garethace
Forum Replies Created
- Posts
But now and for the foreseeable future, most economic activity will happen out along the Interstates. Consider the San Francisco Bay Area during the booming 1990s: Most of the actual “wealth creation” took place south of the city off Interstates 280 and 880 and U.S. 101.
Basically, places like the Raheen Roundabout, and Red Cow Roundabout – are all about progress, economic improvements, commuting multi-car families and a heck of a lot of industrial based workforce. The are symbolic of those times.
But what really baffles me is not that corners were cut but that in subsequent years developments such as Quarryvale were sited literally on top of these important national infrastructure nodes.
I think this extract from the article at Fortune, presents us with a picture of Quarryvale etc, you may or may not like.
Meanwhile, the mass entrance of married women into the workforce in the 1970s and 1980s meant that more Americans had to get to work than ever before. The jobs to which they commuted were increasingly not in old downtowns but in new office centers built next to Interstate exits. And the houses they went home to at the end of the day were in increasingly auto-centric developments located ever farther away from center cities.
That is definitely what has screwed Ireland up so badily – high house prices, multi-car families all working, driving to school, shopping etc. Shopping centres have also become car-centric entertainment venues at nightime too.
Had to add this one:
Then there’s mass transit. Since the 1970s, new subway and streetcar networks have been built in cities across the country—Houston is the latest. But after 50 years of building houses and offices to be convenient for cars, these new systems are of only limited use.
I guess it goes back to Sim City, and all of these great old AI strategy games! 🙂
That anybody would ever romanticize the days when America moved on rails would have stunned the highway boosters of the first half of the 20th century. In those days, highways meant progress, pure and simple. Railroads and streetcars did not. Both had been built with private capital, and the railroads in particular embodied capitalism at its most rapacious. To the Progressives who came to political power at the turn of the century, highways were the Main Street alternative to Wall Street-dominated rail. And for people who lived in rural areas, paved roads weren’t just an alternative; they were an escape from mud-imposed isolation during the rainy months.
Well if you read that extract above, which related trains to stock exchanges, and highway building to the new progressive people in power – I think that the internet and computing nowadays – is a highway too. One which is driven by consumer demand, and like the early days of the automotive industry, has had more than its fair share of cowboys too. You will notice, that like the automotive industry, the number of players in the computer industry are getting less and less.
But what was interesting was how, the dotcom bust proves, that unlike the old days, with the railroad building analogy for the internet – you cannot ‘corporatise’ the new highways – automotive or otherwise. Places like America have taken ‘the consumer oriented world’ to an extreme, with loads of motorway, loads of cheap web access, loads of mals,… all to do with consumer spending, and in turn keeping their economy booming.
In and around America’s big cities, the legacy of the Interstates is more complicated. When talk of an Interstate system first began in the 1930s, urban areas weren’t really part of the equation. The point was to link cities, not repave them. By the 1950s, though, big-city mayors and merchants were becoming alarmed by the car-enabled outflow of people and commerce to the suburbs. The solution, as they saw it, was to make it easier to get into, out of, and around cities by car. Highway planners listened and redrew their Interstate maps to wrap every big city with superhighways, high cost be damned.
The backlash came remarkably quickly. It’s easy enough to trace in the pages of FORTUNE: Through 1956 the magazine depicted urban superhighways in a positive light. But in 1957 and 1958, as the bulldozers came out in force, a series of articles on “The Exploding Metropolis” called the automobile’s urban role into question, wondering at one point whether the highways needed to get cars downtown might “carve so much space out of the city that little worthwhile will remain.”
The notion that big highways and big cities don’t mix spread. In 1959, San Franciscans staged the “freeway revolt” that halted the building of the Embarcadero Freeway along the city’s waterfront. In the 1960s, successful anti-freeway protests followed in Washington, D.C., New Orleans, New York, Boston, and other cities.
History of American Highway building
Notice how they link it up with good old ‘Eik’. I heard Patrick Scott saying last night in the documentary, that in the 1930s in Ireland during the economic war with Britain, some people were saying, I wish we had a Mussolini here.
I guess Ireland, in the early parts of the 20th century never had a stage at which, some leader or otherwise charismatic person took matters into their own hands.
We have had many ‘personalities’ for our leaders, we have a ‘kind of personality now’ for a leader, and he does seem to get into the motorway thing a bit. But how many ringforts do you think good old ‘El Duce’ would stop for? 🙂
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040116/D8044GJ80.html
BEIJING (AP) – China has abandoned plans to build a high-speed magnetic-levitation railway between Beijing and Shanghai in favor of less expensive conventional trains, the government said Friday through its official media.
Good painter.
https://archiseek.com/content/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2688
Integrating not windows, if you don’t have windows, but even paintings into interior spaces is a worthwhile activity.
I compiled the above post specifically for people like yourself to think about. Note the Point No. 1) above.
You refered to your attraction of seeing ‘the building in context’ before now. Well, I hope if you look into Ching, perhaps play around with VIZ or similar software, and choose a couple of well designed public buildings in your area – you might begin to see the design opportunities which exist, when just dealing with the building itself. There are many, and CHing does a great job of highlighting them all.
I mean, look at the buildings, important public buildings you now, designed in the modern style by a good architect. Look at them from the outside – you will always think, “Now why are all the openings different? Why are the openings funny proportions, shapes and in strange places?”
Like for instance, with a window that turns a corner. Or a long narrow strip of window,which rises from the floor to the height of your knee, and provides a clean wall surface above that, to mount stuff on the wall.
Try it, it is really fun and makes you think, the next time you see an elevation drawing in the office, at why you draw your openings, the way you do.
Sketch book essential when visiting said, well-designed modern public building to record thoughts about how the architect thought about openings, natural light illumination and views out.
I love very small windows too – just a view as you pass etc. Doors surrounded by glass walls – kind of a contradication – but modernism, does all of those things – keep your eyes open. THere are design opportunities at 1:100 scale – but because that traditionally has been the submission requirement scale in colleges – that scale of designing can become very ‘dead and liveless’ to students.
Re-invigorate your appetite and creativity for designing small things or parts of things, at large scales, using the technique I have just described.
Sitting down in a space, should the openings be designed in relation to that height? SInce you may be sitting down most of the time.
etc,
Remember there is probably more thought put into a few square metres portion of a whole building, by good architects, than in an entire building designed by a poor architect, no architect or spec developer often.
In fact, I would go so far as to say, that Richard Meier and other architect use small building projects, or house design projects to test details and materials, which they will replicate as details on huge buildings. I often think, that a small Meier house, is just like a chunk of a larger Meier institutional structure, that got misplaced somewhere in the middle of a landscape.
A place with loads, and loads and loads of these things, is the National Gallery extension in Nassau Street. In particular the little box, which acts like a porch at the front. It is like a very nice small building in itself – and acts as an intermediary zone between the huge street like place inside the Gallery, and Nassau Street, a threshold if you will.
I still think that 2-lane motorways like the M50 are much worse turkeys, than most roundabouts – because it doesn’t take a lot of money to construct a roudabout. But it costs so much to make a motorway like the M50, and when you consider, it gets more expensive to do, as time goes on… not to add some redundancy for increased traffic is criminal misallocation of time, effort and resources I think.
My only suggestion, is that politians imagined only well off people would actually need to use that motorway. For all the car fans here, Forbes has a list of the Worst cars of all time The current lucky generation of automotive customers has no real understanding of how truly awful a car can be.
My favourite,The Ford Pinto’s (1971-1980) famous safety flaw, of course, was that it was prone to blowing up if rear-ended.
Also, Renault Dauphine, (1956-1958) Folks, we’re talking about taking half a minute to do 0-60 mph.
Or, AMC Pacer, (1975-1980) The Pacer was a dud in terms of quality, execution and particularly styling. Make your own assessment about its bizarre proportions, but don’t miss the one door that’s bigger than the otherJust another thought, sign posts. The Americans can never figure out what a sign means, when it says STOP NOW. In the states, signs only read STOP. When you think about it, stop now doesn’t make much sense. What else would you do supposedly? Wait for a couple of more seconds, and then stop? 🙂
Straping things together, wrapping it all up.
1) The openings as an event, light as an element of architecture – even in a small building designed by an architect – you rarely see a good architect who makes a name designing houses and other small buildings, reaching for a standard collection of windows to plaster on an elevation, and position/use them in a conventional manner.
This needs to be studied by all young architects – elevations, don’t just have funny fenestration and shapes of openings for the fun of it – when you walk into those buildings, which are well designed, you see when you are inside the building, very quickly why openings are where they are, why they are that size or shape and how light is manipulated by them in the interior space.
2) There are some experiences of buildings here in Ireland, which are well designed and incorporate the idea of time. I like to walk from the old part of the National Gallery of Ireland and exit out onto Nassau Street side. I like to walk from Nassau Street through Trinity out to College Green. I like to walk through the Powerscourt centre, the IFC, curved Street and Meeting house square. It is even nice to walk from the back entrance of wood quay out through the front entrance.
So when you are ‘trying to conceive’ of something in three dimensions in a computer model – the time dimension, is something which you are aware of consciously. Even a small structure – is normally much larger than a single human form, so that it implies as we move around/through/above/under a structure – that contributes to the experience, as well as the point 1) above in relation to enclosure.
3) Open public space – inner city, inner suburban, outer suburban and landscape. It is not enough to think of the experience of space from the point of view of one individual moving through both time and space. On must accept the idea of ‘crowds’ navigating, negotiating the human designed environment all around us. Places like UCD, Trinity and many streets in Dublin are places where you can sense, the idea of open space becoming a kind of room or institution, which many people use.
See my points about Medieval Total War and walking cities etc, etc.
Now,
I think, the underlying variable in all of these points is about relating to architecture in some physical, real, space and time experience. The only difference is the scale at which this happens. Without the exercise of learning to perceive space, without these ‘hooks’ as I would describe them into reality – the whole point of computer design software is ultimately lost.
The great thing about the 3 points above, is that you can study, learn and devote portions of your time to all the above without actually needing a computer at all. But a pencil and sketchbook would be handy. If AutoDesk were to pay me, I would re-write their manuals to accompany these softwares for architects. In my tutorials, the potential user of the software, would not sit in front of a screen for months, until most of the above conditions of learning and awareness were met.
The learning of how to click the buttons, recognises commands, icons etc, etc, etc is only a ‘tack-on’ the very end of the above process. Potential software users, would be made to ‘lift their asses’ from in front of the computer system. Unfortunately, VIZ-ualisation and computer software courses currently available to architects in this regard, are most usually run by some ‘god awful representative of the engineering profession’, or someone who works for AutoDesk. Making them effectively useless to architects, and excluding anyone except the youngest geeks from thriving.
You can be damned sure, the course in computers for Architects, IS NOT tied carefully into any of the above 3 points. Using software without learning to see, to begin with is futile. But hundreds of young undergrads and grads have to no choice, than to take this very poor approach to learning advanced design software. You cannot polish a turd – but unfortunately, that is something that computer software is more frequently being used for these days. In particularly, by the youngest, brightest and more energetic members of the architectural profession, who should be learning to explore the rich reality around them. Than going square-eyed in front of the latest VIZ upgrade interface.
What worries me nowadays, is that any young architect in practice who wishes to ‘visualise’ something runs the risk of being reported to the office boss, “For doing 3D” on office hours. I.e. That only outsourcing of 3D is allowed – a whole rich repetoire of skills, perception and dedication, once associated with the architectural profession, is becoming more associated with third party rendering service providers.
Which of course, is wonderful for Architects, who,
1) don’t possess any visualisation or drawing skills themselves.
2) don’t care to try and acquire those skills.
3) don’t like those drawing, sketching, visual methods/skills.
An area, which interests me very much, is the notion of architects, using freehand sketching – develop the technique of ‘providing the roughs’ to ultimately make good computer visuals to the professional VIZ-ualist, who owns the expensive kit, the license, the training etc. That what the architect could provide in ‘rough format’ via pencil and paper, could become the foundation for what the VIZ-ualist will ultimately produce.
Rather than this approach, of asking the VIZ-ualist to ‘do something’ and truncating the relationship there. That sickens me, quite frankly. If you look at Hollywood, where most of the CG is done – the director has his/her own personal ‘sketch artist’, who does these ‘story boards’ which are sent straight to the ‘Animation and Light Studios’ or whatever, and the end result rarely lchanges that much from the rough 3D sketch visual.
I must post some better links to show this some time I get a chance.
Well, hence why I constantly moan and groan about the ‘yellow pack’ approach to information technology training and infrastructure in our own little humble profession here of Architecture. I guess I am just more attuned to that at the moment, and for a while now, than I have been to the reality facing this country in terms of transit infrastructure.
I think you need to think of the whole entire picture of information technology infrastructure – how qualified people, and what people you use to meet this need – and how information technology in turn could be crucial in achieving and implementing so many of the visions you have described.
I loath, with a passion this approach of the ‘VIZ architect’. Some kind of a monstrousity created out of AutoDesk PR brochures and bad advertising campaigns on the back covers of Architects’ Journal publications. I think, not only does this undermine real people, with real contributions to make in these areas of computing design tools – but also the Architects themselves, who are already emburdened by so much weight of problems to deal with, than worrying about Radiosity and Ray Tracing packages too.
We, as a profession, are going to do a whole lot of wheel spinning here for the forseeable future. What amazed me is the upcoming generations of Bolton Street/UCD/Queens computer savy graduates cannot see beyond the marketing slogans either. I try to keep very much abreast of developments in the American Architectural profession, where they build/design environments and projects on a much larger scale, much more frequently than we do here in this very small island.
My buddy wda over at CGA, described Ireland as being ‘like a Milwaukee’. Dunno what that means, but I intend to find out some time. 🙂
Cement Factory Roundabout, Raheen Roundabout, Red Cow Roundabout, Walkinstown roundabout … worth a thread on its own, to list all the horror stories that are roundabouts these days.
The result being the carbased society derived from our urban sprawl. Work Sandyford and live in Rathcoole seems to be about the height of our vision.
Work in IBM Blandardstown and live in Ballsbridge,… hmmm, yeah that is tough for a buddy of mine. Still these places are not that great a distance apart from one another. The further you get out of Dublin though, the more stretched that commuting distance has become for lots of young people, who decide to drive hundreds of miles each day. We are a very strange race, no doubts about that. I hope the party lasts.
One fine day, though I imagine we will have to really pay the piper for not searching and encouraging smarter, denser and more economical models of development. I think it is great to have IBM in Blancardstown, it is nice to know it is there at all providing some work, but that is just stage one of what should be a much larger plan I guess.
Along with the Cathedrals thread,I am beginning to see now, that New Urbanism takes in many, many concerns and points of view in its approach to urbanism. I suppose that is why a new urbanism theory is necessary, the old one obviously was too naive about the reality of modern cities.
I might have had a tendency to pigeon hole theories like New Urbanism – but the more I learn about it, in discussions like this, the wider and more useful its definition seems to be becoming.
I mean, thinking about that convention centre thing again, the transit infrastructure and how people are likely to arrive at such venues, I think this particular site to do with Calatrava and ‘transit hubs’ is a good discussion point. I mean, what exactly does our Calatrava thing do?
Nice site that too in general, good features.
Yeah, the whole Dundrum thing has to be seen to be believed too. Nice renders of business people walking around open public spaces, but really…. The Leopardstown thing is fairly strange I think. Your point about being on the edge of DCC is about right I think, from my experience of these places.
I guess the image here, of ‘medium scale development’ is something like the development in Sandymount,
http://www.cgarchitect.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=next_topic;f=5;t=000450;go=older
the spaces between buildings in Sandymount dis-allowed people to use them, things happening etc – they are policed, camera security dead zones. spaces do not join up in a sequence or order of spaces like in Temple Bar, but on a grander scale.
Notice all the ‘road’ in that image too – very Sandymount.
As one Intel boss said years ago, Only the paranoid survive.
I think one thing that could work in the Docklands, is where spaces become amenities – this was my point about the Convention Centre, that because it brings in hordes of ‘foreigners’ who tend to wander around an awful lot – the open spaces would have to become ‘public’ right from the off.
The absolute worst solution for a Convention centre I could ever imagine, is someplace like Sandymount, where we could not even wander around in the summer evenings after their tour of the convention centre, to clear their heads, before returning to another round two of ‘techno product launchs and geek speak’.
If you had a convention centre in Sandymount, people would be trapped in some glass bubble and not allowed out. So in this sense, the wider spatial strategy you were talking about it needed.
I think the few sucessful things I have seen in Dublin, like this, even though it is only a small thing is the liffey board walk and campshires, how it changed the way people use those spaces.
Of course, while we can say that AMerican architecture is new compared to Europe sometimes, lets not forget the Louis Sullivan stuff way back, and its influence.
http://www.cgarchitect.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=next_topic;f=5;t=000491;go=older
The idea of using Steel and building higher, in the picture one is covered in masonry, the other expressing its material – that must have been really cool in its day – when Mies first used steel as ornament.
Notice how the people are too tall in the image though and it ruins something that was very, very well rendered.
Which makes the LUAS project the exact opposite of what you are talking about I guess – given the length of track they have built from Belgard to the Red Cow, and all that ‘density of development’ around the M50! ROFL! 🙂
Yes, good post, puts a lot to do with LUAS project in a perspective for me at least. I have travelled along most of the LUAS line at this stage and I found it really difficult to finding anything very dense at all.
The only cathedrals of commerce that I found were in Sandyford Ind. Estate, and that place is like something from the Simpson’s – I was kicked out of dodge, for loitering around with a camera snapping picies of Microsoft HQ on a Saturday! 🙂
“You know this is private property?” (Standing in a public road)
Insert strong inner city Dublin accent too btw, . . .
My own believe, it that if the Docklands was built as you describe with Cathedrals like in Ballymount, you wouldn’t be able to use the public streets their either.
