Tendenza

This week's readings were about Italian-based architecture and theories from the Italian architects. The readings this week are things that I've never been able to grasp or wrap my mind around so I took this as an opportunity to go outside of my boundaries of understanding and try to capture the main elements in the readings.

I want to start out by posting a quote from "The New Architecture and the Avant-Garde" written by Scolari.  "..there is no architecture, only buildings and architects. Architecture, except in rare cases, is a plaything of the imagination, a clever combination of forms, a game of pencils, compasses, lines and squares." The quote was one from Camillo Boito.

Next I wish to define that architecture is: the profession of designing buildings, open areas,communities, and other artificial constructions and environments, usually with some regard to aesthetic effect.  


Now once I look at the quote from Boito and the definition of architecture, it makes me wonder:  who has the authority to claim good or bad architecture?  What makes one work of architecture bad from another work?  And who has the right to define the good or the bad?  I've said before that architecture is one field that is very complex and impossible to understand in entirety.  What I may feel like is a bad work of architecture may be an outstanding work to another, and vice versa.

Take the building below, for example.  This is an example of Italian architecture, but is good, or is it bad?  My personal take on this building from just this picture (without any other knowledge of uses) is that I see a building that is not merely a square/rectangular form.  The different angles of the exterior walls catches my eye, and the the upper portion of the building isn't the same shape as below, so it begins to mix horizontal and vertical shape.  I would have to say that I wouldn't consider this architecture "bad" from this view, but I'm sure many people would disagree.  But who's right?  Is this bad architecture?  Can we put a pure description on what good architecture is?




I want to finish today's blog by sharing my thoughts on the method of design.  I believe that there are definitely right and wrong methods of design that could determine the success one may have.  I also believe that each individual architect/designer will naturally develop a method that works best for him and her.  I think a method could begin to form from the perspective one takes on his work.  Whether you view architecture as a living space that begins to take one with the earth, or maybe even architecture as a realm of spaces, or as we have read this week, the urban artifact as a work of art.  I think that this could be a deciding factor that forms a preferred method of design.

Louis I. Kahn

It is the beginning of the Winter Quarter and I am now in Architecture 361, Architecture Theory: Special Topics.  We started the quarter off with several readings from Louis I. Kahn and his works.  What we begin to look at here is: Form is what. Design is how."

     As nearly all students have, I have heard of and seen projects by Louis Kahn, but never knew how big of an impact he has made on architecture of today.  I was extremely impressed with what Kahn had to say about his approach to architecture and the things that have influenced his projects over the years.
     I would like to start with a quote that I came across in Jan C. Rowan's "Wanting To Be: The Philadelphia School":  "I believe the architect's first act is to take the program that comes to him and change it.  Not to satisfy it, but to put it into the realm of architecture, which is to put into the realm of spaces."  Looking back onto the projects that I've done over my short 2 years of studio, I realize that one key facet of design I was leaving out was this transformation of the program into the realm of architecture.  By doing this, you begin to view your design as the arrangement of spaces that solve the problem you are given.  When you allow the program to become a system of spaces, you are allowing yourself to understand your project and how the solution begins to take nature and form itself.  I feel like what a designer does when he doesn't allow this change to happen is prohibiting himself/herself to a more pleasing design.
     Allowing your project to form itself by nature is something else that Kahn talks about.  When Kahn tells his story about the brick who wanted to be an arch, Kahn is saying that you have to allow architecture to begin to form the way it naturally wishes to flow.  As a designer we cannot force designs to happen and yield a project that is monumental of any sort.  It is easy, however, to force a design for a project when the project is really screaming back at you that it not what it needs to be.
     After reading this week's literature about Louis Kahn I am inspired and have an additional perspective of  architecture.  There are innumerable quotes from Louis Kahn that could inspire and drive architects to become better designers of architecture.

The words of Kenneth Frampton

      The words of Kenneth Frampton really worry me as an architecture student.  Frampton says that the possibility of creating significant urban form has become extremely limited.  This statement worries me.  He says that technology has now directed design and we simply design based on "high-tech".  Being based on high tech gives us as architects very limited room for design freedom; we must create buildings that are focused solely on the production methods.  This to me shows that we must focus on function is our primary aim for design.
    The contrast to this high-tech design process is the "compensatory facade" approach.  This worries me as well because what Framton means by this is that we are only designing buildings to hide the truth of our universal system.  If we are limited to the designs of the compensatory facade, we do not have anything good to look forward to.
     I personally do not wish to be stuck with either being an architect dealing with the "high-tech" nor the "compensatory facade".  Even though I resent the thoughts of architecture coming to this point in time, I still look forward to the opportunity of resolving the issues that we are currently dealing with.  Every architect has had to deal with specific issues with architecture over a span of time.

Clyde's Pick-Up

In this reading, a perfect example of a closed system versus an open system is shown.  It is really cool how we see exactly how nature works through something like this.  Inside the truck, things age and become dust-covered, but nothing grows.  In contrast, outside in the bed, where there is a combination of sun, wind, and rain, plants such as poison ivy and albizia have begun to grow.  Leaves decomposed through natural process and is now the soil to these plants.
After I read this I was reminded how special the processes of our Earth were.  The process of growth and reproduction of plants is remarkable.  You can begin to understand the power of Nature and how special it is.  You can begin to see how nature works in each stage as well:  leaves that are blown into the truck from the wind along with seeds from nearby trees, rain and pigeon excretion begin to start the growth of the seeds into the decomposed leaves, and the sunlight gives the seeds energy needed to begin growing.  Seeing all of this take place in the bed of the truck is pretty awesome.

     Upon reading the selected reading by William J. Mitchell called "Prologue:  Urban Requiem" I noticed one thing that seemed to remain constant in each mourner's eulogy.  What I noticed was that the advancement of technology, over the history we know and study, has caused us to lose touch with the fundamental principles of the human species.
     In the first mourner's eulogy, the development of a water supply made of pipes that supplied each individual house resulted in the decline of the "communal function" of the water well center.  This space was a gathering place of the people where business was done, along with daily socializing.  Once there was not a need for gathering water here, people lost touch the ways they once did.  This eulogy goes on to tell us how the need to "go" places had been lost due to the technology that brings our necessities to us.  Socialization/communication is a vital principle to all humans.
     Going along with this topic of lost socialization, I recently heard a man speak on behalf of the Boys and Girls Club of Ruston, Louisiana.  The man was speaking of the activities that he and his staff focused on, and the leading activities were social skills.  He has seen from year to year a decline in the social skills of the young kids. This is a prime example of our younger generations losing something that is important to our species.
     Continuing to the second mourner's eulogy, he talks about how the development of electrical wiring and centralized heating ducts had resulted in the loss of the family ties.  The fireplace was the previous source of heat and light, and the families used to gather around this fireplace to use the light and gain heat, all while communicating with one another.  Now, because of the technology advancement, we no longer depend on the fireplace as a gathering space for our families.
     Finishing up with the third mourner's eulogy, we see how technology advancements have eradicated the spread of literature by word of mouth.  Before paper, stories and knowledge was passed down through generations by word of mouth.  The creation of papyrus was only the beginning of what would be the demise of a need for word of mouth.  Now we see less and less books being printed because of the quick and easy access to words on text/e-mail/e-books.  Each and every day gets more and more advanced with the use of electronic sources.
     What I have mostly concluded from these eulogies is that we have completely lost our sense of communication.  We no longer depend on direct communication, but rather the communication through our electronic sources.  This will only continue to get worse and we will eventually have a world of people incapable of proper communication.

This I believe: architecture should. . .

This I believe:  architecture should be the solution to the problem at hand.  Each piece of architecture starts with a problem that the client is looking to solve.  This solution, the architecture itself, should also be pleasing aesthetically in design to be complete.  Design pertains not to the looks of the building, but a conglomeration of the site, materials, and organization.  All of these make a pleasing design that we call architecture.  In order for our problem to be solved, the architecture should be structurally sound around a plan that is pertinent to the use of the building.  

    When given a project and the site it sits on, an architect(or student in my case) should first look to form a concept of the project.  The processes of the project will be driven by the concept.  The concept answers the problem of the project and helps to guide the designer through all phases of design; the project should answer the concept.       Architecture is the most in-depth field that I have ever come across; it takes so much more than just making nice sketches on a scratch piece of notebook paper.  Architecture is also more that arts and craft, like learned in first year studio here at Louisiana Tech.  It takes being knowledgeable and skilled in so many areas to be successful in architecture.  I have often heard architects refer to themselves with multiple titles besides just being an architect.  Architects are well-rounded individuals who must contain wisdom in things such as the arts, philosophy, psychology, various sciences, etc.

          One thing I love about architecture is the range of knowledge it takes just to complete one building.  Architecture is one field that you can never learn everything about; it’s a lifetime of studying.  To be successful in the field of architecture one must become completely involved in the project at hand.  If you were to design a building for a sports arena, for example, you must completely understand the functions of the space and emotions of the people that will be in the building.  If you were designing a chapel of some sort you must completely understand the use of lighting and the desired type of lighting and sounds of the building.  You must also incorporate a sense of worship at this building.  What I am getting at is that architecture is so diverse in what it takes to complete any one project, and it’s even more impressive to have a background of multiple types of buildings.  The field of architecture awes me when I begin to think about the potential knowledge I have to look forward to learning.  

          Let’s first talk about design:  In what little experience I have in my studies, I do know that design is more than just a “sexy” sketch, or an artistic-looking drawing that seems to look cool.  Design has to answer the problems that are given with each project.  How a person moves in space, how the space responds to the selected site, how the materials used affect one while inside the space, and even how the design responds to the surrounding environment are just a few things that make design difficult.  Every fragment of a floor plan or section is necessary to have a complete design.  A completely sound design is something that we all (designers) strive to accomplish in all building projects.

          Another thing that architects focus on is experiential quality.  Through a concept and the final designs, a building has experiential qualities that reflect the purpose of a building.  Architects focus on what people will experience and how they will feel while moving between the spaces of the design.  A large portion of experiential quality comes from the materials chosen to use throughout spaces.  Good experiential quality may be the hardest thing to be successful at when designing a building, but it may also be the most important thing to focus on. 

          Profound author and designer of sustainable design, William McDonough,informs us in his writing called “Design, Ecology, Ethics, and  the Making of Things”, tells us what Ecology is: “If we understand that design leads to the manifestation of human intention and if what we make with our hands is to be sacred and honor the earth that gives us life, then the things we make must not only rise from the ground but return to it, soil to soil, water to water, so everything that is received from the earth can be freely given back without causing harm to any living system.  This is ecology.  This is good design.”

          It is in these words that McDonough begins to make his readers really begin to think about design as being one with nature.  Nature itself is a self-efficient system that cycles over and over, and McDonough wishes to see design act in this manner as well.  When I think of this I begin to think of buildings as being designed to become a part of nature.  The functions of an “ecologically friendly” space neither take away nor put back into the Earth; they cancel each other out and the building is just like all other parts of the cycle of nature.  Having said that, a building that focuses on ecology and becoming eco-friendly is a benefit compared to other buildings because of the damage that is not caused to the health of the Earth. 

          McDonough presents great arguments when discussing the issues of ecology and also sustainability.  Sustainability is also another growing topic in the architecture world.  More and more designers are focusing on sustainability along with the ecology of architecture, mostly because we are in a time of crisis in building materials and resources remaining.  The growing awareness in sustainability is to begin designing spaces that use a combination of our outstanding technology with the natural resources that Earth offers to save and replenish the Earth’s resources.  The use of natural resources such as the sun, wind, and rain from the Earth has continually grown due to the new awareness to the lack of other resources that we are steadily consuming.  When a building begins to become a sustainable space, it as if the building becomes one with nature, it fits in with the natural cycles of life.

          To help me further gain insight on my thoughts about the theory of architecture, I took a trip to a family friend and establishing architect Tim Brandon.  Tim is the President of TBArchitecture, a firm out of West Monroe with offices in Dallas and Natchitoches as well.  I took two questions to ask Tim about his thoughts on architecture and his practices.  The trip was very useful and helped me understand a few different points of view about the practice of architecture. 

          The first question I asked Tim was what he thought architecture should be.  The answer I got from him after putting him on the spot was that he believes that architecture should “tell a story”.  Whatever Tim is designing, he tries to incorporate the use of the building into the design of the building, from form to materials.  For instance, his firm designed the Ouachita Performing Arts Building and he used different instruments (snare drum, saxophone, and piano) and formed a building that showed characteristics of all three of these instruments.  The auditorium was the shape of a snare drum while the top of the atrium of the building had the form of a piano (in plan and elevation), and the main building was designed from the shape of a saxophone.  Tim’s idea that buildings should “tell a story” somewhat relate to my initial thoughts on a concept and how a concept guides the processes of design according to that particular concept. 

          I also asked Tim what separates him from other architects, and his reply was that he has an advanced understanding of the “hands-on” side of building.  He spent much of his college career working construction and this helped him understand how things are constructed and how long things take to put together along with the communication processed between a construction worker to contractor to architects and engineers.  Once this was described it made perfect sense how an architect who has a hands on experience would be better equipped for the job, seeing how it is required for all projects to actually be constructed.  After talking this matter over with him, I feel like having a complete understanding of the construction processes can be the most beneficial tool for a student to help him prepare for a job in a firm. 

          Moving on from my visit with Tim Brandon, I want to discuss the timeline of an architect’s career that I also have come up with.  If you ever notice, you very rarely, if ever, hear about a famous work done by an architect in his 30s or even 40s.  Architects usually do not become noted for their works until later on in life.  What I see contributing to this is the time it takes to establish yourself in architecture.  Being a young architect running a firm, your top priority is establishing yourself with clients, and maintaining stability with your staff.  When you begin to grow, managing multiple offices and more staff, with a larger range in clients begins to challenge you and take up your time.  Until an architect is satisfied with the size in his firm, he will never be allowed to completely involve himself in his design practices.  I feel like the time it takes to establish yourself as an architect is the reason why architects are older in age before they are recognized as a successful architect.  I also feel like it takes an architect many years of practice, no matter how successful in those years, to really understand architecture.  Like I said before, architecture is never completely learned, it’s a continual study. 

          As a very young student in the school of architecture, I sit and wonder about many things pertaining to the theories of architecture and what I will learn about architecture that makes me a successful architect.  I feel like the change in direction from designing buildings that simply look sexy to designing buildings that are ecological and sustainable will be my biggest challenge.  The reason that architecture interested me as a graduating high school student is because it was so intimidating to me that I wanted to learn about it and enjoy it also.  Everything I learn about architecture is essentially new to me because I was not raised in a family of people experienced in the arts or construction.  I wonder how I will adapt to the change of architecture with the new ideas at hand.  Will I be the architect that is studied for years and years to come or will I just be another architecture graduate who has a job serving tables at a local restaurant?

          To finish off my thoughts on what I believe architecture should be, I want to reiterate that I feel like architecture should be the solution to the problem at hand.  To solve any problem with a means of building, one must be educated in the areas the building is meant to be.  The architect must also utilize all the knowledge he has about the site for the building, the materials that will enhance the experience of its inhabitants, whether or not it is necessary to create a sustainable building.  Other things to be considered are the ecological issues with the design.  In order to completely solve the problem that you are given, you must be able to express all of these areas throughout your project design.

Site Reflection

     It was very difficult to read the writings on site and the ideas about what the site is and how it should be considered when designing spaces on a particular site.  I believe that understanding why an architect is needed and how to solve site issues at a deeper level takes much more education along with experience than I have right now.  I think that it's mostly uninteresting because it's much harder to understand than the other topics we have read about.
      Each architect deals with each project and site differently depending on the concept and goals of the project.  How the architect handles this could, in fact, be determined by one key fact:  whether or not he/she actually physically visited the site.  During Architecture 225 studio, we had an opportunity to visit the location of our 3 projects for the Winter Quarter.  Having the chance to visit the site allows you to become more involved at much deeper of a level than just looking at site measurements on paper like every other project we have done.
     I think that it should be a top priority to visit the site.  I had many key aspects from each of my projects that enhanced the design only because I had the opportunity to feel the environment and see the details that came along with the site.  Materials were also affected once I had a visit to the site.  I feel like this opportunity opened many more doors to a better project.  

Reaction to "refabricating architecture"

After reading "refabricating architecture" I wonder if the continuous discovery in advanced technology methods of fabricating products worldwide will negatively affect our economy.  Will the "more for less" theory,although smart to a business owner, affect the number of jobs that will be available in the years to come.  New machines and tools which facilitate the production of all products result in lower man hours.  If these machines continue to decrease the manual labor required for production, where will the surplus of people turn to for jobs?  


Economically speaking, it seems to me that the result of the steady technology discoveries will result in an even higher unemployment rate, over the already embarrassing numbers.  And the only solution that seems feasible to me is that an adaptation period has to occur, and that would be regarding the fields of study that our population begins to migrate to.  In order to successfully adapt to the change in technology, students will, in theory, begin to study computer information systems instead of construction work, either on a building site or the production line. The reason for this is for the increase in computer technicians needed to operate the new programming systems.  


Something else that I feel might happen for a period of time before being solved is the flaws of the technology.  It seems that the first few passes at creating technology to replace hand craft (fabrication of products) would fail due to lack of quality and consistency.  Machines tend to fail at consistency and I think that keeping this to a minimum will be the greatest challenge in production for years for come.  This is not a change that can happen over night; it takes many attempts over a period of time to perfect the machine production, especially at the scale of production being attempted in today's warehouses.  The reason I feel that the possible failure of the machines is important to talk about in this blog is because this creates a standstill in our economy if failure does occur.  A standstill amidst a transition as such is detrimental to our society.  


I had an unusual reaction to reading this literature, and instead of a more theoretical approach to architecture, I feel that attention to this situation should be established.   Is the result of continuing this transition to a technology-run economy worth the possible economic tragedy that would result in a failure of this transition?  That's what worries me. 

How moments and atmosphere can affect design.

     As I read David Pye's "The nature of design", I had some side thoughts that were stimulated from some of his thoughts and writings on architecture and the influences of design. What interests me very much is the thought about how each moment in time and the atmosphere at that moment influences the design in which your brain outputs into your project.   If it is 6 am and I am sitting in my apartment, my thoughts and design will be very different from when its 4 pm and I am sitting in my studio at school or 10 pm sitting in a coffee shop, etc.  It is really cool, but simultaneously very supernatural that this fact can alter the potential of my design.  Going on in thought it almost seems like one should find a place suitable for the maximum potential of their design and where they should settle in to free themselves and get lost in the project at hand.  

     I also wonder if there is certain atmospheres that would enhance the quality of my work depending on my project.  What I mean by this is is if I am working on designing a pavilion in a park, would it be better for me to     escape to a park and work on the design or would I get better results from working in my studio at school.  What if I'm working on a new baseball park, would there be a best place that would allow me to lose myself in design and produce my best work?  I could sit and ponder on this forever and not ever understand it completely. 

     Pye says: "Architecture is differentiated from engineering and from nearly all other branches of design by the fact that the architect has to act as if no object in the result, except the earth itself, is given"  Going on the preceding paragraphs about how atmospheres and moments affect design, I realize that it is special because and engineer has a set problem and a set answer.  He does not have the freedom that an architect does.  He will never wonder how the atmosphere can change his problem because his problem is already set in stone.  

    One more quote that I wish to talk about is: "All  manner of different considerations will influence an architect's decisions about the shape of the spaces he is to enclose, but the chief of them will always be the probable activities of the people who will enjoy the weather in the space."  The architect's design definitely has direct influence on the manners and attitudes which people will have while in this space.  One of the greatest challenges is arranging space to accommodate the desired number of people and the attitudes they have once entering the space.  

     You may ask why this quote interests me and why I mentioned it in this blog.  The reason behind is connected to the reasoning behind this blog in general.  One thing I wonder is whether or not the moment in time, along with the atmosphere at that time, affects the desired result of the architect for his design.  Does the  atmosphere alter the mood of the architect which in turn alters the mood of the building that is designed?  What if the building has mixed emotions of design which is a direct reflection of the mixed feelings of the architect from mixed atmospheres? 

     Nothing I talked about can be completely grasped in my mind; however, I still talk about it and ponder on it endlessly.

"..betwixt the pencil and the stone."

A part of the second reading, Natalini's "La costruzione Building", uses the quote "Architecture is a lapse betwixt the pencil and the stone." I really like how Natalini puts this quote together and the explanation given.  Both the result of the pencil on paper and the building of stones can be considered architecture, but what architecture really is is the process of understanding during the lapse of the two.  The "lapse" that Natalini is referring to here is the one that occurs subconsciously after the design is put on paper.  After one reads this and lets it sink in, it makes perfect sense that Natalini can use this quote to describe architecture.  


A part of architecture is the understanding of the problem at hand.  As an architect we are trying to solve this problem, and the lapse that is given here is the time that is given from the idea to the building(pencil to stone).  This lapse gives us necessary time to process this problem and further our solution to this problem.   


After reading this section of Natalini's passage, I now see architecture as neither the result of the pencil dragged across the paper or the stacking of stones into a structure, but as the thought process between the two which is necessary for us, the architects(or students), to process this solution.  In addition to this realization, I also acquired the importance of this complete understanding of the architect's problem at hand and the responsibilities we have to solve it.  

Opportunity of the Architect

In conclusion to my first reading of the course, I have had some deep afterthoughts about what architecture is and what architects are for.  One thing that I have learned about the architect from Vitruvius is that: "the architect should be equipped with knowledge of many branches of study and varied kinds of learning, for it is by his judgement that all work done by the other arts is put to test".  An architect should also be well rounded with knowledge in rhetoric, drawing, geometry, history, philosophy, music, medicine, law, and also astronomy.  Knowing that an architect has the responsibility to be this well-rounded of an individual is something to be in awe over.  An architect is required to have knowledge in all of these areas to be successful in his position.

In contrast to this education being a requirement to an architect's profession, I see this as an opportunity to seize power through knowledge;  an opportunity that only a small percentage can manage to accomplish.  One thing that I love is opportunities.  Opportunities can open doors and allow someone to prove themselves.  As I think about this opportunity it excites me, but also worries me because I wonder how I will respond to this opportunity of becoming a part of a very rare and special breed known as an architect.