Throughout the twentieth century architects have made the careful planning of space and material, and its experiential effects on the user, the primary medium in which they work. As such architects are often sticklers for form and demand a quality product, they view the accurate execution of the design as the ultimate success. But with such high standards they may often find themselves at odds with the city, with the builder, with economic restrictions, at times even with the client. It is in spite of these hurdles and compromises that the architect tries to make meaningful architecture. In the end they may succeed but the process is an uphill battle.
In addition to the difficulties in realizing any particular design, change in the world is accelerating, and the designer architecture of today is being replaced ever quicker by the next big thing. In such a temporary environment, where spectacle dominates, it becomes increasingly difficult to get support for an architecture of muted quality.
These are the difficulties-but rather than struggling against change as a compromising agent in the process, architects should embrace it and see the long term use of their buildings as the full realization of their architecture. As such, I choose to disengage from the details of form, space, and program, these should be left to the user to define for themselves and to continuously adapt based on need and want. Instead I choose to empower the user by developing a flexible system of building, a sort of genetic code for building, one with many possibilities that rather than defining the growth, defines the potential of the growth. It is this genetic code, embedded in the original building, created through a unique system which includes all aspects of the design and build process, that becomes the voice of the architect. In such a scenario the particulars of any building are no longer seen as permanent but as a temporary state in the evolution of the building. So like a living organism the building grows over time, re-worked, expanded, damaged and healed, as a seamless extension to the lives of the people within.
a virtual thesis
Welcome Friend+++++
This is a collection of thoughts on an Architectural Thesis in progress.+++++++ Please comment, all input in any form is sincerely appreciated.
This thesis on architecture is about defining an architectural practice, one that is personal and unique through the idea of Code.
For organizational purposes it is divided into three basic categories; Aesthetics, Economics, and Logistics. These three areas are what I see as the basic driving factors of any architecture. To further define these areas;
----- Aesthetics deal with sensibility and inspiration. It is the part of architecture that makes one feel. It is about space, materiality and aspects of architecture that require the senses to perceive. In a world without consequences or constraints this may be all that's required to make architecture. Aesthetic code can be seen as the relationships between qualities and parts, between spaces and things.
----- Economics are the limitations and opportunities from society that impact building and working. It includes financial considerations, safety, wealth distribution, property rights, and sustainable design. Codes such as the building code are rules that restrict certain designs while encouraging others.
------Logistics deal with process and technique in creation of both the design and the building. It is about organization and management. It is about the tools and the ways in which architects manipulate them to produce results. Logistic code is about the way in which computers have an increasing role in dealing with these aspects such as the way in which programming will change design.
- aesthetics (2)
- Economics (2)
- Logistics (3)
No comments:
Post a Comment