish our projects to be a true success.
This is where Samuel Mockbee’s essay ties in. I found his Rural Studio perspective clean, honest and refreshing, especially compared to Koolhaas’ Junkspace of last week. The concept of the non-iconic architecture, in specific locations, for a particular social group, for the specific needs of his client to be true to my own architectural beliefs. Architecture should fit the locale, the budget, and the needs of the people for which it is built; LeCorb-style modularisation to roll out worldwide isn’t sustainable in the long term. Climate varies, budgets vary, peoples’ lives vary, and of course, their tastes. A modular unit that could be placed in Tokyo, stacked upon one another, for a small family unit which works long hours in the city and spends little time cooking or staying at home will not be a suitable module for a family of ten in Tibet who cook over an open fire and have extreme temperature and weather variations from summer to winter. Having said that, what Rural Studio propose, whilst being relatively cheap and resourceful, is still over-budget for a worldwide roll-out; a $30,000 per home scheme may work in the States, but will not be cost effective in sub Saharan Africa. Nor would the labour intensive, skilled workmanship be there to construct the homes. Not to mention the variation on materials globally. However, were there rural studio-style offices worldwide, then this could be achievable. At least Mockbee considers the personal aspect of architecture, which Lefebvre refers to re. urbanism. It certainly augments my thoughts on how to design good architecture.
Room full of mirrors - an observation
Although it has been a misconception of others for years now that I suffer from chronic vanity, a mirror is a useful item to keep on your person, especially if what you suffer from in reality (as I do) is in fact an unfortunate complexion.
However, to pick up on this vain thread, I have noticed on a daily basis that mirror-addiction is not just my own demon, but everybody’s. The architecturally unappealing facade of the local Aldi supermarket notably slows down the pavement traffic; not because of their latest offers or tasteless billboards, not even because of the clumsy architecture itself, but because of the delight of reflection of oneself along the ten meter mirrored walkway. Heads turn 90 degrees, as if by reflex, to admire/criticise/self assure, and consequently, the volume of people momentarily slow down, before the bricks and mortar a few yards in front whisk them off to their destination at a more hurried pace yet again.
It made me think that maybe more mirrors in the world wouldn’t necessarily be a bad thing. At least it would cut me a little slack every now and again.
Koolhaas: Junkspace - a load of old rubbish?
On first and even second reading of Koolhaas’ Junkspace essay I could not comprehend his overwhelmingly pessimistic outlook upon Architecture’s role in the urban environment. The essay reads, at first, as little more than a (long-winded) suicide note for his profession.
Not only this, but it seemed to me rather hypocritical; “Because it cannot be grasped, (it) cannot be remembered; flamboyant yet unremarkable; refusal to freeze ensures instant amnesia”. This from the man who designed contextual-less ‘space ship architecture’ such as the Casa da Musica - surely he cannot be saying that he is numbed by the very product of which he is a master purveyor ?
However, maybe there is more to the text than meets the eye - a clever trick whereby the essay itself, in its’ tediously over-descriptive maze of similes and anecdotes, is in fact, set up to create its’ own Junkspace, within the essay.
If so, Koolhaas has achieved his goal - for reading through the text you quickly see what he is pitching; and by over-labouring the point, for an man of Koolhaas’ intellect and well-versed self-publication, I cannot see how this would be a reader flagellating exercise without purpose.
At least I now know what Junkspace is all about… don’t I?
