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.
Architecture is about making a difference and doing so is done by applying more than what is asked for in the program. What must be addressed is the user’s experience. Projects in general work better when they are literally meant for what they are.
The success of a building, in terms of physical (thermal, electrical, etc) performance can now easily be measured and analyzed, but the same is not true for the measuring of experience. It is difficult to describe what the duty of the designer is, but our training in the understanding of space along with the proportions of the body begs us to not only consider, but to USE that knowledge for further development. The architecture should reflect the needs and patterns of the users, as well as those of the outside environment. A building or project does not sit alone in its site, nor is it responsible for addressing only a certain group of users. By putting an emphasis on the development of a person’s experience within the architecture, that is not to say that the basic (but important) functions of the project should be ignored, rather they should also be considered to enhance the primary experience. A good example of this point is the Highline project in NYC. There the intent was more about creating an urban park and the experience one would get while being there, rather than reestablish a natural ecosystem within the area. The focus was on detail and how the visitors would walk through/use the park; doing so with the use of different layers and textures, some of which being the plants that THEN related back to the environment. Again, good architecture is a comprehensive combination of systems or layers, a hierarchy, where the primary layer deals with the experience of the users.
Monday, September 7, 2009
Monday, August 31, 2009
Reading Response: How to Draw Up a Project
I honestly had my doubts when I first read the title of this reading; it seemed far-fetched to think that the way we all design could be reduced in an outline that speaks to us all…and I stand corrected.
I liked this reading, and I liked it because it was easy to agree with, even for those who do not always follow these steps religiously. The outline makes perfect sense. First, start out with a concept which CANNOT be a description and proceed to elaborate the justification behind this concept by providing synthesized analysis. A good point. It took me at least three semesters to finally realize that site analysis with no synthesis is just a bunch of CAD elevation drawing; they may look cool but don’t do much on their own.
There has always been issue of where the derivation of form comes from and at what point of the project is it justifiable to “know” the form of the project. It has always been hard for me to understand a project that is “form driven” since that does not necessarily conform into a suitable concept for the project as a whole, which is why I found it interesting that in this reading the form was not to implied from any type of idea configured near the concept stage.
Once the concept is decided, it is time to add the structure and give the project some hierarchy. Yes, true, making sure to not deviate from the original intent while also trying to not get too overwhelmed by the enormous scope of issues you will undoubtedly have to address (or try to!). One step at a time, and if your concept is good, then ideas, values, and objectives will fall neatly in their place of importance. Then it comes time to start understanding the experience of the project, which is successfully achieved by the making of models and by applying materials to what was vague before.
It really is funny to have the process of project-making summarized in front of me like this, to simplify a process that took me four years to understand and decipher. It is nice to know that I have enough experience now to be able to relate to the different steps in the process, and a good check to make sure that I will always be somewhat on the right track.
Bring on the thesis!
I liked this reading, and I liked it because it was easy to agree with, even for those who do not always follow these steps religiously. The outline makes perfect sense. First, start out with a concept which CANNOT be a description and proceed to elaborate the justification behind this concept by providing synthesized analysis. A good point. It took me at least three semesters to finally realize that site analysis with no synthesis is just a bunch of CAD elevation drawing; they may look cool but don’t do much on their own.
There has always been issue of where the derivation of form comes from and at what point of the project is it justifiable to “know” the form of the project. It has always been hard for me to understand a project that is “form driven” since that does not necessarily conform into a suitable concept for the project as a whole, which is why I found it interesting that in this reading the form was not to implied from any type of idea configured near the concept stage.
Once the concept is decided, it is time to add the structure and give the project some hierarchy. Yes, true, making sure to not deviate from the original intent while also trying to not get too overwhelmed by the enormous scope of issues you will undoubtedly have to address (or try to!). One step at a time, and if your concept is good, then ideas, values, and objectives will fall neatly in their place of importance. Then it comes time to start understanding the experience of the project, which is successfully achieved by the making of models and by applying materials to what was vague before.
It really is funny to have the process of project-making summarized in front of me like this, to simplify a process that took me four years to understand and decipher. It is nice to know that I have enough experience now to be able to relate to the different steps in the process, and a good check to make sure that I will always be somewhat on the right track.
Bring on the thesis!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)