-------------
Can architecture be the design of new inhabitable space, while eliminate the consumption of new space?
-------------
-Theoretically, the construction of a new architectural space must involve the utilization of an area in such a way that a structure will manifest upon it and render that space as available for specific uses.
-However, as time changes, so must the use of each area, and thereby the architecture must change – or so it has been held, but a building can be reconstituted, an area can be reformatted, and through these processes, the space is renewed without need for a new structure, as would apply to a factory becoming housing.
-But what of the cause of this change – if a building is destroyed internally, or partially externally, it would be condemned as uninhabitable, and a new home would go up in its wake, covering more area and utilizing further resource, while the reconstituting process transpired.
-------------
-There are many terms for it; a half way house, a homeless shelter, a safe haven – but fundamentally, the purpose of transitional housing is the definition of itself, a unit of home for those in an in-between stage.
-This in-between stage may take place as a bridge between drug addiction and clean living, spousal abuse and therapy, eviction and move-in, exile and return, and these, brought on by natural disaster, abandonment, job loss, or conflict (and any and all things between), leave those inhabitants as former inhabitants, and leave those areas they are departed from in various stages of composure.
-A house from which a user was evicted during conflict, may reflect this conflict with broken walls, roofs, and no feel of safety; reclaiming this house would require literal reconstruction of those physically shattered objects, as well as restoration of the safety of the environment.
-A family evicted from a house have a wonderful home to return to, but no means of achieving that journey; they must seek shelter for preservation of health, as well as maintain outwards communications to regain the job stability or other economic factor that initially displaced them.
-In either case, a unit facilitating the individual needs of a single person, a couple, or a family is the desired gain – be it a home, an apartment, a hotel room or a trailer, this is the object being sought.
-But if there are no homes in the price range, or no homes where one must settle down, it is a new place that requires new architecture to create these homes – that means materials, labor, transportation, as well as the displacement of space.
-A new unit, capable of sheathing those inside from external forces, natural or otherwise, and maintaining the life needs of its inhabitants, would provide shelter, in a condensed form – a light weight, modular unit, providing a scaled down concept of the home, bringing to bear an expandable unit, which itself opens in construction from a dense packaging, as well as opening further, and attaching as required by the scale of need for those inside.
-But say this is inset into an abandoned factory, and houses 40 families; or say it is inset into a flooded-out house for one family – this conserves space, while providing the requisite shelter – but what of the transitional properties of the unit itself, and the superstructures they inhabit?
-The transitional unit for transitional housing may itself be of disassembling structure that supplies materials for the reconstitution of the superstructures, and house inside of it the tools needed for this act, with chairs being chairs, a wall being a floor, table legs becoming a bike to access a new job – this house physically provides the foundation of a new life after housing those inside.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Sunday, September 20, 2009
On Place or On Program
On PROGRAM
As stated before, I am invested in looking at using a modular unit of structural, enclosure, programmatic systems, or the creation of a kit-of-parts that creates a regionally sensitive manner for rehabilitating an existing building into living quarters - I would personally desire to work in an area where such rehabilitation is required, either by an abundance of vacant housing and need of re-population, or from an excess of population growth into a certain area requiring immediate attention and service.
I have not visited such locales in my life, due to cost of travel, cost of time, or what have you, it hasn't happened yet. As such, I initially paired my interest with the place I am most familiar with, that being the town I grew up in. In addition, another long-running interest of mine, that of the American suburb and how, in my opinion, it is developing in the wrong direction, lead me to believe in renewing the suburb of my home town through the implementation of such modular work - however, after consideration of this for some time, I find that an area such as my home town and its affluence does not situate itself towards housing that is fast, and by necessity, less expensive, as anything inside must meet design code criteria, utilizing materials and forms of expensive natures.
Bummer.
Given this current schism between the issue I want to explore solutions for through architecture and locations that reflect my knowledge, I am uncertain as how to best proceed.
But looking towards our reading "Notes on the Adaptive Re-use of Program" by John McMorrough, I find myself looking to resolve the final programmatic elements that are of interest, and perhaps that shall enable me to look into a locale that I am familiar enough with. Consciously, I concede that a project and its program should be not only related to but dependent on the site it possesses. I do not have an answer to any critique siting that - I can only work with what I am certain of.
The notion put forth that not only can a program been seen as adaptive re-use, either by allowing the genesis of form that can be inhabited in a multitude of ways or through instilling a new use into an existing framework, but that in and of itself, program has been transformed into a number of roles, the effects of which its strength in design theory of the time could be seen as incredibly present, present as a background through, or subversively present in its absence.
The though that I felt had the strength in my mind was on Jeremy Bentham's Panopticon : "the model program, if one is interested in program as the exercise of control, would of course be the prison (108)." It would make sense that an area requiring the ultimate level of control of the actions associated with it would thereby use all methods to exact control through the design. I would say that here lies a critical distinction to be made - program as a method, or program as those integral parts creating a form. I would consider these different, and state that he is listing the former - a larger sense, "program as the exercise of control", though perhaps this is wrong - the program exercises control because all of its elements take control as a central issue. Though the language of "elements" now shifts to the latter definition. Thus we see connection between the statement of program as a larger goal, but the realities of its composition.
Back to what I feel - the architecture as the means of conserving - space, time, material, cost, life. The program thus would be the exercise of conservation, which by an understanding could be the enacting of programmatic elements in entirety that enhance the practice of conservation.
What does this mean? One could interpret that all materials utilized should embody conservation, made of only the most readily available and re-growing materials. Space should only embody then a conservative mind set - combine then, a hallway with a treadmill if it be a demand of the client, such that they may go from room to room or jog in one spot for as long as need be, with the flip of a switch. No workout room, just a hallway that would have had the workout room off of it. Cost wise, cheap. But cheap a la cost-effective - don't make a building out of cardboard in New England - rebuilding your home 30 times a year adds labor cost, time cost, and material cost in that manner.
What about basic human needs: should they be met and only met? Food. Water. Shelter. Sleep. Some form of mental stimulation. Some form of physical stimulation. If we look to "the ancients" to our time, Vitruvius, Alberti, what have you, a good wind saves health, light heals in moderate doses, but clearly, the environment is a necessary aspect of human life.
I've not tested putting a man in a house with no views or natural exposure for a lifetime - never knowing the outside world aside from leaving to work, and coming home - but the notion of "cabin fever", being "cooped up", we have all said these terms, they must have meaning.
As such, if we try to include these bare minimums, are they enough? Socialism. Not the political movement, mind you, but the surrounding context in which we thrive - what are the conservative requirements for a social interaction? A web camera, SKYPE, and an e-mail address. You can see, write to, talk to another live human being live, in real time. Is that enough? One computer. In person, perhaps that would be taken care of during work, shopping, etc. - but to contain another person in a unit, would double its minimum size, potentially.
As stated before, I am invested in looking at using a modular unit of structural, enclosure, programmatic systems, or the creation of a kit-of-parts that creates a regionally sensitive manner for rehabilitating an existing building into living quarters - I would personally desire to work in an area where such rehabilitation is required, either by an abundance of vacant housing and need of re-population, or from an excess of population growth into a certain area requiring immediate attention and service.
I have not visited such locales in my life, due to cost of travel, cost of time, or what have you, it hasn't happened yet. As such, I initially paired my interest with the place I am most familiar with, that being the town I grew up in. In addition, another long-running interest of mine, that of the American suburb and how, in my opinion, it is developing in the wrong direction, lead me to believe in renewing the suburb of my home town through the implementation of such modular work - however, after consideration of this for some time, I find that an area such as my home town and its affluence does not situate itself towards housing that is fast, and by necessity, less expensive, as anything inside must meet design code criteria, utilizing materials and forms of expensive natures.
Bummer.
Given this current schism between the issue I want to explore solutions for through architecture and locations that reflect my knowledge, I am uncertain as how to best proceed.
But looking towards our reading "Notes on the Adaptive Re-use of Program" by John McMorrough, I find myself looking to resolve the final programmatic elements that are of interest, and perhaps that shall enable me to look into a locale that I am familiar enough with. Consciously, I concede that a project and its program should be not only related to but dependent on the site it possesses. I do not have an answer to any critique siting that - I can only work with what I am certain of.
The notion put forth that not only can a program been seen as adaptive re-use, either by allowing the genesis of form that can be inhabited in a multitude of ways or through instilling a new use into an existing framework, but that in and of itself, program has been transformed into a number of roles, the effects of which its strength in design theory of the time could be seen as incredibly present, present as a background through, or subversively present in its absence.
The though that I felt had the strength in my mind was on Jeremy Bentham's Panopticon : "the model program, if one is interested in program as the exercise of control, would of course be the prison (108)." It would make sense that an area requiring the ultimate level of control of the actions associated with it would thereby use all methods to exact control through the design. I would say that here lies a critical distinction to be made - program as a method, or program as those integral parts creating a form. I would consider these different, and state that he is listing the former - a larger sense, "program as the exercise of control", though perhaps this is wrong - the program exercises control because all of its elements take control as a central issue. Though the language of "elements" now shifts to the latter definition. Thus we see connection between the statement of program as a larger goal, but the realities of its composition.
Back to what I feel - the architecture as the means of conserving - space, time, material, cost, life. The program thus would be the exercise of conservation, which by an understanding could be the enacting of programmatic elements in entirety that enhance the practice of conservation.
What does this mean? One could interpret that all materials utilized should embody conservation, made of only the most readily available and re-growing materials. Space should only embody then a conservative mind set - combine then, a hallway with a treadmill if it be a demand of the client, such that they may go from room to room or jog in one spot for as long as need be, with the flip of a switch. No workout room, just a hallway that would have had the workout room off of it. Cost wise, cheap. But cheap a la cost-effective - don't make a building out of cardboard in New England - rebuilding your home 30 times a year adds labor cost, time cost, and material cost in that manner.
What about basic human needs: should they be met and only met? Food. Water. Shelter. Sleep. Some form of mental stimulation. Some form of physical stimulation. If we look to "the ancients" to our time, Vitruvius, Alberti, what have you, a good wind saves health, light heals in moderate doses, but clearly, the environment is a necessary aspect of human life.
I've not tested putting a man in a house with no views or natural exposure for a lifetime - never knowing the outside world aside from leaving to work, and coming home - but the notion of "cabin fever", being "cooped up", we have all said these terms, they must have meaning.
As such, if we try to include these bare minimums, are they enough? Socialism. Not the political movement, mind you, but the surrounding context in which we thrive - what are the conservative requirements for a social interaction? A web camera, SKYPE, and an e-mail address. You can see, write to, talk to another live human being live, in real time. Is that enough? One computer. In person, perhaps that would be taken care of during work, shopping, etc. - but to contain another person in a unit, would double its minimum size, potentially.
Monday, September 14, 2009
Thesis
It is my intention to bring a sensibility relating to need to the minute details I am so fond of exploring. For what I meant when I spoke out against waste, I will now discuss. Waste in architecture, wasting of space, is the utilization of space in a manner, and for a purpose that is not a bare requisite to those using it, which specifically disables all other uses that space may be typically able to provide.
Take, specifically, a small, original New England Village, founded 1670, originating with a minor town center surrounded by tobacco farmland.
That is my home's heritage. Today, transportation and communication have left the town core as dead-space, hollow of meaning, home to quaint shops and areas locals know well, but cannot sustain. The areas grown in between these villages now house the centers - large strip malls, not 7 miles away from each other, and not within 7 miles of housing. The areas in between these, are forest. Or were. They are now condominiums and McMansion settlements. And not one of these spaces is in walking distance, and only bikers who truly are dedicated to not paying for gas would use this approach.
In actual numbers, the town center is a 5 minute walk from my home. The mall is a 15-20 minute drive. There is a local grocer in the center of town. The new construction is closer to the mall than to it, but still, never a walk or bike ride. And yet, the current Firehouse and Masonic Lodge (go outdated societies!) have recently been torn down. They are in the town center. They are quite literally directly across from the grocer and a pharmacy, and one block down from town hall. Why the fuck aren't they being reused for something else? We're in the middle of nowhere, so construction without creating an entirely new shell, while potentially more costly in another setting, excludes the sheer transportation of quantity from cost, making an efficient and competitive option. The reuse of any material from one to another is enough to finish a large portion of needed adjustments. As well, the local private high school has recently torn down its main academic center - a building the size of Margaret Morrison, and did so in a "deconstruction" method, permitting reuse of all of its materials. Naturally, it was sold off to the highest bidder, as the school and the town do not get along, but what a peace offering the quantity of raw material could have been.
I propose the creation of a kit-of-parts for a modular basis, which allows the reuse of the abundant materials in the local context, to have recreated the Firehouse and Masonic Lodge, as well as restructuring the town core, in order to accommodate the population occupying the 3 recently developed settlements on the town borders.
Take, specifically, a small, original New England Village, founded 1670, originating with a minor town center surrounded by tobacco farmland.
That is my home's heritage. Today, transportation and communication have left the town core as dead-space, hollow of meaning, home to quaint shops and areas locals know well, but cannot sustain. The areas grown in between these villages now house the centers - large strip malls, not 7 miles away from each other, and not within 7 miles of housing. The areas in between these, are forest. Or were. They are now condominiums and McMansion settlements. And not one of these spaces is in walking distance, and only bikers who truly are dedicated to not paying for gas would use this approach.
In actual numbers, the town center is a 5 minute walk from my home. The mall is a 15-20 minute drive. There is a local grocer in the center of town. The new construction is closer to the mall than to it, but still, never a walk or bike ride. And yet, the current Firehouse and Masonic Lodge (go outdated societies!) have recently been torn down. They are in the town center. They are quite literally directly across from the grocer and a pharmacy, and one block down from town hall. Why the fuck aren't they being reused for something else? We're in the middle of nowhere, so construction without creating an entirely new shell, while potentially more costly in another setting, excludes the sheer transportation of quantity from cost, making an efficient and competitive option. The reuse of any material from one to another is enough to finish a large portion of needed adjustments. As well, the local private high school has recently torn down its main academic center - a building the size of Margaret Morrison, and did so in a "deconstruction" method, permitting reuse of all of its materials. Naturally, it was sold off to the highest bidder, as the school and the town do not get along, but what a peace offering the quantity of raw material could have been.
I propose the creation of a kit-of-parts for a modular basis, which allows the reuse of the abundant materials in the local context, to have recreated the Firehouse and Masonic Lodge, as well as restructuring the town core, in order to accommodate the population occupying the 3 recently developed settlements on the town borders.
Architecture
So, Don-ism - what is it?
My approach to topics involves research into whatever topics come to be relevant to the process. The gathering of data is a necessary part of creation, as it informs the contextual understanding that in this approach is a pivotal desire, and goal. I preface with that, as it is not always achieved, due in large part to the next steps of the processes.
The information is abstracted, made graphic, and always sent into testing through a variety of circumstances, such as a matrices, given one line of subject matter, and cross-analyzing the effect of three other lines of subject matter, resulting in an exploration of 3 to the 'n' results, which can be seen to interchange in a given framework to maximize reactions to the context. Imagine, a wall, with interchangeable panels, into screening, SIP wall, glazing with a shading device, a vertically oriented planting box, or a solar panel, could inset, with this wall being a part of a modular unit. The entire wall could be made up of any combination of these context sensitive material uses, or not exist, allowing the modular walls around it to interact with a gap in the system, which would inform their paneling choices. I just summed up the intent of wall system I design during 3rd year's advanced construction studio.
And golly, that is how I think - these systems, ideally, allow control for the user to initiate the space into their own architecture, responding not to a literal response to the program by the scale of each use, or the desired program into a single form, or themed after the context, and not unstructured to simply break from tradition, though responding to the needs inside through adapting to them.
Obvious problem - not always the prettiest damn thing you'll find.
Nor does it with intent, always allow reconciliation or relation from the programs' needs, or the need of the expression of the building, to its form, which inevitably is straight, strong lines - something I need to overcome in my mindset.
My approach to topics involves research into whatever topics come to be relevant to the process. The gathering of data is a necessary part of creation, as it informs the contextual understanding that in this approach is a pivotal desire, and goal. I preface with that, as it is not always achieved, due in large part to the next steps of the processes.
The information is abstracted, made graphic, and always sent into testing through a variety of circumstances, such as a matrices, given one line of subject matter, and cross-analyzing the effect of three other lines of subject matter, resulting in an exploration of 3 to the 'n' results, which can be seen to interchange in a given framework to maximize reactions to the context. Imagine, a wall, with interchangeable panels, into screening, SIP wall, glazing with a shading device, a vertically oriented planting box, or a solar panel, could inset, with this wall being a part of a modular unit. The entire wall could be made up of any combination of these context sensitive material uses, or not exist, allowing the modular walls around it to interact with a gap in the system, which would inform their paneling choices. I just summed up the intent of wall system I design during 3rd year's advanced construction studio.
And golly, that is how I think - these systems, ideally, allow control for the user to initiate the space into their own architecture, responding not to a literal response to the program by the scale of each use, or the desired program into a single form, or themed after the context, and not unstructured to simply break from tradition, though responding to the needs inside through adapting to them.
Obvious problem - not always the prettiest damn thing you'll find.
Nor does it with intent, always allow reconciliation or relation from the programs' needs, or the need of the expression of the building, to its form, which inevitably is straight, strong lines - something I need to overcome in my mindset.
Literalism; Programism; Ismism; Donism
My colleagues and friends have often quoted a terminology for my methodological approach to architectural design, with the appropriation of nomenclature found in "star-chitecture", producing "Don-chitecture". Those this term is widely expressed upon study of the design itself, it could adequately be expressed as an "-ism", a guiding principle, approach, or means of consideration of information (be it data, context, or theology). This would produce, I surmise, "Don-ism".
This is brought about by the current reading, "The Muses are Not Amused," was not a generally irritating read, not more so than any others I've read, but managed to display in me some distinct disagreements. The author's contentions on "Programism, Thematization, Blob, Literalism" have some level of weight to them, though the arguments about "few exemplary actual buildings yet exist (25)" is entirely true in cases of Programism, as I cannot personally identify a piece of architecture that followed the means of conceptual progress expressed in Figures 1-5. Speaking instead of perhaps what the architecture wants, such as movement, gives more earnestly viewable attempts to capture the wants of a building, a la the Baroque.
The talk of architecture as art, versus art as architecture causes me vexation, because I do understand the differences being described, yet I cannot say I interpret architecture as art.
Personal statement. Aspects of it may be viewed as an artistic expression, but I the initial interactivity created through inhabiting a space removes the personal level of vision sustained in art, thereby creating a shared experience that is not beyond art, or comprehension, or any hyperbole, simply a cousin, a different expression. Another realm to which I have read of applying such an instinct, is computer and video games - the visual qualities, acting performances, story telling capabilities, and musical scores contained within, are all worthy of acclaim depending on the product, and yet it is the immersion, the fact that the space is an inert object that may well not perform a function without a user, that separates it. One might say it is a waste, without a user, and without interaction, which removes it from that realm of bridging artistic gaps.
This is brought about by the current reading, "The Muses are Not Amused," was not a generally irritating read, not more so than any others I've read, but managed to display in me some distinct disagreements. The author's contentions on "Programism, Thematization, Blob, Literalism" have some level of weight to them, though the arguments about "few exemplary actual buildings yet exist (25)" is entirely true in cases of Programism, as I cannot personally identify a piece of architecture that followed the means of conceptual progress expressed in Figures 1-5. Speaking instead of perhaps what the architecture wants, such as movement, gives more earnestly viewable attempts to capture the wants of a building, a la the Baroque.
The talk of architecture as art, versus art as architecture causes me vexation, because I do understand the differences being described, yet I cannot say I interpret architecture as art.
Personal statement. Aspects of it may be viewed as an artistic expression, but I the initial interactivity created through inhabiting a space removes the personal level of vision sustained in art, thereby creating a shared experience that is not beyond art, or comprehension, or any hyperbole, simply a cousin, a different expression. Another realm to which I have read of applying such an instinct, is computer and video games - the visual qualities, acting performances, story telling capabilities, and musical scores contained within, are all worthy of acclaim depending on the product, and yet it is the immersion, the fact that the space is an inert object that may well not perform a function without a user, that separates it. One might say it is a waste, without a user, and without interaction, which removes it from that realm of bridging artistic gaps.
Monday, September 7, 2009
By The Way...
I made the Rhino file for that earth and slice o' earth, so if for whatever reason you want to mess with a scale model of the earth - just ask.
1 + 3 + 9
-
Can we use architecture as the tool to eliminate waste; of space and other resources?
-
Resources- water, air, trees, fruit, dirt, animals, etc; are based on the areas around them, both in terms of physical boundary, as well as mathematical measured unit of volume. These units could be seen to extend from the core of our planet to the outer rim of our atmosphere, and depending on how one divvies up the mass of the earth and the skies, there could be one thousand of these units, or 20 billion, in stacks, rows, and columns. If we conserve these units of volume, allowing for fewer to be used, we could reduce the effects on resources in the units stacked above or below, neighboring or otherwise associated with the primary unit, even from across the globe based upon trade.
-
The recycling of a building is a strong move towards maintaining levels of use. If we were to continue recycling buildings and their lots, while simultaneously increasing our efficiencies with each generation of use, we would be able to maintain the existing levels of human life while decreasing our waste. The fact of the matter is, the human population continues to grow as it is, and inefficiencies continue, there will be an exponential growth of consumption, and there can be no maintenance. Thus, we need an exponential reduction of consumption, such that, in calculation, each new human life increases our efficiency and decreases our use. We could go the freaky-dystopian route of battery-human-pods a la the Matrix, recycling bodies for food a la Soylent Green, or vaporizing people into pure energy for our machines a la Logan’s Run…but I think Human Right’s Watch and Amnesty would have quite a fit. Instead, we should think in another view – an increase of people decreases other uses, because each person takes a fraction of what they do now – and by that I mean a real, meaningful fraction, like 1/100, not ¾. And that is in terms of impact, meaning our consumption of raw materials is lessened, and thus movement of materials is lessened, and the allocation of land to each person is lessened, and new construction costs are lessened. Creating a unit of structure that maximizes our use of the land allotted to us, which would be calculated based upon a sustainable ecological footprint, using a basic frame system of a near universally abundant, and universally viable materials, with local materials filling out the rest. This frame is either composed of smaller, flexible modules, or is one in and of itself, such as it can be retroactively applied to existing structures, and redefine living spaces.
-
Can we use architecture as the tool to eliminate waste; of space and other resources?
-
Resources- water, air, trees, fruit, dirt, animals, etc; are based on the areas around them, both in terms of physical boundary, as well as mathematical measured unit of volume. These units could be seen to extend from the core of our planet to the outer rim of our atmosphere, and depending on how one divvies up the mass of the earth and the skies, there could be one thousand of these units, or 20 billion, in stacks, rows, and columns. If we conserve these units of volume, allowing for fewer to be used, we could reduce the effects on resources in the units stacked above or below, neighboring or otherwise associated with the primary unit, even from across the globe based upon trade.
-
The recycling of a building is a strong move towards maintaining levels of use. If we were to continue recycling buildings and their lots, while simultaneously increasing our efficiencies with each generation of use, we would be able to maintain the existing levels of human life while decreasing our waste. The fact of the matter is, the human population continues to grow as it is, and inefficiencies continue, there will be an exponential growth of consumption, and there can be no maintenance. Thus, we need an exponential reduction of consumption, such that, in calculation, each new human life increases our efficiency and decreases our use. We could go the freaky-dystopian route of battery-human-pods a la the Matrix, recycling bodies for food a la Soylent Green, or vaporizing people into pure energy for our machines a la Logan’s Run…but I think Human Right’s Watch and Amnesty would have quite a fit. Instead, we should think in another view – an increase of people decreases other uses, because each person takes a fraction of what they do now – and by that I mean a real, meaningful fraction, like 1/100, not ¾. And that is in terms of impact, meaning our consumption of raw materials is lessened, and thus movement of materials is lessened, and the allocation of land to each person is lessened, and new construction costs are lessened. Creating a unit of structure that maximizes our use of the land allotted to us, which would be calculated based upon a sustainable ecological footprint, using a basic frame system of a near universally abundant, and universally viable materials, with local materials filling out the rest. This frame is either composed of smaller, flexible modules, or is one in and of itself, such as it can be retroactively applied to existing structures, and redefine living spaces.
-
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)