Critical Practice for the Next Generation

Andrew Rogerson: Michael Singer

2008-04-21T15:00:00.000-04:00

Michael Singer offers a unique perspective of the possibilities of sustainable design partly due to his poetic gestures and studies as an artist. His artistic works include sculptural pieces set within a landscape, which begin to inspire his architectural work. So, I asked the question: “what would you say are your main goals, as an artist, in designing sustainable architecture?”

This is a difficult question because it requires the distinction between art and architecture, drawing a line between design theory and practice. However, Singer did not explicitly express his critical thought process during his lecture. I was hoping he would take a stance as to his feelings toward artistic thought within architecture, but he simply presented examples of his practical work.

The distinction is indeed an important point to make because of the intrinsic differences between art and architecture. Although Singer did not explicitly state his idea about the nature of this distinction, I think his work itself makes a statement about this relationship.

His artistic work, namely his naturalistic sculpture, seems to explore the role of nature in connection with a built form or structure. This, in turn, tends to shape my reading of his sustainable design as an extension of nature within a building. His building philosophy explores the concept of nature’s capacity to create simple spaces, then translating these studies to building architectural projects that follow the same philosophy.

Although not a new philosophy, Michael Singer’s approach to sustainable design offers architect’s a refreshing view of design as a poetic and ever-evolving study process. Through Singer’s explorations, I find an interdisciplinarity between art and architecture that is often found within the educational setting but rarely in practice. I feel it is important to convert an artistic attitude of architecture to its practice in order to uncover meaning behind design.

Gary Brown: Michael Singer

2008-04-21T14:58:00.001-04:00

Steel, concrete, some types of glass, and complex technologies such as photovoltaics all consume a high amount of energy and produce a lot of waste (some toxic) at their initial creation; high initial energy input products. Does the energy savings of your buildings offset the initial energy cost to produce them over the life of the buildings? Also, do they help to replace the materials and energy that they have consumed?

These questions for Michael Singer concern a tricky topic within the sustainable architecture movement. Sustainable architecture today primarily focuses on creating buildings that have little to no environmental impact. This is done by using complex systems and high-tech materials to save energy during the life of the building. The tricky part of this situation is that highly refined materials, technologies, and systems require large amounts of resources to create, install, and maintain them. The more complex the system/material, the more resources are needed. For example, photovoltaics help to lower a buildings energy demands. But, photovoltaics require batteries for storing the electricity and electronic equipment to manage the system. All of which have their own manufacturing processes which produce chemical waste and pollution. The system then has to be maintained over its life cycle and ultimately replaced every 20-30 years to maintain efficiency. When looked at more closely photovoltaics do not seem very environmentally friendly especially over a long period of time. Even seemingly simple products like steel and concrete have their issues as well. Both use massive amount of natural resources and produce pollution during their manufacturing. So, the question is: how do we destroy and preserve nature at the same time?

Michael Singer’s solution of “regenerative” architecture is a very intriguing idea but seems heavily resource dependent. In his powerplant proposal for NYC, Michael Singer proposes building a powerplant that has commercial and office space integrated into it as well as spaces for trees and plants to grow. This reclaims the waterfront for wildlife habitat, disguises what would otherwise be an unsightly industrial building, treat water runoff through the garden spaces, and collects runoff for future irrigation effectively conserving water. These trees and plants could potentially be harvested later for commercial use or for forestry replanting. Plus, heat energy from the powerplant could be used to keep the greenhouses warm.

Though this seems very environmentally conscious, Michael Singer’s proposal would require that the structure be reinforced to handle the additional load of the trees meaning thicker walls, floors, and columns costing more resources; networks of pipes and monitoring equipment to maintain the green spaces; some form of insulation to shield office workers and pedestrians from the heat of the powerplant; large concrete or steel cisterns for the water collection system; and a dedicated knowledgeable landscaper for continued maintenance. The ultimate question for this project as well as other ‘green’ projects is: Is the environmental aspect of the project worth the resource cost to create it?

Megan Craig: Michael Singer

2008-04-21T14:55:00.000-04:00

Michael Singer describes himself as an artist who rethinks fundamental assumptions within the public realm. He aims to redefine space and structure by questioning the nature of buildings, sculptures, and sites and their respective functions. The resulting projects, at best, answer these questions and offer alternative definitions to traditional assumptions.

The Alterra Institute for Environmental Research demonstrates a new interpretation of the traditional garden. The resulting garden, the “lungs and kidneys” of the building, cleanses the air and water and regulates the climate. Rather than existing as only an aesthetic element, the garden becomes functional and redefines its purpose. The Solid Waste Transfer and Recycling Center in Phoenix also represents a rethinking of basic elements within the infrastructure. Consistent throughout the entire design are themes of renewal and transformation. Waste conceptually becomes a positive element rather than something to be hidden.

Singer successfully raises questions through his designs. His work fosters analysis of traditional definitions within public architecture, and he allows people to develop their own answers to his questions. However, what remains unclear through Singer’s work is the motivation behind his questioning. Perhaps, if he focused his energy on a more specific project type, his critical stance would become more clear.

Kate Dixon: Michael Singer

2008-04-20T14:54:00.001-04:00

Michael Singer is an artist that is able to produce architecture that is
both sculptural and functional. The core of his work is exploring the
relationship between man and nature. This exploration has grown into
regenerative architecture. His buildings are not only regenerative in the
environmental aspect but also with respect to the community. I especially
appreciate how he is attempting to bridge a gap between the people and
their trash and recycling. The contrast between his green gardens and the
waste accentuates the environmental issue of waste for the visitors while
providing a pleasanter work environment for the employees.

I also appreciated Michael Singer’s emphasis on the importance of his
team, explaining how his work was a collaboration of a lot of people. I
believe Singer success in the architecture world can be attributed not
only to his talent but also to his strong network of craftsmen and sources
for materials to help make his ideas happen.

Lauren Sandy: Michael Singer

2008-04-20T14:54:00.000-04:00

Michael Singer gave an in depth history of his evolution as an artist and designer as part of the Friday lecture series. Michael began his early career as a sculptor, but as he said, it did not feel like his own. So he left New York City and moved to Vermont to focus his efforts and energy on art and not the business of art. His works led to commissions to design gardens, small structures and eventually to collaborate on architecture design teams commissioned to develop plans for environmentally friendlier refuse buildings.

Students from the Critical Practices class read some articles about Michael Singer’s work and reviewed his works presented on his website. As Mr. Singer is not an architect, right away the students wanted to know if his work was legitimate because he was not architect; was his work a critical practice as exemplified by the lectures of visiting academicians this semester.

I will state up front that his work is a critical practice in architecture. He critically analyzes what exists, what is needed/wanted by a client and then tries to understand how the building will function. The foremost goal is make an attractive, contemplative, environmentally friendly structure.

The best example of his critical analysis was his story about how he accidently ended up designing the Phoenix waste plant. He was asked to design a sculptor for the new facilities, but very quickly his students brought it to his attention that the way the building was laid out, the building would create an untenable environment for its administrative staff and visitors; and the maze of truck lanes was confusing at best for the garbage trucks and small load dumpers that would be using the facility. Michael Singer and his students created a list of notes of problems and solutions that would make the sculptor part of a broader design plan. His analysis was critical and practical and has been awarded numerous awards and public kudos.

After listening to Michael’s lecture, I was hard-pressed to want to dismiss his work and accomplishments, architect or not. Michael Singer is in fact a critical practitioner of design.

Travis Harrison: Michael Singer

2008-04-20T14:52:00.000-04:00

Michael Singer is a forerunner in the “green” movement as he takes the idea of recycling energy and turns it into an art form. He has converted and manipulated “his creative energies to the idea of infrastructure.” (Trash Turnaround, Evitts). His work has been featured in the Guggenheim Museum and in The New York Times.

Singer is taking the waste environment such as household, industrial, and environmental and changes them into an opportunity to create. In regards to the disposal facilities he asks the question about what kind of places these could be. These places shouldn’t look good just from a distance but they should also interconnect and interact with their surroundings.

The place to look for such ideas of change is nature. Nature offers very good models of efficiency, beauty, and effectiveness. Nothing is wasted in nature so as it should be in society. The cycles that naturally occur in the environment should also occur in technology.

With his ideas of natural recycling and his artistic eye for aesthetics he has been able to create some extraordinary pieces. These works not only solve the problem of depleting the environment, they are also educational and pleasing to the eye.

Harrison Wallace: Michael Singer

2008-04-20T14:51:00.000-04:00

In looking at Michael Singer's work, he clearly has an impressive range and quality of skills. From his beginnings making sculpture out of balancing fallen branches to his contemporary large scale buildings, he has achieved a great deal with his art. My initial impression was that in moving from a Thoreau-like experience with site and materials to theoretical programming, he might have lost a sense of the intimacy and craftsmanship that is so evident in much of his work. Additionally, his use of a wide variety of materials hints that his role is less of a craftsman and more of a designer. In that, it seems as though he might feel a diminished role as an artist and more and more a leader of a studio and contact for clients.

However, after listening to Singer speak, he seems to have maintained a strong relationship to the product and means of production through his studio and the people he has chosen to surround himself with. As his art has grown in scale, he has managed to create a work environment that facilitates creative thought by keeping in close contact with suppliers and working with experts who not only execute his designs, but also seem to keep him in check by knowing the possibilities of the materials and their studio.

While the larger, architectural projects of his studio might be a shift away from the traditional thought of the sculptor as designer and creator, he still brings that influence into the projects, as well as an extremely adept and creative mind. Although Michael Singer might not fit the traditional role of an architect, his background and ability prove to be a fresh perspective in the discipline, and show that the way of thinking about architecture should be expanded, and that those who can create, should.

Tim Malinowski: Michael Singer

2008-04-20T14:48:00.000-04:00

Michael Singer is, first and foremost, an artist, or creative designer, yet he happens to delve into the realm of architecture and engineering. Most of Singer’s early career work is sculptural. He produced many pieces that investigate structural formation, some of which were presented in the Guggenheim museum in New York City. He has worked alongside students on many of these projects and received commissions based on his sculptural expertise.

Singer’s creative skill was eventually applied to garden design. Many of his early sculptural work involved the arrangement of natural materials, which can also be seen throughout his garden creations. Singer is able to use rock, tree, dirt, and water to create sculptured spaces of mediation and exploration. Throughout his projects the idea of natural preservation and nuturance is advocated for. He does not see a necessity to clear natural vegetation in
order to create new green space. The existing greenery is adopted into the new garden designs.

Going beyond garden design, Singer entered into architectural and infrastructure design. He was asked by several public officials to give his creative design advice on a variety of urban infrastructure projects. These include projects like garbage processing facilities and power plants. One of his main goals, as the environmentalist that he is, is to promote sustainability and societal engagement within buildings that are currently considered power hogs and, for the most part, are out of site to most citizens. As an all around creative genius, Singer has been able to develop many designs that include energy efficient irrigation systems, power systems, and community engagement spaces. Through collaboration with architects and engineers, Singer has produced buildings that go beyond big box construction and massive asphalt landscapes. His “green” designs are pleasant sites that can be adopted into residential communities. It was his sustainable efforts and collaborative processes that gave him the opportunity to work at M.I.T. as an architecture professor. He may not have formal architecture or engineering training, yet he has become an award wining “designer” who has presented many forward thinking concepts.

Adam Berry: Michael Singer

2008-04-20T14:47:00.000-04:00

Michael Singer calls himself an artist, although some of his later work seems to break the boundaries of art and focuses on some major issues of architecture, including sustainable design. He considers himself an artist, but wants to use his work as research. He said he was inspired by Leonardo Da Vinci. Having always been inspired by nature, most of his work seems to involve the environment in some way. With his later architectural projects, he considers the buildings he designs as sustainable, but also regenerative architecture; an architecture that can give back to the environment, and not just save it.

The question of whether his work could be considered critical practice was one I had before hearing his lecture. He answered many of my questions, including how he really is able to design buildings not being a registered architect. He described his work as a collaboration of many different people and disciplines to generate ideas for a project. In the lecture he said that designing buildings today should not be dealt with in a “pyramid system” where one person is in charge and designs the building, but more of a collaboration of many thoughts and ideas. This is very similar to the practices of many of the other lecturers we have heard this year, and I think it proves that his work is a critical practice.

Laura Hamm: Michael Singer

2008-04-20T10:24:00.000-04:00

Michael Singers take on the practice of architecture and design was very different from other lecturers we have had yet was very interesting and wonderful. His education and background in the arts allows him to merge different ideas of design and techniques in a way very different from all the lecturers we have had thus far. His ideas of merging art, architecture, and green design are also of interest and clearly something he feels very strongly about.

He began his lecture by discussing his background, which clearly influences his current work in many of the same ways his early work was influenced. He training suggested he enter the urban art world, particularly that of New York City. In his 20’s, he was given the wonderful opportunity to present his work in The Guggenheim Museum. During the years that followed, he began to feel that urban art world was more about where you were “showing” your work than about the work itself. This idea was problematic for Singer so he opted to leave the urban art world and go more into the environmental/natural environment of art. He built structures as way of understanding light and the environment. Eventually he moved from pieces in nature back to a more urban environment, but he has never gone totally back to the urban art world he left in the 60’s and 70’s.

His studio in Vermont consists of a series of large barns. They have spaces within the studio that are designated as design spaces as well as workshops for actually building their pieces. Most of their smaller scale projects are built there in their own shop by craftsmen that work with Singer. If it is not possible for their own craftsmen to make a part of a piece, they have certain companies they work wit, specifically companies that they have a long working relationship with.

One specific project that he mentioned that interested me was the Denver Airport Installation in Concourse C. He uses his piece to create a very different sense of place. He mentioned that he wanted people to question the space. He designed the concourse to have plans with an almost ruinous appearance. This idea of greenery and irregular stone work force the public to understand the space very differently than the usual sterile environment with the common carpet and light colored walls. The greenery and sound of water bring about a very different idea of what the course should be and look like. I found this interesting because when he used the term “sterile” I realized in many ways airports look very plan and have the same white boring look that many hospitals do, which with hospitals, my first thought is sterile.

Overall, I thought many of his projects were very interesting and his ways of bring different aspects of the arts and design together was brought about a new way of thinking for me. As our last lecturer, he definitely has a completely different idea of design and architecture, but I think his ways of merging all the different fields and ideas together is one that I hope to include in my own practice one day.

Toni Sena: Michael Singer

2008-04-20T10:21:00.001-04:00

Michael Singer is an artist that, to some criticism, designs architecture. He started off with sculptures that dealt with balance of structures. He took up an interest in nature and moved out of the city to do his work. He then examined balance in nature and human reaction. His works became very natural, including some that where tree trunks used exactly where they were found in the forest. He even tried to cover up the fact that he cut down by making the ends jagged. After some time in working with structural sculptures he was invited to teach architecture.

Knowing little about architecture and how things were done in the architectural world, teaching turned out to be a learning experience as well. With a new interest in architecture he began to design building and projects with teams of architects, builders, and engineers. His work focuses mainly on what things can be and how they can help save nature. He also likes to allow spaces that would evolve the community in the site. I like his work, though I am still unsure of what part he fully plays in his designs. I think his work is well thought out in many ways and I like the creative way he ties everything to each community and location. The way he handles water run off and recycling is creative and fun. Overall his work is inspiring, beautiful, and still functional in many ways.

Ben Felton: Michael Singer

2008-04-20T10:18:00.000-04:00

Although Singer is not a licensed architect, there is something we can
take from Singer’s lecture. Through Singer’s work, we can see a huge
emphasis on structure. Being the element of the building that actually
makes it stand, structure is obviously one of the most important aspects
of design. There is a large range of ways to deal with structure in our
designs. Like the statue of liberty, we can simple hide the structure by
cladding over it. We could also put emphasis on the structure and make
it part of our design like many of Santiago Calatrava’s works.

QUESTIONS FOR MICHAEL SINGER

2008-04-16T22:13:00.001-04:00

ARTIST AS ARCHITECT

Throughout your career you have done many sculptures whether it is indoor, outdoor, or even gardens. Then you made this change over to putting your talent to use in sustainable architecture and even infrastructure. As an artist, what was it that got you interested in working with sustainable architecture and infrastructure? [Christopher Bradley]

The wide variety of projects in your portfolio of work suggests a critical stance towards the disciplinary boundaries of architecture and art. Do you believe that approaching architectural design with an artist's mindset improves the quality of your projects? If you were to choose from your past designs, which project do you think represents your best work? Why? [Megan Craig]

What is the process of designing a building as a self described artist rather than architect? When working on an architectural project, do you conceptualize a project (artistically) and then team up with architects and environmental systems engineers, or do you act as the architect and systems engineer throughout the project? [Tim Malinowski]

As I look through your website and through some of the articles you suggested, I feel like much of your architecture is almost sculpture at a large enough scale that the sculpture becomes habitable space. Do you agree with that or do you believe your architectural projects evoke some other type of idea or form? [Laura Hamm]

Your website listed a number of large scale projects under public commissions that had artistic renderings that suggest an unbuilt concept. Are many of the public commissions slated to be built at some point or are they more about idea and design generation? [Lauren Sandy]

SUSTAINABILITY

What were some of the challenges of designing green in different countries? Was there a country that was easier to realize your ideas? [Kate Dixon]

In your recommended readings, you focus our attention to the sustainable architecture programs to which you have contributed. What would you say are your main goals, as an artist, in designing sustainable architecture, and to what extent were you involved in the carrying out of these goals within the buildings we have seen? [Andrew Rogerson]

What made you switch from art to green design? Do you think the LEED system for points is a good system to follow? Why or why not? [Toni Sena]

What were some of the challenges of designing green in different countries? Was there a country that was easier to realize your ideas? [Kate Dixon]

It is inspiring to read about the accomplishments and forwards that LEED and the “green” architecture movement have accomplished. Although we are dealing with the present problems and future resolutions, it is the past that has made us aware of the damage that we are causing as a society. My question is this, although we as architects are thinking of environmentally friendly design for present and future projects, what, exactly, are we doing about the architecture and design of the past. Are there elements emerging to better this generation along with the elements considered to better the next? [Travis Harrison]

Steel, concrete, some types of glass and complex technologies such as photovoltaics all consume a high amount of energy and produce a lot of waste (some toxic) at their initial creation; high initial energy input products. Does the energy savings of your buildings offset the initial energy cost to produce them over the life of the buildings? Also, do they in any help to replace the materials and energy that they have consumed? [Gary Brown]

DESIGN TEAM

Considering that you are an artist, at what point do you turn these seemingly very personal designs over to other people to construct. Do you ever take part in the construction? Other than the craft of building, what can an artist/architect gain from being part of such a process? Also, what is your relationship with those on your building teams? [Harrison Wallace]

Gary Brown [: Peter Lynch]

2008-04-16T14:16:00.001-04:00

As architects, we always strive to create something that is innovative and beautiful that will, at some level, redefine architecture as a whole. Vilem Flusser’s paper, "Towards a Philosophy of Photography" (2000), puts forth that this drive to be innovative comes from the artist’s or architect’s desire for “freedom” from an established process or apparatus that has embedded programs for its use and intent. He illustrates this idea through photography.

Basically, Flusser states that the camera is a device that has been created for a specific use defined by a manufacturer. When we use the camera in its intended fashion we are doing nothing more than facilitating the camera's explicit purpose. We are working for the camera rather than the camera working for us. The camera becomes an oppressive force. The only way to gain freedom is to either become the manufacturer and define your own device for your own purpose, or to take the camera and change it, or use it in a way that conflicts with its prescribed intent. The user must, “… put into the image something which was not inscribed in the apparatus program.”

Peter Lynch obviously believes in this philosophy as stated in his THEM statement: “The invention of new forms is an essential social task. New forms are a physical representation of new possibilities: they liberate thought.” He also shows this in his works by creating his own elements, connections, and structures. In particular is his interior work done for the Belle Époque Restaurant in Shenzen, China. Here, most of the surfaces are not mass manufactured products but custom designed and fabricated and hand made. The portfolio states that “The design of Belle Époque is a meditation on the era of Industrialization in Continental Europe (1870-1930),” the Arts and Crafts and Art Nouveau movements.

As a historian and architect, I find this project particularly exciting. The Arts and Craft and Art Nouveau movements developed as a reaction against industrialization in favor of craftsmanship and organic form. This produced some very beautiful but very expensive buildings as compared to cheap industrial mass-manufactured products, and soon fell out of favor. Peter Lynch’s work in this restaurant represents an emerging shift where digital and manufacturing technology make it possible to produce unique and highly detailed work more economically.

Dustin White [: Peter Lynch]

2008-04-14T21:14:00.000-04:00

Peter Lynch is an architect and an educator in New York City. Lynch was head of the graduate architecture department at Cranbrook Academy of Art from 1996 to 2005. In 2006 he and Gustavo Crembil founded there partnership THEM. THEM is a practice that focuses on three preoccupations: form making, building aspects, and development. The studio is in search of new “scenarios of construction,” approaches to building that preserve opportunities for creativity and invention in the stages of process.

THEM approaches architecture in three preoccupations: form-making, building practices, and development. They believe that the exploration and invention of new forms is an essential social task. Form for them is a way to physically represent new possibilities and liberate thought. They believe it is important in contemporary architecture to generate new forms that allow society to re-imagine itself. On the other hand architecture should be concerned with not just form, but with construction that has a valuable end result.

By exploring new means of technologies through materials and methods, you are able to impact countries that are going through industrialization. THEM approaches this by adapting building components, produced in community-based industries, by using recycled or readily available materials. In developed societies we approach architecture by eliminating all surprise and contingency. In contemporary architecture, image-based design methods dominate because of the result that is generated. The result is generally a “money shot” of an image of what the structure could be. THEM peruses new “scenarios of construction,” different approaches that preserve the creativity at all stages of the process. The work produced by THEM examines and tries to resolve “hack work”. There projects try to widen the field of “tacit judgment” by proposing simple, building blocks, connectors, and components that are deployed in ways that are dependent upon field conditions.

The work of THEM is shown with great range and scale. The work zooms in and out,at a scale that is from the size of a ball of clay and expands as large as full urban plans. The work is an exploration of conceptual drawings, geometric pattern studies, full scale mock-ups, masonry prototypes, parametric funneling, and large urban plans. THEM uses a mediation of traditional hand craft and digital technology to create new methods of construction, that results in a synthesis of artistic sensibility and mechanical power.

Megan Craig [: Peter Lynch]

2008-04-14T21:11:00.001-04:00

The published statement by THEM, an architecture and design firm in New York City, acknowledges the ability of architecture to allow for a society’s liberation and re-imagination of itself. New forms within the built environment encourage a society’s inhabitants to question their preconceptions of social and cultural traditions. THEM co-founder Peter Lynch explores such form-making and building practices to effect social change. His projects range in scale from small, design-build type structures to large civic buildings. While form is not the only preoccupation of these designs, one must wonder to what extent such projects have on the re-imagination of society. Does form really liberate?

Many of the projects displayed in THEM’s digital portfolio represent forms made possible only through advanced technology. The Bella Epoque Restaurant in China displays the harmonious blend of digital fabrication and hand-craft. The designers describe the building as a representation of our time: a move from an industrial age to one of computer-aided design and manufacture. Such a project encourages people to reconsider what is possible in building practice and allows for a liberation from traditional design. However, I wish I could gain an understanding of whether this project is a response to existing digital exploration within the community or if this project has served as a catalyst for such exploration. Through community-wide change, the success of form-making is measured.

Travis Harrison [: Peter Lynch]

2008-04-13T21:28:00.000-04:00

In the readings during the week of Peter Lynch, there is a lot of interest in the research of image and form. How image is perceived and the mechanics that make up structure were the controlling ideas behind the literature. The ways that image changes with approach and acceptance and how structure is engaged and composed are discussed in great detail.

“Images are significant surfaces…they signify something ‘out there’.” ("Towards A Philosophy of Photography" by Vilém Flusser). The image is discussed as an animate object rather than a fixed never changing entity. The image is ever changing, it effects the environment in which it lives, and sets in motion events that animate the existence of the depiction. The image is the “mediation between man and world” (Flusser). There are different forms of image; there is image as text, the technical image, and the photographic image.

In the reading of Cyril Stanley Smith, the different ways that structure can be viewed as a form of art are discussed. The viewpoints of the physicist, the metallurgist, the engineer, and the viewer are all components that make up the conception of art. The perspective of the physicist analyze the loads and forces, the engineer sees how the material can be shaped into useful forms, the metallurgist see the elemental composition of the materials, but the overall experience of the art form will be missed unless the viewer can see it as a working
beautiful form.

In conclusion, the idea of image and structure are in cooperation with one another to create an idea and form that not only achieves a solution to a problem, but also stands as a work of art and design.

Adam Berry [: Peter Lynch]

2008-04-13T21:27:00.000-04:00

The work of Peter Lynch and his architectural studio THEM tries to differentiate themselves from traditional architectural practices through three preoccupations of new form-making, new building practices, and development. First they look at the concept of new forms that are a “physical representation of new possibilities.” Through new forms, they believe they can liberate new thought and allow society to re-imagine itself. However, studio THEM believes that architecture should be concerned with more than the form or the end result, and focus also on the process or the construction of a project. They see the architect much like a composer or conductor of a project and he or she should understand and be able to direct the whole process.

In their statement on THEM they talk about the way digital automation has advanced the architectural world. They mention how GPS and point mapping could help us make design decisions in the field. Likewise, the computer is helping us design and not designing for us. We can use the computer as a design tool to help us in “composing” a project. Also, with the advancements in CNC technology and digital fabrication, they take advantage of the preciseness of the computer and give us the opportunity to eliminate the "hack work" of todays construction world, giving us further opportunities to understand and “direct” the whole process of construction. In this situation the computer is doing the work for us and the human is no longer needed in construction. My question for Peter Lynch was this: Should the human hand always be involved in construction to keep some sense of craftsmanship, or do you believe we should push digital fabrication further in order to eliminate any cases of human error?

Judging from the work I’ve seen and the readings I've done from Peter Lynch, I believe that he would want to always keep some sense of physical human construction involved in every project. An example that might show his opinion, would be through some of his prefabricated building blocks. They could have designed them as a brick that could be placed and stacked by a machine and it most likely would result in a perfect brick wall every time. However, they designed them in a way that the construction worker or craftsman can place the blocks in the best way they see fit, which would give them more of a sense of completion and a satisfaction in what they produce. Likewise, the entire process as a whole is just as important as the final product.

Kate Dixon [: Peter Lynch]

2008-04-13T21:25:00.000-04:00

There is a sculptural element to Peter Lynch’s work that represents an exploration through craft and material. For example, at the Cranbrook festival in 2004 they weaved large ‘brellas’ from recycled PET soda bottles. Using a new material and the Argentinean craft of weaving they were able to produce an elegant ‘vertical flaring trumpet’ that might also serve a functional purpose of sun shading and table. A year later he introduces a similar form in his Belle Epoque restaurant project. This time, however, it does not seem to serve a purpose besides being visually pleasing. I wonder if it therefore can still be considered architecture. Where is the line between sculpture and architecture?

What is the difference between decorative ornamentation and sculpture? I do not have an answer to either. I know that I am drawn to the more sculptural architecture, like that of Gaudi. I appreciate him in particular because his explorations with form were directly related to structure; therefore the structures of his buildings were the sculptures. I appreciate Lynch’s explorations with form and material but fail to see this connection between his sculpture and the building in the examples of his work I have seen so far. I look forward to seeing more examples of his work in the future to understand this connection better.

Tim Malinowski [: Peter Lynch]

2008-04-13T21:24:00.000-04:00

THEM is an architecture firm founded by Peter Lynch and Gustavo Crembil. They create architectural designs, and promote new ways of planning, zoning, and urban development, while also teaching in the college realm. Between the two men, a statement was developed, entitled “Three Preoccupations: form making, building practices, and development,” which highlights their philosophy of Architecture.

In their statement of “Three Preoccupations,” the architects explain that form making is what Architecture is all about. The creation of new forms is a “representation of new possibilities” and “allows society to re-imagine itself.” It is the process of giving physical shape to creative thought. Moving on, they describe how the process, of building forms, is equal in value to the process of conceptualization. New practices or technologies adopted by the construction industry can have an amazing effect on the architectural output. THEM states that their “studio is searching for new ‘scenarios of construction,’ different approaches to building that preserve opportunities for creativity and invention at every stage of the process.” In summary, THEM claims that architecture is “another name for the built landscape.” The arrangement of human space defines the possibilities of society.

I agree with the idea that “form creation” is the essence of architecture, which goes hand in hand with the statement that describes architecture as the “built landscape.” Architects are the ones who give a city its character, and are given the authority to design how citizens will interact. They conceptualize possibilities and give shape to future life. It is then up to the contractors to build the concept. I would have liked to better understand what is meant by THEM’s desire to preserve “opportunities for creativity and invention at every stage of the process.” Do they simply feel that an architect should be able to successfully handle problems that arise, on site, during the construction process? Or, moving further, do they feel an architect should have the ability to spontaneously design, during construction, for reasons other than unwelcome issues? Either way, the idea of an architect interacting throughout the building phase, in a competent manner, is very interesting, and if contractors can adopt technologies or building materials that give the architect a sense of spontaneous design freedom, then that’s great too. In conclusion, THEM seems like a pair of intelligent modern architects that think forward and will have nothing other than a positive impact on future society.

Andrew Rogerson [: Peter Lynch]

2008-04-13T21:22:00.000-04:00

In the studies of Peter Lynch and his colleagues, there exists a concerted effort to better understand important structural systems that might translate into stylistic architectural systems. The group explores natural structures in particular to try and uncover the most basic structural concepts that might offer new solutions to current issues. It seems that Lynch’s studio explorations might include studies to find intrinsic qualities common to different structures at different scales. However, he must be careful in deciphering the relevant connections and relationships to architectural formal compositions. It is important to determine the extent to which the structural compositions of materials can be translated into architectural forms.

Part of the difficulty of working at multiple scales is the issue of comprehending the vitality of scale. For example, a structural form at a molecular scale likely will not achieve the same essence at a workable scale. The same laws of science that might allow a structure to perform at one scale prevent its success at another scale. In this regard, Lynch’s study of translating forms through different scales proves to be a complex task.

But the relevance of working at different scales is in the alternate conceptual possibilities that are revealed through the study process. In understanding the inner workings of timber, one can theoretically better understand timber as a structural element, better utilizing its inherent qualities. Likewise, natural formal compositions often provide artists and designers with inspiration for the development of new forms. After studying the variety of scales that Lynch and his associates explore, it is natural to find certain connections that might be troublesome when interpreting their relevance to pursuing new design. But at the same time, these same explorations reveal important connections that span multiple scales. These entail the invention of new forms, which Lynch calls “a physical representation of new possibilities [that]
liberate thought.”

Harrison Wallace [: Peter Lynch]

2008-04-13T21:21:00.000-04:00

"In your portfolio's statement, you explain that you are "preoccupied" with the idea of going back to the origins of construction problems in order to evolve craft (or lack of) in building. In discovering solutions, what means of informing the construction/engineering/architectural community of your findings? While I agree in the potential for "catalytic" responses, I am curious to know how you intend on getting the word out there, especially when these findings might be relatively minor."

In thinking about the idea of creating new solutions in the building process, the repetitious nature of construction seems to be a potential roadblock towards these new solutions. While the construction industry has obviously evolved over the centuries, this seems to be mainly in advances in technology and in the refinement of existing practices and materials in order to achieve efficiency. As Lynch searches for creative interventions along this process, there is certainly potential to be successful.

But in this process, Lynch notes that it is not enough to be successful in theory – findings have to be implemented into practice. He also notes that it is necessary to have a social component in order to truly be successful, using local suppliers, creating networks, and craftwork. Bridging this gap between theory and practice seems to be the critical component towards Lynch's ideas. In this, real challenge of Lynch's practice shows itself.

That is, the construction process seems to be more concerned with efficient solutions than creative ones. Considering this, how do you bring about change in the industry? Is it by educating architects to design with such a new building process in mind? Or is it in convincing builders to change their construction approach? With such a small percentage of buildings architecturally designed, where should efforts be focused in achieving success towards changing minds?

Lauren Sandy [: Peter Lynch]

2008-04-13T21:19:00.000-04:00

Peter Lynch’s writings and those of others he suggested created more questions instead of an opportunity to critique or analyze architectural thought and practice. Mostly of the class was left with questions and more questions that do not necessarily have ready answers. That being said let me articulate one of the central questions brought up in the lecture preparation class.

THEM is an architecture design firm that places tremendous resources and energy into the prototyping and testing of new forms big and small. Peter Lynch has articulated that the development of new forms should be a priority in architecture design. This idea brings up the question of new forms and modernity. Modernity is about the function guiding the form without extraneous and meaningless ornamentation. This same principle can be applied to the development of new forms. The new forms should presumably have to do with their function.

The question arises when one looks at the THEM website. The THEM research portfolio displays a number of masonry unit prototypes designed for specific projects. It was unclear if these new designs were simply an artistic exercise or if they in fact were a form that was most aptly suited to the function they were supposed to perform structurally for the particular building they were designed.

Should the masonry unit prototypes be designed only if they in some way enhance the structure or is ok to design them simply because they have some structural role and never mind their fantastical design. Does there have to be a particular application for the masonry or can it be designed for future application?

Who says masonry always has to be rectangular? But does a masonry unit, designed to address building aesthetics that in some way does not enhance the stability of the building, not turn into embellishment? And isn’t embellishment the great sin of modern architecture?

To answer those questions, it would seem that it IS appropriate to come up with new models for structural elements that are more than rectangles. Buildings are no longer square so why would the materials still be square. New units should be designed even if their use is unclear. A structural element remains structural even if the shape is unconventional or its use uncertain. We might find architecture design to be guided into a new and exciting direction aided by the design and adaption of new building forms. So the best answer is that prototyping of materials and methods of construction is not only appropriate but should encouraged. Perhaps architecture school could design courses to examine and design new building forms. And in the end, it is curious that more people do not ask and answer these same questions.

Toni Sena [: Peter Lynch]

2008-04-13T21:16:00.000-04:00

A Search for Structure is about different view points of structural hierarchy. Each person is trained, for their profession or something else, to look at something a different way or at a different scale. Everything has several scales at which to examine it but the hierarchy of the scales depends on who is looking at it and why. At every scale everything can be looked at regarding style and pattern. We tend to be drawn to the misfit parts of these patterns and style. We also tend to resist change.

The statement "original creations must inspire copies" is a bold truth that many people don't think of. To be truly original at anything has to be different from everything, but inspiring and accepted enough to make others want to do the same thing. Stylistic norms develop by several people excepting a new way of doing things. However, "really original deviants are extinguished or at least ignored." If a new style does not develop a following then it will not make it. It is human nature resist change and things outside the norm.

The creativity to develop new ways to see things and to see them at different scales is inspired by seeing what others do with things. Artists have the freedom of inspiration, creativity, and acceptance to experiment with materials in a way that those who professionally use them would not have considered. The simple experimentation in one field at a small scale has the ability to inspire a larger movement in a bigger field.

QUESTIONS FOR PETER LYNCH

2008-04-10T21:33:00.000-04:00

In your statement on THEM you talk about the way digital automation has advanced the architectural world. You mention how GPS and point mapping could help us make design decisions in the field. Likewise, the computer is helping us design and not designing for us. However, with the advancements in CNC technology and digital fabrication, they take advantage of the preciseness of the computer and give us the opportunity to eliminate the "hack work" of todays construction world. Should the human hand always be involved in construction to keep some sense of craftsmanship, or do you believe we should push digital fabrication further?
[Berry]

It has been mentioned before that a ‘thing’ exists only in the interaction with its environment and that the meaning of anything lies in interaction. So, when creating new forms and considering new construction techniques, do you consider the many meanings a building can possess as a work of art, both for the individual materials and the whole, and how they will affect how society views the building and imagines itself?
[Ham]

I can imagine from your recommended readings that your studio explorations might include studies that search for intrinsic qualities common to various structures at various scales. In these studies, how do you go about deciphering the relevant connections/relationships among these and hence use that information to apply to architectural processes of creating important forms/compositions/structures?
[Rogerson]

In the article "Towards a Philosophy of Photography," is the balance between the technical and the traditional images a huge factor in architecture, due to the ability to create images that operate traditionally by giving the viewer a sense of our ideas, while operating technically by giving the foundation for the ideas, i.e. a site.
[Felton]

In your studio's statement of "three preoccupations", you explain that THEM "searches for new scenarios of construction ... that preserve opportunities for creativity and invention at every stage of the process." Does this idea, of spontaneous invention, go beyond the notion that an architect should be able to successfully solve problems that arise on site and enter into the realm of changing the plan, during the construction process, for reasons other than undesirable problems? Have you found contractors to be welcoming to this idea of unplanned creativity?
[Malinowski]

In your list of three preoccupations, you express that “construction work is not only a means to an end.” In your portfolio there are numerous examples of preliminary studies using the craft of constructions to explore design ideas. My question is how do you translate this more intimate hand crafted process into the production of your larger architectural projects?
[Dixon]

In your portfolio's statement, you explain that you are "preoccupied" with the idea of going back the origins of problems in the process of construction to evolve the craft (or lack of) building. In discovering solutions, what means of informing the construction/engineering/architectural community of your findings? While I agree in the potential for "catalytic" responses, I am curious to know how you intend on getting the word out there, especially when these findings might be relatively minor.
[Wallace]

In the article "Towards a Philosophy in Photography" there are obvious parallels between photography and architecture. Flusser describes photography and the emergence of the information age, "...the paper photograph represents the first step towards a devaluation of the object and a valuation of information". In terms of architecture could this mean that within the information age there is a devaluation of the built environment? How does this change in value manifest itself and how do you address this issue within your practice?
[Brown]

To a certain extent, the materials and ideas discussed in the readings you suggested are very conceptual on certain levels and yet so very basic on other levels (ie. basic building materials such as the brick seen in a new light). How do you and your firm straddle the two extremes in real world projects?
[Hamm]

The published statement by THEM acknowledges the ability of architecture to allow for a society’s liberation and re-imagination of itself. Have you noted through your practice any relationship between the scale of a project and its ability to effect such change? How do you measure a project’s success in terms of the new methods explored by THEM in altering societal perceptions?
[Craig]

Can you tell me about the prototype development process you employ? Do you try to explore new forms, right down to the development of new construction materials and technologies with each project, or are do you design construction materials prototypes in only some of your projects? Are the prototypes about exploring the application of a design concept from the macro to the micro or do they lend some greater structural integrity to your designs than can be found in the materials market today?
[Sandy]

In "Towards a Philosophy of Photography" it talks about photographs as a technical image produced by an apparatus such as a camera. These technical images are not really images, but a kind of window on the world that is trusted as if looking at it like you are there with your own eyes. Should we really take in photographs that we see as real, when it is so easy for us to use programs such as Photoshop to create images that are more pertinent to the things we're trying to get across?
[Bradley]

Through out the readings of the various studies of form and structure there were many that were captivating and engaging, but there were also some that seemed strange and confusing. There seemed to be a mixture of the readable, the interpretable, and the external intangible. My question is this: At what point does architectural design, as a practice, lose its tangibility and become abstract? Should there be guidelines and rules to reign in design so that it is less elusive to society?
[Harrison]

Chris Bradley: Dana Buntrock

2008-04-01T22:08:00.000-04:00

The work that intrigued me the most was the Tanpopo House in the suburbs of Tokyo, Japan. It got its nickname obviously because of the many dandelion flower boxes that are on the exterior. The dandelions only bloom for about one month of the year so for the rest of the year simple flowers fill up the walls. The flowers are constantly watered and up kept. It has an extreme concern for materials using many different types of wood as well as teppei stone, which is normally stepping stone in gardens. The woods used are very expensive including chestnut, mulberry, paulownia, and nara a type of Japanese oak.

Another thing that really intrigued me was Buntrock’s determination through adversity to explore something that the Japanese at one point did not even consider to be worth looking at. Her explorations of construction and materials stood out and started a trend for others after her and are now a main focus of a lot of Japanese architectural literature.

Harrison Wallace: Dana Buntrock

2008-03-30T22:06:00.000-04:00

The article "Collaborative Production: Building Opportunities in Japan" raises several interesting questions about the ethics of the Japanese building industry. For example, you discuss the close relationship between architect, contractor, and client, as well as the legacy that practitioners pass down to their apprentices. In this, you note the ability for such lineage to make those who are "well connected" in the industry more likely to sell materials, even when their products are at a much higher price than some competitors. Do you feel that this is nothing more than a romanticized "good ole boy" network that exists within classist and sexist values? Would this also allow a clearly less skilled architect to win a job over a more skilled architect, simply because of the politics of the profession, and, if so, do you see anything wrong with such practice?

After listening to Dana Buntrock's lecture, I was pleased that she had answered me question fully, but at the same time, I'm hesitant to fully accept her answer regarding potential sexism and "classism" that might exist within the Japanese building culture. While I initially accepted her response, I failed to recognize potential gaps that at least merit further consideration. That is, Buntrock felt that her experience working in Japan did not suggest any kind of discrimination. However, as I've continued to think about it, it seems as though the idea could still be explored considering two factors.

One is that despite being an outsider, Buntrock seems to have close relationships with some of Japan's finest architects. In that, she seems likely to not have had the difficult challenge of working one's way out of obscurity, already knowing the prestigious designers. The other concern deals with weather or not she would have had a similar experience if she was the head of her firm.

Though I am not trying to dispute her claims, I do wonder whether her experience would be typical of a woman trying to lead a firm or of someone who didn't have the benefit of working for a top architect. As she noted that in most societies, including Japan, the best get pushed to the top, after reading her article, I can't help but wonder if it takes more than simply being the best in Japan.

Lauren Sandy: Dana Buntrock

2008-03-30T22:05:00.000-04:00

Dana Buntrock’s talk was probably one of the most intimate and deeply personal lectures of this lecture series. Professor Buntrock has written articles and books on the practice of architecture as it is done in Japan. Professor Buntrock is not some naïve interloper who has developed a romanticized vision Japan, but is in fact one who has lived, breathed and learned while practicing in Japan.

A quick glance at many critical articles about Japanese architecture to be found on the internet seem to follow the theme of comparing modern Japanese architecture and the historical architectural vernacular of temples, shrines, tea houses and homes with rice paper walls. But deeper analysis of contemporary Japanese architecture disabuses such a of contemporary Japanese architecture. Dana Buntrock neither debates nor argues about the western/eastern approaches to the study and analysis of Japan and its architecture. Much of her talk centered on Terunobu Fujimori and his Red/White school of architecture. Professor Buntrock presented examples of modern architecture of the red school and its intimate, experiential, rough designs with the white school with its precision, modern and technologically innovate exercises in design. The Red/White school is a simplified continuum that most contemporary architects in Japan appear to fall along one side or the other.

Professor Buntrock personally knows many of the architects she spoke of (Sejima, Terunobu Fujimori, Tadao Ando, et. al.) and rather than simply provide an analysis of their architecture as she views it, she actually spoke of conversations held with the respective architects that may provide greater insight into the motives and intentions of each architect.

I related more to this lecture than other lectures because of Professor Buntrock’s personal anecdotes and remarks about contemporary Japanese architecture. She is not objectively critical about Japanese architecture in the way of Kazys Varnelis, Mark Linder or even David Leatherbarrow. I found her lecture in many ways more enlightening due to her subjective analysis of Japanese architecture as experienced personally. Professor Buntrock presented an interesting, but too brief that spoke of the depth and richness of Japanese architecture that is seldom presented in western architecture history classes.

Tim Malinowski: Dana Buntrock

2008-03-30T22:03:00.000-04:00

Dana Buntrock is an architect and professor of architecture at the University of California – Berkeley. She is well known for her knowledge of Japanese architecture and construction, having worked and lectured in Japan. Buntrock came to Clemson and spoke on the cultural differences that exist between the American and Japanese design and building process while also describing one particular Japanese architect by the name of Terunobu Fujimori.

Terunobu Fujimori is known for his rough natural looking building designs. He describes himself as an architect of the “Red School,” which holds fast to the philosophy that buildings should be primitive, openly eccentric, craft-focused, and open to imperfections. This comes in contrast to the “White School” of thought that promotes sleek, high-tech., light, and futuristic designs. Many of Fujimori’s buildings incorporate green roofs, earth walls, and environmentally friendly building techniques. This made me question whether or not Fujimori had the intention of being a, as we would describe today, “green” architect, one that promotes environmentally friendly designs and sustainable materiality.

Upon hearing Buntrock’s lecture, I came to understand that Terunobu Fujimori did not necessarily design with the intention of being “green.” People try to categorize him as sustainable due to his natural looking buildings and local use of material, yet he simply practices architecture, in this way, because he assumes this to be the best way to design and build. He may have sustainable tendencies or uphold certain “green” principles, such as “living lightly” on the land or using local materials for construction, yet he does so because it seems like the correct way of practice. Fujimori reconnects his buildings with the site they sit upon and makes craftsmanship a priority. Buntrock states that the buildings seem to have a spiritual aura and personal connection to the inhabitants. Fujimori simply stays true to his philosophy and shows no interest in classifying himself as anything other than a thoughtful designer.

Laura Hamm: Dana Buntrock

2008-03-30T22:02:00.000-04:00

Dana Buntrock’s lecture on Japanese Architecture, specifically the work of Terunobu Fujimori was absolutely amazing. The topic was very interesting and her ability to tell the history and research as a story made for a wonderful lecture. I also really liked that we moved to the seminar room for the second part of the lecture. The less formal setting of sitting around the table made it easier to interact and ask questions to the lecturer. Friday’s lecture may have been the best one we have had yet.

Fujimori’s background in architectural history as opposed to architecture makes him an interesting designer that looks at design in a very different way than most architects. He believes that buildings should be a reflection of the religious beliefs of the community as well as his personal beliefs. He also designs so that the materials play a critical role in the overall building both for people who are well versed in his work as well as novices. The materials are charming to the person who knows little about him but the more you know reveals more details in the building and its design. Fujimori also believed that buildings took on a life of their own and changed as time passed. He was okay for the toll of passing time to make an influence on his buildings. For example, in his Dandelion House, the exterior was planted with dandelions that he wanted to be at the point where the little seeds that were left after the bloom blew away and changed the building. On the interior of the same home, he used planks with plaster between them. He embraced the fact that the plaster would crack and seemed to be fine with having to repair that regularly or live with the cracks. A similar idea was at the Soda Pop Spa where the carbonated water has turned the plaster red. The red color is appreciated despite the fact that it was not red when the building was completed. These three examples show how time plays an effect on the materials and how the buildings take on a life of their own and become examples of the passage of time.

Finally, during the seminar portion of the lecture, she answered all of our questions. My questions for her were what made you choose Japan as the focus of her research and interest and what was it about Japan that captured you? Her answer was very straight forward. Japan did not capture her. Japan captured her husband. She was willing to go along because she would be able to learn the language. She found that she loved it and it was worth it to her to give her time and energy back to the country to help it and fix it.

Gary Brown: Dana Buntrock

2008-03-30T22:01:00.000-04:00

According to the readings architects, craftsmen, builders, and clients seem to have a higher degree of respect for each other in Japanese culture then they do in American culture. If this is so then what are the factors that contribute to this interdisciplinary animosity and how do you foresee America adopting the Japanese mentality in the future, if at all?

In response to my question, Dana Buntrock stated that America would not adopt Japanese culture because America and Japan have different and incompatible cultures. This response leaves me a little uneasy because I am not sure she totally understood the question. Certainly, I do not expect Americans to adopt ALL Japanese culture. But I do think that there are lessons that can be learned about certain aspects of their culture that could be applied to problems and issues in our culture. Perhaps a better question would be: What do you hope we would take from this description of architectural practice in Japan?

What will I take away from these readings?

These readings reinforce some important considerations about the architecture profession. First, networking is an absolute must. If we wish to practice architecture according to our own ideology, then it is imperative that we surround ourselves with craftsmen, builders, politicians, clients, etc. that hold the same values. This means engaging in any event or situation where our ideas can be heard. Second, being able to communicate effectively with collegues is important. Buntrock says of the Japanese profession, “…the architect creates the demand and sets a standard, while the craftsperson has the skills and knowledge to produce solutions.” Hopefully, this would limit the interdisciplinary animosity, encourage accountability, and increase the quality of work.

Dustin White: Dana Buntrock

2008-03-30T21:58:00.001-04:00

Dana Buntrock author of “Fujimori Neolithic Daddy” and “Collaborative Production: Building in Japan”, focuses her research and teaching on the ways in which architects engage the construction industry, with her interest in Japanese practice.

In the article “Collaboration Production: Building in Japan”, Buntrock discusses the process of how Japanese architecture is created. Architecture in Japan is a collaborative effort in which architects work closely with contractors, engineers, manufacturers, and individual craftsman. With great emphasis on the quality of each individual joint and detail, calls for carpenters who specialize in a limited number of materials, one’s who may only construct a small portion of the project. There are several advantages of the Japanese model, one of the most important is that representatives are in frequent contact with each other and focus exclusively on the project at hand. Laborers generally quit working early, which allows the architects to rethink and find solutions to any problems during the night. This allows a group of architects to be on site during the day examining the process of construction. An interesting fact is how the Japanese approach mock-ups. Unlike the mock-ups in the United States, the Japanese mock-ups not only address details and materiality, but assess the proportions, relationship between parts, colors of materials, and the weatherability of the design. My question was in the interest of the Japanese construction process, and if I found it necessary in the state of architecture today that we re-examine are modes of process? The response was that our process will not change by transplanting someone else’s modes but by using that mode as an inspiration and me rethinking that process.

Dana Buntrock’s essay “Fujimori Neolithic Daddy” is an in depth study of Terunobu Fujimori’s work. Fujimori work is deeply rooted with sensuality and sincerity. In Fujimori’s work, natural materials, vegetation, and his religious beliefs play an important role in his design. Fujimori defines architecture into two schools “red and white”. Internationally-oriented practice is defined as “White School”. The “Red School” is more rugged, sturdy, and vigorous. The White School architects look for new technology to solve design issues while the Red School embrace traditional handicraft. My other question was centered on Fujimori’s sincerity and sensuality, and how we in America can approach design at the same level so that it is appropriate to out diverse culture? The response was that our culture has initially not died out because of the T.V., but it is rich and we have to make the decision to nurture and embrace it. Our countries diversity should not be used in a negative way, but to examine the people who are using materials well and apply those means to our own design.

I have to applaud Dana Buntrock on her lecture; she did a good job of giving the class plausible feedback that related to the previous lectures.

Gloria Ham: Dana Buntrock

2008-03-30T21:57:00.000-04:00

Dana Buntrock spoke about Terunobu Fujimori, his red architecture, the
influence it has had on Japanese architecture, and the differences between
typical Japanese and American architecture. Before Fujimori, Japanese
architecture was white, or precise, sleek, and scholarly. However,
Fujimori has changed that, and opened up the path for architecture to
become more red, or imprecise, primitive, and coarse. Imperfection is the
goal of Fujimori, essentially going against the Japanese way of doing
things.

The main question I had for Buntrock was how architects from America and
Japan come to terms with the great differences between the architecture
styles in the two countries. I was especially interested in this because
there are so many architects who design in countries other than the ones
where they normally design and understand the architecture. Buntrock gave
a short answer and then examples of what happens when architects design in
such drastically different worlds. She answered that the architects deal
with the differences very poorly, that the Japanese become devastated when
they cannot get the level of perfection they are accustomed to, and the
Americans have trouble adjusting to the amount of collaboration between
the constructors and architects. She then went on to say that the ones
who will be able to adjust are the quick learners who realize that things
are different in different countries.

The difference between Japan and America is that the Americans think that
all buildings must be done cheaply, from houses to skyscrapers; it is
about making the building as cheap as possible instead of trying to make
the best building possible. Japanese, on the other hand, do not worry
overly much about the money; they merely want the building to be as
perfect as possible. To achieve this, the Japanese architects realize
that construction is also an important part of the process and that to get
to know how to build, you need to talk to and to spend time with people
who know how to build.

Megan Craig: Dana Buntrock

2008-03-30T21:56:00.000-04:00

Dana Buntrock argues that to engage in critical practice architects must
listen to and question current standards. They must follow their hearts
and use their heads. They must share their questions and challenges, and
they should find allies that support their cause. Buntrock’s solution is
universal, yet the ways in which architects influence their practice are
contextual and specific to given areas. Buntrock references the critical
practice of Terunobu Fujimori as one example for redirecting the path of
architecture.

If Japanese architecture were to be split in two, the Red School would
represent a rough, rooted, and more rural form of design. The other
half, White, would include the more refined, polished, and exact style of
Toyo Ito, for example. The work of Fujimori exists strongly in the Red,
which raises questions about sensuality, experience, and tactility.
Fujimori takes advantage of architectural standards in Japan to
successfully engage in critical practice. Because the natural allies for
Japanese architects tend to be engineers, contractors, and fabricators,
Fujimori can specify more precisely his desired level of finish for his
structures. Architecture is more of a public art in Japan than in the
US, and by drawing on influences from performance art, Fujimori engages
the public rather than just a private client.

Through his embrace of Japanese practice, Fujimori has successfully
extended his own critical position. Even well-known architects more
strongly rooted in the White School have begun to engage their designs
with more intimate notions from the Red School. However, Fujimori is
just one example of an architect who has addressed current practice with
a critical eye. Buntrock argues that to achieve similar success,
architects must understand skill levels within specific areas. They must
understand the context of possibilities, and from there, engage in
critical practice through the universal solution of inquiry.

Kate Dixon: Dana Buntrock

2008-03-30T21:54:00.000-04:00

In Dana Buntrock’s readings and lecture, she introduces us to two approaches to modern architecture found in Japan; the White School and Red School. The white school approach represents the Le Corbusier style of architecture. It creates a perfect, functional, and pristine building that, in my opinion, only encourages thought and appreciation for those who understand its theories and leaves the rest of the people confused and alienated. Red school buildings, mainly Fujimori’s, break this division with the people. While people may still be confused by its presence, it evokes imagination and dreams in everyone, similar to Guadi’s work.

To me, "white architecture" is like a finished painting in a gallery; complete, standing on its own for contemplation. Red architecture is more like performance art. Integrated into the community, it encourages people of all ages to enjoy it. In some of Fujimori’s work one can identify faces from the layout of the roofline, window, and door. Fujimori is also known to add a living element accentuating the fact that the building is living like the people within. For instance, Fujimori’s home has dandelions planted in the cracks. These dandelions transform from yellow flowers to globes of delicate filaments causing the house to look furry. The house is constantly changing. I think it is because of the naturalness of his building with his use of raw materials in their truest state that there is more freedom to be part of the building. There is no right way to design, but I do think we could all benefit with some of the honesty and fun found
in Fujimori’s work.

Andrew Rogerson: Dana Buntrock

2008-03-30T21:51:00.000-04:00

Japanese architects seem to possess a better understanding of the importance of specialization in craft. Much of Western architecture’s downfall is due to a lack of focused areas of study that generate a higher level of craft in the built environment. This may be an issue that can be addressed academically through studio exploration and increased emphasis on more focused areas of study. However, this lack of specialization in craft is partly due to a socio-cultural state in which the western world is in a sense trapped.

Dana Buntrock’s exploration of Japanese architecture, and Terunobu Fujimori in particular, delves into the wonders of Japanese craft in architecture, revealing an untapped source of information for the Western world. His style, which follows the Red school of architecture, makes use of Japanese traditions and raw materials in such a way as to add significance to his designs. Instead of designing buildings that rely on technological innovations to create clean, untouched spaces, Fujimori constructs personal spaces through the use of intimate materials that evoke specific senses and emotions in their dwellers. His use of natural and local materials is reminiscent of the sustainability movement; however, Fujimori’s motives and objectives are very different than those of sustainable design.

While sustainable architecture is the Western world’s technological response to environmental deterioration, Fujimori’s design philosophy deals more closely with creature comfort through meaning in materials and their relationship to a space. Due to this careful attention to the process of building through the selection of materials and their state of use, Fujimori begins to define his architecture.

Whereas Fujimori recreates each building from scratch, imploring different methods to shape the individuality of each building, in Western architecture, the design process typically includes selecting materials from a predefined palette. This lack of attention to the possibilities that lie in materials directly reduces the quality of the built environment. But the socio-cultural state of mind in the west excludes any philosophy that is not economically efficient or able to be streamlined. So any architecture that requires slow process is undermined by an overwhelming demand for fast design.

Ben Felton: Dana Buntrock

2008-03-30T21:48:00.000-04:00

Dana Buntrock’s lecture was clearly the most aesthetically pleasing of all the lectures. A vivid image of a green building that was literally green, immediately caught my attention. Given the amount of maintenance required for this brewery with grass all on the roof and in the joints of the building, it seems well worth it the beauty that this one image created. Buntrock claimed that sometimes it is better to give the general public an easy to understand building. I could not agree with this more. The feeling of need to talk circles around people in attempt to confuse is one of the most frustrating things about architecture for me. Project can be overly complex and fractured without sticking to one idea.

The Asian culture was always something I found to be very interesting and, as a result, my interest also extends to their architecture. I found it very fascinating that Fujimori actually kept fairly close contact with his buildings and/or clients. Generally when you think an architecture has to go back and forth on a building for maintenance reasons, it comes with a negative connotation. However, its almost as if Fujimori deliberately made this so. Fujimori’s sees buildings as living, breathing aspects of our lives is a very different from my viewpoint of buildings, which is very practical. I would like to see Fujirmori design outside of this comfort zone and attempt a very practical building to see if Fujimori’s ideas can still push trough these limitations. For example, if Fujirmori were restricted to only using steel, glass, and concrete, what would be the final product?

Buntrock stated that one of the differences between American and Japanese architecture is that Japanese architecture extends to more than just the form, for example, structure. From my education in architecture thus far, I have found very little emphasis on the design of structure. Architects should not be the artist that place the cladding over a structure, we need to be the designer, engineer, interior designer, etc. so that a building seamlessly forms together in one single artistic entity.

Travis Harrison: Dana Buntrock

2008-03-30T21:46:00.000-04:00

In the readings of Dana Buntrock there is a controlling element of honor in expression. She describes the design intent of Fujimori and how his person is tied to his design. She points out the influences on Fujimori’s work, how he uses them in his designs, and forces the American readers to compare the practice in America with that of Japan.

There are references to Le Corbusier’s work and the influence he had on Fujimori’s work. He spoke of the later work of Corbusier as he started to make a turn to the more “organic” side of architecture and turn to the elements already existing on the site, “…Le Corbusier chose native tree trunks, plainly notched…”(Neolithic Daddy) The influence of Corbusier’s later thought process can be seen in the designs of Fujimori.

Fujimori claimed that his work was more of the “White School” than the “Red School”. The White School was “smooth, streamlined…looked to industry to solve problems…” and Fujimori said that if he were a part of the White School, it would be purist bent. He was more in tune with the handy craft and echoed a movement against the industrial age. Fujimori’s “Red School” was an attempt to revive the construction techniques that were starting to disappear.

In these reading one will discover that Buntrock is concerned with the intimacy of the work with the architect. Rather than producing a piece merely for profitability, there should be a connection between the creator of the design and the finished product. This connection should be one that is shared for a lifetime, not just for the duration of the project.

Adam Berry: Dana Buntrock

2008-03-30T21:45:00.000-04:00

Dana Buntrock focuses her research and teaching on how architects engage in the construction industry. Her research of architectural practice and construction in Japanese culture shows huge differences in how we practice architecture here in the United States. Over the past several years, Dana has been examining the architect Terunobu Fujimori and his distinctly different ideas on the practice of architecture. Fujimori discribes the buildings he designs as “Red School Architecture,” a term discussed in Dana’s article “Neolithic Daddy.” This article describes what Fujimore believes to be the two different schools of architecture practiced today, Red and White. White Architecture is an architecture that is “smooth, streamlined, and appealing to the intellect.” It uses industry to solve new challenges. It could be forward thinking, or futuristic. On the other hand, Red Architecture is one that is “rugged, sturdy, and vigorous.” It uses traditional types of handicraft, and tries to revive disappearing construction techniques. It uses local materials, natural materials, and is influenced by local histories. It also tries to involve the local community.

I saw Fujimori’s work as the extreme case of Red Architecture. He uses natural materials and local materials, but in a strange, awkward, and almost playful way. According to Dana, his work surprisingly has had much attention from the community as well as famous architects. She described the local community being able to understand and connect with the types of architecture he creates, unlike some works by White School Architects, that only the architects understand. Fujimori also accepts the decay or deterioration of his buildings, and feels this is just as much as part of the design. Many architects in Japan were at first disgusted with Fujimori’s work and didn’t see it as a type of Architecture, but with the reaction from the community and the open minds of some architects, his style is beginning to be embraced. Significant shifts from the White School type of architecture to the Red can be seen in the works of major architects, like Tadao Ando, and Kengo Kuma, who were both influenced by the architecture of Fujimori. Kuma states, “Without originators like Fujimori, I would not have become the architect I have become, I think.” Neither type of architecture, White or Red, is considered right or wrong, according to Dana. It’s just your decision what to be. I disagree with this statement. I believe the type of architecture practice in the Red School, shows some of the characteristics of what we as architects should be practicing today. It seems as if an architect who is more interested in making the lives better for society, instead of trying to make himself famous, is far more important. I believe that although the White School may do this in some ways, it is extremely more important in a Red School type of architecture. As Tado Ando said, “from now on, the Red School is going to be tough (competition).

Toni Sena: Dana Buntrock

2008-03-30T21:43:00.000-04:00

Dana Buntrock discussed Japanese architecture with a focus on Terunobu Fujimori and his work. She discussed the two schools that they have there, the red school and the white school. The red school is very rough, rugged, and imperfect. They use natural materials that are usually regional. The white school is futuristic, smooth, and aims for perfection. Fujimori is an extremist in the red school. He is specialist in earlier Japanese techniques and traditions. His first building was a small museum in the middle of neighborhood. He learned to spit the wood for this project and continued to do use his own hands for many of his designs. Plants and small trees growing on the walls and roofs was also something you would see in many of his designs. The brewery he did actually weeps once a day to keep the grass alive.

Buntrock also discussed some of the differences in business relations in Japan and the US. In Japan the architects spend time with contractors and builders instead of the type of company American architects keep, like layers. The part I found interesting is the way the Japanese views contracts. Theirs are more like guidelines and often change many times over the course of a project, but in American they are viewed as something that must be stuck to specifically. Japanese architects also develop good relationships with providers of their materials that come from working together for years. She also discussed the difference in the way the Japanese value the building and materials more then just what is the cheapest way to do things like we do in America.

QUESTIONS FOR DANA BUNTROCK

2008-03-27T21:09:00.004-04:00

CONSTRUCTION & CRAFT

Japanese architects seem to possess a better understanding of the importance of specialization in craft. One of the major downfalls of western architecture, and perhaps the main contribution to why less than 5% of buildings are designed by architects, is due to a lack of focused areas of study that generate a higher level of craft in the built environment. Do you feel that this is an issue that can be addressed academically through studio exploration and increased emphasis on more focused areas of study, or is this lack of specialization in craft a socio-cultural state in which the western world is in a sense trapped?
[Rogerson]

In your article “Collaborative Production: Building Opportunities in Japan,” you highlighted a difference between the practice of architecture in Japan and the United States. Architects in Japan typically become masters of a few materials and their use. They maintain a close relationship with contractors and sub-contractors that allows for greater architectural experimentation without the exorbitant cost differential that might be found in the United States. This model seems more closely related to the ancient role of the architect as the master builder and craftsman on projects. A number of architects in the United States and Canada practice architecture that in many ways is similar to this Japanese model, namely Tod Williams and Billie Tsien, or John Brown who work with a few preferred materials, have developed relationships with materials manufacturers and they personally design many of the finishes and forms the materials. What do you view is the difference between the way they practice architecture and the way Japanese architects practice?
[Sandy]

The article "Collaborative Production: Building Opportunities in Japan” raises several interesting questions about the ethics of the Japanese building industry. For example, you discuss the close relationship between architect, contractor, and client, as well as the legacy that practitioners pass down to their apprentices. In this, you note the ability for such lineage to make those who are "well connected" in the industry more likely to sell materials, even when their products are at a much higher price than some competitors. Do you feel that this is nothing more than a romanticized "good ole boy" network that exists within classist and sexist values? Would this also allow a clearly less skilled architect to win a job over a more skilled architect, simply because of the politics of the profession, and, if so, do you see anything wrong with such practice?
[H. Wallace]

Considering the great difference between Japanese construction and construction in the United States, how do architects from either country come to terms with these differences when designing in the other country?
[Ham]

According to the readings architects, craftsmen, builders, and clients seem to have a higher degree of respect for each other in Japanese culture then they do in American culture. If this is so then what are the factors that contribute to this interdisciplinary animosity and how do you foresee America adopting the Japanese mentality in the future, if at all?
[Brown]

In the Japan construction process there are multiple levels of collaboration throughout the design process with architects, contractors,etc... In architecture in its current state in America today, do you find it necessary that we re-examine are modes of process for our own survival?
[White]

FUJIMORI

In the article "Neolithic Daddy" Fujimori exerts an intense amount of sincerity and feeling into his work. Granted his work is influenced by his religion and culture. How do you think we can approach designing with this level of sensitivity since our culture is so diverse?
[White]

I admire the use of primitive techniques and materials Fujimori uses and how he believes in and incorporates the traditions of his culture. Do you think there is an American form of this even though America has few set traditions because they are all base on those from another country's emigrants? What would you say is an American example?
[Sena]

In the article “Fujimori Neolithic Daddy,” Fujimori relies heavily on the site and culture for his buildings. In a previous lecture, Kazys Varnelis stated that architects are inventors, but what is Fujimori accomplishing by using dated building methods and resisting the use of more effective building materials? I also realize Fujimori tries to achieve a certain “feel” to a building, but can this “feel” not be attained with our current position in architecture?
[Felton]

It seems that Fujimori used what we would call today, very natural sustainable building concepts. He built a building from the trees that existed on site, used earth for insulation, and incorporated green roofs. Even though he began designing prior to the sustainability popularity boom, did he design with the intention of being an environmentally friendly architect, or did he design, the way he did, simply because he felt that is what buildings should be like?
[Malinowski]

In Neolithic Daddy, you talk about how Terunobu Fujimori had this idea of the two different types of schools of Red and White. Which of these schools do you feel is more pertinent to the direction that architecture should be headed?
[Bradley]

RESEARCH INTEREST

I am very intrigued by your interest in Japan and now Korea. My question is what made you choose Japan as the focus of her research and interest. What was it about Japan that captured you?
[Hamm]

Gloria Ham: Charlie Cannon

2008-03-25T23:36:00.000-04:00

Charlie Cannon spoke to us about “wicked problems,” which are complex
problems. They are considered complex because they cannot be tested in
the traditional sense, there is no ultimate test or solution, no
describable sets of solutions. On top of that, solutions are not right or
wrong, they are only good or bad. The reason for this is that “wicked
problems” have different questions and answers for different people,
depending on their point of views.

Due to these “wicked problems” people need to be able to come to some sort
of agreement about how to handle the problem. For example, the One River
Project that Cannon told us about had several groups of people involved
that needed to come to an agreement about how to proceed with the project.
The interesting thing about this project is that it is a convergence of
art and science which is rather unusual.

Many people might not be aware that architecture requires so much
cooperation between different groups. These groups do not just include
engineers and the builders for the building, but also the different groups
that the building and its site affect, including environmentalists,
artists, and scientists. It is amazing how much the architect needs to
balance between the different groups that want completely different
things. What’s more is that the planner has no right to be wrong and with
multiple groups it can get rather difficult to succeed in this, yet there
are successful architects that manage to do just that. With discussions
and the ability to listen to the different people involved, it is possible
to come to agreements for problems.

Ben Felton: Charlie Cannon

2008-03-25T23:35:00.000-04:00

One of the key points to Charlie Cannon’s lecture was his talk about
“wicked problems.” He classified these problems as having solutions that
are not necessarily right or wrong but good or bad. There is no ultimate
test of the solutions nor can they be tested before hand and can seem
quite messy. These problems do not have a describable set of solutions.
Each one of these wicked problems is unique yet each is a symptom of
another. Most importantly, these wicked problems have different
questions and answers for different people. So how do we answer a
question whose answer differs from person to person?

This, in itself, is a wicked question for architects. I feel that as our
career as architects, we must be educated in all aspects to be able to
acquire not the correct answer but the best one suited for the occasion.
Cannon uses water usage as an example for the wicked problem. For the
civilians, the importance lies in the cost of the water, but for the
factories, the aging of the machinery used is important. This example,
being on such a large scale, mostly pertains to urban design. On a
smaller scale, the size of the bathroom can differ from person to person
as well. Handicap individuals would generally require more space than
non-handicap people. If the square footage of a house is limited and the
client is indifferent to the size of the bathroom, we could utilize this
“excess space” elsewhere.

Travis Harrison: Charlie Cannon

2008-03-24T23:33:00.000-04:00

In the readings of Charlie Cannon there was a driving conflict that was in need of resolution. The conflicts seem to be in everyday life, how it coincides with people and the reactions of these people to their individual needs. Individual needs according to survival, commerce, transportation, and cultural separations were all categories that sparked the ideas attempting to resolve these conflicts.

These ideas are evident in his readings as to his approach in resolving these situations. He first identifies the “wicked problem” and links them to tangible situations “Few of the modern professionals seem to be immune from the popular attack-- whether they be social workers, educators, housers, public health officials, policemen, city planners, highway engineers or physicians.” (Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning).

He goes into detail how one would set and achieve goals. He takes a situation and analyzes the objectives, desired outcomes, and the make ability of the preferred outcome. He goes into detail on the problems of planning and how they are deemed “wicked problems” in that they deal mostly with societal problems with no obvious answer.

Cannon then discusses the societal problems in detail. He describes these problems as ill-defined and that there are no definite resolutions to these issues. They rely mostly on political judgment and that they are never solved only “re-solved--over and over again.”

Cannon does a good job of accurately describing the strife that comes with dealing with societies and cultures. In attempting to resolve certain conflicts, according to Cannon, one can delve into many more conflicts that can spider web into infinity.

Kate Dixon: Charlie Cannon

2008-03-23T23:31:00.000-04:00

The environment is a ‘wicked problem’ that architects must deal with
today. Thinking back on Steven Moore and his six logics of sustainable
architecture I agree with him that there is no right or wrong approach. I
do however believe that the environment has become a “wicked” problem and
there is a better or worse choice. Unfortunately, like with all “wicked
problems,” there is no opportunity to learn from trial and error.
Everything we choose to do has a set of consequences. James Turrell
brought up in his lecture this idea that we are all signs for others and
therefore we are all responsible. I believe this is a more positive way of
facing life’s challenges; we should not dwell in fear of our consequences
but focus instead on our responsibilities.

Toni Sena: Charlie Cannon

2008-03-23T23:29:00.000-04:00

Charlie Cannon spoke about urban design and how it is similar to architecture and landscape architecture. He said they solved the same type of problems in the same way, but just at a different scale, a larger scale. In all three of the fields the designer must think spatially and territorially. Designers must think about the effects of what they do on the public realm. The skills that apply to each of these fields includes the way they provide visuals, context for decision making, and coming up with a design process. The most important connection is the way they can view things from different levels of interests.

Cannon also spoke of what he calls a "wicked" problem. These problems have ten specific characteristics that he discussed, some of which are, they are not subject to stopping rules and there is no definitive formula. The solutions to these problems are good or bad instead of right or wrong, and there is no test of these solutions. The effects of attempts to solve these types of problems are irreversible and are often hard to judge because of the many variables that could have had an effect on them. When you think of almost anything you do, it can become a wicked problem if you just broaden the scope of how you are looking at it. A simple example of this that we discussed was how putting up a bridge becomes a wicked problem because it effects the people, the water, the environment, the traffic, and the list can go on and on.

Megan Craig: Charlie Cannon

2008-03-23T23:28:00.000-04:00

Charlie Cannon defines urban design as a branch of architecture and landscape architecture that is directed towards the public realm. Urban designers, unlike other fields, focus on the function of urban projects rather than on the appearance. These projects, however, are often designed with decisions made under immense political and financial pressure. Cannon argues that improvement to the condition of urbanity requires a more holistic view towards design thinking rather than the current, bureaucratic decision-making process.

A change in the current structure would produce a more effective tool for communication and education in the community. One important strategy for urban design is an engagement in social discourse. Awareness would lead to a shared perspective of the problem and a joint redefinition of perceptions. The use of visual material would enable better judgment across the community and develop more support than if urban designers targeted only a specific group.

Cannon sites the Rhode Island Wind Power project as a specific example of successful urban design made possible through social discourse. Through state-funded research like site assessment and resource mapping, Cannon and his team conducted surveys and developed visuals to convey trends to the rest of the community. The urban designers’ more holistic approach revealed the high rate of support and resulted in the use of wind power in the area. If urban designers place themselves in a more powerful role, as they did in Rhode Island, then they obtain a position of advocacy and a potential to build more significant work for themselves.

Adam Berry: Charlie Cannon

2008-03-23T23:27:00.000-04:00

Charlie Cannon tries to focus on urban design in a different way than other planners or architects might have done in the past. By looking at an urban design project as a “wicked problem,” he can research and try to determine the complex issues that one might have to deal with, helping mitigate the development of a large scale project. The term “wicked problem,” coined in Rittle and Webber’s essay: Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning, refers to a complex problem that doesn’t necessarily have a definite solution. A “wicked problem” is so complex that there is no definitive formulation to what the problem even is. The essays suggest that understanding the problem, depends upon one’s idea for solving it. For example, looking at an urban design project that might suggest installing wind turbines as new source of renewable energy, one might encounter a number of issues dealing with politics, economics, and social opinions. Finding a source for renewable energy is perhaps one of the best examples of a “wicked problem” we have today. There is not necessarily a right or wrong answer to the problem, and neither could the problem be solved until the consequences were determined and compared to other sources of renewable energy. Perhaps, the architect should focus more on the consequences or benefits of the project rather than its intentions.

In his Constellation Studio, Charlie Cannon and his students develop different types of mapping and diagraming to help us visualize the complex logistics and unseen relationships of our society today. My question for Charlie was this: Are you doing this research to inform us that major changes need to be made in the design of our cities, or are these diagrams being developed similar to “as-built” drawings of an existing building that we can refer to for further expansion of our cities? His answer was exactly what I had thought to be true. These types of mapping and diagraming can be used to help us see the context of the problem, and furthermore give us a guide to helping solve it. By visualizing graphically the complexity of our society and the way we live, we can reveal problems and see possibility in solving those problems.

Andrew Rogerson: Charlie Cannon

2008-03-23T23:24:00.001-04:00

In their essay, "Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning," Horst
Rittel and Melvin Webber spend some time outlining and
distinguishing between the nature of “wicked” and “tame” problems.
In this discussion, it seems that these two categories of issues
are completely separate from each other. However, is it possible
to understand the ever-progressing issue of environmental
sustainability, for instance, to be a tame problem that exists
within the wicked problem of design? In this case and others like
it, it could be important to make a distinction between what is
wicked and what is tame, while also acknowledging the possibility
that the two might overlap.

This distinction between wicked and tame problems becomes
especially important when the normative nature of design issues
arises. The vast range of design approaches in the mainstream
today has increased the level of acceptance among these different
schools of thought. Consequently, wicked design problems are often
given significant leeway as to their correctness, or associated
normative consequence, due to this dispute of how the built world
should be constructed.

However, when discussing tame problems, it becomes more
appropriate to assert truths about the most effective ways of
problem-solving. With these types of problems, empirical data
serves as the only necessary factor, preventing any dispute of
truth or over how things should be done. But what happens when a
wicked problem develops into the realm of a tame problem?

I would argue that issues of design pertaining to environmental
sustainability have begun to cross this boundary between wicked
and tame. Due to the ever-accumulating amount of empirical
evidence, which highlights the benefits of designing sustainable
architecture, architects are forced to face the possibility that
the future of their profession might very well be required to
address these issues.

Therefore, environmental sustainability shows potential of joining
the likes of functionality and form as one of the tenets by which
architecture defines itself. As the facts of tame problems are
presented by Charlie Cannon, they can be identified as problems
with absolute solutions. Thus, environmental sustainability as an
architectural design problem becomes increasingly tame, opening a
window of opportunity for science and technology to further impact
the underpinnings of our profession.

Lauren Sandy: Charlie Cannon

2008-03-23T23:00:00.000-04:00

I spent some time thinking long and hard about Charlie Cannon’s method of identifying and examining urban growth through its networks. Specifically, was this model even necessary due to the existence of an existing, obscure method?

I spent hours searching the internet to find an example of analysis similar to Charlie Cannon’s but I found that it could take years to analyze available information and that I could spend my time more effectively by pondering what components might make for a good model of examination.

Charlie Cannon proposes a visually creative method to outline and analyze the systems and networks that are interconnected within every urban landscape. This approach is akin to qualitative analysis in its subjectivity. A mixed method approach blending quantitative (ideas, impressions) with factual qualitative tools could provide a comprehensive sense of the past, present and future state for individual cities. For me, the missing components are the impressions of the residents of each city and case-study reviews to reveal patterns and similar issues. Charlie’s use of the digital realm to examine urban growth should not neglect the human, subjective side of analysis. Computers cannot reveal impressions, feelings, opinions and gut reactions of each city’s inhabitants.

I would be interested in seeing how Charlie Cannon’s study unfolds and think it could be richer if the same digital qualitative tools were provided to the citizens from each population center. People are like the canary in the mine- while they may be unsophisticated, often they catch signs or shifts in their own lives that scientific data may miss or ignore. Perhaps Charlie can find the canaries to help bring his project to fruition.

Dustin White: Charlie Cannon

2008-03-23T22:18:00.002-04:00

Charlie Cannon seeks to understand how people interact with their environment and use design to build more sustainable communities. Cannon’s work has focused on how design supports and sustains companies, schools, neighborhoods, and even entire ecosystems. Cannon’s problem-solving approach is based in creating interdisciplinary teams that cut across disciplines and traditional public and private sector boundaries. In his practice Cannon believes that true innovation means admitting that the problems we face are complicated and the best solutions are found where expertise and disciplines overlap.

In Cannon’s work he recognizes the importance of the role that design can play in solving complicated problems. He says that design thinking is critical to improving our economy, environment, government practices, and ultimately our lives. In Cannon’s work he asks the question “what if the car could be the answer?” I found this to be an interesting approach, that instead of trying to eliminate the car, we begin to rethink and embrace the car in our cities. He proposes using more plug-in hybrid cars to produce 67% less emissions. He then creates a four step process to rethinking our energy use. First to install wind turbines on city property. Wind generated electricity creates zero emissions, and will pay for themselves in six years. Second, convert municipal vehicle fleets to plug-in hybrid vehicles which will reduce operating costs by 85%. Third, take the same concept of municipal vehicles and apply them to private fleet owners. Lastly, involve the individual consumer, by reducing parking costs. To solve this he proposes to locate “Park n’ Charge” garages in existing parking garages throughout the city.

Cannon is interested in problem-solving through the idea of “wicked problems”-- a concept coined by Horst Rittel and M. Webber. Wicked problems expose the nature of poorly defined design and planning problems. These things are aggressive and messy, and are contrasted by relatively tame problems, such as mathematics and puzzles. Wicked problems have changing requirements and solutions to them are often difficult to recognize. Rittel and Webber state that attempting to solve these problems will reveal and create other complex problems. A wicked problem is one in which each attempt to create a solution changes the understanding of the problem. Wicked problems therefore cannot be solved in a linear fashion, because the problem definition evolves and new solutions are created and implemented.

Wicked problems demand a process that creates a shared understanding and shared commitment. A means of defining a wicked problem is by generating facts, data, studies, and reports about a problem, but the shared commitment needed to create durable solutions will not live in information or knowledge. Rather, making sense of the problem and coming to a shared understanding about “who wants what.” Since a wicked problem cannot be solved in a linear fashion, it is approached by dialogue mapping. Dialogue mapping is a structural augmentation of group communication. As the conversation begins to unfold the map will begin to grow, so that each person has a visual representation of the meeting discussion. Creating these maps allows a group memory that will eliminate group repetition and allows more points to be discussed.

Laura Hamm: Charlie Cannon

2008-03-21T14:19:00.000-04:00

Charlie Cannon’s lecture on “wicked problems” was very interesting. I felt like many of the topics he discussed were evenly based in both in-depth theory as well as practice. I appreciated that he began his lecture by actually defining what he believed were characteristics of “wicked problems.” When he went into different aspects of “wicked problems,” including tools and techniques, processes and participants, and imaging and imagemaking, he used specific examples of his projects to give visual meaning to the theoretical topics he was discussing. I was interested in his One River Project which he discussed during the processes and participants section of his presentation. Our government makes laws such as the prescriptive regulations he discussed that are supposed to be helpful to the environment but are in turn causing their own problems such as economic demise happen regularly across the country. By thinking about it from all sides of the story, I realized regulations that first sound like positives can very often have secondary affects that can be more hazardous and problematic. One specific example he mentioned was the Slater Mill. In that case, the regulation was that you can build within 75’-0” of the water’s edge. But because you can’t build or even do renovations to existing buildings, it was making it so that people and developers could not utilize the positives of the river or even reclaim existing buildings for new purposes. This made it hard to stimulate and grow the economy in the area. This is the example he mentioned, but I know there are probably hundreds of “Slater Mills” across the US. It was a very interesting idea and problem that needs to be addressed by not only architects but by lawmakers and governments across the US.

Tim Malinowski: Charlie Cannon

2008-03-15T14:03:00.000-04:00

Charlie Cannon’s lecture focused on the social issues that arise in the development of an urban design project. He refers to “wicked problems,” a term obtained from Rittle and Webber’s essay: Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning. Abstracted from the essay, “wicked problems” can be defined as complex issues that have no definitive solution, where successful resolution is determined through trial and error, while delving into the realm of politics, economics, and social opinion.

After gaining an understanding of the concept of “wicked problems,” I questioned how an architect is to deal with such issues. What are the techniques for coming to effective solutions? Cannon explained the process and gave example projects where architects tackled “wicked problems.”

Cannon states that architects play a major role in the development of new urban design and must engage in social discourse as part of that design process. Through discourse, an architect can help a client or committee define an issue as complex (environmentally, politically, etc.) and then assist by forming ideas. The job of the architect is to imagine, plan, and propose, presenting ones ideas via visual media. Once an idea is proposed, the architect can aid in building the context, thinking of the city (or region) as a whole, and forming other options. Throughout the process, there is continued discourse and even public engagement.

One example project that Cannon presented was a northeast wind energy concept. His firm assisted governing officials by proposing ideas that could be an effective solution to a growing environmental energy crisis. Discourse took place, ideas were juggled, and the public was engaged (via a survey). This project is just one example where architects entered the arena of “wicked problems” and made a valiant effort at coming to an imaginative sustainable solution. If society wants to tackle the complex “wicked problems” of present time, architects, the designers/organizers of public space who are used to handling the complexities of new projects, need to be involved in this process of social/political engagement.

QUESTIONS FOR CHARLIE CANNON

2008-03-13T23:29:00.003-04:00

In your urban design models how do you (if at all) promote a sense of permanence and sense of place when a city or region is governed by constantly changing, often capitalist, systems?
[Brown]

As time has progressed, do you feel that, through discourse or advanced technologies, the planners of society have become more proficient at dealing with "wicked" problems?
[Malinowski]

In the article “Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning,” it states
that professionalism is losing its credibility with the general public.
In the instance of Galileo, who was condemned because he contradicted
the professionals of his time and discredited them by stating our solar
system was heliocentric and not geocentric, is it not a good thing that
professionals are discredited and constantly must prove their worth to
stay on track to their objectives as professionals?
[Felton]

How do you know when plans for social problems work when you have an infinite amount of variables affecting the subject? How do you know what really had the affect? Do you ever really know and if not isn't it a waste of time?
[Sena]

The types of mapping and diagramming your urban design studio develops help us to visualize the logistics and unseen relationships of our society today. Does this research inform us that major changes need to be made in the design of our cities, or are these diagrams similar to as-built? drawings of an existing building that we can use for further expansion of our cities?
[Berry]

In “The Problem of Seeing the City,” you mention that the field of urban design relies on “orchestrating projects over long time spans and physical distances.” Considering that nowadays most Architects deal with only one building or a set of a few buildings per project during a short time period, how do you propose we go about incorporating these large scale projects into our thinking so that we do not just create the one building?
[Ham]

I think the idea of using new tools and methods of analysis to study new and unique patterns of urban growth is exactly the way modern urban planning to go. That is not to say the tried and true method of analysis, as outlined by Kevin Lynch, is dead, but openness to digital and other more modern tools could enhance urban planning and design. The idea of looking at cities through its networks as interrelated is more complicated but infinitely more accurate today. I am wondering if you have considered models for predicting and illustrating how growth could progress given various altered conditions and contrast it to how development and growth are progressing.
[Sandy]

In the reading of “the problem of seeing the city” by Rittel and Webber, it seems like the flow of commerce is starting to dictate design and problem solving. It is this same commerce that is the controlling idea behind the “Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning”. The diagnosis of the “wicked problem” deals directly with the idea of easing the execution of exchange. Will the creation of legible conventions, to produce a contemporary city for today, be even harder to overcome once the city of today no longer has a place and must be reconsidered? Are we as architects and planners creating a monster with every attempt to make progress more efficient?
[Harrison]

With my background in speech and communication studies, we once discussed the fact that communications the future are going to change significantly as technology changes. The advancement in technology will allow for more and more people to work from their homes, which for a variety of reasons, will be more efficient more cost-effective. This will eventually lead to companies not having actual physical locations for the company, but a series of employees who interact almost always via the internet/computer and other technology-based interactions. If that is true, that companies physical buildings will eventually no longer be needed and could potentially reek havoc on architecture and urban design. How do you see urban design being transformed as technology grows and changes?
[Hamm]

In the essay, "The Problem of Seeing a city," you describe a representative approach to the analysis of urban conditions as a way to reveal existing systems. What specific types of opportunities do you envision urban designers identifying through such strategies?
[Craig]

To what extent is digital software becoming a representational tool for design and what point should we go back to actual drawing tools for development purposes?
[Bradley]

Ben Felton [: Renata Hejduk]

2008-03-12T13:49:00.000-04:00

Renata Hejduk’s article “A Generation on the Move: The Emancipatory
Function of Architecture in the Radical Avant-garde,” describes the
future as man and building moving fluidly throughout the world. I find
this interesting in sense that it seems to completely defy one of the
big characteristics of buildings today. For example, buildings that we
call “monumental” are generally massive structure that may or may not
serve a purpose. For Americans, the Statue of Liberty is one of our
monuments that is immovable.
From looking at the photos, I would hardly consider those examples as
movable dwelling. Ideal about the examples is their minimalist approach.
Given that they do not look like much, they also must have low cost and
low, if any, hazardous effect. But envision the opposite side of the
spectrum. Imagine a monstrous structure creeping along the earth. What
resources would it take to sustain something like this and would it even
be worth it? What are the limits to this fluid movement of man?
Even if this moveable dwelling was perfect or widely accepted, would it
truly be beneficial. What is to stop someone from placing their moveable
dwelling on your property? Would their even be a point to having property?
“More and more people want to determine their own parameters of
behavior.” This statement is very powerful. If this were to turn
widespread, what would happen to the architect? Would the architect
become much more and be a tool for these individuals to help grasp what
it is that they desire to shape about their lives?
Unfortunately, I could not elaborate more on this subject, I could only
pose questions of what would have to happen and what the world would be
like for this to occur.

Gary Brown [: Renata Hejduk]

2008-03-11T09:00:00.000-04:00

Writing on Bernard Tschumi's theories on eroticism and transgression, Renata Hejduk offers that Tschumi's 'double bind' implies that architecture is at its peak when it has a balance of "ideal and real", "life and death", "rational and sensual." Does this mean that architects can anticipate the "eroticism" of architecture in order to achieve the 'double bind' at the building's conception? And if the architect were to anticipate it would the ideal or theory then be a rationalized eroticism? If the 'ideal' and 'real' are mutually exclusive then how may the 'real' manifest itself?

In contemplating these questions, I considered Tschumi’s definition of eroticism and began to draw on my own memory of what eroticism looks like. Hedjuk desribes Tschumi’s eroticism as “… architecture’s double excess, the excess of its rationality and the sensual pleasure of seeing the building as a process of decay.”[1] This signals to me that any building, no matter how it may be designed, is initially completely rational and that the sensual, experiential aspect of a building only comes with age. And by “age” I mean that to include everyday wear and tear, building settlement, material degradation, environmental impact, etc., as well as social use, perception, and modification. This brings to mind the historic neighborhoods of Savannah, Georgia. Here you find many buildings and neighborhoods well over 100 years old that are not heroic examples of their style but do embody a certain eroticism. The age of these buildings is worn proudly and the neighborhoods are lived-in and worked-in. In contrast, Charleston does not embody this same kind of eroticism. Many buildings in Charleston have been restored or even reconstructed to a near pristine state and used as summer homes, rentals, or bed and breakfasts. This kind of use and modification robs a building of its age and beauty, its eroticism.

Could architects design “eroticism”? I argue that they can not anticipate it beyond being aware that decay is going to happen and designing to meet some of the calculable issues. “Eroticism” seems to be defined by chaos theory. Chaos theory is a scientific theory that basically states that within a sensitive complex system there are a limitless and incalculable number of variables that may affect an outcome. Calculable variables would include current environmental conditions, technologies, social interests, and theory. The incalculable variables would be the outcome of calculable variables as well as unforseen or future variables. Precisely how eroticism manifests itself in architecture would essentually be indeterminable, not capable of being designed or anticipated by an architect but rather designed by society and nature. These seemingly random and chaotic events that violate the initial state of an architectural work and manifest themselves as some form of aging or decay of the building touches the sensual, erotic side of the psyche that defines Tschumi’s “eroticism”.

Chris Bradley [: Renata Hejduk]

2008-03-10T22:47:00.000-04:00

The overall message that Renata Hejduk's essay about the "Emancipatory Function of Architecture" between 1960 and 1972 is to show that the concept of freedom and emancipation is based around the theory that there is a transnational culture of liberation and freedom. Much of the work of the architects from this period dealt with the ideas of both physical and psychological “liberation” that came from advancements in technology and materials.

The two major social theorists that defined the counterculture that was occurring through this time period were Herbert Marcuse and Norman Brown. Herbert Marcuse’s Eros and Civilization and Norman Brown’s Life Against Death were a couple of the key works that shaped the new subculture of the 1960’s. Both theorists, while mostly different methodologically, agreed upon the point that “to effect a social man’s consciousness he had to be awakened or demystified and his repressions freed.” Marcuse believed that “technology had the capacity to free and motivate desire.” Their points along with those of people such as Wilhelm Reich and Timothy Leary produced a concept of freedom and architecture that would explore and celebrate it.

Architects of the 1960’s were drawn to the architectural potential of technological advances. Technology will begin to become a liberation of our psychological demands. There should be a commitment to architecture that formally represents technology. Through this new commitment, “no longer would architecture dictate the form that functions take, the human body and its ultimate freedom would dictate the future of architecture.” This idea that human experience is the way that architecture should have been heading is exactly right. Architecture is meant to be an experience to everyone that encounters it.

Megan Craig [: Renata Hejduk]

2008-03-10T22:43:00.000-04:00

Renata Hejduk describes the counterculture that emerged in the 1960’s as one characterized by a need for liberation. She argues in “A Generation on the Move” that the radical avant-garde architecture of the era reinforced the growing desire for freedom from the Modern Movement. A society could potentially achieve emancipation through an increased focus on science and technology. From this theory emerged the idea of a mobile architecture, one in which people were actually freed from architecture itself. Mobility would decrease both a society’s dependence on material objects and the extent to which architecture defines and structures the community.

Contemporary societies, more so than ever before, have the technological capacity to free themselves from architecture. The age of networking, as described by Kazys Varnelis, enables individuals to engage themselves in the lives of others without physical presence. In this capacity, Herbert Marcuse correctly identifies the liberating effects of enhanced technology. However, the increased interest in the sustainability movement seems to be in direct conflict with the praise of mobile capabilities. The economic advantages of sustainable living have attracted even those who care little about environmental issues. Transportation, which at first seems emancipatory, has not only burdened society, but it has also defined the ways in which people carry out their lives.

The current post-industrial trend of urban revitalization directs the path for architecture in relation to present-day concerns. People seek structure; they desire their lives to be shaped by the architecture around them. An increased focus on urban living has resulted because the advantages of a mobile lifestyle do not parallel those of technologically-based networking. Perhaps, the field of architecture will once again face a desire for increased freedom when scientific advances enable mobility to be economically and environmentally feasible. Once again, emancipation will result from technology.

Megan Craig [: Stephen Verderber]

2008-03-10T13:38:00.001-04:00

Dr. Stephen Verderber presented an outline for his Facility Improvement Strategy in the colloquium on Friday, March 7. The plan calls for an increased collaboration through the better coordination of all design and planning fields. In an ideal situation, as Verderber described, facility improvement would result from the establishment of an institute that would report to the National Academy. This institute would focus on process development, and the idea of role-playing during meetings seems crucial to its success. Individuals would be forced to think differently and view options from other sides of the argument. When administrators, practitioners, faculty members, and students engage in one another’s interests, they ideally develop empathy, understanding, and a greater desire for communication.

To demonstrate his strategy, Verderber asked participants to evaluate their own facility, Lee Hall, from the viewpoint of another member in the community. Even though many of the observations from the class overlapped, some strengths proved to be weaknesses through the eyes of others. Differences identified through Verderber’s strategy ideally serve as a basis for discussion, and in turn, improve communication. However, the class example failed to spark any significant conversation. Perhaps, the class mostly agreed on advantages and necessary improvements of the building. But the failure is more likely the result of the impossibility to remove personal concerns from the discussion. Fortunately, regardless of the success of role-playing, bringing together representatives from all fields within an institute ensures an increase in communication and collaboration.

Toni Sena [: Renata Hejduk]

2008-03-09T22:39:00.000-04:00

In her article "A Generation on the Move: The Emancipatory Function of Architecture in the Radical Avant-garde 1960-1972," Renata Hejduk discussed the effects of the culture during the 1960s on the architects of the time. During the 1960s there was a movement in America for freedom. In architecture this was expressed by architects trying to create portable living environments so there would be a freedom of movement. The work of this time was drastically different from earlier periods to a point where it was too extreme.

In her essay "Death Becomes Her: transgression, decay, and eroticism in Bernard Tschumi≠s early writings and projects," she discusses modernism in relation to Tschumi's view of transgression and eroticism. The term transgression is referring to the way a building goes past the form that society expects of it. He describes the erotic nature of building by saying that a body is an object that penetrates and violates its purity. Violence was discussed as of two types, conflict between two objects and formless violence. It is the first type of conflict that he discusses with architecture. He believes there should be a bridging of ideal and real space, and that space should be conceptual and experimental. Architecture cannot be enjoyed without someone to enjoy it, and space is only completely understood when it is infiltrated.

Andrew Rogerson [: Renata Hejduk]

2008-03-09T22:08:00.001-04:00

The problem of Modernism for Renata Hejduk is its tendency to become overly institutional and dogmatic. As a response to Modernism, Hejduk advocates the avant-garde movement of the late 60’s. She begins in her writings a debate about what architecture should promote through its form and function.

Modernism as an architectural movement succumbed to tendencies of being overly formalized to the point that buildings of the early to mid 1900’s followed a sort of unspoken doctrine of what architecture should be. To reexamine this movement, avant-garde architects began to reject Modernist design principles, so completely that they embraced technology and the resultant possibility of mobile architecture. As such, architecture would essentially evolve into an expression of each individual, adapting to the conditions of the dweller.

This response to structuralized society would transform architecture into something completely different than Modernists would have intended, and arguably for the better. On the one hand, there is Modernism with its structured hierarchy of ideas as a reflection of the society that gave birth to it. By this conception, people tend to be defined by the built world they inhabit, but they might find comfort within such a system. Contrastingly, the avant-garde approach allows society’s inhabitants to begin to shape their built world as an interactive network of individual spaces. But with this notion comes uncertainty of how these idealistic communities might function in a realistic environment.

Therefore, although Modernism proves its faults to be related to over-formalizing the built environment, Hejduk’s avant-garde solution lacks reliability as an applicable idea. This is not to say that Modernism or avant-garde architecture is any more successful than the other. My point is simply that any sole movement or doctrine cannot define architecture. As in my essay of Steven Moore, I argued for process as the driving element of architecture. Here I also assert that only after we understand Modernism and its avant-garde response in conjunction with one another can we begin to resolve the issues with which both are concerned. It is this process of exploring possibilities that we are able to advance architecture.

Laura Hamm [: Stephen Verderber]

2008-03-09T22:05:00.001-04:00

Dr. Verderber’s lecture on evidence-based initiatives and design was interesting. I felt like I was missing parts of what he was talking about because the lecture was the continuation of a lecture he gave last semester, but overall, it forced me to think about different aspects of committees and organizations and the types of people that need to be a part of it. I thought the way he assigned each of us a specific “job” was a good way of showing who the players would be should an organization like that be formed as well as how their different perspectives play different roles in the organization and its formation. It was also an interesting activity to have us each list three positives and negatives of having the organization’s offices here on Clemson’s campus in Lee Hall. There were lots of similar responses but there were also different aspects that other people thought were important but had not crossed my mind. I was assigned the role of Chair of the Landscape Architecture department. I thought that the buildings historical significance, the easy access to parking without long walks across campus, and the fact that so many different departments (architecture, landscape architecture, art, etc) being housed in one building were positives. My negatives were lack of space (the building is already very cramped), not being in an urban environment, and distance to the airport (for people coming to meetings and conferences) were three issues that were downfalls to having the office here in Lee Hall. All and all, I thought it was an interesting lecture but I do wish that I had heard his first lecture so that I would have a better understanding of evidence-based initiatives and design as well more about the program/organization he was discussing.

Dustin White [: Renata Hejduk]

2008-03-09T21:14:00.001-04:00

Renata Hejduk’s article "A Generationon the Move: the Emancipatory Function of Architectural in the Radical Avant-garde 1960-1972" is an introduction on mobile environments that came out of a philosophy of British and European philosophy in the 1960’s and 70’s. The idea of psychological freedom, liberation, and freedom were topics of debate during this time, as were social movements for civil rights, feminism, and free speech. The radical avant garde (Archigram, Archizoom, and Superstudio) generated work on the concept of freedom and emancipation. There was concern that society had restraints and restrictions on freedoms of the individual.

The 60’s were a time when people were beginning to question government and were seeking liberation and freedom. The 60’s were a time of protest with people seeking something more out of life a “quality of life” that they felt they did not have, a time when the “hippie” movement arose. They were people that were seeking counter-cultural values, who rejected the mainstream, people who wanted to break the restrictions on their freedoms, and created mobile peace convoys. This movement began to affect architecture at the time, and had groups such as Archigram, Archizoom, and Superstudio generating futuristic work, that were drawing inspiration from technology in order to create a new reality that was solely expressed through hypothetical projects. The projects were committed to light-weight, high-tech approach that were focused towards survival, technology, and experimented with mobility through the environment. These groups had an idea that through technology people would be able to control there own environment, there work took a nomadic and portable approach. Their strategy was to approach the world’s surface and mobility to achieve personal freedom.

Hejduk states that the work of mobile dwellings did not give us the freedom to roam the earth like nomadic hippies, but rather laid a set of ideas that the functions of the work promote physical and psychological freedom. Through these ideas we can draw a conclusion that through this lifestyle of being mobile, we as a society will be less interested in using material objects to give us the freedom in which we seek. Hejduk states that through these beliefs and values a new architecture would be created one that is not dictated by form that functions would take, but human freedom would be instrumental in dictating the future of architecture.

Gloria Ham [: Renata Hejduk]

2008-03-09T21:12:00.000-04:00

In “A Generation on the Move: The Emancipatory Function of Architecture in the Radical Avant-garde 1960-1972,” Renata Hejduk speaks about the radical avant-garde’s ideas for a mobile society. Hejduk focuses on the British and European architects and urbanists of the time. During this time, freedoms for the people were what these architects used as a basis for their theory of architecture, that it should be as mobile and free as the people themselves.

While an interesting theory about how to take architecture into the future, it is not necessarily what the world needs or is even ready for. While a majority of people wanted the freedom to do what they wanted when they wanted, this did not necessarily include the idea of architecture being a completely free moving world. The avant-garde’s ideas of a completely mobile world were the thoughts of creating a utopia for people by allowing them as much freedom as they chose.

The biggest problem with this freedom of architecture for the world is that, if enforced, there would be so many that would not consider it the utopia they had always dreamed of. To live in a space that meets the minimum requirements for living is not the ideal form of living that many want. To be without much that shows individuality and to live in houses that are all the same actually seems to contradict part of the ideas about freedom, especially the freedom of expression that so many believed in at the time. As well as the individual complaints many might have towards this form of living, it would only become more difficult for society to function. How would these mobile homes continue being produced if the entire world were mobile? Who would stay in one place to make these products if everyone wanted to be mobile? How would people learn trades or anything for that matter? It would be difficult, if not impossible, to accomplish all this if everyone were nomadic.

Lauren Sandy [: Stephen Verderber]

2008-03-09T21:10:00.000-04:00

I was disappointed when I found out Dr. Hejduk was sick and would be unable to travel to lecture on her analysis of the 1960’s civil movements and the impact architecture had in advancing the same. Students were offered the opportunity to attend Dr. Verderber’s lecture on evidenced-based community health center design being given to PhD students. The lecture was short, but thoroughly packed with practical and critical communication tools for architecture, landscape architecture and planning students.

I will focus my comments as it pertains to the field of architecture and architecture studies. Perhaps it was best that I arrived in school fall 2006 as blissfully naïve and ignorant as I was of the public perception of architects and their designs. My biggest initial obstacle was not my lack of design background, but the relative strength of my verbal and written communication skills. Architecture school is about showing and clients cannot “see” words, they want to see images, and I had to learn quickly how to show people my ideas and rely less on speaking and writing.

It is interesting that as I progress through school, I am forever grateful that I can string a sentence together as I have learned that architecture students are not renowned for their speaking or writing. What has become apparent is that oftentimes, the relationship architects have with clients and the larger public could be improved if architects were taught to communicate in a thoughtful, concise manner that the public could understand. Perhaps the perception of architects as being arrogant and out of touch with the tastes and desires of the public could be improved if architecture students were forced to not only speak and write more often, but if they had to do so publically. Dr. Verderber’s lecture appeared to propose these same issues and offered a quick role-playing exercise to help design students begin to think not only about communication but to consider which tools are the most appropriate in different situations.

Students in Dr. Verderber’s lecture were assigned the task of role playing as the various stakeholders involved in the establishment of a new university institution. The goal of the exercise was not to create an institution, but to illustrate one technique for helping remove barriers that present themselves at the onset of a planning and design project. Students were extremely interested and engaged in the exercise. At the end of the simulation, students asked questions and debated the communication gap that exists between planners and designers and the larger public. If you were to have taken a survey at the end of the class, there would have been overwhelming interest in establishing a regular series of communication classes for design professionals.

Years ago I had a debate with an artist who told me that the public did not know what art was and that it was incumbent upon the artist to tell the public what was art. I found the statement arrogant and told the artist as much. I felt the same way then as I do now that the public is well aware of what they like and why. I think the public is very open and receptive to new ideas and applications, but only if we, the designers, learn how to effectively to communicate in a way they can understand and appreciate. I thank Dr. Verderber for demonstrating one way to accomplish this task.

Adam Berry [: Renata Hejduk]

2008-03-09T21:03:00.001-04:00

In her essay in Transportable Environments, Renata Hejduk discusses the cultural and theoretical framework that initiated the ideas and designs for architectural environments that might “move, expand, plug in, tune in, and turn on.”

This conception of “mobile architecture” was started by the Radical Avant-garde movement that questioned the function of architecture itself. The movement evolved during the 1960’s and early 1970’s, during a time when civil rights, feminist, and free speech movements were predominate; all which dealt with themes of freedom and liberation. This new Avant-garde generation of architects analyzed and critiqued the rationalism, functionalism, and mode of production of architecture during the Modern Movement. They did not totally disagree with the movement, but they were concern that it fell short of its intentions and this gave them a sense of repressiveness. They took these ongoing ideas of freedom to explore new ideas and ways architecture might resolve the conflicts and shortcomings of the modern movement. One particular drawback was the modernist’s ignorance to some of the advancements in post-war technologies of the time. Avant-garde groups such as Superstudio and Archizoom, and Archigram, began to consult science and technology as vehicle of liberation to create a new architectural image or philosophy. They believed that “in a technological society more people will play an active part in determining their own individual environment, in self determining a way of life. (Warren Chalk member of Archigram, 1963)” This would lead to a lifestyle that would be less dependent on the material world.

The Italian avant-garde architects prescribed a way for us to minimize our dependence on the accumulation of material objects through the development of prefabricated mobile dwelling units and micro-acclimatized infrastructures. My question for Renata Hejduk was this: Since "roaming the earth like a band of hippies" is not really conventional in today's society, much less sustainable; is this idea of "mobile architecture" still a viable option in minimizing our dependence on the material world (especially considering the technological developments in telecommunications and the generation of a "network culture")? I think the idea of “mobile architecture” is still very viable option, just in a different way. The world “mobile” doesn’t necessarily have to mean traveling cross country to change our environment. It can just be a flexibility in our architectural environment that allows for change in technologies that might make this change virtually. The architecture profession today has been making some of the same mistakes that our modernist movement ancestors made by ignoring some of the major advancements in technology. I feel like architects should be more involved with the development of newer technologies so that we can help define and shape the lifestyle of our next generation.

Tim Malinowski [: Renata Hejduk]

2008-03-08T22:57:00.002-05:00

In "A Generation on the Move: The Emancipatory Function of Architecture in the Radical Avant-garde 1960-1972," Renata Hedjuk speaks on the extreme theories of mobile futuristic architecture that came out of the generations that followed the series of wars that had disrupted civilization for the previous decades. Designs groups, such as Archigram and Superstudio, began to promote these radical designs in a society where the concept of freedom and human liberty were being demanded on many levels. You had nomadic “Hippie” colonies that began to spring up across America, elevating the idea of global harmony and a free-spirit lifestyle, while the Civil Rights Movement began to foster the principle of equality for everyone in society. The notion of Community and Culture were being radically tested.

The new architectural designs were promoting transient life. Some were represented in lightweight easily moveable structures, which took on a tent city form, while others depicted mega structures that could move entire communities across the land. It was architecture that would appeal to the revolutionary, free-spirited, self-ruling person, while combating the structured static forms of Modernism.

Upon learning about the theories of these design groups and seeing examples of their designs, I had to question whether or not their concepts had any real chance of coming into fruition. If the concepts were materialized, it seems that society would take a turn towards anarchy. How could a democratic nation exist in the form of wide spread mobile architecture? For example, a transient society would have a hard time accommodating such basic systems as: school systems, residency, voting systems, and any other system that exists in a democratic society based on organization and structure. This realization, in turn, is why I believe our present day population has not adopted such extreme concepts. Yes, people like freedom of expression, equality, and even the idea of traveling around a bit, but, at most, a two week RV trip out to a national park is enough nomadic life desired by the typical American citizen.

QUESTIONS FOR RENATA HEJDUK

2008-03-06T22:29:00.003-05:00

The Italian avant-garde architects prescribed a way for us to minimize our dependence on the accumulation of material objects through prefabricated mobile dwelling units and micro-acclimatized infrastructures. Since "roaming the earth like a band of hippies" is not really conventional in today's society, much less sustainable; is this idea of "mobile architecture" still a viable option in minimizing our dependence on the material world (especially considering the technological developments in telecommunications and the generation of a "network culture")?
[Berry]

In your essay "A Generation on the Move," you support a post-Modern, radical avant-garde notion of architecture that addresses progressive issues of technology, mobility, and liberation in response to the Modern Movement that restricted innovation in the 1960's. The avant-garde is essentially a response to the hault of progression. Would you then describe architecture as ever-progressing, always moving forward to eventually achieve perfection? Or would you describe architecture alternatively as fluid, always mirroring an imperfect, ever-changing society?
[Rogerson]

In your essay, Emancipatory Function of Architecture, you talk about how architecture would no longer dictate the form that functions would take, but the human mind or body and its ultimate freedom would be instrumental in dictating the future of architecture. What are some key examples of contemporary design that are getting to the heart of this idea that experience not function is the way that architecture should be moving towards?
[Bradley]

My question for Renata Hejduk is about the downfall of the modern design and today's style of architecture. She says that "third generation architects ... ultimately found the "modern project" to be unfinished, alienating, and repressive." I want to know who she believes will be the "third generation architects" of today's designs who will analyze and critique today's theories of architecture and design and ultimately cause their downfall and the rise of something new?
[Hamm]

You included Herbert Marcuse’s quote regarding technology, "ls it still necessary to repeat that science and technology are the great vehicles of liberation, and that it is only their use and restriction in the repressive society which makes them into vehicles of domination?" as having influenced new left thinkers, including architects. I understand the question being posed is that technology can liberate if allowed unfettered adaptation. Could you articulate to which technology Marcuse might have been referring? My own interpretation of your writing was that the liberation expressed was a socio-political. But there are also life-quality issues that have been impacted by technology as well. Having spent a number of years living in Phoenix, in many ways I saw technology (air-conditioning, automobiles, freeways) as having in fact imprisoned the valley residents by isolating from one another and making them dependent upon those very same technologies in order to survive.
[Sandy]

In your writing concerning Tschumi's theories on eroticism and transgression, the 'double bind' seems to imply that architecture is at its peak when it has a balance of "ideal and real", "life and death", "rational and sensual". Do you think architects can anticipate the "eroticism" of architecture in order to achieve the 'double bind' at the building's conception? And if the architect were to anticipate it would the ideal or theory then be a rationalized eroticism? If the 'ideal' and 'real' are mutually exclusive then how may the 'real' manifest itself?
[Brown]

Today most buildings are not creative and what type of building it is plays a large role in its shape. Apartments, offices and stores are boxy while curves are acceptable for a museum. Do you think architects should strive for a balance of function and creativity or that these norms should exist?
[Sena]

It seems that, if the ideals of mobile architecture and a nomadic lifestyle, held by Archigram, Super Studio, and other similar designers, were to be adopted by the masses, society would have shifted into more of an anarchic state of being? Is there any example of one of these extreme conceptual designs being adopted by our structured society?
[Malinowski]

In your article “A Generation on the Move: The Emancipatory Function of Architecture in the Radical Avant-garde,” you describe the future having individuals that move fluidly through out the world and along with this, movable structures. How could this be possible when the world needs certain institutions, like government, to be immobile and reliable?
[Felton]

Andrew Rogerson: Steven Moore

2008-03-05T22:33:00.001-05:00

In his lecture, Steven Moore asserted that process is the medium of architecture. I visited this subject in an earlier synopsis of Stephen Parcell, relating architecture to a techne. So I should revisit my previous question: What is the medium of architecture?

The practice of architecture can be understood as a process of predicting conditions so as to understand the potential consequences of building a certain way. In this sense, an architect’s success cannot be sufficiently measured until his or her work proves its worth and certainty of its consequences are realized.

However, I attest that this particular understanding of the practice of architecture is troublesome and counterproductive as it misunderstands the spirit and nature of architecture as a design process. Rather than focusing attention to evaluating architecture and its shortcomings, we should instead address the productivity of what architecture achieves.

No design can possibly satisfy the requirements of an ever-evolving society, in totality. So rather than evaluating architecture as though it should resolve the world’s problems, we should see it for what it is – a process of case studies and detailed analyses which addresses individual design issues one at a time. In this sense, the focus returns to what I argue to be architecture’s medium – process.

Thinking of process as the medium in which architects work allows the evaluation of architecture to be based on its intent and conceptual worth. This idea combines the deontology and value ethics principles into one comprehensive notion of how architecture can be thought of in an optimistic and productive way.

Lauren Sandy: Steven Moore

2008-03-05T22:32:00.000-05:00

The lecture this week provided an insightful and engaging interaction between the lecturer and the audience. The topic of green development and theoretical issues was relevant. Prior to the discussion, students read a number of Dr. Moore’s writings on green development theories and models.

Dr. Greene articulated three broad green development and assessment models that were either positivist (post-positivist), emancipatory or constructivist in theory, depending upon the motives of the controlling organization (government agency, industry, or non-government organization). What made the readings particularly interesting was the reference to the writings of other architects and academicians, namely the reference to Dr. Ted Cavanagh’s Chinese Wood Technology Standardization paper. I think for most of the readers, these examples put names and faces to what would have been otherwise impersonal examples.

A student led discussion outlined models of how and why various green development standards were created. The questions that arose focused around what models, in the opinion of Dr. Moore, were the best for today's market economy (mortgage crisis, falling home sales prices). From the discussion, students submitted individual questions for Dr. Moore to answer during the question and answer session after his formal lecture.

What Dr. Moore did that was unique was that he tailored his discussion to address the issues and concerns of the students. Dr. Moore added slides to his presentation and students responded very favorably to the lecture. Students appeared to be engaged and interested in the lecture. After the lecture, students broke off into small informal groups to further discuss the lecture and issues brought up by Dr. Moore. Overall, the lecture was a rousing success and provided pertinent examples that the students could relate too. Hopefully Dr. Moore will return to campus again one day.

Harrison Wallace: Steven Moore

2008-03-03T22:29:00.000-05:00

After listening to Dr. Moore's lecture, I agree with many of the principles that he noted on how we can move towards a more sustainable world. I had never heard of the concept of sustainability until two summers ago when I studied abroad in New Zealand and Fiji, taking courses on the necessity to create places that were eco-friendly, culturally conscious, and socially equitable. From that experience, coupled with Dr. Moore's thoughts, architecture seems to be one of the most influential means of creating a sustainable world.

As LEED certification seems to be the first major step towards educating architects on the importance of environmentally aware design, it is important to not only support the good qualities of such an initiative, but also be critical in an effort to ensure that we do not go down the wrong track. Dr. Moore noted three models of sustainability: economic, environmental, and social. By definition, LEED satisfies the environmental model, and more and more, green design seems to be economical, not simply in long-term energy savings, but as people become more educated in the benefits of LEED, demand for these buildings will grow.

So, we are left with the social model, and this seems to be where LEED is lacking the most. Arguably, this could be the most complicated model to understand, as it must engage social equity, the urban fabric, and, most absently, cultural factors. This goes back to my study abroad in Fiji. For example, imagine a LEED certified resort built on a Fijian island. While being LEED, this resort would have been designed no differently than had it been built in the Bahamas, Hawaii, or Thailand. Locals, who had survived for generations farming, fishing, and creating traditional art, are now making beds and serving Coca Cola to the guests who care only that the weather is nice, the water is clear, the accommodations are Western, and the food is edible.

There is something wrong with that picture, and the current state of LEED is not doing anything about it. And, this does not have to be some imaginary resort half the world away. Take Norman Foster's Hearst Tower in New York. Though LEED, that building does not seem to care about anything other than being LEED, leaving me excited about the possibilities of LEED, but disappointed that it seems to be more financially driven than socially relevant.

Gary Brown: Steven Moore

2008-03-03T22:27:00.000-05:00

What is the role of an architect? Throughout my architectural studies, working in firms, and observing popular perception, I have always been taught that architects are strange people with strange thoughts that build sometimes bizarre and fantastic buildings and work for only the people that can afford them. Admittedly, this was a very naïve perception. Slowly I have come to realize that architecture is becoming very similar to other professions in the world today. Take lawyers for example. This is a profession that requires many years of schooling and licensing like architecture. Within this profession you have many different specializations of lawyers; real estate, criminal, divorce, insurance, etc. And within those different categories there are a range of lawyers that work for very little or no money to superstar lawyers that only the elite can afford. The architecture profession is, and should be, moving toward this level of diversity and specialization. This realization was further reinforced by the writings and the recent lecture from Steven Moore.

In his lecture, Steven Moore describes his view of the role of the architect not as a heroic visionary of the built world but as a humble public servant. His vision is that architects should be what he calls, “citizen architects”. These architects would work closely with the community and clients to make design decisions. This is not to say that architects would simply be facilitators of a client’s ideas. Steven Moore says that “Everyone is a designer”. Meaning that everyone has the capacity to design but that architects are professional designers and it is our job to teach, listen, and guide clients through the design process. In this way, architects can create truthful and effective architecture that addresses the social, environmental, and political forces that define a local culture as well as their basic functional needs.

This, again, brings me back to architectural education. I have said before that architecture schools lack any instruction in the fine arts. It may seem irrelevant to architecture at first but fine art is about light, shadow, color, texture, space, thought, and emotion. How is this not relevant to architectural design? Like fine art, architecture schools seem to lack in any instruction, aside from the studio, in developing skills to teach, listen, and guide individuals outside of the realm of architecture, skills necessary to be a “citizen architect”. It is unreasonable to assume that schools should be responsible for teaching technical, social, artistic, and design skills within one degree program but perhaps architecture schools could become more diversified in their programs by offering a variety of specialization options that more accurately addresses the goals of the individual students. If architecture is moving toward a more diverse and specialized profession, like the law profession, then more diverse and specialized programs within schools will have to become a reality.

Chris Bradley: Steven Moore

2008-03-02T22:26:00.000-05:00

Dr. Steven Moore began his lecture with this idea that there are three competing models of sustainability: economic, environmental, and social. The economic model is based off the supply side of economics. Having things is important and resources should be used efficiently. It also is about how nature exists only to support human life. The environmental model is based off the demand side of economics. Doing things is important and we need to restrict consumption of our resources. Nature is the reason that we become human. The social model is based off the idea of life enhancement. We only need to learn enough to evolve and keep society running fluently.

Dr. Moore also talked about the 6 competing values of sustainable architecture. These were eco-technic, eco-centric, eco-aesthetic, eco-medical, eco-cultural, and eco-social. Eco-technic values are based around the idea that technology is the cure for all our problems. Everything that we design should be extremely advanced and bringing us toward futuristic styles. Eco-aesthetic values are the complete opposite of eco-technic. With eco-aesthetic values, buildings should begin to look like nature and technology should be nowhere in sight. In between these two is eco-centric. With eco-centric values, you get the sense of technology being used in an organic way. Through this type of sustainable design we should start to change our views of what nature really is. Eco-medical values show that the world is polluted and that places should be a lot cleaner. We need to design sustainable architecture that is healthy and common. Eco-cultural design is about how architecture is affected by cultural practices. Architecture should be designed to deal with the cultural surroundings of different areas. The last value of sustainable architecture is eco-social. In this idea, places should be “decentralized, non-hierarchical, and socially cohesive.”

Which one of the 6 competing values of sustainable architecture is the correct one is always the question. However, the way to figure out which one works the best is to just get out and build something that gets to the values of yourself and your client.

Gloria Ham: Steven Moore

2008-03-02T22:24:00.001-05:00

Steven Moore’s lecture focused on sustainable design and the many different types of it found throughout the world. The first thing Moore did was to define sustainable design as “that which meets today’s needs without compromising the ability of future generations to meet theirs.” This definition allows for many different sets of values to be applied to sustainable design, especially considering that there is a continual increase of choices available for sustainability. So then, which set of values is the true sustainable architecture, should we have to pick just one, and how do you pick?

So with that in mind, he explained that there a few conclusions about sustainable design. The first is that ‘sustainable’ architecture is a concept or discourse very much under construction, so its meaning will not be discovered in the lab, but constructed in public space. The second conclusion is that the pluralism of sustainable architecture is a perceived obstacle to those who would standardize a set of best practices.

Interestingly, even though there is a constant renovation of the definition of sustainable design, people still try to create a set of values that would be considered the set of values for sustainability. So then, how do people with different ideas of sustainability come to an agreement about it? As the architect, you need to take different pieces of what everyone wants and combine them to come to a compromise. However, this is mostly only possible on the small scale, with individual projects.

In the bigger picture, it is definitely harder for people to come to agreements because they all have different ideas of what is best. On top of all of that, there are constantly new choices that can also influence what people think of sustainability.

Kate Dixon: Steven Moore

2008-03-02T22:18:00.000-05:00

In his lecture, Steven Moore inspires a new approach towards green design and how it exists in our world today. He categorizes the diverse architectural approaches to green design into six groups. In the discussion following, there was a helpful comparison made between the six groups and religion. The commonality being that people feel strongly about his or her own beliefs. I thought this was a great way of looking at where we are with green design. However, as architects, we are in a field that requires learning and growth. We seek out ideas and knowledge for inspiration. I believe we should show the most flexibility in our approaches, especially with a subject that is growing and transforming so quickly.

The challenges of green design, for me, are being aware of both the little picture and the big picture. A house can be perfectly green, built with respect to the environmental conditions of the area and using environmental conscious materials, but be out in the middle of nowhere. This house is a wonderful idea but the world consists of a lot of people and we do not have enough land for everyone to have their own ‘one with nature’ home. Besides our society does not work that way. We are commuters, be it walking, driving, or public transportation, we travel each day together to work, to take our kids to school, to socialize, etc. That is why I believe we need to remember to look at the bigger picture. Perhaps, the way our society has organized itself should be rethought. I do not believe we, as architects, can think only of the building. A building is just a small part of the issue.

Ben Felton: Steven Moore

2008-03-02T22:14:00.002-05:00

Steven Moore, a Science and Technology in Society (STS) professional, addresses the issue of sustainable development. Sustainable development, by definition, is the ability to meets today’s needs without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. Moore elaborates that there can be three models of sustainability: economic, environmental, and social.

The economic viewpoint assumes that nature exists to support human life. The main idea of this viewpoint is to consume as much as possible of an object and to leave little waste behind. An example would be whole-tree forestry. Moore sees this as a modern way of thinking. The environmental viewpoint treats nature as a subject. The main idea of this viewpoint is to reduce demand. An example would be restrictive-zoning. Moore sees this as a post modern way of thinking. Lastly, the social viewpoint see human and nature operating together like quasi-objects. The main idea of this viewpoint is to be life-enhancing. An example would be rain-water harvesting. Moore sees this as a non-modern way of thinking.

Moore then proceeds to break these down further into six separate methods that hold different values: eco-technic, eco-centric, eco-aesthetic, eco-medical, eco-cultural, and eco-social. But Moore’s big question is “Which of these six are the right methods to use?” The obvious answer is that a combination of the six is the best way to approach sustainable architecture. However, this does not limit approach to just these six, because as Moore stated in his articles, it is hard to define sustainable architecture due to the constant changes in the aspects of our world. Another method could be added to these six or one of the original six may be dropped altogether.

An interesting topic is LEED’s connection to Moore’s lecture. It seems as though LEED only addresses environmental but does not include social and economical factors. Could the future hold establishments like LEED that address these other aspects of sustainability? And if so, will these establishments conflict with each other like the six methods known today? Then, like the six methods, will this combination of LEED with the other establishments create something much larger and ideal? Sustainable architecture can not just be about environmental issues, but it should also include social and economical issues.

Tim Malinowski: Steven Moore

2008-03-02T22:12:00.000-05:00

Dr. Steven A. Moore is a professor of architecture at the University of Texas in Austin, directing graduate studies in the area of sustainability, and co-directing the Center for Sustainable Development at the University of Texas. He has published essays and books on the issue of sustainability and came to Clemson to speak on the topic.

Through Dr. Moore’s lecture, I came to understand that architects do not always value the same characteristics of sustainable architecture. There are many different “value systems,” as Dr. Moore put it, that an architect may devote oneself. Some may view “Sustainable Architecture” as architecture that incorporates advanced, efficient, people friendly technology (in the form of very modern looking designs), while others may view it as architecture that actually looks like nature (mud built structures for example). In the end, Moore claimed that “Sustainable Architecture” is a discourse. The best way to determine positive sustainable design and construction practices is to experiment and analyze the consequences.

This led me to a new question on the topic. It seems that architects are becoming “Sustainable Architecture” savvy. Architects are the ones theorizing and performing the discourse that Moore speaks of, but what about the areas of construction that architects have little, to no, input? What about the American housing industry? I learned from John Brown’s lecture that most people who desire to build a new home go straight to a contractor and bypass the architect, which leads me to question how sustainable architecture will reach into housing production.

Dr. Moore explained that it is an inconvenient truth, that architects do not have much say in the production housing boom that has taken over America, however, they can help condition the industry. One way for architects to enter back into the housing industry is through code and standard development. If codes begin to call for sustainable construction practices, then sustainable architecture will be the result. Moore states that “Architecture is not autonomous.” Architects need to delve into other disciplines in efforts of modernizing the nation through expert design advice and analysis.

Megan Craig: Steven Moore

2008-03-02T22:09:00.000-05:00

The foundational Brundtland definition for sustainability describes sustainable development as that which meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. Sustainable development within this definition is derived largely from facts. Information gathered from technological research directs the path for development. Steven Moore, Professor of Architecture and Planning at the University of Texas at Austin, argues that sustainability, rather than laying its roots in facts, instead arises from a foundation of values. The ways in which we determine our needs often parallel our cultural and personal ideals. Moore proposes that sustainability is therefore the materialization of our values.

Varying sets of beliefs lead to unique ways in which a building materializes. Moore describes three models of sustainability to demonstrate the influence of our values on the characteristics of sustainable development. Economic, environmental, and social models each reflect a community’s focus, and in turn, direct the path for sustainable development within that community.

An architect’s role in the sustainable movement is determined by his set of values, which direct the way in which his buildings materialize. Architecture is not an autonomous aesthetic practice, Moore claims, and the architect’s responsibility cannot strictly lie within the building alone. Moore supports a consequentialist view that the value of an architect’s work becomes evident from the building’s role in society. This is to say that the way in which a building is received over time dictates the architecture’s relevance. The architect’s work represents the values of both himself and his client, and the nature of these values ultimately determines the scope of the architect’s responsibility within sustainable development.

Toni Sena: Steven Moore

2008-03-02T21:17:00.001-05:00

Steven Moore examined the definitions and changes of sustainable design much like Steve Parcell did with the changing definitions of architecture. I didn't know there were so many types of sustainable design or that they followed different value systems. I considered sustainable design as design that was just better for the environment.

Moore divided sustainable design into the three models of economic, environmental, and social. He later contrasted six different groups of values.

The three different models of sustainability were based on three different view points toward nature. The economic model had what he considered an anthropocentric attitude toward nature. In this model, nature is viewed as something that exists to support human life; by knowing something we can predict and control it. The second view, the environmental model, takes an eco-centric standing. Nature is viewed as something that has rights; and experiencing nature is what makes us human. The last model is the social model; it symbolizes the end of nature. In this model humans and non-humans are both objects and subjects and knowledge is a transaction with natural processes.

Moore separated sustainable buildings into six value groups that he calls eco-techic, eco-centric, eco-aesthetic, eco-cultural, eco-medical, and eco-social. Within these groups he discussed the different values, some of which are what a building should look like, what part should technology play, and what place should be. Some examples of what buildings should look like are futuristic, natural, and healthy. Places should be decentralized, in harmony with nature, or clean. After describing the similarities and differences between these values systems he asked us what we thought was right. There was no right answer to this question and nobody had one to give at all. He later said that these categories overlap and most designers fit in more then one.

I didn't realize that there were set belief systems that designers took on. I thought that as designers people should approach each design as a separate problem that needs to be solved in its own way. It is impossible to compare buildings with different locations and needs because they are too diverse and have different requirements to meet. I liked his comment that a good designer needs to be a creative listener because we shouldn't design for ourselves but for our individual cultures and societies that we are apart of.

Adam Berry: Steven Moore

2008-03-01T21:13:00.001-05:00

What is sustainable design?

This is the question Steven Moore asked in his lecture on the different practices and theories of sustainable design. He devised 6 different groups of sustainable practices that he believes to exist today and stated the goals for each. He then asked which one we believed to be the best example of a true model for sustainable design. He never really said what he believes to be the best, but left it as an open question that shows us how unorganized sustainable design is today. This is not necessarily a bad situation, since all are tying to solve the same problem. It’s a major question and difficulty that architects have today in design. Which logic, or set of values is the true sustainable architecture?

I believe sustainable design is much like a religion, and whatever the architect believes is what he will design. Likewise, sustainable architecture should not be totally standardized and regulated to the point that we limit our diversity and innovation, because I feel that this is something we can learn from. However, there still must be common goals set in all types of architecture to make them better for the environment.

In a later part of this lecture, Moore spoke about how the modernization of sustainable design can only happen through acquiring new habits, standards, and codes. He stated how you can build almost anything in the United States without an architectural stamp. This is especially true in residential market, as we’ve learned in previous lectures including John Brown’s. Architects might need to devise a new code or standard to become socially and community engaged. I think the code could be as simple as requiring an architect (who is educated, or at least conscious of environmental design) for every construction project. We can use sustainable architecture to teach to the public how to be environmentally conscious. I believe architects should be the leaders in sustainable efforts in today’s world.

Laura Hamm: Steven Moore

2008-02-29T19:48:00.000-05:00

Steven Moore’s lecture today was one of the best yet. Sustainability is a huge issue that, in our course work, is often skipped over for more traditional studio topics. His lecture brought a new awareness of sustainability and the parts of it that I had never tied together before. I also appreciated that the lecture was based off of the readings which made me feel like I had a base understanding and he could clarify where I did not understand and expand upon the ideas I had read about.

His discussion began with looking at three competing models of sustainability- the economic, environmental, and social. To compare them, he looked at specific aspects of each model by looking at the basic value, example practices, attitude toward nature, and philosophical assumption. That made it very easy to understand and then begin to form my own opinions, especially when he showed the slide with the matrix of all three models. I also found the competing values slides intriguing as they made me question what I thought I believed and readdress my opinions of certain aspects of sustainable design as well as opened my eyes to different aspects of our world and the issues of sustainability in it. Finally, he succinctly gave us his conclusions. This was extremely helpful as I felt like it reaffirmed what I understood from his lecture as well as made it so I did not have the frustration and feelings loose ends I have had with some of the previous lectures. All in all, I was very impressed and very captivated by his ideas and research.

I was also very appreciative of his interest in our questions and they way he had clearly thought about them before our class and included them in his lecture presentation. I felt like he genuinely cared and was interested. It also was nice to actually get an answer to my question.

My specific question was how long will it before the US follows the European Union’s (EU) lead in mandatory green building codes? His answer was that at some point the US will have some sort of mandatory green building code. However, it will be different than the EU’s. We will have to find out own, new way to incorporate a green building code into our system and it will not, in his opinion, be copied from what the EU already has in place. He related this question to his discussion that architects will have to take a new lead and way as well. They will have to become more connected and socially plugged in to be successful. The way an architect works and functions now will probably be very different in the future.

QUESTIONS FOR STEVEN MOORE

2008-02-26T22:45:00.004-05:00

DESIGN AND BUILDING

In the housing industry, the majority of people who desire to build a new home seem to do so without the assistance of an architect. Rather, they get in touch with a contractor who shows them possible floor plans that can be built upon request. How is sustainable design supposed to make its way into such a housing industry? Is it necessary for the home builders to become educated on sustainable building or does it all come down to the demand of the home buyers? Or, is optimized sustainable building achieved when architects make their way back into the housing market and bring their sustainable knowledge to the table? (T. Malinowski)

Have you seen any schools that really push green building in their studio classes and do you see more schools doing that in the future? (T. Sena)

Is there a way to design and mass produce a green home that relates to the environmental conditions of the site in our current layout of communities? Should we redesign our concept of a community first in order to take full advantage of the environmental conditions of a site when designing green homes? (K. Dixon)

BUILDING CODES

As you mention in Social Constructions of Building Codes, various municipalities and organizations have developed codes and programs for building sustainable architecture. Are there any successful programs for building 'green' cities that use the same kind of evaluation processes? If so, how do these programs promote awareness and social responsibility? (G. BROWN)

Many European countries have already adopted mandatory Green Building Codes. How long do you think it will be before the US follows their lead? Do you believe the new system will be points based (such as LEED) or more proficiency based looking at carbon footprint, etc? Also, who do you think will run it? Will it be an NGO, Government, Industry, or some sort of partnership between all or part of them? (L. Hamm)

Considering that different people have such different ideas of what sustainable architecture is, how do you think people could come to an agreement about what sustainable design is, especially with the continual increase of choices for sustainable design? (G. Ham)

ETHICS

Should sustainable architecture be concerned with not only environmental sustainability, but also cultural sustainability? It seems to me that as long as we are rethinking the LEED model, we should consider the value of regionalism towards architecture. (H. Wallace)

The Green code models you outlined seem to be directed towards residential new construction. As a result of the established processes for measuring and certifying sustainable development practices, a small but growing number of homes are being developed for sale to the public. What does not appear to be impacted by these codes to such a degree is the existing housing stock, which also happens to comprise the majority of all housing. What are the ethics of allowing this housing stock to complete its life cycle without attempting to sustainably renovate these homes? (L. Sandy)

CRITICAL ANALYSIS

In chapter one of “Sustainable Architectures,” it is stated that sustainable architecture is hard to define because of the constant advancement in technology. Do you ever see sustainable architecture equalizing out and finding its own definition or is the continual change in technology going to create new types of waste and demand sustainable architecture to evolve synonymously with technology? (B. Felton)

I am drawing my question from the reading about the Blueprint Farm. It seems like an architect can be drawn into the scientific aspects of green design, the minor as well as the major details, as to their use and the improvements thereof. When working on improvements of green design, when is it acceptable for an architect to delve into other fields, not directly related to architecture, for the answers he or she is seeking without the risk of placing the overall goal of a better environment in a stagnant state? (T. Harrison)

In your article "Sustainable Architecture and the Pluralist Imagination," you call for architectural theorist, such as Joan Oakman and Daniel Friedman, to continue investigating any affinity between pragmatism and architectural production. Are you saying there is a disconnect between architecture theory and sustainable design? Is it the practical aspects of sustainable design that lead to this separation? (A. Berry)

Some architects differ in their opinion of whether or not architects should focus their attention to cross disciplines in order to benefit architecture. For instance, David Leatherbarrow advises that architects should not confuse their sphere of influence for their responsibility. You seem to have a contrasting view, that in order to introduce some fresh thinking about sustainable design we must draw upon the humanities and social sciences (Sustainable Architecture and the Pluralist Imagination). How do you justify this concept of merging disciplines and discount the contrary? And how do you begin to draw a line that eventually bounds the scope of the architect’s responsibility? (Sustainable design can often negatively impact a capitalist economy while lavish architecture tends to have the opposite effect.) (A. Rogerson)

This semester we have had several lectures about architecture being interpreted through the ideas of art. In reaction to this should architecture be interpreted through the ideas of art, or should architecture be interpreted through the ideas and philosophy of technology? (D. White)

In your essay, "Sustainable Architecture and the Pluralist Imagination," you ask architects to expand the variables of their practice. To what degree do you really believe architects are responsible for the sustainable development of a city? (M. Craig)

Adam Berry: David Leatherbarrow

2008-02-26T07:43:00.000-05:00

In David Leatherbarrow’s article “Apart and Together: Vicissitudes of Architects in Practice,” he talks about a division of architecture practice into two task: design and documentation. He talks about how the practice of architecture consists of many skills in a range from art to science. Architects may strive to be a “well-rounded,” but unfortunately he is defined by what skills he or she might know.

As Leatherbarrow states, “no architect wants to abandon any traditional domain of authority, yet no one wants to be held responsible (or liable) for each of them.” Some architects only design and have no part in figuring out details or drawing construction documents. Many architects have become arrogant in their particular skill or task and have made the architecture practice as a whole divided and weak. Yet, each type of architect needs what it lacks and still needs to cooperate with its opposite to create architecture. Leatherbarrow states, “no architect can presume to be so well-rounded as to be competent in all aspects of architectural work; each is defined by what he or she lacks.”

I believe this division of architecture practice is simply something that is going to happen because architects will want to do the type of architectural practice they enjoy doing and use the skills that they have in the best way they can. I don’t believe this is a problem. I think a person who too readily pictures their self as well-rounded can be problem in today's practices. Architectural practice today should be the coordination of the ideas and skills of many minds and not just one.

Dustin White: David Leatherbarrow

2008-02-25T21:46:00.002-05:00

In the article "Apart and Together: Vicissitudes of Architects in Practice," David Leatherbarrow talks about the division of architecture into two tasks, design and documentation. He explains that architectural knowledge spans from art to science, and architects strive to be well-rounded (enkuklios paideia). The article is interesting because it points out the fact that architects want to be in control of their domain, but none want to be held responsible for each of them. He compares this division to Greek mythology and the rise of sexes. He talks about a third type of human, a human that was both male and female (a super human). This third type of human became arrogant, and began to think of itself as a god, and one day rolled itself up to Mount Olympus to sit among the gods. Zeus angered by this split each of them in two, thus leaving the third type of always yearning to be one again. Well rounded architects have become victims of their arrogance, and have become divided and weak. He states that in order for architecture to continue depends on cooperation, and if we are well-rounded individuals then we should have moral obligations to the profession. But architects can presume to be so well-rounded but to be competent in the aspects of architectural work. Rather then blaming our contemporary economy society.

Topographical Stories is a book about landscape architecture and architecture and how the two exist in close proximity to one another. Some argue that the two are separate fields, but Leatherbarrow gives a new way of thinking about the two. He shows how the two rely upon each other to create a single framework of cultural meaning. He redefines the two as topographical art, to express the patterns of our lives. In Leatherbarrow's point of view topography incorporates terrain, built and unbuilt.

David Leatherbarrow’s lecture was a bit hard to follow, but what I thought was interesting was how “the labor of the building was much more to him” it’s the way we identify with it. He talks about architectural labor as the effort a building takes to keep up, and describes this in two parts of the buildings moving parts, and ambient forces. Leatherbarrow goes on to define resistance. He says resisting means to survive, or come through. Resisting in which the buildings capacities, the energies it possesses by virtue of its materials preserves in a play of ambient forces that transform it into something other that an architectural work.

Chris Bradley: David Leatherbarrow

2008-02-25T21:39:00.001-05:00

How can architecture do something? How can it answer to the needs of our society? How can it be beautiful? Is there such a thing as theoretical perfection? These are a few of the questions that Professor Leatherbarrow posed to us at the start of his lecture.

First off, why do buildings look the way they do? It has something to do with the physical body of the building that is at work. You can think about in the terms of physics: for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. It is the counteraction that is the work that every building must perform. It does this in two ways. The first is moving parts. This could be anything like doors, windows, and screens. The second part is elements against ambient forces. These are things that are never meant to change position such as base structure. This could also be thought of as the separation between kinetic and static energy.

In accordance with this idea of work, Leatherbarrow also stated that there are two types of labor that a building must perform. It must resist and conform to the environment. In other words, a building must be built to last as well as serve its purpose in society.

Toni Sena: David Leatherbarrow

2008-02-24T22:01:00.001-05:00

David Leatherbarrow believes that architects should look for questions not answers. Moreover, there should be a defined responsibility for each discipline but there should be interdisciplinary observation and conversation. Architects have to find the answers to their own questions and search for a constant balance. This balance is about tolerating and resisting the forces that surround a building. The "suffering" caused by these forces and use is what defines a building's life. Whether or not this age should be shown is a matter of personal preference. I believe it also depends on the materials of the building because some age more beautifully then others.

Leatherbarrow stated that a building is not interesting in isolation and it should be depended upon its environment. I believe this is a true statement. When I think of a beautiful building it is because of how the light and shadows play both on the skin and the interior. I also think of the surrounding buildings or lack of them. Consider what styles they are and how do they relate to one another. How a building meets its landscape should also be considered because if it works with what nature has created before it is built I believe it could be more interesting and beautiful.

One of the inspiring parts of Leatherbarrow's lecture for me was the topic of light. He said that a building should resist and yield to ambient forces. He also said to try to look at light and transparency as a material. As a student I think some of how light will filter through my projects but it is more of an after thought then a material that becomes part of the process. Thinking of light from the beginning will have a positive effect on design. For me it is this test for architects that he proposes, a test on our limits of imagination and comprehension throughout our design process.

Megan Craig: David Leatherbarrow

2008-02-24T21:57:00.000-05:00

The reality of current architecture practice lies within design and documentation rather than the more well-rounded ideal to which architects traditionally aspire. David Leatherbarrow, Professor of Architecture at the University of Pennsylvania, recognizes that this desire for wholeness ultimately brings awareness to the edge, or limits, of the profession. In other words, the architect is inevitably defined by what he lacks. Leatherbarrow argues in his essay, “Apart and Together,” that rather than lamenting the loss of a broad professional focus, the architect should acknowledge, embrace, and benefit from the inherent limits of contemporary practice.

Leatherbarrow claims in his lecture that all realms of contemporary thought aim to overcome the “me-world” syndrome. The objective, therefore, is to put the individual back into the world. The contemporary architect contributes to this cause not through some all-encompassing project, but strictly through building design.

The architecture profession can relate to the wider domains of the world through the reconceptualization of the building as something active and reactive to outside forces. To act is to counteract, and from this counteraction, the building plays its part in culture. Leatherbarrow references Jean Nouvel, who claims, “my buildings put nature to work.” The environmental changes, which are internal to the building, ultimately activate the building. Through light, both reflective and transparent, what is outside begins to define the structure itself.

The examples cited by Leatherbarrow demonstrate the interrelationship between architecture and its site and between the architect and his world. Even through the acceptance of a narrowed focus, the architect responds to and influences exterior forces. The new definition of a well-rounded architect lies within a broad awareness of what is beyond building design. The architect’s responsibility, however, should represent the embrace of a more localized frame of reference.

Tim Malinowski: David Leatherbarrow

2008-02-24T21:52:00.000-05:00

One of Dr. Leatherbarrow’s published essays, Vicissitudes of Architects in Practice, brings to attention a very important issue in the area of architectural practice. In the essay he speaks of a division that has occurred in the field of Architecture. He compares the division to that of an ancient Greek super-human (fully male, fully female) that was divided into two genders by Zeus, the Greek king of the gods. The writing led me to question what the role of the architect truly is, and whether or not a desegregation of practices, such as Architecture, Landscape Architecture, and Engineering, needs to occur. Do they need to merge into one business entity, as John Brown would advise?

Upon hearing Leatherbarrow’s lecture, I came to understand that the architect has a specific role, in the process of building / environment development, that no other practice can usurp. An architect understands materiality more than any other relative discipline in the building process. He is the one that will make decisions concerning the quality of appearance and the interaction of materials with immaterials, such as light and wind. He is the one who can take pre-made building components and arrange them into an optimal design. Leatherbarrow stated, in his lecture, that “the architect has the authority and responsibility to put a buildings face in order for the public realm.”

Leatherbarrow goes on to say that it is not necessary for architects, landscape architects, engineers, and contractors to merge into one business entity. If the architect is having conversation with the landscape architect, the engineer, and the contractor, positive development can be achieved. The division that he speaks of in Vicissitudes of Architects in Practice, is a division in which there is a lack of conversation; conversation that needs to occur. As the architect, understanding your fellow disciplines can only assist you in your thoughtful design process.

Gloria Ham: David Leatherbarrow

2008-02-24T21:35:00.001-05:00

David Leatherbarrow’s lecture this week focused on buildings and the objects and materials within them. Leatherbarrow said that two things are key, what materials you use and how you use them. In a building, this is especially important because materials can both help and harm the way that the building functions.

A building is a style of resisting the world, or accepting it. Due to this, the materials used in a building should also resist or accept the world. For example, the sun is part of the world that needs to be accepted for light and some warmth, but it needs to be rejected when it gets too hot. So materials used in buildings also need to be able to withstand damage. The materials used can determine if the world is accepted or rejected, because the light can be reflected, or absorbed, the object or material may shine, glow, or have no affect at all.

What is interesting is that parts of the buildings also change as much as the world. These parts include the windows and doors, because they are constantly moving, so these parts have to be accepting. Other parts of buildings, such as walls and columns, have to resist the pressures both internally and from the outside.

Ben Felton: David Leatherbarrow

2008-02-24T21:32:00.002-05:00

David Leatherbarrow’s lecture “Working Materials” was about exactly what the title implies, materiality. Unfortunately, as interesting as the lecture was, I felt as though I had left empty handed. Maybe I did not follow completely, but some of the subject matter that was addressed seemed to be obvious to me. Leatherbarrow stated that sun can be friend or enemy. A façade facing east can be clad in glass and bask in the light emitting from the sun or be a concrete wall to block out the relentless rays pounding down on the buildings interior. Leatherbarrow also includes heat, air, and wind as elements that we should consider in our architecture.

A good point on the lecture was the explanation of a building's potential and kinetic energy. Leatherbarrow, at first, seemed to fall closely to the theory side. However, this talk of energy relates back to physics which is commonly associated with practice side of the spectrum. I can always appreciate architects and architecture that acknowledge engineering, physics, and mathematics, since these elements lead to the birth of architecture. Stating how doors and windows were examples of a building's kinetic energy and retaining walls and columns were examples of potential energy is what I found most interesting about the lecture.

Although Leatherbarrow’s lecture had many aspects that were very interesting, I was left wanting more, further explanation as well as seeing more examples in architecture today.

Lauren Sandy: David Leatherbarrow

2008-02-24T21:25:00.001-05:00

Is a building a place where experiences occur or is the building itself an experience?

The building performs a much larger theoretical task than that of a shelter, opined Dr. Leatherbarrow. Dr. Leatherbarrow outlined the more active role a structure takes. A building can repel and reflect changing sensorial experiences.

Through a series of slides of architectural designs and paintings, Dr. Leatherbarrow illustrated how the building is a phenomenological force that has the power to admit/resist; absorb/emit.

The tension of the building is largely taken for granted and ignored by today’s theorists according to Dr. Leatherbarrow. The tension is kinetic and ambient and is a force against physical and societal forces. Much of what is produced today seemingly has no connection to its site, context and landscape and an innate tension exists. Dr. Leatherbarrow suggested that architects borrow a little from landscape architects in our approach to an overall design.

Dr. Leatherbarrow quoted Peter Zumthor, Martin Heidegger and Jean Nouvel’s writings about resistance and tension. Martin Heidegger himself seems to have been subconsciously alluding to the tension between the buildings and its site and context when he said, “to dwell is to garden.”

In some ways I was frustrated during the lecture due to my lack of depth in the theory of architecture and the 20th century writings. I did not disagree with anything Dr. Leatherbarrow said in his lecture, but it did pique my interest and now I find myself wanting to explore some of the key philosophical arguments of 20th century architects.

Andrew Rogerson: David Leatherbarrow

2008-02-24T21:17:00.001-05:00

Spheres of Influence and Accountability

In his lecture, David Leatherbarrow discussed the significance of distinguishing between the architect’s awareness, or sphere of influence, and his responsibility, or concentration. I found this to be an odd distinction to make as I feel that the two work hand-in-hand as dependent upon one another. Is the architect’s concentration not specifically and directly dictated by his sphere of influence?

I find that a person’s awareness and ability to react to their surroundings implies an obligation to account for his or her reaction to those surroundings. For instance, if a man witnesses another man trip and fall to the ground, it seems reasonable that the former would approach the latter to make sure that he was alright. Although the man’s occupation is not a doctor or a police officer, or some other public serviceman, it can be assumed that he is obligated to offer his assistance, as he is aware that the situation requires assistance which he is capable of providing. This is not to say that a schoolteacher should seek to solve murders of which he or she becomes aware, but rather that if a person’s sphere of influence overlaps with their capabilities, then they have an obligation to react.

Leatherbarrow specifically declined to address the issue of immigrant labor in the construction process of more expensive architectural projects, for example, as he claimed the problem occurs within our sphere of influence but outside of our responsibility. This seems a significant neglect of the political and philosophical responsibilities of the architect.

The philosophizing and politicizing about all relevant aspects that surround its theory and practice dictate a profession’s concentration. The relevant aspects of architecture include its design, construction, and all intermediate processes. Hence, the very term “concentration” requires a philosophy and therefore politicizes a professional’s field of study.

Laura Hamm: David Leatherbarrow

2008-02-24T21:14:00.000-05:00

I felt the David Leatherbarrow lecture was a bit confusing but had pieces that were helpful and easily applicable to designing and the design process.

His discussion on Zumthor was interesting. He said that materials speak their own language. I think that is very true. All materials have some form of beauty when architects use them in a way that is true to the material, they begin to have a language on their own as well as dialog between the different materials as well as the building. In that way, they can resist and yield to natural forces. I also agreed with his comments and discussion of environment being internal and integral to the building. The building functions not as a standalone piece of the landscape, but an integral part of the environment. In all cases, the building is going to be sitting on some site. The qualities of the landscape and the qualities of the building need to merge and become one smooth place on that site.

Leatherbarrow also discussed the roles of materials and the roles of people in it. I agree that materials play certain roles and that people using the spaces and materials also have certain task they perform. I would have liked to have had a better understanding of exactly what he meant, but overall, I agreed with the basic premise of his idea.

I believe that if you are successful at pulling all these pieces together, you will have a successful project and building. These pieces are the keys to answering what his initial questions of “What do you accomplish in a project” as well as “how/why do buildings look the way they do?”

QUESTIONS FOR DAVID LEATHERBARROW

2008-02-21T13:24:00.002-05:00

In the essay "Apart and Together: Vicissitudes of Architects in Practice", you begin with a quote from "The Second Coming." Having studied this apocalyptic poem in an undergraduate course, I think that it is clear that Yeats recognizes the downward spiral of an idea, which, in turn, causes the uprising of a new "rough beast" that "slouches towards Bethlehem to be born." While Yeats might have been commenting on Western civilization, your choice in an epigraph implies that such an idea might relate to the practice of architecture. Would it be fair to assume that you believe that architecture is on an invariable course towards its destruction, and that the future exists only in a new discipline, regardless of whether that involves a more general practice or increased specialization?
[Wallace]

In “Apart and Together: Vicissitudes of Architects in Practice,” you speak about a well-rounded architect, defined by what skill he or she might know or lack. Do you feel that a well-rounded architect would be more productive than the transdisiplinary practices of someone like John Brown, who believes architecture practice could be the coordination of several different skills and trades to complete a project?
[Berry]

In your essay "Vicissitudes of Architects in Practice," you speak of a division that has occurred in the field of Architecture, just as, allegorically, the ancient Greek super human was divided into two distinct genders. If our society wishes to achieve perfection in the design and development of the environment we live in, do you feel that the various fields of practice, such as Architecture, Landscape Architecture, Engineering, and Construction, need to join together as one business entity that works in constant collaboration on every project? Does desegregation of practice need to occur?
[Malinowski]

With the split of Architecture into two tasks, according to “Apart and Together,” Architecture cannot be considered whole. So, with the lack of Architectural design in many buildings today, do you think it possible that Architecture will degenerate into being a purely documentation discipline, or will this yearning to be whole keep both tasks from being lost?
[Ham]

In "Apart and Together: Vicissitudes of Architects in Practice" you speak of the separation of the encyclical creature into to two separate beings that are incomplete. Architecture as a practice is becoming more specialized through the many divisions that have taken place. Is it possible, as future architects, to get back to being the "whole creature", or do you feel that this idea has fallen to a more permanent specialized practice?
[Harrison]

In Topographical Stories: Studies in Landscape and Architecture, you discuss the relationship of landscape architecture and architecture. You state in the introduction that if both fields “seek to express their topographical character” that they will “recover their standing and role in contemporary culture.” Could you explain further how topography will accomplish this? How do you see the relationship between landscape architecture and architecture working in the future?
[Dixon]

In your article “Topographical Premises,” you describe landscape architecture and architecture as connected through topography. Do you feel architecture has this same sort of bond with , for example,
mechanical engineering in which they are connected through the medium of technology, such as the invention of centralized air and electricity?
[Felton]

It is hard to do readings that are critical of the practice model of architecture because then, in some way, you have to assess whether you are being adequately educated. If you come to the conclusion that your education is lacking, we do not have enough knowledge or exposure to know what we are missing. The readings we were given this week fall into this category by way of the discussion of architecture specialty divisions and topographic commonalities between architects and landscape architects. Rather than fret over something I cannot control much at this stage of my education, is there a way to accept and reconcile the divisions in a way that will improve the practice of architecture, or should we find a way to gain some measure of proficiency in an area that has been abandoned by architects?
[Sandy]

Where do you see the fields of architecture and landscape architecture going in the future? Will they remain as somewhat separate entities or will they merge more? From my point of view as a designer, I believe the two are very related in the area of practice but have been separated in the area of history and study. How does that change where the two fields are heading?
[Hamm]

If the reality of current architecture practice lies within design and documentation rather than a more well-rounded ideal, in which directions do you envision the profession moving if it is to acknowledge, embrace, and benefit from what it lacks?
[Craig]

Site, enclosure, and materials make up the fundamental tenets upon which architecture has been grounded. Any attempt at architecture must address at least one of these, while the most successful attempts incorporate equally ambitious explorations of all three. Meanwhile, you claim that landscape architecture exists in its own realm outside of architecture. I am curious to know: In what way does landscape architecture stray from these three basic tenets, and why can landscape architecture and architecture not be considered one in the same?
[Rogerson]

In Roots of Architectural Intervention you write that architects do not know enough about site. Do you think communities (and architects) would be better served if architects were to strictly work within the community in which they live where visiting a site and understanding local and social conditions are more easily understood (as, for example, Willem Dudok in Hilversum, NL)?
[Brown]

Ben Felton: Stephen Parcell

2008-02-18T23:07:00.003-05:00

A majority of the lecture consisted of the classification of what the fine arts. The first seven to be addressed was grammar, dialect, rhetoric, geometry, arithmetic, astronomy, and music theory. Through out history many people have argued for and against the placement of architecture in these seven fine arts. He further breaks down architecture’s elements of practice into the “Who,” which consist of the designer, the builder, and the dweller, and the “What,” which consist of material, drawing, and building. Parcell also addressed the fact that there was no word for architecture or architect when the actual act of architectural design existed. The word derived from the word architekton, which is Greek for chief builder. This word was then changed, in Latin, to architectus, which stood for inventor, and later coined the word architectura, which stood for architecture.

Parcell further explained that these seven fine arts would be categorized as liberal arts and things like painting, stone carving, building, and metal working were closer to the vulgar arts. A few other individuals, which Parcell talked about, included architecture and medicine in the seven fine arts, which fall into the liberal arts. I disagree with this classification of architecture. I feel as though it fits better in the middle of this spectrum of vulgar and liberal arts. The need to understand a materials appearance and physical properties would pull architecture toward the vulgar arts. Like metalworking, stone carving, and painting, architecture requires this intimated knowledge of that specific material. Like the liberal arts however, architecture cannot be represented by something physical. We can only see material things that are created as a result of this idea of architecture, like mathematics and grammar.

Laura Hamm: Stephen Parcell

2008-02-18T23:05:00.000-05:00

Dr. Stephen Parcell of Dalhousie University offered some great insight into the history of architecture and where the field originates from. I found his lecture very interesting and the history going all the way back to the ancient Greeks and through his discussion of disegno in the Renaissance fascinating.

So much of the practice of architecture today is very much related to the past. It is critical that aspiring architects have a great understanding of the field and where it has been to understand how it has changed and will change as well as the path that it is on. I felt like his lecture addressed the past in a way that is many times forgotten or not understood. Even the basics of the word architecture and the way he broke the word down into its roots and meanings in Greek and Latin was a wonderful way to get the idea of architect and architecture back to the basics of what it once was. He broke it down into the Greek tekton, which meant building and then moved to architekton which meant chief builder. A few times while he was discussing the word roots and meanings, he stated that architektons were not above anyone on the job site, but rather equals who acted as an organizing force not a boss. I found that to be a very important point that I feel the design field needs to think about and address. I think, too often, architects act like they are superior to the people who are building their projects but also superior to other professions. It was little dose of historical reality that if we, as the professionals of field of architecture, would take, it might make the building and design process go much smoother as well as change the point of view of people who are outside the field about those inside the field.

My question for Dr. Parcell was how to bridge the gap between the tradition and innovation and if we are faced today with a choice between traditional, or historicist, architecture or radical experiments. Though I never felt like he specifically answered the question, the discussion that resulted was interesting. He said that history enables us to appreciate differences in architecture and with other fields. He went on to say that “if we are immersed in our field, we can see the other fields and that enables us to look back and see our own.” By taking the opportunity to look at other fields as well as looking back at our own field, I feel like the potential for growth within the world of architecture is exponential. Using music as an example, he mentioned that “our concept of music has not changed since the mid 18th century” and that it is perceived within the context of the fine arts. Similarly, today in the field of architecture our paradigm is still fine arts. Dr. Parcell believes that when the next paradigm rolls around, all of what we have done in the past centuries will still be understood in the context of the fine arts not changing perspectives to whatever the new paradigm is. He also said that that if, and only if, we are within a fine art paradigm, can we return back to the techné paradigm? He thinks that we could revert back to the more craft-like but would do it without all the production that existed during the techné paradigm. To me, this seems to be taking the best that the past has to offer and integrating it with the modern technologies and conveniences that have come about in the past decades and will continue in the future.

Gary Brown: Stephen Parcell

2008-02-18T23:00:00.000-05:00

Dr. Parcell’s writing suggests that throughout history art and architecture have been closely intertwined. In architecture today, this interdisciplinary link is less obvious, if not non-existent, particularly in architectural education. Also, Dr. Parcell describes a relationship between the artist or craftsman and architects where the architect is not necessarily an expert in all fields but still has first-hand knowledge and skill in the trades he is overseeing. Again, this is definitely not the case with contemporary architectural practice. This led me to question architectural education today and to ask whether the lack of art education in schools and universities has caused architects and architecture to lose an element of craftsmanship and creativity.

Dr. Parcell's writings suggest that architecture has definitely detached itself from other arts, but I decided to briefly explore the question myself. First, what is the state of art education in schools and universities in the United States? To answer this I went to various college and university websites to see if art classes are part of the core curriculum in architecture programs. I looked at Clemson University, University of Virginia, Columbia University, Rhode Island School of Design, and Savannah College of Art and Design. The three universities had no art classes apart of the curriculum and the two art colleges had one year (six classes) that focused only on art and art history. I assume that these findings are typical for schools throughout the country.

Also, what is missing in contemporary architecture, which existed in ancient architecture, is the architect’s first-hand experience and expertise in the various trades needed in making a building. The average architect today has little to no first-hand experience in construction and the various building systems. This is not to say that they do not know how these systems work or why they are needed, but there are subtle complications that always come up on a job site that could be avoided if the architect has first-hand experience with the system.

So to answer my own question: yes, architecture has lost something of itself by detaching from the arts and sacrificing first-hand experience that both help to develop an architect’s craftsmanship and creativity. As yet another consequence, this ignorance undermines an architect’s authority over the various trades working for him. The next question is: How do we fix the problem?

Lauren Sandy: Stephen Parcell

2008-02-17T22:58:00.000-05:00

At one point in time, the Architekton was paid less than the craftsman was, and about the same as a soldier. This is curious since the very definition of an architekton was the chief builder as was generally a skilled craftsman. There was a shift when the craftsman (manual) was valued less and the architekton was elevated. You tied the shift to a change in the culture. Do you think this shift was in some way also due to the status or prestige of the architekton’s respective patron?

Dr. Stephen Parcell provided a very thorough presentation of his well researched historical definitions of architecture. At the most basic, his dissertation outlined the four historical definitions of architecture:
• Techne
• Mechanical Art
• Art Of Disegno
• Fine Art

The four definitions began with the earliest Greek definitions of architekton when the architekton (today’s architect) was the chief builder and general supervisor of the construction of civic buildings. Where the role and definition of architects and architecture changed can perhaps be best explained at the varying definitions as outlined in Greek (architekton = chief builder) and in Latin (Architecture = inventor).

It may be because of the differing interpretations of the definition of architect/architecture that the other three general definitions arose. The difference continues today in the ongoing debate about architecture and architects. There was no argument or criticism of the information gathered and presented by Dr. Parcell. An entire semester could easily be devoted to defining architecture/architects. But his lecture did invite questions about the role and culture of architecture/architects.

Are architects artists or are they technicians who design buildings? I myself have always viewed architects as artists who used their knowledge and talents to construct creative building solutions. But there are others that view architects as technicians that merely plan and design building structures in their most basic element. At first glance that sounds like the definition of architects as artists and architects as technicians are the same thing. But the distinction is in the creativity and aesthetic qualities of the design.

Dr. Parcell’s lecture has elucidated an issue that is greater than a debate over semantics and in fact about the very real debate of the role and position of the architect to the field and the greater public.

Andrew Rogerson: Stephen Parcell

2008-02-17T22:55:00.000-05:00

Relating the idea of techne, as a craft that can be described simply by
its medium, to today’s concept of architecture can be troublesome.
Within a society that strives to categorize and idealize basic forms or
ideas, architecture exists on its own as an ambiguous profession with no
universal definition. In different cases the architect may play the roles
of engineer, construction manager, contractor, real estate agent, client
mediator, or any combination thereof. Is it detrimental that the
architecture profession has no specialization or medium by which it can
be clearly defined and built upon? Or is this ambiguity beneficial to
architecture because it allows the opportunity for interpretation and
innovation?

Stephen Parcell described architecture as a sort of dodecahedron, whose
vertices are made up of the many concentrations within the larger
umbrella of architecture. This is a fairly common reading of
architecture, but it is a concept that hardly seems to be questioned or
analyzed as a positive or negative state of being. Like with all subjects
of architecture theory, this notion of a multifaceted area of study
presents certain fundamental questions concerning the present state of
architecture as understood in context with its historical progression.
Parcell’s studies address these exact issues, but to go a step further, I
would argue that this concept of architecture as a dodecahedron is
detrimental to the overall perception of the profession.

As a significant role player in today’s visual world, architecture takes
on many faces and associations. Some present beautiful interpretations
that positively resonate throughout society; however, because of the
broad scope that architecture covers, most of our built world represents
architecture that is disconnected and irrelevant to its context.
Buildings are doomed to be either too shallow in complexity or too narrow
in focus. They reflect their designer and can hence become
one-dimensional either because of the tendency for specialized architects
to focus on one or two aspects of design, or because of the general
architect’s broad but shallow base of knowledge.

It is my contention that we have outgrown our jack-of-all-trades
historical stereotype in the wake of technological advancements and
globalization. And instead, architects have become a glorified
sub-trade, whether it be artist/architect, construction
manager/architect, interior designer/architect, contractor/architect, or
some combination thereof. The scope which architecture encompasses has
outgrown the confines that can be logically undertaken by one profession.

Harrison Wallace: Stephen Parcell

2008-02-17T22:53:00.000-05:00

While it is evident that ancient Greeks had a lot of skill in their crafts, including architecture, are we to assume that the majority of buildings built in these times were built with such discipline, or were these lasting structures the result of a relative few highly skilled individuals. Certainly not all ancient Greek buildings were the Parthenon, so what was the approach to the "everyday" architecture?

While a trip to the acropolis makes you believe that the Greeks were highly successful in their attempt to make buildings that would last forever, it is important to know that this was the approach made towards only the public buildings. Before hearing Parcell's response, I believed that his contention was taken a bit out of context of the overall practice of building construction in ancient Greece, as only a few, highly sacred sites remain today, and it would have been completely impractical for all clients to expect such excellence from their designers.

Nonetheless, it would be interesting to know more about how ancient urban dwellings were built, and the design and construction approach to "mortal" buildings. Certainly, it is erroneous to assume that all ancient Greek "architecture" was done with excellence in craft and skill because a relatively small percentage of buildings had survived through the ages. Perhaps more knowledge of these "everyday" buildings would give better insight as to how "architecture" was really practiced in ancient Greece.