Like Archinect on Facebook.
Sign up to our mailing list.
Where are the two (newer) houses that you have sent images of? Even though you submit them negatively, I nonetheless find them intriguing. Are the two shown thus far close to one another? Are there more of the same ilk? I see them as very much descendants of Venturi and Rauch's Guild House (Philadelphia, 1966) as well as Venturi's Eclectic Houses (theoretical studies, 1977).
The point of this thread is... ...the ironic symbolism currently manifest by the architecture at Independence Historic National Park.
Security checkpoints at IHNP are a post-911 phenomenon, and, as far as their 'design" there goes, they are makeshift and poorly executed. Using the former Liberty Bell Pavilion now also as a checkpoint adds symbolic absurdity to the mix.
Granted this may all be temporary, but, if you are mindful of all the 200+ year history of this specific site, there's not much about it that hasn't just been temporary, or indeed ironic about the literal birthplace of the United States of America.
Perhaps the reason it is so difficult these days to design a decent memorial is because architects for almost a century now are more trained at designing oblivion.
It was said that one could traverse the entire Campus Martius under roof cover because of the many public porticus there. Each porticus had a different name and raison d'être, sometimes even shopping. No open-web joists, but lots of columns, e.g., the Hecatonstylon--hall of a hundred columns
After reading The Sacred and the Profane perhaps pick up Slovoj Zizek, The Puppet and the Dwarf: The Perverse Core of Christianity. It might help fill out the "whole picture."
...the subcategories of profane and sacred space:
fertile spaceconceptual space
assimilating spacemetabolic space
diaphragmic spacenetworked space
osmotic spaceelectromagnetic spaceall-frequency space
for a school I'd go:inside -- assimilating space and all-frquency spaceoutside -- metabolic space
I prefer to watch architecture history as it actually unfolds, and not through the aperture of somewhat artificial markers.
I listened to most of the lecture while doing other work. Interesting, and likely even fruitful, typological analysis in terms of forms and how they may relate to programs and usage, but there remains the hint of force-fit and an even horizontal shift from 'iconic' analysis/design to 'political' analysis/design. As to this work's place within the continuum, I like how this...
...is now being reenacted.
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?