Autonomous Architecture

I first want to start with the definition of architecture:

au-ton-o-my.  noun, plural  1. independence or freedom; as of the will of one's actions.

Christopher Wood tells us in "Why Autonomy?" that "The vision on autonomous architecture descends from the early Romanistic idea that life itself may be thought of as a work of art and shaped accordingly to aesthetic principles."  He then goes on to discuss that artists of the time then began to attempt to teach the non-artists how to live according to their beliefs.  They did this mostly through their buildings rather than paintings and sculpture, leading to an epic failure in the field of architecture.  Failures of autonomous architects will be seen and discussed later in this blog.    
 "Autonomy should not be understood as involving architecture's separation from the social or the political.  Rather, autonomy becomes a way of locating architecture's potential both for development and for criticality.." ("Passing Through Deconstruction", 40).  Architecture seems to be a field that changes as said society changes; we begin to change our building strategies and designs according to what clients begin to wish for, what technological advances we have, and what the general public sees as successful architecture.  What is trying to be accomplished in autonomous architecture is the separation from this norm and expectancy that is dictated by the people who keep architecture alive, clients and the public.
     In "Passing Through Deconstruction" by Andrew Benjamin, we are given the definition of autonomy as:  "the condition in which architectural meaning exists solely in the object."  This quote was given by none other Peter Eisenman.  From examples, we know that Peter Eisenman may be the forefront of autonomous architecture.

Aside from being the typical ass, Peter Eisenman has formed his own style of autonomous architecture.  Eisenman is notorious for having a lack of concern for his clients and designing buildings that he wants to design.  How he has become a successful architect is a wonder in my eyes because he shows no concern for anyone; he's selfish and conceited.  As we know, many of his 'works', in fact, don't even work!  It is Eisenman's lack of concern that begins to describe his autonomous style of work.  Peter Eisenman works "on the will of one's actions", his own.


The Wexner Center for the Arts is thought to be a failure of a building by the majority of our professors; however, it is a perfect example of Eisenman showing his efforts to be autonomous in the field.  The Wexner Center has many flaws that seem to be a lack of concern for function, and a result of Eisenman's personal desire to be himself.  The staircase that ends at a window and the column that doesn't even make it to the ground are two major flaws of the design.  How you can seem to screw up a design that bad is mind-boggling.


  


House VI, is yet another work of Eisenman's that doesn't seem to function or even make any sense.  It is another building of his that is hard to be functional while inhabiting it.  In House VI, Eisenman creates a staircase with no handrail, a column that erects through the kitchen table, and a glass piece in the bedroom that prevents any better larger than a double bed to fit.

Although I have singled Peter Eisenman for his built work, I feel obliged to say that I do respect Eisenman as an architect, but only because of his understanding of the field and his efforts that have been put forth in the theory world of architecture.

I want to conclude by saying that I believe autonomous architecture is a great thing.  It is a great way to approach your works, because who wants to be like everyone else?  I feel that autonomous architecture allows individuality of each architect to separate him/herself from the norms of society and venture off on their own path of design.

Radicals

 

The radical architecture period is the period referred to as the neo avant-garde works of the late 1960s-1970s.  The leading group of radicals at the forefront of this movement was Archigram.  What Archigram was doing was unheard of for the field of architecture.  What they were doing was rethinking the entire field of architecture and they were stretching the boundaries of everything that architecture was at this point in history.  Whether or not you like or agree with what the radicals put forth as architecture, you must admire their efforts for looking at the field unlike all others.  The uniqueness of this group is what catches my eye and makes me at least look at their work because, quite frankly, I'm not fond of their works, but still admire them for being unique.

One project that I do despise is "Walking City".  I do not find "Walking City" to be an attractive work of architecture at any scale.  I do not see how this idea could possibly be functional at all either; however, going back to what I stated earlier:  I do have a level of respect for the ideas brought forth because it wasn't normal to the times.  I feel that people tend to accept what is normal too often and allow what others are doing to dictate what they will do as well.  What is exciting is that architecture is not a defined form or concept, but can be an endless amount of things.  The people that go beyond the norms of society are the ones who begin to change the profession in a new direction.  This isn't the case 100% of the times as seen here because the radicals quickly faded out, but there are some movements that started out as "radical" for the times, but were adopted by society as a new norm.

Out of our readings on the radical architects of the 60s and 70s, I most liked the project by Superstudio called HIDDEN ARCHITECTURE.  I find this project to be really mysterious and sketchy all at once.  What Superstudio has done here is create an anxiety the people that read and follow their architecture.  I personally really wanted to know what project this was that was concealed in their box.  The anxiety that I have about this project is the fact that there is no telling what the project actually is, but it makes nosey people like me want to know even more.  

STEP ON EM ...BEFORE THEY STEP ON YOU!!

In my manifesto I have taken an anti-star system approach where I have used a propaganda method used by the British Army combatant corps.  The original propaganda slogan was urging men 30-50 to join the corps and defeat the Nazis.  Propaganda such as this was common in these times to coerce someone to make certain decisions.  

So my manifesto is as follows:
     ARCHITECTURE IS IN A DIRE NEED TO RESTORE THE BASIC FUNDAMENTALS OF DESIGN BACK INTO ITS MAIN FOCUS, BUILDINGS THAT ARE DESIGNED TO FUNCTION WITH SOME REGARD TO THE AESTHETIC EFFECT .  THE STARCHITECTS ARE RUINING THE FIELD Of ARCHITECTURE BY THEIR DESIGN METHODS THAT HAVE BEEN CREATED IN THE RECENT PAST.  WHAT HAS BEEN DONE IS ESTABLISHING A SIMILAR APPEALING SIGNATURE THAT IS PRACTICALLY SEEN IN MULTIPLE PROJECTS BY THE SAME ARCHITECT.  THESE ARCHITECTS ARE BEING HIRED BASED MORE ON DESIGN APPEAL AND SHOWING NO THOUGHT AS TO CONTEXT.  THE REASON FOR THIS IS BECAUSE ARCHITECTS ARE BECOMING FAMOUS FOR WHO THEY ARE AND CLIENTS BELIEVE THAT HIRING A CERTAIN ARCHITECT WILL GIVE THEIR BUILDING MORE VALUE.  IN THIS ESSENCE, STARCHITECTS ARE BECOMING A MORE WIDELY KNOWN PUBLIC IMAGE RATHER THAN A RESPECTED  ARCHITECT.  WITH THE FORTUNE AND FAME CAN YOU BLAME THEM?  HOWEVER, WHAT WE ARE LOOKING AT IN THE FUTURE IF WE CONTINUE DOWN THE CURRENT PATH IS A MEANINGLESS ARCHITECTURE THAT CANNOT BE ADMIRED AS TRUE ARCHITECTURE.  WHAT WE ARE SEEING AS A RESULT OF ALLOWING OUR PROFESSION TO VENTURE DOWN THIS ROAD IS LESS IMPORTANCE OF FUNDAMENTALS OF ARCHITECTURE SUCH AS THAT OF CONCEPT, DIAGRAM, PARTI, AND CONTEXT.   WHAT SEEMS TO BE OCCURRING IS ARCHITECTURE THAT HAS NO MEANING.  

AS FOR ME AND MY FUTURE IN ARCHITECTURE, I WILL CONTINUE TO DESIGN ACCORDING TO CONCEPT, DIAGRAM, PARTI, AND CONTEXT.  I FEEL THAT THIS IS WHAT ARCHITECTURE’S ROOTS ORIGINATED FROM AND I FEEL THAT IT IS THE RESPECTFUL WAY TO TREAT THE APPROACH TO DESIGN.  I DO NOT AGREE WITH THE STAR SYSTEM MAINLY BECAUSE IT IS QUICKLY RUINING THE VALUE OF ARCHITECTURE.  
   DO NOT ALLOW THIS TO CONTINUE!!

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)

     

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.