Boston Architectural Center (Nicholas)

  • anchor

    Final project a blob?

    Nicholas Ng
    Dec 17, '04 12:12 AM EST

    12/16 The day for our final review from guest critics.

    Today is the day, and I learnt a few things from our critics, not so much on my project but architecture itself as a whole.




    A brief on the project: The newsstand at Harvard Square. I decided in my project took out the newsstand and created a skin that is interactive and acts as a portal to virtual news.

    So by labeling architecture and technology together, you get a frantic group of critics that think the whole world is coming to an end.Is it architecture or is it not architecture? That is the question. Plus, they thought I took the easy way out of not redesigning the newsstand.

    However, architecture as a living organism in my personal opinion evolves around us human, and technology is becoming a source of evolution that is changing how we interact with ourselves, our body and mind, so it is architecture to me. Maybe I haven't fully develop this concept yet, but still, are we then as architecture students ready for the industry or maybe the industry isn't ready for us.

    Second of all, people or some people/architect don't like blobs.

    I don't consider my building as a blob. What do you guys think? Maybe it is. Of course there is a purpose and reason behind the form of the building, but it is not a freaking blob! Please get over it. Things are going to change in the next few years or so. It's not interesting to see every buildings in town built in 90 degrees angle or 8x8 grid. Anyway as a student, studio is the best way to experiment with different ideas and technology.

    However, I did get to understand or see how certain groups of architects sees architecture. It is a industry that is still very old-fashioned and I think or hope a new generation or architects be able to truly see and connect with what real architecture is. And doesn't need to be a blob.


    • duke19_98

      I'm sorry, but that's about as blob as they get. Where are your details? What is the material and where is its structure? I'm a far cry from being a "traditionalist," but you really need show some more of this stuff. I'm not against blobs, but if you're going to use them at least show us how it works. Right now your project looks like a big blue acrylic green house. I suppose the pink is suppose to be brick, but its not working either. The second picture is the best view. Put some people in it to give us some sense of scale. Also if your skin is a portal to virtual news then you should add some of that news to it in photoshop. Surely with you graphic design background you can spice these images up a little.

      If your going to do something that "some people/architect don't like" then I'd suggest that you do a little more research on why it is you do like it, and how you're going to make it successful. Good luck bud.

      Dec 17, 04 12:11 pm

      Let's clarify the project and programme in more detail. I'm still very much in my second semester in the foundation studio. Though structure is the key to building, I have no knowledge in that yet, so it doesn't play the biggest part in this project.

      However, the most important part of the course is structured between site analysis and some architectural details.

      I agree that the details are't there yet but I do have a whole process behind the flow/movement of the people, the analysis, etc. however the whole question I have towards this project or in architecture is the labeling of a building as a technological piece.

      It doesn't have to be a "blob", it can still be traditional. But what is this thing on technology that most architects dislike about it. Maybe I do need to do more research. But maybe the industry is also afraid of technology and that it will in time become something like "the photoshop" for architecture-creating a space with series of wired/wireless panel.

      I don't know...

      Dec 17, 04 12:50 pm

      Oh, by the way, I'm talking about application of technology onto a building. Not software.

      Dec 17, 04 1:12 pm
      general acres

      a suggestion:

      if you dont know anything about structures, then speculate, look at other buildings and their details (in magazines, etc.), and ask questions about those, apply those systems to your building as you see fit, or as you interpret them. eventhough you have yet become exposed to structural thinking by applying this way of thinking, it will better explain your design intentions

      as your analysis of the flow/movement of the people has informed your initial design decision, you cant stop there. how will your design be informed by the tectonics of your formal intention?

      its very easy to draw this stuff on the computer. you're not going to learn and grow intellectually unless you step outside of what you know. hell, you could be entirely wrong with your ideas about structures, but with that intent, you will better yourself.

      i'm not agianst blobs but this is at the least a blobbed surface.

      Dec 17, 04 3:25 pm

      thanks for the suggestion general.

      i think it time, i will get to be more familiar with the language of architecture.

      however, I am still very eager to find out about technological application on surfaces,programmes,materials and other elements and the impact it has to architecture.

      one or two examples that I could possibly relate to are the tower of light and peter cooke's museum in graz.

      maybe my approach to this language of architecture is different to the traditional teachings. time will tell....

      Dec 17, 04 4:10 pm

      uhh, yes.
      it is A blob.

      Dec 19, 04 3:08 pm

      and, no.
      your "approach to this language of architecture" is not "different to the traditional teachings".

      Dec 19, 04 3:12 pm
      Pimp Minister Pete Nice

      I am not sure AutoCAD/Accurender is the program you should be modeling blobs with either. With a few tweaks I am sure those images could look better though.

      Dec 20, 04 12:13 pm

      It seems as though you have alot of questions and not alot of answers. What it sounds like your critique told you was that you have no sense of why this skin you've chosen is relevant to the place, function, or time. For instance, you must be ready to answer questions such as the ones they asked you during your presentation. I'd imagine them to be something like: Do you think people are ready to see something like that on their daily commute to and from work or school? How is this probably costly construction and application of "technology" feasible? Even I could come up with answers to those questions and I hope I don't know your project more than you do. Your site analysis images are beautiful but the product is lacking. There is something about the realistic qualities of buildings that people are drawn to. That is why they like them. Even amorphous and sculptural buildings that are seemingly popular and even worshipped have a sense of realistic materials, an order or sorts. If you try to step back for a moment and put your creativity back into the realm of your architectural knowledge, you'll come up with something that you will be more comfortable with. For instance, if you want to use a new building technology... take one that you are familiar with and devise a new way to apply it in the design of a STRUCTURE. Try starting with experimenting with material connections (like wood, copper wire, and plexiglass). That way you can come up with something that blows people away with an amazing form they've never seen nor expected, but your foundations were rooted in something real. They wouldn't be able to argue with you then.

      Jan 27, 05 4:05 pm

      I'm a little suspicious of your ped flow analysis because you seem to have cut off a major route from the tip of the triangle over the the H campus. When I was in B2, someone in my studio did this and was hammered repeatedly and memorably.

      I also think you're way off on this "architects fearing technology" thing. My newsstand incorporated (what would now be) plasma screens (they were a serious novelty when I took B2) but they had something to say about the concept of "lens" and how news is filtered. So maybe it's not the technology that they're against, maybe it's the lack of rigor and easy answers it lends itself to. I think other posters comments about speculating on structure is dead on. I didn't know jack about structure then, but drew what amounted to massing details and was fine. Seg. 1 reviewers tend to want to give students the benefit of the doubt, unless they're di#kheads.
      Of course, this would have all been much more helpful to you about 2 months ago.

      Feb 28, 05 5:14 pm

      Block this user

      Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?

    • Back to Entry List...
  • ×Search in:

Affiliated with:

Authored by:

Other blogs affiliated with Boston Architectural College (BAC):

Recent Entries