By acknowledging the important of a person and how they inhabit any given space, architecture becomes an opportunity for a directed attention to the experience of a place.
There are some activities that an urban population cannot be without, the attainment of food and produce being a crucial one. For that comes a proposal to design an urban public market that will provide goods, exchange, and community for the site at which it will be located. It will act as a catalyst for communal activity while providing a distinguished experience that responds specifically to the needs of the user; understanding that the user is the primary unit of the designed system of experiences.
Monday, November 2, 2009
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
1 + 3 + 9 again...
A place, no matter the scale, works as a system, and the primary unit of that system is the person and the person’s experience.
There are some activities that an urban population cannot be without, the attainment of food and produce being a crucial one. For that comes a proposal to design an urban public market that will provide goods, exchange, and community for the site at which it will be located. It will act as a catalyst for communal activity while providing a distinguished experience that responds specifically to the needs of the user.
Markets first appeared in society as specifically appointed places of trade, usually bounded by some sort of physical boundary or landmark. While the location of markets evolved to include not just exchange but also administrative, legislative, and religious activities, the architecture for these markets has not evolved quite as well. Market architecture, with only a few exceptions, remains an empty shell of a building, waiting for the vendors and stands to fill it with activity. The architecture of a market should reflect the needs and patterns of all the users (merchants, buyers, tourists, etc), as well as those of the outside urban environment. A public market does not sit alone in its site, nor is it responsible for addressing only a certain group of users, especially because its audience is of so many. The layering of information for this public market will have to include a combination of analysis of levels of activity within the different user types, the cycles the market must go through over time, and the sequencing of singular experiences within the project. The primary layers will deal with the experiences of the users, through the intentional use of the senses and sensitivity towards continuity. Another factor to be considered will be the possible different activities within the building, and whether or not other uses will be applicable for it should the market not be a daily occur. Market architecture will specifically be about the experience of the user, the sequence of that experience, and the unit of program that leads to that experience.
There are some activities that an urban population cannot be without, the attainment of food and produce being a crucial one. For that comes a proposal to design an urban public market that will provide goods, exchange, and community for the site at which it will be located. It will act as a catalyst for communal activity while providing a distinguished experience that responds specifically to the needs of the user.
Markets first appeared in society as specifically appointed places of trade, usually bounded by some sort of physical boundary or landmark. While the location of markets evolved to include not just exchange but also administrative, legislative, and religious activities, the architecture for these markets has not evolved quite as well. Market architecture, with only a few exceptions, remains an empty shell of a building, waiting for the vendors and stands to fill it with activity. The architecture of a market should reflect the needs and patterns of all the users (merchants, buyers, tourists, etc), as well as those of the outside urban environment. A public market does not sit alone in its site, nor is it responsible for addressing only a certain group of users, especially because its audience is of so many. The layering of information for this public market will have to include a combination of analysis of levels of activity within the different user types, the cycles the market must go through over time, and the sequencing of singular experiences within the project. The primary layers will deal with the experiences of the users, through the intentional use of the senses and sensitivity towards continuity. Another factor to be considered will be the possible different activities within the building, and whether or not other uses will be applicable for it should the market not be a daily occur. Market architecture will specifically be about the experience of the user, the sequence of that experience, and the unit of program that leads to that experience.
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Reading Response 04
I thought the reading was very helpful and interesting to think about; the layout of the different methods of producing a program certainly helped me expand the ways I generally attempt at the task.
There is one method though that made me think of an objection I have against some forms of programmatic design. It was while reading about “The Dive” method (“using a program to generate a single swooping form”) that I was reminded of OMA and how apposed I am to their transition of program to form. Why? Because more often than not it is WAY too literal.
I will use the Seattle Public Library as my example. The process of programming done by OMA for this project was incredibly successful; they analyzed and questioned what a library was with the intent of creating a new program that addressed problems in a library that had occurred because of the change in how people used the library. After such thorough and thorough and intelligent studies/compilations of program; it seems as though the form of the building was taken from one of the many unique diagrams DEPICTING the program. I know that was certainly not the ONLY driver of the form; but the similarities are very apparent.
And the same is true for many other OMA projects; the form takes on a shape that heavily resembles the program diagram.
I want to stay away from that, and especially considering the program I have finally chosen for my thesis. I have decided to create a public market/bazaar in a site that is still to be determined. I believe this program will offer me the most investigation in how the intent of an architectural experience can guide the design/form/program of a project.
There is one method though that made me think of an objection I have against some forms of programmatic design. It was while reading about “The Dive” method (“using a program to generate a single swooping form”) that I was reminded of OMA and how apposed I am to their transition of program to form. Why? Because more often than not it is WAY too literal.
I will use the Seattle Public Library as my example. The process of programming done by OMA for this project was incredibly successful; they analyzed and questioned what a library was with the intent of creating a new program that addressed problems in a library that had occurred because of the change in how people used the library. After such thorough and thorough and intelligent studies/compilations of program; it seems as though the form of the building was taken from one of the many unique diagrams DEPICTING the program. I know that was certainly not the ONLY driver of the form; but the similarities are very apparent.
And the same is true for many other OMA projects; the form takes on a shape that heavily resembles the program diagram.
I want to stay away from that, and especially considering the program I have finally chosen for my thesis. I have decided to create a public market/bazaar in a site that is still to be determined. I believe this program will offer me the most investigation in how the intent of an architectural experience can guide the design/form/program of a project.
Monday, September 14, 2009
FRAMES
This image was supposed to be accompanied by its animation...but of course I had some technical difficulties.
Experience.
People.
Reading Response #2
The four categories of applied form-making made sense, although I was skeptical and almost annoyed at description of “blobs” thinking that they really did NOT need their own category of form-making because they were so rarely realized and most of the time ridiculous. Of course there is merit to the use of new technologies and pushing the limits within the realm of such applications, but to make things that have no meaning other than “just because I can,” I have a hard time accepting. I corrected my patterns of thought while reading this though; I acknowledged that just because I do not agree or understand the process/concept behind form-making to create blobs; does not mean the strategy is not a legitimate one.
Another passage that intrigued me was that of thematization. Even after reading this text, I find it funny to realize that all the projects I can think of that fit the form-making of this strategy are either unsuccessful in general or NOT what I like. Thematic architecture. Las Vegas. Las Vegas has its merits and the absolute potential there for experimentation is incredible, but to what I hold as “good architecture”, it does not leave a real experience; it draws users for the purpose of entertainment but in the most elementary and blatant forms. JUST like an amusement park, Las Vegas attracts but is not necessarily concerned with what the user then asses of the quality. One completely off-the-topic example that may clarify my point: when I was younger, I remember going to a furniture shop with my father. He was looking at a hand-carved wooden coffee table, and after a few minutes of observing it, he asked me to look at the underside of it. Although the table was beautiful and intricate on the outside, any part of the piece that was initially hidden from you lacked any sense of care. My father explained to be that that was difference between good and bad design…and thinking of Las Vegas makes me think of that statement. The city has arguably all the ingredients available for the success in attracting millions of people to its buildings, but pays no attention to the simple qualities of occupancy, spatial experience, and even human factors (basic CRUCIAL elements in “good” architecture) once the user is snared up.
This is also applicable to projects like those promoted by the New Urbanists. Because they tend to design for one way of life, they are only basing their solution or critique on only one precedent. I just think of Leon Krier’s development of Poundbury, which takes its precedent from the “small-town” way of life and aims to design around that theme but with a modern society. Applicable to one theme, to one way of life, even though it is at the scale of a town.
Another passage that intrigued me was that of thematization. Even after reading this text, I find it funny to realize that all the projects I can think of that fit the form-making of this strategy are either unsuccessful in general or NOT what I like. Thematic architecture. Las Vegas. Las Vegas has its merits and the absolute potential there for experimentation is incredible, but to what I hold as “good architecture”, it does not leave a real experience; it draws users for the purpose of entertainment but in the most elementary and blatant forms. JUST like an amusement park, Las Vegas attracts but is not necessarily concerned with what the user then asses of the quality. One completely off-the-topic example that may clarify my point: when I was younger, I remember going to a furniture shop with my father. He was looking at a hand-carved wooden coffee table, and after a few minutes of observing it, he asked me to look at the underside of it. Although the table was beautiful and intricate on the outside, any part of the piece that was initially hidden from you lacked any sense of care. My father explained to be that that was difference between good and bad design…and thinking of Las Vegas makes me think of that statement. The city has arguably all the ingredients available for the success in attracting millions of people to its buildings, but pays no attention to the simple qualities of occupancy, spatial experience, and even human factors (basic CRUCIAL elements in “good” architecture) once the user is snared up.
This is also applicable to projects like those promoted by the New Urbanists. Because they tend to design for one way of life, they are only basing their solution or critique on only one precedent. I just think of Leon Krier’s development of Poundbury, which takes its precedent from the “small-town” way of life and aims to design around that theme but with a modern society. Applicable to one theme, to one way of life, even though it is at the scale of a town.
Monday, September 7, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)