Team X

This week's readings were all about the studies and ideas that were brought to the table by Team X (mostly known as Team 10).  The past few weeks have been very difficult reads, and very difficult to blog about but I am still trying to wrap my mind around what we are trying to learn here from the works and ideas that we are studying from the CIAM and Team X.

The following is a description of what Team X's goals are and why they initially chose to start meeting.
Aim of Team 10 has been described as follows:
Team 10 is a group of architects who have sought each other out because each has found the help of the others necessary to the development and understanding of their own individual work. But it is more than that.
They came together in the first place, certainly because of mutual realization of the inadequacies of the processes of architectural thought which they had inherited from the modern movement as a whole, but more important, each sensed that the other had already found same way towards a new beginning.
This new beginning, and the long build-up that followed, has been concerned with inducing, as it were, into the bloodstream of the architect an understanding and feeling for the patterns, the aspirations, the artefacts, the tools, the modes of transportation and communications of present-day society, so that he can as a natural thing build towards that society's realization-of-itself.
In this sense Team 10 is Utopian, but Utopian about the present. Thus their aim is not to theorize but to build, for only through con-struction can a Utopia of the present be realized.
For them 'to build' has a special meaning in that the architect's responsibility towards the individual or groups he builds for, and towards the cohesion and convenience of the collective structure to which they belong, is taken as being an absolute responsibility. No abstract Master Plan stands between him and what he has to do, only the 'human facts' and the logistics of the situation.
To accept such responsibility where none is trying to direct others to perform acts which his control techniques cannot encompass. requires the invention of a working-together-technique where each pays attention to the other and to the whole insofar as he is able.
Team 10 is of the opinion that only in such a way may meaningful groupings of buildings come into being, where each building is a live thing and a natural extension of the others. Together they will make places where a man can realize what he wishes to be.
Team 10 would like to develop their thought processes and language of building to a point where a collective demonstration (perhaps a little self-conscious) could be made at a scale which would be really effective in terms of the modes of life and the structure of a community.
It must be said that this point is still some way oft.

The first thing that I want to discuss is a quote from Kenneth Frampton's Team 10 Book Review.  I am very interested in the thought from the following passage that comes after some talk from Frampton in response to Van Eyck's question:  "how an architect can build a counter-form to a society without form.."  What Frampton has here is another quote in regards to Van Eyck but this one is from Alison and Peter Smithson:

"The social structure of which the town planner has to give form is not only different but much more complex than ever before.  The various public services make the family more and more independent of actual physical contact with the rest of the community and turned in on itself.  Such factors would seem to make incomprehensible the continued acceptance of forms of dwellings and their means of access which differ very little from those which satisfied the social reformer's dream before the first world war."

This passage brings out a lot of truths about today's society and what is accepted still today when we talk about social environments and the way we access our public spaces.  As Lamb even included in today's discussion he talked about the article which he read about how Generation X does not accept most of the buildings that have been left to us.  This leaves us with a lot of unused/unwanted buildings.  I find truth in this as well because we are on a direction of contemporary architectural style in our designs today so what we have left from the modernist/post-modernist and structuralists generation are no longer accepted or wanted.  

So back to the idea of today's civic organization and how we access it, I am reminded of Kenzo Tange's A Plan for Tokyo: Toward a Structural Reorganization.  Kenzo Tange talks about his attempts to restructure and reorganize Tokyo because at the rate of growth the city faces, they must adapt and change their ways of circulation and the ways in which they access the public spaces in the city.  I feel that we have, in fact, become more independent on the physical contact of with the rest of our communities and I blame this problem on technology.  I feel that we as a civilization and as humans have over complicated our lives through technology and I firmly believe that technology will be the ultimate demise of our species.  I love to daydream on the days of the late 19th century and early 20th century where it was required to interact socially and it was necessary to physically make something happen because we have completely lost that aspect in our lives.  I feel that we will only continue to get worse and as we do this we will yet again look at our situation and have to restructure and reorganize our cities and our transportation methods just as Kenzo Tange was working on for Tokyo.

This link is to a video of Kenzo Tange's firm and a building done in Tokyo.  I like this mainly because they briefly talk about methods that are required for today's building.
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHU_zVM968s 

Structuralism

To begin, I wish to quote my fellow classmate, Chrissy Short: "There seems to be many thoughts on the idea of structuralism and not one clear definition."


I completely agree with Chrissy and that there doesn't seem to be one solid idea about structuralism, the thoughts on structuralism seem to be blurred.  I do like the definition presented in the readings: "Structuralism is a way of looking at the world that focuses on the recognition of permanent structure and the relationships between them." What seems to be confusing as well while reading about structuralism is the difference in what is thought to be structuralism and post-structuralism; however, in reading through our selected essays, I find a recurring statement that signifies the difference between these two.  I conclude from the readings that post-structuralism in merely the opposite of structuralism and its main focus is that anything in design goes. "The architect is no longer responsible to his or her audience...people can respond to however they wish." is the quoted words that I see fit to best describe this period. 


As a student, I really want to express my dislike for the structuralist/post-structuralist studies.  Furthermore, I am a student at Louisiana Tech where we seem to be a more theoretically-based institution that focuses more on conceptual design than pure functional and perhaps even "green" buildings.  With this being said, I firmly believe that concept is the driving force behind a building and it molds what a building becomes.  I believe that concept is mandatory in architecture and without it a building is meaningless, regardless of its beauty.  What structuralism seemed to do was ignore all existence of a concept and all of its inhabitants.   Structuralists seemed to be only worried about how to make a building strong and ever-lasting.  Thinking of what the structuralists did in regards to design is embarrassing to the field of architecture.  Buildings require structure that is planned to last forever, but why ignore all concept and the experience of inhabitants?


Even though I do not agree with the structuralists' practices and design methods, I do believe that structuralism is mandatory for us to review and study.  I believe that buildings should be designed with the intentions of being ever-lasting as structuralists tried to accomplish, but I believe that once you begin to focus on how to make a building last forever while still being directed by a concept you begin to make a sound project.  Once again, without concept I feel a building is meaningless. 


 I view the building below (the Pompidou Center) as a building that focuses on structure, but contains a concept and helps focus on the inhabitants simultaneously.  This building is considered a high-tech design, but it shows small characteristics of structuralist architecture, with how much concern is shown in the structure of the building.

                                                                                    
   

Michel Rojkind Lecture

Last Tuesday, Mexican architect, Michel Rojkind, gave us our first lecture for the new 2011 year.  This lecture was an incredible start to the new year!  Michel is a very extraordinary architect, and in his own ways.  What intrigued me about his style of work wasn't even the work itself but the way that Michel accomplished his projects.



Take the Nestle museum for example.  Michel wanted the job for the walk around the Nestle factory, but was given only two and a half months to complete the project.  So what did Rojkind do?  He moved his firm to the site and hired staff to work 24 hour shifts for the full two and a half months.  This was just one of his projects that he went to an extreme to complete.  I admired Michel for his efforts for a project, even though it wasn't that large of one.




I absolutely love that Michel Rojkind is thinking outside of the box and finding out new ways to accomplish projects and design projects that most architects aren't doing.  Michel made a comment along the lines of: "People are always sitting around waiting for someone to make a move so that they can follow that move.  I want to be the guy is who making the move and others are following."  I know that's not word for word, but similar to what he said.  This may be the one quote that any architect has ever said that I wish I could be like. Michel is the guy who people laugh at because he has these big dreams and big ideas that seem impossible to reach; however, what separates Rojkind from others is his desire and passion to actually accomplish them.  He goes above and beyond others to make sure that these things happen.  This is what makes Rojkind an amazing architect and one that I will always look to for inspiration.

Workshop 1

CONCEPT- I believe a concept to be the solution the designer uses to solve his problem.  It is the underlying, driving force behind a project. When fronted with a project, you have a problem that is to be solved, and the concept is this solution.  The concept of a project also helps dictate form and materials used throughout the project.

DIAGRAM-The diagram is formed once one solidifies a concept; it is a visual picture of a system.  The diagram is used to show relationships in spaces and their forms.  A diagram shows progress as well.  The diagram can show things important to a design like circulation, hierarchy, repetition, symmetry, etc.  

PARTI- A parti show hierarchy that is formed while formulating diagrams.  It is usually one solid line that is seen throughout the entire plan.  The parti can be a solid, noticeable wall that even turns into a void that is noticeable as well.  In one project of my own, for example, there was one line that showed hierarchy, and this wall separated the two main spaces, but where the was ended, there was a skylight that continued in plan.  Where the parti hit the exterior wall, it continues as a retaining wall for a small garden area outside.  In section, this parti served as a wall, a skylight, and a small retaining wall.

I still feel strongly toward creating a video that allows us to integrate animations of how to formulate concepts, diagrams, and partis.  Along with animations, we would be able to integrate recorded interviews of professors, and even other architects and their belief of our words.  To top off  all the possibilities with a video, we would be able to integrate music that would lead to inspire the students, as that is what music is great for. 

FORM/DESIGN

This week's topic was on the lines of concept-form and diagrams.  Most of our readings discussed processes of design and different approaches to these processes.  Of all the readings the root of today's discussion that I wish to look at is from "With Infinite Slowness Arises the Great Form" by Ludwig Mies van der Rohe.  This writing appears to be notes from a speech that he gave.  Card 11 states:

    

 "Is the world as it presents itself bearable for man?

      More: is it worthy of man or too lowly?

      Does it offer room for the highest form of human dignity?

      Can it be shaped so as to be worthwhile to live in?"

     This passage is very powerful, as it asks some great questions that lead to some great points.  Looking at line 1 mostly I begin to ask myself if the world is truly meant to maintain our population of man?  Was the world put here for us to make what we've made of it? or has man become overpopulated for Earth's purpose?  Looking at some of Earth's qualities, mankind has challenged and even broken many boundaries of our Earth.  Gravity-look at the capabilities we now have that defy gravity.  Gravity will always be present and a factor, but look at the technology that attempts to defy gravity.  Ozone-mankind has began the demise of the protection we have from the sun's powerful rays.  If you look at where we are in a timeline of Earth, I believe that we are relatively close to the beginning of where Earth might end, so was Earth designed for us to be here?  What if we are in the earlier stages of human existence?  Our pursuit of advancement in all areas has led to this ozone depletion.  Water-we are now facing many challenges with the availability of fresh water.  Earth is 70% water, where has the fresh water gone??  Man has destroyed it!  For our pursuit of "happiness", as we enjoy to call it.  There is so much more that I could go on about that shows man has began an ultimate destruction of what Earth has lost because of us.  

     All of this being said, I ask the question:  Should man humble himself and respect Earth for what it is or are we designed to stand up and dominate?  Once compared to all other species, we have naturally dominated over all other species on Earth thus far.  What is it innate in us that leads us to act as we do?  I also ask: is there a happy medium that allows us to maintain our lives, yet allow Earth to maintain all of its plentiful resources?  

Going into another quote found in the work of Gio Ponti, "The Architect, The Artist" I find a continuation of this particular area of questioning.  "The architect, when building in the green world, must proportion walls to trees(trees are proportionate to man)."

My mind now shifts to the thought that we are here to enhance the Earth, just as the Earth has enhanced us.  We aren't to be parasitic to the Earth, but to have a symbiotic relationship with it.  The Earth gives us resources to better our lives, so why can't we give back to the Earth and help back?  I believe that this could be a possible meaning for us.  I do, however, believe that we have taken advantage of the precious resources we have been given.  I love reading William McDonough for these very reasons because he has an understanding on this subject.  As architects we are to take control of this issue and become aware of what problems we have dealing with our Earth.  

There is so much more to discuss here on this matter but I feel that too much and I begin to get off subject and lose focus on where architecture fits into this conversation so I want to sum up what I do believe.  I believe that architecture should facilitate the way that we live our lives; however, we should not begin to take advantage of what we have available to accomplish this.  [This goes onto a side conversation about overpopulation and my beliefs on what mankind should do about becoming over populated; it has lead us to problems we have today]  We should begin to think about what renewable resources we can use and incorporate into our design that enables us to give somethings back to Earth.  

(I'm not too sure if much of this makes sense; I have been rambling on for a while and not sure what to think of it.  I will come back and add/change any thoughts)