University of Oregon (Shawn)

  • anchor

    revised moment

    By shawn jenkins
    Apr 24, '06 2:13 PM EST

    here is the revised aviary moment.a little less abstract..more site appropriate. i think that my scale of the aviary is a little too big.. and i am not sure about building an aviary around a living tree. are there any precedents of this kind? something that can move with the growth of the tree.


    • NSJ

      Lacaton and Vassal's House in Cap Ferret is built around living trees but they are not structural to the house. Detail magazine did a spread a while back with great drawings of the gaskets around the trees. You should be able to find some images on line as well.

      Apr 24, 06 11:04 pm
      shawn jenkins


      Apr 24, 06 11:25 pm

      you'd probably need to give the tree some space. see the house by maya lin in this month's architectural record and the nordic pavilion by sverre fehn for two beautiful examples.

      Apr 25, 06 7:29 am
      shawn jenkins


      Apr 25, 06 12:24 pm

      Be careful in building around the tree, as poetic as the idea is, the placement of the aviary may lead to the destruction/harm of the tree. The placement of the aviary amongst the trees rather than on them can have the same poetic notions.

      At my home my father built a Deck around a native tree. 5 yrs later we had to cut the tree down because it was getting too big for the deck (this was after we widened the hole numerous times).

      Apr 25, 06 11:28 pm

      I'm slightly confused, there was another post earlier this morning in which you gave your design statement as "blending in with the environment", you asked for comments on it and I responded with:

      Jun 7, 06 4:55 pm

      I'm sorry, but that is one of the most ridiculous design statements I've ever heard. In addition to be being poorly written, the flippant simile adds no real specificity to your proposal, and is in fact contradictory to your end result.

      Do you honestly believe that having your entire project's concept be "blend into the background" is a beneficial idea (overlooking the fact it clearly does not and rather resembles old scaffolding tossed into a heap which masquerades as a “nest”), much less interesting? Because to me it sounds like the tired old tree hugger response of appearing to be "sensitive" to nature when in reality not being sustainable in the weakest sense of the term and rather building large unnecessary structures for some pathetic poetic gesture which is only apparent to humans. I'd love to see some images of your project. Never mind, I just scrolled through the rest of your blog and it is indeed worse than I imagined.

      If I understand this correctly, your project is for a raptor center where your "client" is the great grey owl. First off, the obviously ludicrous nature of having an animal be your client leads to grave problems which you've shown manifested themselves in your end project.

      Take for starters your esquisse models which purport to reify "a pattern taken from a raptor" It appears to me that you used a different raptor as your model for this project in which case it is completely trivial due to the blatantly lucid fact that your "client" has flight and movement patterns which are completely different if not contrary to the ones you poorly represented. If you had even a cursory understanding of Great Grey Owls you would have never come up with this excuse for a waste of materials (I grew up in the northwoods and have seen many great grey owls throughout my life in addition to working at a raptor center).

      Now, having a bad concept and worthless conceptual models is troubling in and of itself, however, you took these and made them even worse in your final project where you basically said through your model "birds build nests, so I'll make a big nest" Is this the type of reductive metaphorical "architecture" we can expect from University of Oregon? I hope you are a singularity and not in fact representative of the entire program.

      Jun 7, 06 4:55 pm

      It appears now to have been erased. I'm wondering was it the management of the site that erased it which (would seem unlikely since you did ask for comments and the post was not vulgar). Or was it rather that you didn't want other people to see what I wrote? By the way, how did the final review go?

      I'm sorry this was broken up into 3 posts, there is some sort of max character limit.

      Jun 7, 06 4:56 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:

  • shawn jenkins

Other blogs affiliated with University of Oregon:

Recent Entries