Jeremy Till, currently the Head of the Bartlett School of Architecture and author of three award-winning books, introduces his discussion of contingency by describing his elevator pitch. In this incident, Till’s colleague shows some initial concerns over his premise. His pitch discusses architecture’s nature to be affected by external forces, despite the typical architect’s discomfort with the lack of control due to this contingency. He then proposes that architecture’s inherent contingency should be engaged with rather than retreated from, and that this engagement could potentially reform today’s apparently flawed architectural practice.
Category Archives: Theory Reading Posts
Biophilia: Brad and Amanda
Stephen Kellert is a well-decorated scholar and professor at Yale University. He holds numerous awards and titles all related to the fields of architecture and forestry. Kellert’s thesis is simple and clearly stated, “Incorporating biophilic design into modern development is critical.” This boils down to the idea that people are disconnected from nature in the contemporary built environment and because of this are more likely to neglect the buildings they inhabit. We are more likely to invest in a building if we are emotionally attached to it and we become emotionally attached by making a building biophilic. He argues that restoring environmental design should incorporate the aspects of sustainable design practiced today, and biophilic design like a relationship to vernacular and organic design. Kellert tries to support his argument but ultimately fails to provide any irrefutable, compelling evidence. Because of his broad generalizations and vague terms like nature and modern, it becomes hard to draw any conclusion from his writing. Using his descriptions an argument could be made for any building somehow relating to nature or relating to the vernacular. He is essentially arguing for ‘good’ architecture, something that isn’t debatable. Kellert fails to acknowledge the destructive nature of construction and therefore loses some credibility for not even recognizing a crucial aspect of buildings.
His argument is still interesting in the sense that it opens up discussion about sustainability (a word that has also received much criticism for its ambiguity). Architects and buildings can be certified as sustainable but these ratings become superficial as the building ages. Ratings are done at the time of construction and never followed up with an analysis of how the building performs with daily occupant use. Kellert’s model proposes that sustainability is the industry standard, and therefore isn’t graded by a list of requirements, but instead is judged by its psychological and physical effects on people.
- Do you think the goals of restorative design are appropriate for all forms of architecture (low-budget, residential, commercial, industrial)?
- Kellert expresses a need for an increased emphasis on positive impact design that he feels is not being met in modern design. If LEED were to include biophilic requirements into its certification criteria, would that prompt an increased value for positive impact design among architects?
Function and Sign: Semiotics of Architecture (Tyler, Lauren, & Alison)
The article titled, Function and Sign: Semiotics of Architecture, was written by Italian writer, linguist, and philosopher Umberto Eco. Published in 1973 in Structures Implicit and Explicit, Eco uses semiotic theory (based on codes) in order to question architecture and the built environment. Continue reading Function and Sign: Semiotics of Architecture (Tyler, Lauren, & Alison)
SEMIOTICS 1: OWEN, LAURA & HAJIR
This week’s Semiotics reading presentation can be found here.
Feature Image: Prudential Building, Guide and Travel
Bonta opens his writing by saying that people judge architecture and often disagree with each other. In a world with countless conflict, the one thing we all may be able to agree is that we all can disagree on subjects like architecture. When there is an inconceivably enormous spectrum of analysis and opinions on a single building, it’s not hard to feel lost after all the professionally provided instability when all you want to know is: what does this building mean? Continue reading SEMIOTICS 1: OWEN, LAURA & HAJIR
Architectural Critique: Lili Alali & Eun Jae Baek
Image credit to Gigapan and Time Magazine
September 11, 2011 was a day that will be forever etched into the nation’s heart, but the impact resonated worldwide. The debate whether what should replace Ground Zero was that of a fierce one. There were various point of views from all sides, it wasn’t possible to please everybody at such scale. Daniel Libeskind, an American architect won the competition and took it up on himself and his workers to fight the uphill battle and establish the new World Trade Center. Libeskind knew it was not going to be easy, but he always remained faithful to the project and his workers.
I admire Libeskind’s tenacity to deflect all sort of media blitz and angry citizens, it must have been difficult for him to complete the project with that much pressure. It is the architect’s ultimate challenge to design a space that represents tragedy of that scale, and to execute it well there is only so much he could do – he simply cannot please everybody. The world needs to understand that everyone has their own opinions, especially in America where literally everyone is wired with different thoughts and public opinions could not be more divided. Give the man a break as I believe he did an outstanding job and when I visited the site, the memorial made a huge impact for me personally, and there was an absolute silence, which proves that the memorial expresses its might to everyone visiting it. I also hope that the commercial buildings around the memorial will attract businesses and flourish again like it was 2001.
In the other hand, Frank Gehry refused to submit a proposal as he thought it was demeaning for architects that they were only paid 40,000 dollars for their efforts. The amount insulted Frank Gehry and he believed he was worth a lot more than that.
From my point of view, I agree with Gehry because if you’re an architect that famous, then you would already have a strong client network and accepting the proposal will downgrade you. Its not about the money as Frank Gehry will have plenty of that, but if a person is going to ask me to submit a project, at least treat me with respect.
Eric Sutherland gave a lecture and talked about his experience with the World Trade Center. What I understood was that it wasn’t easy at all. There were many complications and an enormous amount of work. People can’t expect architects to invest a huge amount of work and energy and then earn nothing. Frank Gehry said, if you’re an architect, you’ll understand what he means by putting in time and effort. I’m saying this as a student, and what will happen when I’m exposed to the real world? I don’t object to Gehry’s reasons, if he thinks that 40,000 is not enough, then it’s not enough.
Will you agree to work with a client with low commission? A client, who will drain you, but won’t pay you for the effort you put into the project?
Link to the presentation:
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1jb9UIipTLPBi5p2-z42AowykerkEN1-tPNVQYrADVkM/edit#slide=id.i0