portfolio website

[kid]

...Or rather, not letting the power of the software/hardware overcome the idea - is that correct?...

 

Yeah, pretty much. I fell into the trap of pressing lots of buttons and being WOW'ed by the results, then some time later realising the piece of eye candy I had produced didn't really convey my theoretical basis behind the design. I know a lot of people aren't really interested in that side of it, and I may just be creating images to be appreciated by other architects rather than the general public, but it's personally important to me to express that theoretical base.

[garethace]

Did you see that private message, beside your name above mbr?

[kid]

eh, you talking to me?

 

oh, and what about D. where skin connects to wider context?

 

While we seem to be on the topic of Steven Holl, probably the most eye opening article I've read was his "Intertwining" article. He didn't rely on big words to try to justify pie in the sky theories, he just desribed in an every day language the 'real' experience of built form.

[garethace]

I know a lot of people aren't really interested in that side of it, and I may just be creating images to be appreciated by other architects rather than the general public, but it's personally important to me to express that theoretical base.

I think you will find you are wrong as time goes on, and more people do go through that initial 4/5 years of learning about GI and then say, 'hey, wait a minute, wasn't i supposed to be designing?' What strikes me about Mayne and Hadid, is how restrained they managed to be in making their images, more for the architectural concepts, rather than the punch value of a CG image with reflections etc.

 

MBR that is a fabulous scheme. I am delighted you have shown it. It doesn't look in any way inferior to the best sawn pearwood models made by architectural for schemes, in places like Columbia, Cambridge, Cooper Union etc. That is great.

 

The comment about Architects not trusting employees is this: If an Architect already tries to run a 20 person practice, like a one-man-show by checking all 2-D hard copies in the office. With poor computer skills and 3-D ADT files to deal with, that Architect is going to have a hard job running the practice effectively. No?

[garethace]

The private message was to MBR

 

oh, and what about D. where skin connects to wider context?

That is a combination of (b)skin and ©circulation actually. Notice how, most CG Artist renderings show:

 

(1) lots of people, which are only tiny brushstrokes really in context of the whole visualisation.

 

(2) Plenty of context, as in roads, service lines overhead, trees, sky etc.

 

Then look at most Architectural books, and tell me how often you see people in the photographs using the architecture. How often you can see a bit of Boston, Helsinki or Tokyo to put the Architect's building into some kind of context?

 

Aldo Rossi, often had kids running around his schools in his Architectural monographs, but is exceptional. Rossi, often showed some nice contextual photography of his works too - as if that was important to him.

[kid]

I think you will find you are wrong as time goes on, and more people do go through that initial 4/5 years of learning about GI and then say, 'hey, wait a minute, wasn't i supposed to be designing?'...

I think you mis-understood me. I doubt the general public go through 4/5 years of learning about GI.

[garethace]

I think that a piece of architecture like say, Nelson Atkin's Museum of Art in Kansas, seems to be a very good combination of space, circulation (internal and external) and skin treatment. That project has the whole lot going on, and isn't very complicated. That would be perhaps, my only criticism of MBR's scheme above. Perhaps it can be made a lot simpler, like the Holl project for the Art Gallery? I mean, the form externally. I know from your web site MBR, that you are capable of visualising all the interior spatial complexities of Steven Holl's spaces though. The interior view of the Holl Art Gallery in Kansas seem to be more complex than the external forms would show. Like you said about Holl's essay Intertwining, which I do remember reading at one time too. Steven Holl was one of the first Architects who got me into my current stance. But I would also have to include Richard Meier, Bernard Tschumi, James Stirling, Tom Mayne (similar to Stirling in ambitiousness and scale often) and some others.

 

Brian O' Hanlon.

 

[ September 26, 2003, 10:45 AM: Message edited by: garethace ]

[kid]

and apologies to fi3er for the massive hijacking of his thread.

 

feel free to join in the conversation fi3er

[garethace]

Here, here. Have you seen the world trade centre competition entry at http://www.f-o-a.net/flash/index.html

 

It looks interesting anyhow, must look at some more though.

 

[ September 26, 2003, 11:23 AM: Message edited by: garethace ]

[kid]

interesting design. I have to question the scale of most of these concepts. It could almost be mis-interpreted ( ) as arrogance, as we'll show you arabs, we'll build bigger and better than what you took out, that'll show you! ...Why don't they just paint a big red bulls-eye on the side? Anyway that's a whole other thread/website/book...

 

I was going through my bookmarks just before and had bookmarked this article but forgot to read it till just now. You may have read it but I found it quite entertaining (nothing to do with WTC site)- http://www.metropolismag.com/html/content_0303/may/

[mbr]

That's a really great article!

 

We had a unique opportunity to tour the site 90% through construction - no kids. Now it is fenced, so it's difficult to get in there. It is an incredible building, to say the least. One of my favorites.

 

 

His usage of the computer is strong. He believes in random formal discoveries. Basically beginning with an idea as form, creating and playing, then dissecting and experimenting with. There is 'logic' to it, but much of it is intuition (regardless of what some say, most form is controlled by the designer). That's how we used FormZ (much quicker to model than Max), was to design with.

He would show us piles of abstract things that he'd be working on, anything from his house to huge, abstracted egg-things (I believe he has quite a fascination with egg forms). Some pretty great stuff, all exactly like what we've been doing in school for ages (with basswood, etc.). So he taught like he practiced. That is 75% of the reason I chose UCLA over schools like Columbia.

 

 

One area that I think CG will help dramatically is with formal interiors. This is something that I think is extremely fascinating. With GI, we can now begin to create, and realize, the beauty of designs like Holl's and Meier's, without visiting a building. I think it could also help to sell the ideas of more abstract designs. Personally, I like Gehry's interiors as much as his exteriors. The 'random' juxtaposition of form creates wonderful skylights! This is something that would be huge in selling the design. Something that I was taught from day one - the experiential quality of space is what architecture truly is.

 

That's what we do, right, is try to sell a little experience? Hopefully this will/can be used to further the good designs out there.

 

Take a look at these guys. They're some of the best CG guys I've seen and their resume speaks for itself.

 

http://www.arte-factory.com/

 

Look at their usage of GI - it's great stuff!

[garethace]

I will have to leave that article for another day. But I was just thinking to my self here, how much this conversation is like an LA Architect, Australian Architect, Irish Architect joke!

 

Paddy Irishman always getting the punchlines!

 

See yez!

 

Brian O' Hanlon.

[xgarcia]

Originally posted by mbr:

... Something that I was taught from day one - the experiential quality of space is what architecture truly is...

Very true. Perez beat that into us even in Design 1. Great article on Mayne. Guy seems like a real mad scientist / architect.

[mbr]

Yeah, that's what made UF so special. At UCLA, we never discussed what someone, particularly someone outside of architecture, would experience in a given space.

It's too bad, but I guess it's also choosing your battles type of thing. At UF, when I began doing angular, abstract forms, I had to write a book to get it past the jury! At UCLA, no one questioned the forms (nor anyone elses). It was just a given that people would experiment with forms.

Neither good nor bad, but I think schools like UCLA and Columbia help those that have a understand of why they do things before they get there more than those that are starting with no background in architecture.

 

Mayne is quite a character. His passion for experimentation is remarkable. The first class that I had him he told us all "The hardest thing to do after 25 years in architecture is create something new". Indeed.

[garethace]

It's too bad, but I guess it's also choosing your battles type of thing.

Yes, there is a strand of Architectural thought known as the phenomenonological approach to architecture. Basically that very long word means, seeing architecture from the point of view of everyday people experiencing the architecture, space, garden, street or whatever. It is indeed a battle, that many people just decide to ignore completely. My 'Information and Architecture' discussion at Archiseek, was like that. A quite intelligent poster there, managed to carefully avoid my insistent request that (s)he respond to my opinions about 4-dimensional perception. And when I eventually challenged that poster, what I received was the usual, "You are confused, you aren't behaving like a professional, you are making no sense" kind of response.

 

As if I was saying that the military should be run by claire-voyants or something. I believe the poster at Archiseek, knew exactly which strand of theory about Architecture I was talking about, but chose to go around the argument quite skillfully, rather than confront it. Skilled intellectuals have a habit of choosing which arguments they want to address, choosing their own battleground.

 

Tschumi in Columbia, bases a lot of his arguments around what I have talked about - the phenomonological aspect. Making himself, his course and his projects very inaccessible to those you do not approach him from that standpoint. Formalism, is something that Andre Duany argues against too.

 

http://www.dpz.com/

 

I have a great deal of respect for Andre Duany's comments here.

 

Brian O' Hanlon.

[garethace]

Mayne's early work was eclectic, and it's difficult to describe a signature style, but there's a lot of metal, concrete, and glass in severe yet playful shapes.

I don't agree with this quote from the Metropolis article on Tom Mayne. If anyone here is vaguely familiar even with the 1980s James Stirling and the New York Five projects, is very easy to see where Mayne is coming from. Remember Tom Mayne really did 'grow up' in the 1980s, before Decon was invented by the Architectural journalists. Study Robert Venturi's book Complexity and Contradiction too, and look at some restaurant and house projects that Mayne was designing on paper, or building in reality. (Sections especially)

 

Mayne was ready, but he couldn't get the work. As recently as 1994 he had only six people in his office. He was lucky to get restaurant commissions.

He was very envious of Steven Holl back then I remember, and was quite depressed about being 'lumped in' with the Coop Himmelblau's. I think that Steven Holl has built a nice lot of projects by now, and is a very interesting Architect to look at from the point of view of built projects. I guess that isn't so with Tom Mayne, despite the fact, his projects are better presented than anyone else I know.

 

He says it's still his favorite building and insists that I go out to see it with him.

Yeah, that is Tom alright, Tom always wants to stick to reality, to show people his Architecture. Here is a scheme that I knew on paper along time before I got the opportunity to walk around it.

 

[ September 27, 2003, 07:36 AM: Message edited by: garethace ]

[mbr]

Yup, I am quite familiar with the term phenomenological. UF had strong ties to Columbia, very strong ties (similar to UCLA, I guess). One of my best Profs, Mario Gooden (who is starting to make a name for himself - http://www.huffgooden.com/), a Columbia grad, was very much interested in creating space through time. We first analyzed two of David Lynch's films, then made a video documentation of our site, from which we made crazy-cool models and eventually a building. Great stuff. The video allowed us to capture the site, to capture thoughts, etc., in real time, then to translate it into funky ink-on-mylar drawings and then to models hung from the ceilngs. Damn! I miss that!

But he loved Tschumi (and Hadid), and helped push us in that direction. I am very thankful for having the opportunity to learn through these methods. I hope I can use the video idea inconjuction with 3D sometime soon, now with technology getting cheaper (another area of where CG can benefit design)

 

This is where computers in school falter, I believe. It's too easy to make a funky form look pretty, be seduced by it, and never learn more. Actual building of basswood models cannot be overrated, imho. If I teach sometime, it will begin with basswood, plexi, and perforated aluminum. You make 'real' space.

 

But, I am not sure about DPZ. Personally, I fall more into the camp of Mayne, Hadid, Eisenman. Where form IS the most important way of realizing space, and, in turn, creating the phenomenological aspect that is so important. But we don't have to get into that discussion.

 

I had looked at http://www.dpz.com/project.aspx?type=3&Project_Number=9319&Project_Name=Prospect-Longmont

before, through another site. I am sure I really, really don't like the architectural 'style' of most of New Urbanism, but the ideas are interesting. This one, though, had some better designs. Interestingly, DPZ shows none of the nice designs on their site (I assume they had nothing to do with them). Look here: http://www.prospectnewtown.com/

 

I'd live there . Not too cheap, but probably the regular ballpark for semi urban homes. I will be moving to Co soon, so it was interesting to see whats going on there. I can't wait to watch the construction of Libeskind's museum - that's the kind of stuff that's right up my alley!

[garethace]

I edited the post above, with a link to my experiences of a scheme called Grove Island, a new Andre Duany type of attempt at creating denser urban living in Limerick city. I wish I had read more of Duany's stuff though, when actually working on that project on paper, 3/4 years ago. I mean, as Mayne points out, it is difficult to get his buildings built, but an Architect has to remain close to the idea of building - it is part of who we are. One of the things that I like about Daniels and Hector's web sites are the notion of building is readable at least from the sections and plan graphics. The relationship with the client, as well as the building thing, is something that some young 21 year old Architectural students seem to grasp very early. Read the poster SW101 here about society, politics and architecture. I was in college with that person last year, and I am amazed at how developed, if slightly idealistic and naive her approach is to Architecture. I mean, that young student is now going to complete a full thesis on Architecture. I would have loved to have been as level-headed about Architecture at twenty one.

 

Mayne was an angry, difficult kid. "I was a terror," he says. "In the hall or the principal's office all the time."

That was more me, I am afraid. :-(

 

I have developed my own, quite distilled, or personal, stream-lined version of the phenomenological theory for myself. But I did use a lot of references like Helmer Stenros, "Time, Motion and Architecture" book. Which is about experiments done using a model and a camera device in Uni of Tampere in Finland, during the 1980s. Tschumi I would say would have read this many times. Lynch, Bacon and Norberg Schultz too, are referenced by Stenros, as a Zevi, the essays of Frank Llyod Wright and more. Worth a read.

 

Brian O' Hanlon.

 

[ September 27, 2003, 07:59 AM: Message edited by: garethace ]

[garethace]

The Brooks counselling center reminds me a lot of Hertzog and de Meuron - there teach over in Harvard and places I think. Hertzog and de Meuron studied under Joseph Beuys, the artist and also with Aldo Rossi in Italy. Both of whom instilled in them, a great sensitivity to the city, the environment and how we experience it. I mean, Post Modernism, was essentially addressing the narrowing of the stratification of time, in modern Architecture. Instead of leveling the whole city, as Corb had done, and replacing it with a modern footprint. What Hertzog and De Meuron try to do, is to respect the existing grain and pattern of the landscape or environent, like the Brooks counselling center and other projects at http://www.huffgooden.com/

 

I like the ADDITIONS AND RENOVATIONS TO GADSDEN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL too.

 

[ September 27, 2003, 08:12 AM: Message edited by: garethace ]

[mbr]

I have much respect for Herzog and de Meuron. I've been personally interested in many similar ideas (mainly the 'inbetween', and the figure/ground relationship - Rowe to Eisenman stuff) that they are investigating, although slightly different.

I love the purity of their designs. They are so simple, yet seem so uncompromised. They consistently make interesting things that are new, which is remarkable.

 

Personally, I am very visually driven, so I only get so far with the theory before I have to see something real. That's the UF in me, I guess. We prioritized space and fairly simplistic ideas (not too much about chaos theory going on there!) over larger theoretical investigations (like reading Delueze or Derrida). I like to read, but I have to see substance for it to really sink in. That's what I like about Eisenman, Mayne, Hadid. Whether it's post-rationalization or not doesn't matter, but their ideas are visible in the 3 dimensional form and in the space - and, hopefully, in the experience. That's what creates the 'phenomena', right?

 

 

You should look at the Dwell forums, too. http://www.dwellmag.com

Great discussions that are down to earth and very informative, imo. Mostly about Modern architecture that is happeing today, or that people want to happen. It gives me a little hope and some inpiration. Worht a look.

[garethace]

Some wonerful stuff at Prospect New Town, like Charles Gwathmey's houses too, which I have always loved. I visited some Mecanoo housing estates in Holland, and OMA stuff which is fantastic if you ever get there. Some great web sites about current Dutch Architecture too, but what makes Holland so interesting, like Helsinki also, is the planning process, is geared to have young architects building nice new schemes. That is why in my view Bucholtz and Peng and others, who studied in NY have come over here now. I mean, after all, Meier's first house was done in Timber since he couldn't use concrete. Charles Moore houses, Venturi houses, all did a lot for the Shingle, type vernacular of America and using it in a modern way. In Helsinki, there are still some really early Shingle types of timber dwellings, if you are ever there.

 

Brian O' Hanlon.

 

[ September 27, 2003, 08:52 AM: Message edited by: garethace ]

[mbr]

I am not familiar with them.

 

Yes, it's refreshing to see at least a little thought to the designs in large developments. There is a project in Long Island (I think I mentioned it) that is being developed as a 'designer' community (or, rather, a community for the young and rich, designed by 'designer' architects). $2 million - 5 million, 2-4k sq ft, all designed by architects hand chosen by Meier. Kanner (who I worked for a while back) has a nice image (and a really nice design - his modernist stuff is great) in the new Wired Magazine.

 

Hopefully these types of things will become more prevalent. If whole communities can be built with nice housing, I'd hope that the prices could come down a little and people would buy them (they do buy what they see, of course). Anyway, that's my optimistic view and something I am looking at becoming part of.

 

That's actually where I hope CG can play a role - to convince average Joes that good design is actually nicer than the cookiecutter crap that is everywhere (at least in the US), in all markets (the dreaded McMansion).

[garethace]

I have much respect for Herzog and de Meuron. I've been personally interested in many similar ideas (mainly the 'inbetween', and the figure/ground relationship - Rowe to Eisenman stuff) that they are investigating, although slightly different.

Haven't read much of Rowe's stuff myself, except from the La Tourette chapter, which Steven Holl makes out to be a very sophisticated interpretation of the building. I think I still prefer the attempt of Helmer Stenros though.

 

That's what I like about Eisenman, Mayne, Hadid. Whether it's post-rationalization or not doesn't matter, but their ideas are visible in the 3 dimensional form and in the space - and, hopefully, in the experience. That's what creates the 'phenomena', right?

As I say, have a look at the Stattsgalerie by James Stirling and other similar projects, to learn a bit about Mayne's larger urban projects. Stirling did very clear models and axonometrics, so that is really what Mayne did learn very well from Stirling. Perhaps, better than others. Meier too is good at realising the architecture in models or images. And of course you have mentioned Holl before too. Stirling had a very medieval urban feel in his projects, and had circulation running around the design making them quite public. I see Tom Mayne as just the best student of those lessons. Hertzog and DeMeuron are also the students of Post Modernism, of people like Aldo Rossi in Italy.

 

Personally I spend loads of my time now, reading what the planners have to say at Cyburbia.org. Even if they don't have the first clue about Architecture: Worse building ever. Or on Zaha Hadid. But then without realising it, or being in any way tooty-flooty, they make some very deeply perceptive observations about the world we live in today, a bit like Koolhaas or here (who they hate of course too, because of the Library building in Seattle).

 

The real problem nowadays with Gehry, Koolhaas, Hadid, Calatrava etc, is that we might just be collecting Architect?

 

Brian O' Hanlon.

[kid]

I like the Collecting Architects article.

 

To be honest I'd don't really follow architecture that closely, the superstars I mean. Most of what drives me to create architecture (on paper at the moment) are influences outside of progressive architecture. I can usually read an article on John Singer Sergeant, for example, and be more inspired than if I read an article about Hadid.

[mbr]

I think the most important thing you can achieve in architecture, rather than this distancing quality of novelty, is immediacy of experience, which is a very delicate phenomenon. It?s something that we are not accustomed to in our culture right now.

It is a good article. Not really sure if he is suggesting an opinion, or simply observing (the latter, I suppose).

 

This quote pretty much sums up my feelings about architecture (and my criticism of the blob movement).

 

Interesting comments about Hadid's building. I can't really draw a conclusion about it without visiting it.

I can say that her Vitra firestation (in Weil Am Rhein, Germany) is spectacular. As are most of the buildings there (hats off to the Vitra president for promoting young designers - it's basically where Gehry began his crazy forms, too).

 

Personally, as I mentioned, I care most about the visuals. I dont' read too many articles 'about' the architects, but I do read interviews and their own comments. I love Hadid's work, and after having her for a week long design charrette, love her ideas and the methodology she incorporates in her designs.

 

I always look for new architects that I find inspiring, but, as yet, I have not found any. I've been a huge fan of Zaha's since '94 and have followed all of her books and works. The dynamism she captures is far beyond anything that I've ever seen. That captured motion is something that I

I think the most important thing you can achieve in architecture, rather than this distancing quality of novelty, is immediacy of experience, which is a very delicate phenomenon. It?s something that we are not accustomed to in our culture right now.

It is a good article. Not really sure if he is suggesting an opinion, or simply observing (the latter, I suppose). Interesting comments about Hadid's building. I can't really draw a conclusion about it without visiting it.

I can say that her Vitra firestation (in Weil Am Rhein, Germany) is spectacular. As are most of the buildings there (hats off to the Vitra president for promoting young designers - it's basically where Gehry began his crazy forms, too).

 

Personally, as I mentioned, I care most about the visuals. I dont' read too many articles 'about' the architects, but I do read interviews and their own comments. I love Hadid's work, and after having her for a week long design charrette, love her ideas and the methodology she incorporates in her designs.

 

I always look for new architects that I find inspiring, but, as yet, I have not found any. I've been a huge fan of Zaha's since '94 and have followed all of her books and works. The dynamism she captures is far beyond anything that I've ever seen. That captured motion is something that I also am interested in exploring in my own work (again, the Rowe/Eisenman stuff, but looked at from a different angle). Her floor plans are also the best I've ever seen.

 

Thom Mayne mentioned Stirling often. I am not that familiar with his work, beyond a few buildings, mostly due to the fact that I dont' like his aesthetics.

 

The idea of 'collecting' architecture is true and real, but I am not sure it's a problem. It's simply a product of our time. With so much disregard for the built environment, and so much horrific desing being built, there needs to be something else. Something that people look at and say 'wow, you CAN do something besides a box!'. That's important. The simple fact that it provokes a response is positive for the future.

 

I've always believed that a building needs to be contextual. Hadid's are some of the most contextual I've seen (again, I havne't been to Cincinnati). Contextual doesn't mean duplicating facades, or even colors, it means a relationship to the surroundings. That may be immediately apparent, or not, it just needs to be there.

 

Will we build two FOG buildings next to each other? Probably not. But that's for the next designer to decide. For now, he (and others) are pushing things so far out there that it does make a statement. I think that's important (and I love pretty forms :winkgrin: ).