I think that generally speaking- architects don't care enough to understand the philosophy behind some of the most important examples of architecture. Many are obsessed with Gehry, Zaha, Koolhaas, bla bla bla... What about all of the other great architects who have similar significance? Everyone is so focused in on the trendy (many don't even understand the trendy) that every other work gets lost in this endless stream of architectural regurgitation.
Koolhaas is a bit of a hypocrite. Read his essay on "Junkspace." Koolhaas MAKES Junkspace every day... And yet, despite the criticisms of Junkspace and Icons (which many post-modernists LOVE to produce on a daily basis), many of you followers out there, continue to embrace it as the new great thing. For this reason, I am saying that we are living in a culture of the copy. We copy and borrow without being true to our design intuition. In a way that is a manifestation of our insecurity. We have to let everyone else define what the trends are so we can be En Vogue.
So I ask you all: why not be the creators of trends? You may say that only starchitects have that opportunity because they are famous... But before any of the big shots becamse famous as architects, their complex ideas about architecture were first brought out through art and drawings which later informed their architecture. It didn't always work out despite the public embrace of the work, but I still think they did well in communicating the tenets of their architectural theories. I believe that many out there either too bogged down with work, too lazy, or simply too unimaginative to put your project management aside and start theorizing about your work. No architects design without theory...
I think that generally speaking- architects don't care enough to understand the philosophy behind some of the most important examples of architecture. Many are obsessed with Gehry, Zaha, Koolhaas, bla bla bla... What about all of the other great architects who have similar significance? Everyone is so focused in on the trendy (many don't even understand the trendy) that every other work gets lost in this endless stream of architectural regurgitation.
Architecture IS trendy. If it wasn't, our history profs couldn't look at a building in old Baltimore, for example, and identify the decade in which it was designed. As for modern architecture, I won't be buying the coffee table book, so I guess I won't be learning their philosophies. If I can read it from a monthly publication, then that's fine. I just give the Gehry or Koolhass builidngs a quick read - do I like it or not, on a visceral level? Gehry - Bilbao Musuem? No. Too shiny and out of synch with the context. Some building in Prague - where the volumes appeared to be involved in a dance? Yes. Koolhaas - Seattle Library? No. Take away the exterior criss-cross scheme and you have a blob. Casa de Musica in Portugal? Yes. Walking around it has neat vantage points from various angles and better blends into the context of the neighborhood. Do I have time to read up on these works, and hand them MORE royalties? No.
Here is an article reminding us that we should no uncritically buy in to smart architectural concepts. Be strong in your story telling but dont forget to be critical, analytical and architect well!
The new wae or why we drift towards the shores of simplification:
No, no, no! That's not how you do it. Take one or two technical, mathematical or scientific sounding worlds and use them to create a new word that defines a radical new paradigm on which all future architecture will surely be based because of your superior intellect. e.g. Hypoquanticism, Polycentrics, etc. The best part is you get to create the definition. Actual buildings are irrelevant and should be avoided at all costs as they will in fact only embarrass you.
Scrunch up some paper or throw bits of paper in the air is how you come up with great ideas, that's how I was taught.
that's the dumbest thing i ever heard. sounds like you'll be a career proletariat. we're architects. if you're not crumpling and tearing up $20 bills you'll never have a concept worth exploring.
architectural concepts has many aspects, it's not only about the design that matters most but also in aspects of site, material, structural, green, form and etc.
Start a project by deliberately avoiding drawing anything.
Immerse yourself in the goals and aspirations of the client, the context and the particularities of the site and climate, and the romance of the particular place. Put your preconceptions aside and let all of that percolate in your mind, take the time to develop a definitive point of view on the design approach. Establish a set of core values for the project, and write them down. Be specific.
Then start drawing, keeping the core values you established central in your mind. If you stray from the core principles, either redesign to align, or abandon that core principle and establish a new, quantifiable one.
facts of the case > core point of view > architectural manifestation
Free your mind. Become curious like a little kid. Read far and wide. Reading many of the books recommended here isnt goint to help you come up with good and original concepts. It only make you a hack and good in copying others. Real creative work requires you to strip all preconceived notions you may have or seen and truly question things starting from the roots.
^ good point however everything has its down side. If you don't read and not knowing what's already around you might think you come up with a unique idea when it's already done everywhere.
i wanna to design an architecture college. but i don't know what should i do for its concept?? and what is the best concept for design an architecture college??
how does one come up with architectural concepts?
That's why we're architects.
I think that generally speaking- architects don't care enough to understand the philosophy behind some of the most important examples of architecture. Many are obsessed with Gehry, Zaha, Koolhaas, bla bla bla... What about all of the other great architects who have similar significance? Everyone is so focused in on the trendy (many don't even understand the trendy) that every other work gets lost in this endless stream of architectural regurgitation.
Koolhaas is a bit of a hypocrite. Read his essay on "Junkspace." Koolhaas MAKES Junkspace every day... And yet, despite the criticisms of Junkspace and Icons (which many post-modernists LOVE to produce on a daily basis), many of you followers out there, continue to embrace it as the new great thing. For this reason, I am saying that we are living in a culture of the copy. We copy and borrow without being true to our design intuition. In a way that is a manifestation of our insecurity. We have to let everyone else define what the trends are so we can be En Vogue.
So I ask you all: why not be the creators of trends? You may say that only starchitects have that opportunity because they are famous... But before any of the big shots becamse famous as architects, their complex ideas about architecture were first brought out through art and drawings which later informed their architecture. It didn't always work out despite the public embrace of the work, but I still think they did well in communicating the tenets of their architectural theories. I believe that many out there either too bogged down with work, too lazy, or simply too unimaginative to put your project management aside and start theorizing about your work. No architects design without theory...
I think that generally speaking- architects don't care enough to understand the philosophy behind some of the most important examples of architecture. Many are obsessed with Gehry, Zaha, Koolhaas, bla bla bla... What about all of the other great architects who have similar significance? Everyone is so focused in on the trendy (many don't even understand the trendy) that every other work gets lost in this endless stream of architectural regurgitation.
Architecture IS trendy. If it wasn't, our history profs couldn't look at a building in old Baltimore, for example, and identify the decade in which it was designed. As for modern architecture, I won't be buying the coffee table book, so I guess I won't be learning their philosophies. If I can read it from a monthly publication, then that's fine. I just give the Gehry or Koolhass builidngs a quick read - do I like it or not, on a visceral level? Gehry - Bilbao Musuem? No. Too shiny and out of synch with the context. Some building in Prague - where the volumes appeared to be involved in a dance? Yes. Koolhaas - Seattle Library? No. Take away the exterior criss-cross scheme and you have a blob. Casa de Musica in Portugal? Yes. Walking around it has neat vantage points from various angles and better blends into the context of the neighborhood. Do I have time to read up on these works, and hand them MORE royalties? No.
you will need these tools:
Hi Sergei Mikhailenko
A few books and texts that might help you with analyzing and understanding architectural concepts:
Basics: Architecture and Dynamics by Fransizka Ullmann
Architecture Is Elementary: Visual Thinking Through Architectural Concepts by Nathan Winthers
Yes is more by Bjarke Ingels
Understanding architecture by Robert McCarther and Juhani Pallasmaa
Architecture_ Form, space & aorder by Francis Ching
Genius Loci, Towards a Phenomenology of Architecture by Christian Norberg-Schulz
These might help you understand the profession you've chosen.
From Bauhaus to Our House, Tom Wolfe
A Burnt Out Case, Graham Greene
Piranesi’s Dream, Gerhard Kopf
Mr. Blandings Builds His Dream House, Eric Hodgins
Here is an article reminding us that we should no uncritically buy in to smart architectural concepts. Be strong in your story telling but dont forget to be critical, analytical and architect well!
The new wae or why we drift towards the shores of simplification:
http://failedarchitecture.com/2013/02/the-new-wave-or-why-we-drift-towards-the-shores-of-simplification/
"Viagra urbanism"
Good article, great quote.
OP, why don't you outline the parameters and we'll help
can i get a concept idea for a performing theatre?
Scrunch up some paper or throw bits of paper in the air is how you come up with great ideas, that's how I was taught.
No, no, no! That's not how you do it. Take one or two technical, mathematical or scientific sounding worlds and use them to create a new word that defines a radical new paradigm on which all future architecture will surely be based because of your superior intellect. e.g. Hypoquanticism, Polycentrics, etc. The best part is you get to create the definition. Actual buildings are irrelevant and should be avoided at all costs as they will in fact only embarrass you.
Quantum Hippos MiIes?
I'd love to read that manifesto.
Scrunch up some paper or throw bits of paper in the air is how you come up with great ideas, that's how I was taught.
that's the dumbest thing i ever heard. sounds like you'll be a career proletariat. we're architects. if you're not crumpling and tearing up $20 bills you'll never have a concept worth exploring.
Big.dk
architectural concepts has many aspects, it's not only about the design that matters most but also in aspects of site, material, structural, green, form and etc.
Here's what I recommend:
Start a project by deliberately avoiding drawing anything.
Immerse yourself in the goals and aspirations of the client, the context and the particularities of the site and climate, and the romance of the particular place. Put your preconceptions aside and let all of that percolate in your mind, take the time to develop a definitive point of view on the design approach. Establish a set of core values for the project, and write them down. Be specific.
Then start drawing, keeping the core values you established central in your mind. If you stray from the core principles, either redesign to align, or abandon that core principle and establish a new, quantifiable one.
facts of the case > core point of view > architectural manifestation
Free your mind. Become curious like a little kid. Read far and wide. Reading many of the books recommended here isnt goint to help you come up with good and original concepts. It only make you a hack and good in copying others. Real creative work requires you to strip all preconceived notions you may have or seen and truly question things starting from the roots.
^ good point however everything has its down side. If you don't read and not knowing what's already around you might think you come up with a unique idea when it's already done everywhere.
Isn't a "concept" basically a preconceived notion?
Copious quantities of mind-altering substances.
hi,
i wanna to design an architecture college. but i don't know what should i do for its concept?? and what is the best concept for design an architecture college??
thanks for your help...
think of mixing a bar, a church, a brothel and a jail.
What is the best concept for a paper mill factory
joshua created an account on archinect to ask that question.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.