I'm back at the DS looking for inspiration. I read too fast to absorb properly, so usually when I'm looking through something I write down key quotes to think about. Since this is where I'm taking any thesis notes, in this post I'm quoting... myself. Weird.
Flexible space can encourage possibilities that the architect may not necessarily be aware or in control of (abstract)
Microarchitectural articulations are a mechanism to combine flexible and programmed space (abstract)
NB: For my next presentation, it's probably a good idea to start with the abstract to my DS. Some useful terms...
Ambiguity: When a form can be read in many different ways
Articulated space: designed space that uses small-scale details or variations to indicate possible programmatic use
Articulation: a detail added to a building that shows how a building can be used
Flexible Space: space that is able to perform in different ways depending on what is required
and who will be using it. Has an indifferent relationship to the spatial sequence.
Inflection: how the parts of an object relate and the relationship of the whole to its setting.
Interpretable: when something can be read in many different ways.
Microarchitectural Articulation: A human scaled and ambiguous mechanism that allows users to inhabit spaces in a variety of ways that appropriate to a program momentalso the relationship between two surfaces
Neutrality: the result of too much flexibility: tolerable for all but not right for any single user.
Specificity: when programs are so ingrained in space design the space cannot be used for another program.
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
Key Quotes
Design with microarchitectural articulations can take various forms. Simple repetitions of the iteration create a field that can form space in different ways. The microarchitectural articulations can also be arranged with regards to overlapping programs.... This combination of surfaces affects how adjacent spaces are used and this will in turn drive the development of the entire building.
My DS, in the architectural articulations appendix, provides a kit of articulations that can be assembled to produce architecture. I'm clear on how to create the sectional moments. I look in the ergonomic section of Architectural Graphic Standards for similar distances in dissimilar situations (for example, the height of a seat can be equal to the height of three stairs) and use the numbers in common to juxtapose two different uses/needs together. Then I try to imagine some different ways that people could occupy this juxtaposition. In some cases I also include the envelope and look at ways people can interact with envelope openings and how open or closed windows can affect the use of a surface.
Microarchitectural articulations can be used as devices to determine the building form or designed space. By combining surfaces in specific ways designers can create elements that drive the design of a building as a whole and meet the requirements of users.
The current issue is while I have this kit of really interesting and great parts, I don't have any guidelines about how to put them together. My DS is heavily process based, and the process is that I start with a small scale object and work larger until I finally create something that can have a program and/or site assigned to it. Because of this, even kids with piles of Lego are ahead of me: they know what they want to make. I can't know what I want to make because of this. Instead, I need to assemble iterations and look at what they could be used for.
If the driver of a building form is a small scale move that is applied coherently throughout the project and that addresses the problems inherent to that type, the final form of the designed space evolves naturally from this combination of parts.
Naturally? Good grief. The small scale move in questions, is (of course) the variation of surfaces that I have designed, so the quote could read as "the driver of this building for is variations of surfaces based on relationships to the human body that are applied coherently throughout the project and addresses problems inherent to transit loops". In that case, I need to look at problems inherent in transit loops.
Because there is no clear way to inhabit (the mechanism), users feel free to assign their own meaning and to use them in ways that fit their requirements.
Heh. So I have to practice being obscure. It's SUCH a shame that NLMLN wouldn't join my committee. He's great at that. Anyways, the idea is that the surfaces need to be scaled to suggest some kind of occupation but the users don't know exactly what so they fill in the blanks with their own ideas. My DS outlines three ways for this to happen: one is the repetition of a single shape, another is by overlapping programs, and the third is by creating nodes or hubs of use with programs that spill out into generic space around them.
The theory behind microarchitectural articulations is that surfaces that are arranged to encourage contact with users and perform in different ways will begin to define space ambiguously. Inhabitants can supply their own possibilities for the use of surfaces which can act as seats, tables, desks and stairs. Use varies depending not only on the preference of the inhabitant, but also on surrounding activities in the space.
This is starting to talk about overlapping programs. And that is fine: I think this could be one of the keys to this project. While I'm not ready to stick some thing on part of a site, I can identify different programs that could occur in the SUB Plaza/transit hub/retail area and look at which ones could be usefully overlapped. There is also the possibility of looking at different use patterns throughout the day. There will always be some people sitting around the SUB, but in the morning most students rush through the space to class and don't need to sit down, at lunch they want to eat, read, study and hang out with friends, in the afternoon there will be people moving into the underground bus loop and reading/studying/meeting friends, and in the evening people will want to use the space either for eating, gathering or just to pass through. This is why I picked this site: because so many different things happen there throughout the day.
My DS, in the architectural articulations appendix, provides a kit of articulations that can be assembled to produce architecture. I'm clear on how to create the sectional moments. I look in the ergonomic section of Architectural Graphic Standards for similar distances in dissimilar situations (for example, the height of a seat can be equal to the height of three stairs) and use the numbers in common to juxtapose two different uses/needs together. Then I try to imagine some different ways that people could occupy this juxtaposition. In some cases I also include the envelope and look at ways people can interact with envelope openings and how open or closed windows can affect the use of a surface.
Microarchitectural articulations can be used as devices to determine the building form or designed space. By combining surfaces in specific ways designers can create elements that drive the design of a building as a whole and meet the requirements of users.
The current issue is while I have this kit of really interesting and great parts, I don't have any guidelines about how to put them together. My DS is heavily process based, and the process is that I start with a small scale object and work larger until I finally create something that can have a program and/or site assigned to it. Because of this, even kids with piles of Lego are ahead of me: they know what they want to make. I can't know what I want to make because of this. Instead, I need to assemble iterations and look at what they could be used for.
If the driver of a building form is a small scale move that is applied coherently throughout the project and that addresses the problems inherent to that type, the final form of the designed space evolves naturally from this combination of parts.
Naturally? Good grief. The small scale move in questions, is (of course) the variation of surfaces that I have designed, so the quote could read as "the driver of this building for is variations of surfaces based on relationships to the human body that are applied coherently throughout the project and addresses problems inherent to transit loops". In that case, I need to look at problems inherent in transit loops.
Because there is no clear way to inhabit (the mechanism), users feel free to assign their own meaning and to use them in ways that fit their requirements.
Heh. So I have to practice being obscure. It's SUCH a shame that NLMLN wouldn't join my committee. He's great at that. Anyways, the idea is that the surfaces need to be scaled to suggest some kind of occupation but the users don't know exactly what so they fill in the blanks with their own ideas. My DS outlines three ways for this to happen: one is the repetition of a single shape, another is by overlapping programs, and the third is by creating nodes or hubs of use with programs that spill out into generic space around them.
The theory behind microarchitectural articulations is that surfaces that are arranged to encourage contact with users and perform in different ways will begin to define space ambiguously. Inhabitants can supply their own possibilities for the use of surfaces which can act as seats, tables, desks and stairs. Use varies depending not only on the preference of the inhabitant, but also on surrounding activities in the space.
This is starting to talk about overlapping programs. And that is fine: I think this could be one of the keys to this project. While I'm not ready to stick some thing on part of a site, I can identify different programs that could occur in the SUB Plaza/transit hub/retail area and look at which ones could be usefully overlapped. There is also the possibility of looking at different use patterns throughout the day. There will always be some people sitting around the SUB, but in the morning most students rush through the space to class and don't need to sit down, at lunch they want to eat, read, study and hang out with friends, in the afternoon there will be people moving into the underground bus loop and reading/studying/meeting friends, and in the evening people will want to use the space either for eating, gathering or just to pass through. This is why I picked this site: because so many different things happen there throughout the day.
Surfaces arranged to encourage inhabitation but maintain ambiguity can manifest in many different ways and so be applied to a wide vareity of problems. These variations are schematic ideas of how surfaces can relate to promote different kinds of inhabitation by users. The surfaces have multiple uses and proportions to encourage invention by users. Combining two or more moments of articulation begins to create space.
This makes it more clear what I need to do. Just like I have the kit of parts of MA's, I need to assemble a kit of parts of MA assemblies that I can plug into certain situations. This is where I start to disagree with my previous stuff. I talk about how you can get combinations of MA's through thinking about what programs need to go together and assembling MA's to suit. What I should do is look at the MA's the same way as I looked at the ergonomic drawings in Architectural Graphic Standards. What surfaces are the same distance apart? What can they create? Obviously the possibilities are endless. It also means that instead of designing for program I am programming for design. But it isn't irresponsible form making (a la F Gehry) because the initial idea is linked to the human body.
Wow. That's a pretty exciting idea. I've got it written down here and in my sketchbook, so I can move on. So let's say I assemble these combinations. Each one has one or two ancestors in the previously designed MA's and is documented through this. I eventally assemble enough to produce hubs of use.
Hubs provide ambiguous program suggestions and define adjacent open spaces.... They create opportunities for use of spaces because users can apply their own meaning not just to one surface but also to the room as a whole.
At what point to MA combinations begin to respond to program? I think that I need to assemble a full toolkit -- everything from the simple sections, to hubs that are 3 or 4 generations removed from the sections -- and then I can start to think about how they are assembled. Is that where program comes into play? The spaces do need to begin to consider program, but I don't want to do it too soon.
(Hubs can) provide prgrammatic generators for space. It can act as a stage, a seat and a central point... Because it is unexpected users apply their own ideas to it. If (it) were unarticulated many of these different activites would not be possible. ...It is best if the articulation that limits possibilitieis is ambiguous and so can support a number of different uses.
Articulations become a mechanism for designs that allow the architect to investigate ways users can inhabit space to enliven a building. At the same time, because the microarticulations are iterations of a single idea they solve different problems in different ways. It makes it possible for variations of a single idea to solve many different spatial problems and so create fine-grained spaces that fit the evolving needs of a building. By using assemblies of iterations... and applying the concept of hubs, designers can use micrarchitectural articulations to design buildings with many different kinds of programs.
Stall
My meeting yesterday with my Thesis Committee pointed out that I've been a little off track in the past few weeks. Instead of getting into site, they suggested, I should really be looking at how microarchitectural articulations (MA's) can be formed. Big D made it clear that if I want to do bottom up design I need to start and stay small for a little while, which means no site for a while. She had some really great comments: she suggested I think about the Eames 'Powers of Ten' movie.
I had a postmortem lunch with E (who, having edited my DS is au fait with my arguments) and we discussed what my next move should be. We both think it's a good idea to go back to the small stuff and to think about what kinds of parameters are appropriate for the MA's. If I am going to argue that MA's can serve multiple purposes, I need to nail down my definition of ambiguity. D also suggested that I reread my DS to think about how I can apply it, so I'm going to spend some time today doing that and maybe I'll have a brainwave.
I had a postmortem lunch with E (who, having edited my DS is au fait with my arguments) and we discussed what my next move should be. We both think it's a good idea to go back to the small stuff and to think about what kinds of parameters are appropriate for the MA's. If I am going to argue that MA's can serve multiple purposes, I need to nail down my definition of ambiguity. D also suggested that I reread my DS to think about how I can apply it, so I'm going to spend some time today doing that and maybe I'll have a brainwave.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)