Assignment #2b: Three Good Questions, With Source
BOLD, ICONIC MOVES IN ARCHITECTURAL IDEALS
What defines a building as a bold or an iconic piece of architecture?
This particular set of terms refers directly towards the collages that I made for Thesis Prep I. My past projects, similar to the collages I created in Thesis Prep II, all have a related theme. Each project has come from one, bold move, which then encompasses my overall conceptual and functional ideas for the building. The most successful of my projects have come in the studies of sections. I’m not quite sure how these sectional diagrams relate to a thesis, but I am starting to discover that these sections are usually quite bold. I enjoy the idea that every building should be unique, because every building serves a different purpose and occupies a different site. Therefore, I prefer buildings that utilize a main idea that fits the needed functions and site requirements, without concern on whether or not it has never been done before. Architects that think differently and outside the box usually create the most interesting and best functioning buildings. In a modern society it is important to build buildings that reflect our lifestyles. For example, the Seattle Public Library is considered a modern architectural “icon” because Rem Koolhas thought differently about what a library should be and how it should function. If all architects thought about the basic ideals and functions of the spaces they were designing, all buildings would be considered icons, or I suppose, they would not be icons at all, it would just become a new, modern way of typical building design and thought. The question I posed towards what defines a building as bold and iconic lead me to a lot of sources regarding 20th century buildings that are considered “iconic”. One source in particular spoke about how architecture is competing for attention. Charles Jencks’ article also talks about how in today’s world that anything can become an icon. These ideas lead me to the think about why Jencks chose the buildings he wrote about as examples of modern icons. The buildings, such as Norman Foster’s Swiss Re and Renzo Piano’s Cultural Center in New Caledonia, are all buildings that have changed the typical framework for their given function. In my opinion, these buildings are the most compelling, not because they are different, but because their difference is changing the typical framework for their given functions.
This analysis has helped me to see that my ideas about icons are not necessarily being driven by the question of what defines the icon, but more about the icon as a functional and modern view of our most current lifestyles.
PRESERVATION, REUSE, ADAPT
Can cities and suburbs start to adapt and reuse their built structures to help preserve the natural landscape?
How can cities and towns create boundaries in order to preserve the landscape?
Preservation and Reuse of buildings is something that I have been compelled by for quite some time. Most of the time, architects, developers, and other officials choose to build a new building rather than utilize and reuse an older one. Sometimes, especially in more recent years, these newer buildings will implement some of the materials of a deconstructed or demolished building to try to help minimize waste, and contribute history into the new design. The problem with this is that these vacant and abandoned structures become eye-sores to communities and are left to decay or are demolished for a new building. The energy, costs, and waste that comes with this demolition is outrageous. Of course, remodeling and adapting a structure to house a new programmatic need is not easy, or inexpensive. But the idea of using these buildings will help to create a boundary within the built and the natural environment, because the construction of a new building would be taking away land that is currently vacant. The idea of expanding of cities and suburbs is something that worries me. Cities and their outcropping suburbs need to have boundaries before it envelops the entire natural environment. I suppose my ideas come more about preserving the natural landscape than that of buildings, but in order to preserve these places, we must find a way to control the outward growth of cities.
The interesting thing about this assignment is how it has changed the way that I think about the questions. I realized in my first two questions that, after reading my articles, those questions were not really what I was curious about. I started my searches with the question, “Why do architects tend to build new buildings, or reuse building materials, but not simply reuse the existing, abandoned building it is replacing?” Sure, this gave me plenty of sources on preservation and adaption of usage, but it wasn’t the reuse of buildings that I was concerned with, it was the expansion of cities because of new construction that concerned me.
“Machine for Living”, FUNCTION and EFFICIENCY
How has architecture affected the efficiency of our daily lives?
How does architecture influence the lifestyles and habits of the people who use it?
Can architecture become an efficient “machine for living” to better serve its occupants?
One of my favorite buildings of all time is the Maison de Verre by Pierre Chareau. The reason why I love it so much it that it is designed specifically for the owner of the house and his wife, not only for their own enjoyment and stylistic preferences, but as a machine for living. For its time, the Maison de Verre was extremely industrial and modern. The house was built to function and serve the needs of the owners. Equipped with mechanical food elevators, retractable doors, double-sided closets, and so much more, the house does not boast itself in these mechanisms to be luxurious, but to better serve the owners needs. I enjoy the idea that mechanical systems respond and work directly with the design and function of the overall building.
I have an overall obsession with the importance of function. Something just simply irks me if a building isn’t working efficiently and serving its purpose. New buildings should reflect the lifestyle of the modern people that are going to occupy them. I’m really interested in how architecture effects the daily routines of people that use it, from the home, to work, to the mall, the grocery store, and so on. For example, the programmatic layout of a building, as well as the dual use of space and using spaces for multiple functions can all begin to help create efficiency. In terms of something as small and simple as a house, there are so many ways in which architecture can provide more efficient and functional spaces, whether in terms of spatially or mechanically. People are too concerned with traditional ideas of things such as living rooms, and dining rooms, and breezeways, rather than thinking outside the box into what purpose these spaces have and how to create the best type of space for its particular use. Architecture has always transformed the way people live, similar to technology and I think that architecture has only dipped its toes into the combination of the two. With the blending of technological advances, innovative mechanical systems, and architectural design, buildings can help to better serve and fit with the modern lifestyles of the people who occupy them.
Bibliography
1. Bevan, Robert. "Architecture as icon: The architecture of aftermath, by Terry Smith." Architectural review 221, no. 1324 (June 2007): 95. Avery Index to Architectural Periodicals, EBSCOhost (accessed September 21, 2011)
2. David Garlan, R. Allen, J. Ockerbloom. "Architecture Mismatch: Why Reuse is Still So Hard.” Software, IEEE, no. 12 (November 2006): 17-26. Avery Index to
Architectural Periodicals, EBSCOhost (accessed September 21, 2011).
3. Jencks, Charles. 2006. "Cathedral and bike shed: icons and the city." Architectural review 220, no. 1315: 32-33. Avery Index to Architectural Periodicals, EBSCOhost (accessed September 21, 2011).
4. Jenson, Michael. 2008. "Process, representation and architectural agency in an age of complexity and change." Journal of architecture 13, no. 2: 169-183. Avery Index to Architectural Periodicals, EBSCOhost (accessed September 21, 2011).
5. Kolb, Jaffer. 2009. "The High Line parkland project paves the way for a new kind of urbanism in the U.S." Architectural review 226, no. 1351: 29-30. Avery Index to Architectural Periodicals, EBSCOhost (accessed September 21, 2011).
6. Kronenburg, Robert.The Spirit of the Machine:Technology as an Inspiration in Architectural Design." New York, New York, Academy Press, 2001.
7. Shigley, Paul. "Historic doesn't have to mean 'old': historic preservation is tricky in a young city [APA Awards]." Planning 72, no. 3 (March 2006): 18-19. Avery Index to Architectural Periodicals, EBSCOhost (accessed September 21, 2011).
8. Smith, Albert C., and Kendra Schank-Smith. 2005. "Architecture as inspired machine." Built environment 31, no. 1: 79-88. Avery Index to Architectural Periodicals, EBSCOhost (accessed September 21, 2011).
9. Smith, Wally, and Hannah Lewi. "The magic of machines in the house." Journal of architecture 13, no. 5 (October 2008): 633-660. Avery Index to Architectural Periodicals, EBSCOhost (accessed September 21, 2011).
No comments:
Post a Comment