Hidden Architecture

          After going through this week’s readings, the one that interested me the most was the one talking about “hidden architecture” from the Superstudio guys. Since it was a short read, I started looking for more information to grasp a better understanding of this project. Apparently, there is not a dam thing that I could find on this particular project. So, I decided to go back to the reading to try and pick it apart. I can’t seem to understand the significance of designing something, then never show it to people. Why design it? And the fact that they burned the original drawings and preserved the copies!?!?

I personally do not see this as architecture. It’s more of an art installation, creating a statement that I can’t seem to figure out. If I had to guess, I'm sure technology plays a role within the overall concept of this project. For example, the internet is a system of interlinked hypertext documents that can be accessed via the World Wide Web (WWW). The WWW itself (and the way it works) cannot physically be seen. It's a working system that is "HIDDEN". The guys at Superstudio created a system and "hid" it within its own space. But what is the significance of burning the drawings once they were drawn? Maybe I'm just not grasping the big picture. I wish there was more of an explanation of why this project was done.

 On another note, I'm also fascinated with Archigram's "Instant City" project. It's an interesting idea of how a mobile city could drift itself into some part of the world. It would invade a "sleeping city" and sort-of bring it to life. A series of blimps or balloons drop into areas, providing entertainment, food, art, and other ways of life. Talk about a major cultural experience. It makes me wonder what the hell kind of drugs were Peter Cook and David Greene taking to come up with these crazy ideas.

The Good, the Bad, and the STARchitecture

          When I think about the values of the star system, I really don't know what side to support. I'm stuck in the middle. I wouldn't say I'm "pro-". Nor would I say that I am "anti-". But there are different issues that I address with the star system.

Frank Gehry

          The "pro-" side of me says that the star system is valuable in the field of architecture. It's usually the "starchitects" that design the iconic buildings. Their buildings usually attract the visitors. And it's their buildings that always stand out. Most importantly, it's the "starchitects" that we as students usually look to for precedent when we take on a new studio project.
          The  "anti-" side of me says that the star system is corrupt. These architects that were lucky enough to make it to celebrity status only care about one thing...MONEY. They create their "signature building" and repeatedly design the same building all throughout their career. And of course the worse thing is, (because they are famous) these "starchitects" charge bookoo money for these buildings. Take for instance Frank Gehry. When he designed his Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao, each square foot cost $300 for a grand total of $100 million dollars. His Disney Concert Hall cost $215 million dollars. $215 million dollars for a piece of shit building? Really? How can Frank Gehry call himself an architect when all he does is crumple up a piece of trash, then calls it architecture. Does that allow us to call his architecture trashy?  But apparently people like his work. Obviously he's doing something right. And I'm not going to deny the fact that his Guggenheim Museum did a lot for the city of Bilbao. Today that city is known all because of that one building, or ICON.
          On a side note, I've been thinking about the actual classification of a "starchitect". Do the architects that WE classify as "STARchitects", actually classify themselves as "starchitects". In one article that I came across, an interviewer asked Frank Gehry about the star system. Gehry replied, "I don't know who invented that fucking word "starchitect". In fact a journalist invented it, I think. I am not a "star-chitect", I am an ar-chitect". I think it's funny that one of the most talked about architects can't stand the classification of "STARchitect". I guess it all depends on the overall ego of the specific architect...(a.k.a. Rem Koolhaas).

Works Cited:

 http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/architecture/frank-gehry-dont-call-me-a-starchitect-1842870.html

Tange's Tokyo Plan

          Last quarter, I was introduced to this essay while I was writing a paper on what I believe my architecture should be. Focusing on my hometown of New Orleans, my thesis talked about architecture being regionally implicated, but mobile, giving people a feeling of certainty in the face of uncertainty. I opened the paper talking about the Make It Right Foundation and what has been proposed to help rebuild the Lower Ninth Ward of New Orleans in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. There have been numerous proposals to help rebuild the city, but there is one specific project that stands out. There happened to be a proposal to design a mega structure or a "floating city" for the city of New Orleans. The city's platform would be built from city block-size dry-docks, which would then be assembled into a single massive structure. And because the city floats, it would be possible for the entire city to change its location in "the face of uncertainty". Although Tange's project was designed for a totally different reason, I believed it was a good example to relate to, especially since this was thought of over 50 years ago.          
          While researching, I came across Tange's plan and his proposal to help Tokyo's population crisis. Since there are so many people, two important ideas that Tange recognized were the transportation system and the need for direct communication (rather than technical communication). The problem with a city of 10,000,000 people is that these people need places to live. Following the typical urban pattern since the Middle Ages, as Tokyo's central urban district grows, the suburbs grow. Which in turn means there are more commuters, that travel farther and farther everyday. Tange realized that the traditional radial plan provides mobility for smaller cities, but in a city where the movement is increasing by the day, it is "beyond its limitations". Because the rapid speed and scale of movement was ultimately destroying the spatial order of the city, Tange thought it was necessary to create a new order.
          Tange happened to be a member of the Metabolist Group, which was an Avant-garde group which was found during the 1960s. "The work processes for an architectural Avant-garde group can be defined by: (1) carefully studying current social issues; (2) fore-seeing the potential needs in the future; (3) and attempt to resolve the needs by innovative solution(s). With different observations and predictions of social needs, architects would be able to respond to urban forms, structures and densities through different solutions" (Kang Yau).
          Tange mentions in his essay that he was not trying to reject the Tokyo that currently existed. He insisted on providing the city with a new structure which would lead to its rejuvenation or "re-birth". I feel that following the ideas of Kenzo Tange could ultimately help the city of New Orleans. Just like Tange says, it's not rejecting the existing conditions, it's "rejuvenating".

Works Cited:

 Kang Yau, Lee. "THE UTOPIA CITY IN METABOLISM." Web. 18 Nov. 2010. <www.arch.cuhk.edu.hk/.../Lee%20Kang%20Yau_s0903219_3E.doc>

Tange, Kenzo. "A Plan for Tokyo." Textbook. (pg. 325-334). 1960.

Bonus Blog #1

     I happened to attend the recent lecture of the architecture lecture series. The lecturer was Michel Rojkind of Rojkind Arquitectos, which is located in Mexico City, Mexico. We first learned that before Mr. Rojkind opened his firm, he was a drummer for a popular Mexican band. Once he told us a little about his personal history, he then continued his lecture by introducing us to his work. The one project that mainly stuck out to me was the Nestle Factory museum. The amazing thing about this project was that he only had two and a half months to design and BUILD the building. He informed us that the final drawings were not submitted until after the building was complete and that the building was constructed without any permits.

     Another project that I was intrigued by was Tamayo Museum which was designed by Mr. Rojkind and the famous firm "BIG". The cross shaped design was created by the concept of an "opened box" that unfolds, opens, and invites people into the building. My favorite part of that design was how they utilized the space underneath the massive, cantilevered exhibition spaces to provide shade for a social interaction space.
      The one thing I feel that I can take away from Mr. Rojkind's lecture is that even though concepts are always important, it's the interaction of people that drives the design. By listening to the people (or clients) your ideas are able to formulate. That way, all your designs will be unique and never the same. The project is a reflection of the architect's skills and the client's wishes. Therefore, if you design and interact with clients, like Rojkind Arquitectos, all of your work will be custom and unique......unlike most (actually all) of Frank Gehry's work.

Workshop #1 - {Diagrams, Parti, and Concept}

Definitions

1. Diagrams
          - A diagram is a tool that is used to show information in an organized manner. In most instances, diagrams are composed drawings of geometric shapes to show different relationships within any given space. Sometimes, designers will use drawings of their designs and compare them to other buildings or monuments. In this case, the Phare Tower (designed by Morphosis Architects) and the Eiffel Tower are being compared by heights to see how that could affect the site or surrounding areas.

  

2. Parti

          - A parti is another tool that is usually used in the preliminary stages of the design process. A parti is considered to be a type of diagram that serves as a general idea to figure out a building's program or layout . They are usually in the form of quick sketches or even 3D models to serve as a general idea that organizes the architect's design.

3. Concept
          - A concept is a generalized idea which is ultimately the driving force of any project. It is a tool that designers use as an identity for their work. In the end, the concept should be easily noticeable and should reflect off the design.

Tendenza

This week’s readings were a bit of a challenge, but the one thing that caught my attention was the idea of the Neo-Rationalist movement, Tendenza, during the 1960s and 1970s. The group of Italian architects opposed the views of modernism and their main focus was to treat architecture as a commodity. They expressed the importance to redefine architecture in terms of “types” that consisted of rules for the rational combination of all its elements. By rejecting the belief that architecture begins and ends with technology, the Tendenza insisted on the social and cultural importance of urban elements, by looking at historical forms and elements as a method to create architectural forms.

One of the movement’s most important project was Aldo Rossi’s great cemetery at Modena. The design expressed new forms during that specific time period. “It [was] a work of inspiration and transformation, and contains the possibility for new types” (MODENA). Rossi defined architecture as designs or forms that carry on over time, to become “types”. These specific types make up the history of an urban environment, which tie into the culture of the present day. 

Aldo Rossi's cemetery at Modena

(MODENA). http://www.uky.edu/Architecture/wakeup/issue4/aaron/welcome.htm.

Kahn's Monumentality

Louis Kahn’s definition of monumentality was “a spiritual quality inherent in a structure which conveys the feeling of its eternity, that it cannot be added to or changed.” I believe Kahn, in his works, has created monumentality.

            Two summers ago, I had the pleasure of traveling to India and while I was there I had the opportunity to visit the Indian Institute of Management (IIM). I thought it only be fitting to talk about this Kahn project because (1) I’ve witnessed it in person and (2) it compares well to the work that Kahn did for the Exeter Library. In Wickersham’s writing of “The Making of the Exeter Library”, he explained about how Kahn sought to reduce the building to the simplest possible statement of pure geometric shapes. With the use of spheres and cubes, Kahn found that the use of geometric shapes was a more profound source of inspiration rather than using other historical forms or styles.

Exeter Library

            Kahn didn’t use geometric shapes just for the overall esthetics of the building; they also were designed to function. One of Kahn’s favorite building materials was natural light. The medium of natural light played a very important role in both the Exeter Library, as well as the IIM. At the Exeter Library, Kahn distinguished the direct “white light” and the indirect “blue light”. The “white light” would flow into the building and into the study and reading areas. The “blue light” would “filter” down from the top of the building and into the central hall. The physical display of the books acts as a storage space of knowledge, so “in Kahn’s mind the descent of the “blue light” dramatizes the student’s encounter with knowledge” (Wickersham). 

 

Indian Institute of Management (IIM)

            These same shapes and concepts were also used in designing the IIM. Once again Kahn used natural light as one of his mediums to distinguish different spaces. Whether it was in the IIM or the Exeter Library, Khan’s design using geometric shapes and natural light created a hierarchy throughout those spaces.  The hierarchy throughout Kahn’s design is what made his buildings monumental. “The student’s encounter with knowledge” is the “spiritual quality inherent in [the] structure.”