Forum Replies Created
September 20, 2004 at 6:40 pm in reply to: A philosophical question on Concepts in Architecture #745764
I suppose to a certain extant there are firms that build based on an original diagramatic sketch. For example UN Studios (Ben Van Berkel) have a complitation of basic diagrams that they apply to each project, although from what I understand not every diagram is exclusive to a project.
The initial diagram is a visual manifesto that is adhered to throughout the design process……a wordless concept?
I have a t-shirt that says-
‘I’m not trespassing- I’m an architect!’
Contradick I don’t think your allowed to post a whole article….it breeches copyright or something.
Who knows if your right, what are you talking about? Your just seem scattered and confused, I hope you realise how difficult any of your points are to follow.
Its true you have started to repeat yourself. You’ve posted long treatise and failed to develope them in anyway.
I’m still waiting to see where the overly long shows of technological trivia are leading.
I have no problem with computer programs, use them everyday so I fail to see why you insist that I simply don’t understand or that in some way I’m a technophobe unless its so you can dismiss arguements you don’t care to take on board.
Perhaps other people would reply to you if you kept you posts to a few bulliton points rather than these rambling monstrosities. Oh and perhaps refrain from the personal insults, architecture is meant to be a profession and should enjoy the relevant curtesies.
Ah ok Garethace…….
First of all I honestly don’t see the difference between watching the back of someone’s head while they’re working at a computer and doing the same while they’re bending over a drawing board!
Let me just say that I have no problem with 3-D programs. I use them quite often but I maintain that they are an enabling device and when not employed in this way they detract from design development.
What I meant by ‘ultimate delegation’ was that at its core a computer program is a series of actions written and compiled by another individual. Any design conceived solely on computer will not only be subject to this third party’s idea of graphic visualisation but will also share these traits with every building designed with that same program.
In one of your earlier posts you mentioned possiblity of thinking computers but perhaps we should be reminded that this is not the case yet- computers and they’re programs are created by us, written and informed by humanity. Every project developed in this way is coloured by someone elses preconceived notions. So my objection to complete computer design is that intrinsicaly it must breed homogeneity.
One last point to Hector, Its true that draughtsmen in earlier years were an example of specialisation, as my example of technicians are now, but in recent times the growing numbers of environmental, conservationist, urbanist etc architects would indicate that the
‘division of labour’ has hugely impacted the profession. To the point where the days of the ‘master builder/architect’ are, perhaps, over.
Obviously the above post introduces a wide variety of subjects and issues ,too many for me to address all of them (at least not while I maintain a full-time job!). And also the last part is personal experiance so I can’t really comment. However there are some points which interested me.
In your first point, although again it is couched in technology concerns, what you seem to be dealing with is the issue of specialization- probably the most worrying development in architectural practices in recent times.
The division of labour in the design industry is unsurprisingly frustrating for architects simply because our discipline is inherently a general one.
If you look at the context, in relation to other careers and professions, architecture is one of the few educations that requires an expansion, rather than a specialization of knowledge. (Look at science, medicine, even buisness- you finish knowing everything about one thing and pretty much nothing about the other facets of your field)
The shear breadth of knowledge required to be an architect now requires that we begin to specialise but this jars with a body of people who define themselves by a classical education.
The suppostion that a better understanding of software or technology will rectify this basic disparity is difficult to understand. So much of an architect’s skill is anecdotal that I question the workability of having information at your finger tips rather than in your understanding.
However to survive, we must divide our labour and orchestrate our production- the technican is a product of this neecessity.
This may touch on your own experiences of being shunted from projects. Roles are increasingly more clearly defined now.
By the by it seems strange to me that you would mention Jennigen and his small hands-on practice while trumpeting the wonders of technology. In reality isn’t computer based design the ultimate delegation?
As for the squandering of resources this is indeed a major problem (and one I suffer from on a daily basis). The interaction with consulants and suppliers is woefully unproductive. Merry-go round is a very apt term.
However, although this is closely linked to the architect’s use of technology I also think it is indictitive of the huge social and economic shift towards globalisation. An understanding of system analysis and employment will require a period of adjustment. The technological revolution and as a result globalisation will make more of an impact on society than the industrial revolution. It’s no great shock that one of our most basic skills, (creating a built envionment) is experiencing adjustmemt difficulties. It is the biggest challenge the profession has ever faced.
One final point, you take Gehry as a case in point in relation to another matter but I’d like to annex him for a moment for my own purposes. In my last post I made the assertion that computer programs are simply a tool- surely Gehry is the starkest example of this.
His buildings are originally conceived as sculptures and then transported to a computer. They are neither conceived or translated by this medium. They are enabled by it but not defined as a result of it. The extreem opposite of this is the competition entries that are simply excerises in 3-d computer programs nothing to do with architecture in my book. (see the U2 entries)
Just a thought……
Eh-hem…I have 2 words for you….Croke Park
Beat me to it Papworth…Henrietta Street definitely needs rescuing.
Although I agree with you that larger practices are often subject to ‘principal lead’ design and although the above is an extreemly interesting treatise I fail to understand how a development in our relatsionship with visualisation technology would alter this situation. Surely this can only be counter-acted through the discussion of hierarchy in the workplace and the acceptance of cluster based design teams- in essence, it is an issue touching on human interaction.
And I agree with Hector, that increasingly architects have become managers, interpreters and system innovators. We no longer have control over the intricasies and therefore we can only orchestrate on aggragate. But again I don’t understand how technology can rectify this situation.
It seems to me that you are viewing the problems by way of the symptoms. The ways and means we illustrate, explain or study the built environment come and go- an architect’s ego is forever!
However I would consider visualisation technology something akin to language, it simply communicates the thought, it does not form it. I understand the arguement that ‘the means by which we choose to communicate defines the parameters of what we choose to communicate’ but could you elaborate on exactly how you see this link and what you believe may lie ahead.
Its just it seems to me that while the problems are beautifully defined, the emphasis is misdirected.
The Turning Torso, Malmo…….Canary Wharf…..etc..etc
Originally posted by text goes here
it reminds me of pisa’s leaning tower, well from one side anyway. i’ll tell ye one thing, it’s different alright. it could work though.
I think the crux of people’s irritation is that this building is not different in the least.
I was going to suggest having a look at the Guiness Store revamp but I don’t suppose you’d miss that anyway!
Some of the quay buildings,older oddities like the Sunlit Chambers and newer builds such as the Book-end apartments are worth a look.
Since you’ll be in the Templebar area don’t forget Central Bank.
Trinity College is a tourist friendly place to walk around and it would give you a chance to take a look at the new library as well as a few other choice edifices!
Ummm….Croke Park stadium is a very interesting piece of urban architecture about 15 mins from city centre.
Take a look at some of the buildings in Templebar *ducks head in anticipation of abuse*- places like the IFC and meeting house square combine an ‘architecture’ stroll with some nice food and decent bars.
Originally posted by MG
BTW, does it look like something from Anne Summers or is that just me? 😉
Its just you!
I don’t think that the material point here is that the dsign is bad per se.
I know that is not the issue for me.
This competition was introduced as an attempt to bring innovative new design into the heart of Irish culture. it was billed as an international event and managed to raise expectations in relation to the scope and impact of the design.
The winning entry does not fulfill these expectatins. To put it mildly, although it tips a lazy nod to the international community ( by doing what has already been done better else where), it is, in essence, yet another example of’a local job for local people’ cronyism.
I’m sorry I think we could have done better.
Its not a bad design -its just not good enough.
That said…..the IDN entry looked v. nice. Pity the judges didn’t have more guts, the Twisting Tower (snigger) is very coporate looking.
Oh for the love of GOD!!!!
‘Unique twisted design’?????
It the same concept as the Turning Torso. It performs the same function and is situated on a similar site. (And that building is a monstrosity)July 16, 2003 at 10:02 am in reply to: Why are roads looked upon as the main answer to the transport crises #734656
But the point remains that it is now widely accepted that the more roads you build the more cars use them. Road building is not a long term solution. Urbanists like Jan Giehl, although blatantly anti-car, have proven this to be the case (e.g the redevelopment of Copenhagen and its infrastructure etc..). At some point you have to stop facillitating a mode of transport that is neither economic, efficient or good for the environment. We need to invest in planning strategies of greater, more long term scope, that gradually will dissuade poeple from personal motor transport.
Yeah perhaps a quota system could work for the fast food dives but I reckon that once a couple of sought after buisnesses are there and a reasonable framework for upkeep , regeneration will happen organically.