In my seemingly ever ending quest to understand the finesse of metal structures, I've start to come to the realization that many 'avant garde' approaches to building form seem to be only skin deep.
The reason I make this claim is that it seems that nearly all of them-- from the parametric to the deconstructionist-- rely on concrete box cores.
For instance:
Dressed up concrete box with clever counter weights.
Two concrete boxes with a bridge.
Another concrete box!
Perhaps I am over simplifying it and reducing architecture of large(r) structures down to a putrid au jus.
But even with the innovation and exploration of modern/postmodern/post-postmondern architecture, it seems that "we (not me)"'re essentially dressing up concrete boxes.
And partially what troubles me is when it comes to the extraordinarily fantastical-- from biomimcry to parametricism-- that even more complex forms of "decoration" will be utilized on these unwavering concrete cores. Oh wow, your generative membrane grows itself into a delightful fractal pattern... but there's still a box inside of there.
Are there any "super structures"-- large buildings to skyscrapers -- that don't utilize the ol' concrete core? There's some obvious exceptions such as stadiums, attennae and towers.
Anyone have any counter examples? Thoughts? Name calling?
Turning Torso, Chicago Spire and 80 South Street are/were/will be all dressed up concrete cores.
His other work is so specialized and purpose-oriented, it falls under the general umbrella of "non-functional" because almost all of it can't be repurposed, adapted or transformed away from it's original use.
His work is highly functional when it is used as intended though... but the bulk of his work seems to be relatively small-and-light and low-to-the-ground buildings relying on a prolific arch or suspension. Not exactly exciting!
Well, you gotta have something stout to tie all of those cantilevers into. I'd say it's fairly necessary to have a big concrete box under those delicate facades. Plus, you need some sort of stiff core or perimeter for those towers. Until we invent a functional sky hook or are able to turn gravity of, I think it's going to be that way.
I so enjoy your posts, and understand your argument, but I only hope that some day my work can be 'not exactly exciting' as his.
one thought is NOX's HtwoOexpo, my understanding is level change is integral to the design, but it is basically one level and the level changes may be in concrete
a more compelling one may be wes jones's guest house where the floor is hydraulic and elevates up through i think five levels --- in la --- don't have time to find the name now
Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the pattern on CCTV's facade structurally derived? For being a concrete box, that is a hell of a lot of steel in those pictures. Sure, there might be a concrete core. But saying that is the story of the entire structure of that building seems to be a massive oversimplification.
I guess you could also describe the Hancock building and Sears Tower as also dressed up concrete cores, but that is like describing humans as dressed up calcium matrixes. Seems to intentionally miss the point...
so if your theory is correct then anyone could build the above because its just concrete boxes with stuff stuck on?
that's not true.
at best the point you can make is that these buildings are amenable to graphic analysis using simple geometry. That doesn't mean the simple geometry is adequate to tell the whole story, nor that the analysis is even correct.
well shapes and forms also *do* things... create a *frame*... mark a location... landmark... define a skyline... organize an idea of circulation... create a spectacle, attraction... float an economy... identify a city... reflect a surrounding landscape...
Yes CCTV's facade is structurally derived. It is a combination diagrid and post/slab structure with entire floor depth transfer beams that hold the cantilever.
Most buildings are dressed up concrete cores because it is efficient and a structurally sound thing to do.
I wouldn't really compare human skeletons to concrete cores. In some aspects, yes. Aside, did you know that fat is considered an organ these days?
I agree with jump and bRink above - many sexy buildings are more than *just* dressed-up boxes, though a lot of the flashy renderings from the last ten years have been fairly simplistic skin-deep decoration, IMO.
I've said it many many times here: I don't see the promise of form via Rhino et al coming to true fruition in architecture until we have the cell-sized replicating building bots that will assemble the building like coral. Mitchell Joachim's Tree and Meat houses are getting closer to this idea.
Even then, though, pvbeeber's point is a big hurdle: elevators like to go straight. Maybe we'll have a new kind of elevator by then, something more like a white blood cell pod in a system of arteries?
By this argument, I guess anyone that strums a "A", "D" and "G" are all just relying on existing chords - quite boring.
Or, "those are just brush strokes with oil paint", again, so so boring!
I get your point, the construction world has not kept pace with the imaginations of the most talented. But that has to be expected when you are dealing with 'one-offs', not mass produced production designs (like cars, even then the structure is more or less the same as it always has been).
Architecture is about space, though, and how that space is experienced is what matters. Some 'concrete boxes' are exceptional, some are boring, just as with music or art.
I am with DS, the blobbers had their day and failed. It was a nice idea (this mass customization and such), but the reality is driven by real world economics, which brings us right back to a 'concrete box'.
But look at almost everything else in our world, from space craft to race cars, they all must obey the structural and economic laws.
By your argument, we just live in a boring world and everything, regardless of the beauty, is banal and shallow. That's kinda sad.
I just kind of doodled this right now as a response.
As far as the concrete box core goes-- I know the reason they exist. For some reasons posts above... but to recap:
1) Elevators are rectangular and they like to move up in down in straight lines.
2) Taller and larger structures, especially those made of metal, like to move around. Concrete box cores provide rigidity to keep them in place.
3) Since the advent of the skyscraper until very recently, there has been quite a messy divorce between the exterior membrane and the interior structure.
4) Concrete boxes serve as fire-resistant people chutes. People tend to like it when they don't die. They also seem to like centralized places that are easily accessible to ride elevators.
5) Grouping like things also tends to reduce cost.
6) Concrete cores are generally poured as continuous single monolithic structures. That variety of construction method pretty much requires straight up and down lines as the mold work and pouring has to be pretty consistent.
CCTV is a badder example. I realize the exterior facade is structural but I still wanted to drive a point that inside all of that gloriousness was still two concrete cores.
Now, someone countered with the John Hancock Center which does not rely on a concrete core!
I was hoping someone would have brought up Toyo Ito! Many of his buildings do not rely purely on concrete cores. You dissapoint me holz!
My argument was simply not that anyone can do this-- however, the use of said cores can almost gaurantee a building won't collapse anytime soon.
I was simply asking if there was a more "creative" theory or actual methodology to either use different varieties of cores, interior structures or different applications to avoid have a the ol' concrete box.
the structure of cctv is pretty intelligent - skin and core working as a single system. ditto the museum by sanaa. i don't know the first blob, but assume you get my drift.
anyhow, somehow you are thinking the point of architecture is to show on the outside what is on the inside, or is it something more esoteric even...?
without speaking for anyone but myself i would say the point of architecture is space and how people experience it. all the rest is just a means to an end. to me that means your critique is missing the point of why buildings look like they do.
if you want to analyse buildings i think it is a great exercise but you have to look at it with an ambition to understand what is going on and why. starting with the preconditions you have makes your analysis a little bit irrelevant really, and worse i am not sure you are learning anything from it...which is a pity because there are a lot of lessons to be learned from the projects you picked.
sorry to be all teacher-y. i gived my students an analytical assignment the last two semesters and many of them have the same problem, pre-judging what they see and missing the real cool stuff that makes the architects they look at so special.
But, coming from more a planning side... I do not give credit to architects for those spaces. I prefer to consider owners as operators of space.
An auditorium is just a room of chairs without users utilizing that space-- an opera house is not an opera house without singers, dancers, stage managers, ushers and box office attendants. To say someone designed an opera house is a bit of a misnomer because it is not an opera house without an actual opera.
Space is owned by its user and by the participants of said space. To echo the notion of Rem Koolhaus' work, the creation of underutilized space is essentially junkspace. And to predefine spaces can either lead spaces to be great places or it can doom them into neglect, obsolesce or misuse.
The architectural creation of an intellectualized space is ephemeral at best.
While many may marvel at the exterior and structure of the CCTV tower, the reality is a building as complex as that has thousands if not tens of thousands of users.
Their experience of space-- no matter how clever, cerebral or enculturated it maybe-- from the front door to their desk may last as long as 5-10 minutes with the bulk of that time confined within an elevator.
And with the repetitive nature of entering and leaving the building-- which could be anywhere from 1 to 15 times a day-- the experience of it more than likely becomes stale and blends together.
What constitutes space for many of these office works in their offices, desks and cubicles-- the desk with the crooked drawer that always ends up pinching a finger, the random chilly drafts, the photos of loved ones, the tiny arts and crafts made from stolen office supplies.
While one might think of the larger picture, the overall flow of the office... the user, who in defining their own space, may never walk around the corner. This same user will also probably occupy the same 55-85 sqft of space for the next decade.
And when it comes to office buildings, owner-as-operator-of-space tends to take open plan offices and section them off with mazes of cubicles. And sometimes the reverse happens too. But an office is just a room without office workers laboring away.
This same very office worker whose actions define the space as an office may never care or notice about the function of the facade and the core. Their priorities could lie elsewhere-- like the amount of steps to the nearest restroom, which floor has the fewest amount of workers therefore the cleanest toilets or which vending machine has the best snacks.
a little late to this discussion, since this is a crowd that might be interested in Tall Building research and design, thought i would let you know that the countries foremost High rise Thesis program at IIT has been effectively shut down by the dean in all of that persons wisdom. A terrible loss to Architecture.
In relation to form of tall buildings i will only say to unicorn, that up to about 40 stories, architects can play with whimsical ideas, and arbitrary shapes, but past 40 stories, you cant ignore the fact that we live on planet earth, where gravity and wind loads become a factor.
i would say as technology advance, the skin and actual volume departs in different direction... or may be it should be in the first place! the skin respond to weather, the volume respond to function.
ok UG, but what does that have to do with structural honesty and the use of concrete to make boxes? i haven't seen the interior of CCTV but the museum by sanaa has some powerful interior spaces composed of those boxes you are upset about...not sure what you are trying to get at except that you think you caught these great architects actually being mediocre?
also not sure where planning comes into the equation, or at least not the way you have presented it...nor how planning ties into the original complaint...
not that it hasn't been interesting pr anything, but somehow it feels like you are looking for a problem to drape your conclusion over.
Well, honestly I have no idea why space came into this arguement or why I was ambushed about it.
Especially when I prefaced my original post that I maybe over simplifying or over reducing it.
Even more so that I was told I didn't understand space because I was criticizing the practice of filling interesting volumes with stagnant suppurt structures. Which is actually kind of funny because my idea of looking past a concrete core would inevitably lead to even better and more creative uses of structure and volume!
Plus, there's this whole part of my original post:
"Are there any "super structures"-- large buildings to skyscrapers -- that don't utilize the ol' concrete core? There's some obvious exceptions such as stadiums, attennae and towers."
You know the part where I was looking for an actual counter example of someone not participating in the practice.
And you countered with "without speaking for anyone but myself i would say the point of architecture is space and how people experience it. all the rest is just a means to an end. to me that means your critique is missing the point of why buildings look like they do."
The point with planning is planning is essentially the concept of space or a point in space in relation to passage of time. Many architects like to think they create interesting "space" but often their approach is "object creation" at specific points in actual time.
And I was saying it is nearly impossible to practice object creation when your object is constantly being manipulated by many users of the intended object over a period of time.
And no offense to Sanaa, their museum is beautiful...
Why are concrete cores "partially all a lie"? Or not structurally honest? Some structures are made possible by concrete cores.
Concrete cores for some building/construction/structure types can make a lot of sense in many ways, as some have pointed out. It may lack ingenuity for ingenuity sake, but its use doesn't lack integrity as it seems to be suggested. In fact, there are a lot of compatibilities between concrete and steel. Concrete doesn't do well with tensile forces, while steel does. Concrete holds up well under high heat, while steel essentially loses all strength after a certain temperature point. They are both chemically and in terms of thermal expansion coefficient, can be very compatible depending on steel composition - different metals are less compatible to each other than structural steel is to concrete.
But sure, architecture isn't and shouldn't always be created via the path of least resistance. If the issue is the centralization of the vertical circulation combined with the structural usage, I would argue it may often be a sensical response to the programmatic & structural needs. If the issue is with the material selection, this may reflect regional material availability, regional labor forces, proven construction methods (i.e. slip form), etc. With an unlimited budget/resources and time, sure there may be alternatives if it is a response to program and need, and somehow the priority of NOT having a concrete core is higher than other needs on the project, it can certainly be valid.
UG, sorry not an ambush, just an evolution of the discussion.
your original post if i understand it is that the fancy shapes we were looking at were not really all that interesting, just compositions of boxes. the answer is very plainly, yes but so what? as long as those boxes are achieving things that other boxlike configurations do not do then there is more than enough going on. for me the bit that matters is space, for others it will be something else. for you it was the validity of the shapes which were not apparently structurally honest enough to suit?
do i have that wrong?
as far as structural honesty goes apart from the blob both the museum and the cctv are pretty expressive structurally and in many ways rather wysiwyg, though i don't think many people really care about that sort of thing anymore.
as for planning, hmm, not sure what your point is there. cctv does more on that score than most of the high rise buildings in the area. sanaa's building fits seamlessly into the existing urban fabric, and even the floor level is flush so going inside is just a matter of sliding in. that is a small thing, but perhaps a bit better than most. the blob however is just a big ol monster sitting there. i don't believe it has any planning ambitions just looking at it...but what that has to do with the concrete core i still don't get... i fear i am misunderstanding your real point?
@nam, structural honesty was a requirement for us in undergrad. we were taught by a guy who worked for mies and he would always use that phrase. i used to believe it but nowadays i find it not so important. great if it can be done, but otherwise not so big a deal...it was funny enough the good mr. Remment who convinced me of the point with his BIGness article.
perhaps what Unicorn is getting at is that these buildings are part of a "banal architecture, a professional embodiment of a striving for the beautiful, a good "school" performance which sought consciously to be beautiful."
"idea that has resulted in the view that beauty is a matter of caprice, that it is merely a freak of imagination to one man divine, to another hideous to another meaningless. We are familiar with the assertion, that, should a man put eleven stove pipe hats on top of that cornice of his buildings and find them beautiful why then they must be beautiful. Yes, perhaps to him; but the only possible conclusion is, that, like the eleven hats on the cornice, he is not beautiful, because beauty to him is utter violation of all the harmonies of any sequence of consequence of his own nature. To find inorganic things of no truth of relation beautiful is but to demonstrate the lack of beauty in oneself and one's unfitness for any office in administering the beautiful, and to provide another example of the stultification that comes from the confusior of the curious with the beautiful."
these are from the Wasmuth Portfolio quotes of Frank L. Wright.
I think they answer jumps confusion about what bothers Unicorn, and answers why strucutural honesty is as important to expressing the truth of anything.
For the planning part, it was specifically how I tend to view architectural objects over lapsed time.
Now, I wasn't necessarily trying to call B.S. on the whole space creation thing, I was merely hinting that space as a created object, especially architecturally, doesn't always follow intended purposes or may not stay the same space over a specific time period.
But, in fancier art circles dealing in the most obscure historical and philosophical standpoints...
... the practice of Art is known as "object creation."
In the simplest of terms, object creation is the creation of an object (person, place, thing or idea) that exists within the physical realm and is observable.
But specifically, variety of objects are known as ritual objects as interesting because while they maybe art on their own... their representation changes drastically as they were created as art as tools.
Their creation is static and the concepts they represent are fairly permanent. However, ritual objects incorporate various actions-- ceremonies, offerings, touching-- that completes the creation of the object. Essentially, the incorporation of action into an object is what makes many objects art.
In the western world, the idea of object creation became fairly secularized and simplified as piece of art was usually only considered a single object with a single purpose and a single intent.
From about the 600s to the 1800s, there was relatively structural concept behind object creation with the exception of object creation originating from other cultures or the occult. (Don't get caught with these!)
LONG BORING HISTORICAL POINT OVER, kind of.
Modern architecture, as an extension of modern art, is kind of humorous in some aspects-- the humor isn't limited to architecture but art as a whole.
Modernism, while reactionary in most capacities, is inspired by an influx of Far Eastern and African concepts during the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
African art instilled many concepts in modernism-- art as total abstraction, art as process, art as temporary (consumable). While many artists understood the complexities of African art, many aspects were lost.
For many African cultures, art represents a variety of object creation of ephemeral and fleeting ideas. Sometimes, the end created object is not necessarily important as the process of commit the object creation is found to be even more important.
Some pieces of art are only art when they are being moved as the embodied idea behind the object was strictly created for the object to be moved to be understood.
And another concept was the degradation of objects themselves. Like emotions, ideas often change through the passage of time. A process of grieving can be represented through the creation of an unfired clay object which will eventually disintegrate.
The overall concept I'm driving at is that object creation can occupy 4 dimensions-- as a point, as a distance between two points, volumetrically and from some point past present future to another point past present and future.
While architecture certainly observes time as a part of object creation, urban planning can be considered as a practice of object creation of many objects over a timeline.
seems an argument can be made that blobs, nifty parametric designs, etc, are significant b/c of what they imply about the evolution in data management & operationalization & the way in which the facade gives voice to these innovations and less about ways in which such facades really speak to the evolution of structural form or how we occupy space
with respect to evolving paradigms for structural form, donna may have hit the nail with ref to coral and joachim's tree and meat houses ---
and with respect to evolving notions of space, there are many references ---
with respect to the expression of structure vs adornment discussion, i always like to bring up scotts', the architecture of humanism --- from which one can argue both in favor of UG's perspective and against --- in favor in that there is an implied depth to the resonance of a design when the innovations realized through the aesthetics inhere in the structure and formal organization of the spaces and functions and that such a formal quality is often appropriate in the design of substantial architecture ---- against his perspective in that there are several fallacies noted by scott, including the literary fallacy, the mechanical fallacy, the academic fallacy, ... in which the logic of a proposition is carried through design to the detriment of the design itself, specifically the experience it can offer --- so that one must know when to let the design be a result of how we as humans use it, how our bodies' can enjoy it and benefit from it, even if that means the logical proposition or statement implicit is less rigorous
so time is important to you. can you tie that back to the examples and the problem with the boxes? i am still missing that link somehow.
DA, i know you love FLW, but wow that is just not good writing. frankly (no pun intended) i find much of what frank did rather ugly (maybe that is his endearing point?). he did a number of seriously great buildings along the way but that man let a lot of crap shake out of his sleeves (to borrow his phrase)...
structural honesty was a requirement for us in undergrad. we were taught by a guy who worked for mies and he would always use that phrase.
lol - and the barcelona pavilion was all about structural honesty...
unicorn: tall buildings need something structurally rigid to deal with lateral and shear forces. the easiest way to do this is through the elevator/stair core in the center of the building - as concrete is both good as a shear wall and fire-resistant material (as you know). plus, this way you can free up the exterior for unobstructed glazing.
"crazy forms" happened because someone discovered that the envelope doesn't need to be a flat plane - and we have computers/software that makes figuring out how to build the skin a lot easier. IMO - the "concrete core" is what makes these forms possible.
I was addressing your concept of "creating space."
Without specific examples of the created "spaces" of these buildings (with the exception of the SANAA building, which I've been inside), it's not necessarily easy to make a tie.
I was making the point when architecture blurs the line of facilitator (making a place, providing square footage, meeting general requirements) and object creator (art, inclusion of abstract)...
... the ideas that the architect values or the implied use and meaning is often not the same experience or understanding that translates over to users at any specific point or over an lapsed timeline.
To think of it this way, a dining room be definition is a room where people eat.
Is it still a dining room if no one eats in it?
Does that make living rooms, offices, lobbies, elevators, bedrooms or even closets dining rooms as well?
Are dining rooms not also studies, game rooms, studios, offices or even classrooms?
So, when you say "without speaking for anyone but myself i would say the point of architecture is space and how people experience it."
Quantify that into any specific construct with a redeemable, testable concept.
But my problem with the 'banal' concrete box comes down to this--
All of these buildings in some capacity (except for SANAA) function the same regardless of user or architect.
The facade implies something fantastic. It implies that these buildings are something other than elevator banks and hallways.
In reality, there's little of anything different here programmatically past maybe an atrium, lobby, a few lounges and an observation deck.
If your acting as architect-as-facilitator, then you've done your job.
If your acting as architect-as-object-creator, then you're doing a poor job.
There's also a hierarchical concept to these buildings that I don't like because they lack diversity between private and democratic spaces. All of the best "spaces" in these buildings that have any variety or uniqueness to them will be handed out to the most privileged.
And toasteroven! Good response!
That's what I as basically assuming is the compromise exists in some capacity.
However, I'd still like to see a building over 6-8 stories try something different. I suppose a place to start is to look at buildings that have substantial atria.
substantial atria sound promising --- actually, throughout your post the interior of the Cooper Union's new building came to mind
as far as someone trying to rethink of how we occupy space at a fundamental level, and through a very poetic lens, gins & arakawa's architectural body comes to mind
but this seems a bigger issue than just designers failing as object creators --- there's a similar argument raised with respect to the design of space, form and experience in Second Life and serious games --- why is that that people love to fly in second life but seem fundamentally incapable of reconceiving their relationship to environmental form and space? so that after flying, they still want to land and walk into their traditional virtual house where the laws of gravity, physics and some limitations related to socio-economic status will still apply to them
if we can't reconceive our relationship to space and form when their are no rules, then how can we in the real world?
your latest post also struck a chord with me on another level --- people engage space and form in very different ways all of the time and enjoy it, but consider it inappropriate for 'normal' environments, why?
whether it is climbing a tuna tower on a sport fisher as the boat bounces along at 30 knots and then hanging out up there despite the wind and the chop, or iron hangers running up and down W shaped columns and sitting on their wrenches, or people climbing multi-story scaffolding as fast as monkeys, hanging out on fire escapes, bounding along catwalks and up and down ladders, acclimating to the rocking of waves, making treehouses for their kids and playing with them inside, living in lofts with all manner of suspended usable space, or in the constraints of a submarine, thoughtlessly walking across or lounging on uneven terrain, hot terrain, cold terrain, rough terrain, moist terrain, even reading/writing/drawing using a laptop while on such inclined/variable terrain without thinking anything of it
why not have a little of that joy and playfulness of relationship to space and form within an architectural setting?
In reality, there's little of anything different here programmatically past maybe an atrium, lobby, a few lounges and an observation deck.
welcome to the world of commercial real-estate. these buildings are meant to be objects/symbols to look good on brochures. the interiors often change every 5-10 years anyway (tenants expand and contract, owner's tastes change), so there's no point in spending a lot of time designing the inside (maybe the lobby) - unless you want to fundamentally change how people lease space. all you're doing is providing the shell and SF - and another architect/interior designer will take over for the tenant. commercial developers will not like un-leasable SF unless you make a very compelling argument for it.
residential high-rise is different, there's a little more design in the units, but once you're getting high-end, the tenant's going to redo everything anyway, so really you're only again providing SF with enough windows.
you've touched upon the problem of large buildings - really, the only space that has potential to be truly "democratic" are the first 2 or 3 floors - everything above is just SF, only accessible by elevator. I think OMA and Rex have grappled with these issues in a few of their projects...
hm, maybe i get it UG. you want expressive exterior design also be expressive/inventive function ?
toasteroven pretty much covers the reason it doesn't work so easily. i would say oma and rex have based their careers on making that problem into a design starting point. "why design a banal floor?" is usually the start, then they work out other ways to make the architecture interesting. same with sanaa. it is all carefully thought out but they know when it isn't necessary to design. i guess mediocre architects are the ones who haven't learned when to stop....
regarding space, well that is a pretty big one. if you want to you can use the sanaa building in NY. blocks shift over to create openings for light to enter the building from above and to make exterior spaces that would otherwise have to be carved from a massive block. it is pretty smart, shifting the blocks around like that. structurally i suppose the correct answer would be to have a straight and unwavering skin but since they get so much out of such a small transformation it is really rather smart. myself i don't like that long interior stairway but the rest of the place is nice, especially from the outside.
anyway, the blocks shift to make cool and or excellent spaces. that is the point. if you take another example, say the metabolists just to stay japanese, the shifting boxes for them was used not to create space, inside or out, but to create a visual impression of modularity. which was fake. interesting but not actually something anyone got to enjoy because the spaces left over were not really designed primarily for inhabitation. take for example the shizuoka newspaper building by kenzo tange
spaces are created but not as succesful as sejima and nishizawa's effort in my book, simply because the ambition was graphic rather than spatial.
i guess you can imagine more and better examples. the point for me is that there is a trade made when taking design decisions. you get something for every move that is taken. if you are a good architect you get something very special. if you are a mediocre architect you take the first answer that satisfies the requirement but does nothing/little more (corporate architecture ). if you are a bad architecture you get something that doesn't work and is horrible to be in too (bad corporate architect?)
most of the really great stuff not only looks good but has fantastic spatial qualities. so if you analyse it graphically according to the elements the lessons only come from when the connection is made between that fundamental form and the things that are "gotten" from how they are arranged.
now that i think on it, that is why we ask architecture students to analyse buildings. or it is at least why i do it. if they are able to understand the basic stuff and express it graphically i give them a C. if they are able to show they understand what came from those shapes for the users i give them a B or an A. If they can then tie all of that stuff together with the history and the culture of the past and today then they probably get an A+. sometimes a smart student comes through and understands. most struggle. they think it is a stupid exercise....i think this thread proves otherwise. lots of interesting things can come of the observation that buildings are just concrete cores with bits hanging off the middle...
;-)
Aug 9, 10 7:34 pm ·
·
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.
Fantastical shapes are only 'skin' deep?
In my seemingly ever ending quest to understand the finesse of metal structures, I've start to come to the realization that many 'avant garde' approaches to building form seem to be only skin deep.
The reason I make this claim is that it seems that nearly all of them-- from the parametric to the deconstructionist-- rely on concrete box cores.
For instance:
Dressed up concrete box with clever counter weights.
Two concrete boxes with a bridge.
Another concrete box!
Perhaps I am over simplifying it and reducing architecture of large(r) structures down to a putrid au jus.
But even with the innovation and exploration of modern/postmodern/post-postmondern architecture, it seems that "we (not me)"'re essentially dressing up concrete boxes.
And partially what troubles me is when it comes to the extraordinarily fantastical-- from biomimcry to parametricism-- that even more complex forms of "decoration" will be utilized on these unwavering concrete cores. Oh wow, your generative membrane grows itself into a delightful fractal pattern... but there's still a box inside of there.
Are there any "super structures"-- large buildings to skyscrapers -- that don't utilize the ol' concrete core? There's some obvious exceptions such as stadiums, attennae and towers.
Anyone have any counter examples? Thoughts? Name calling?
the first that comes to mind is some of calatrava's work
Turning Torso, Chicago Spire and 80 South Street are/were/will be all dressed up concrete cores.
His other work is so specialized and purpose-oriented, it falls under the general umbrella of "non-functional" because almost all of it can't be repurposed, adapted or transformed away from it's original use.
His work is highly functional when it is used as intended though... but the bulk of his work seems to be relatively small-and-light and low-to-the-ground buildings relying on a prolific arch or suspension. Not exactly exciting!
Well, you gotta have something stout to tie all of those cantilevers into. I'd say it's fairly necessary to have a big concrete box under those delicate facades. Plus, you need some sort of stiff core or perimeter for those towers. Until we invent a functional sky hook or are able to turn gravity of, I think it's going to be that way.
I so enjoy your posts, and understand your argument, but I only hope that some day my work can be 'not exactly exciting' as his.
one thought is NOX's HtwoOexpo, my understanding is level change is integral to the design, but it is basically one level and the level changes may be in concrete
a more compelling one may be wes jones's guest house where the floor is hydraulic and elevates up through i think five levels --- in la --- don't have time to find the name now
Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the pattern on CCTV's facade structurally derived? For being a concrete box, that is a hell of a lot of steel in those pictures. Sure, there might be a concrete core. But saying that is the story of the entire structure of that building seems to be a massive oversimplification.
I guess you could also describe the Hancock building and Sears Tower as also dressed up concrete cores, but that is like describing humans as dressed up calcium matrixes. Seems to intentionally miss the point...
But with out the calcium matrix, humans would be a puddle of various fluids (about 90% water) because our cells lack a structural envelope.
A leaf retains its shape even after being cut from the tree because every cell in a plant is structural.
venturi's argument
so if your theory is correct then anyone could build the above because its just concrete boxes with stuff stuck on?
that's not true.
at best the point you can make is that these buildings are amenable to graphic analysis using simple geometry. That doesn't mean the simple geometry is adequate to tell the whole story, nor that the analysis is even correct.
well shapes and forms also *do* things... create a *frame*... mark a location... landmark... define a skyline... organize an idea of circulation... create a spectacle, attraction... float an economy... identify a city... reflect a surrounding landscape...
Yes CCTV's facade is structurally derived. It is a combination diagrid and post/slab structure with entire floor depth transfer beams that hold the cantilever.
Most buildings are dressed up concrete cores because it is efficient and a structurally sound thing to do.
Also elevators like to travel in straight lines and contractors (and the clients who pay them) like to use repetitive formwork.
Nice post, Unicorn, and good discussion.
I wouldn't really compare human skeletons to concrete cores. In some aspects, yes. Aside, did you know that fat is considered an organ these days?
I agree with jump and bRink above - many sexy buildings are more than *just* dressed-up boxes, though a lot of the flashy renderings from the last ten years have been fairly simplistic skin-deep decoration, IMO.
I've said it many many times here: I don't see the promise of form via Rhino et al coming to true fruition in architecture until we have the cell-sized replicating building bots that will assemble the building like coral. Mitchell Joachim's Tree and Meat houses are getting closer to this idea.
Even then, though, pvbeeber's point is a big hurdle: elevators like to go straight. Maybe we'll have a new kind of elevator by then, something more like a white blood cell pod in a system of arteries?
By this argument, I guess anyone that strums a "A", "D" and "G" are all just relying on existing chords - quite boring.
Or, "those are just brush strokes with oil paint", again, so so boring!
I get your point, the construction world has not kept pace with the imaginations of the most talented. But that has to be expected when you are dealing with 'one-offs', not mass produced production designs (like cars, even then the structure is more or less the same as it always has been).
Architecture is about space, though, and how that space is experienced is what matters. Some 'concrete boxes' are exceptional, some are boring, just as with music or art.
I am with DS, the blobbers had their day and failed. It was a nice idea (this mass customization and such), but the reality is driven by real world economics, which brings us right back to a 'concrete box'.
But look at almost everything else in our world, from space craft to race cars, they all must obey the structural and economic laws.
By your argument, we just live in a boring world and everything, regardless of the beauty, is banal and shallow. That's kinda sad.
I just kind of doodled this right now as a response.
As far as the concrete box core goes-- I know the reason they exist. For some reasons posts above... but to recap:
1) Elevators are rectangular and they like to move up in down in straight lines.
2) Taller and larger structures, especially those made of metal, like to move around. Concrete box cores provide rigidity to keep them in place.
3) Since the advent of the skyscraper until very recently, there has been quite a messy divorce between the exterior membrane and the interior structure.
4) Concrete boxes serve as fire-resistant people chutes. People tend to like it when they don't die. They also seem to like centralized places that are easily accessible to ride elevators.
5) Grouping like things also tends to reduce cost.
6) Concrete cores are generally poured as continuous single monolithic structures. That variety of construction method pretty much requires straight up and down lines as the mold work and pouring has to be pretty consistent.
CCTV is a badder example. I realize the exterior facade is structural but I still wanted to drive a point that inside all of that gloriousness was still two concrete cores.
Now, someone countered with the John Hancock Center which does not rely on a concrete core!
I was hoping someone would have brought up Toyo Ito! Many of his buildings do not rely purely on concrete cores. You dissapoint me holz!
My argument was simply not that anyone can do this-- however, the use of said cores can almost gaurantee a building won't collapse anytime soon.
I was simply asking if there was a more "creative" theory or actual methodology to either use different varieties of cores, interior structures or different applications to avoid have a the ol' concrete box.
I'm just basically saying that I'm a bit disillusioned when I see a 'sexy' building with a structural facade, curves and all sorts of hotness...
And then to learn... like a woman with a boob job or a man with bulge-enhancing underwear, that it is partially all a lie.
why is any of that a lie?
the structure of cctv is pretty intelligent - skin and core working as a single system. ditto the museum by sanaa. i don't know the first blob, but assume you get my drift.
anyhow, somehow you are thinking the point of architecture is to show on the outside what is on the inside, or is it something more esoteric even...?
without speaking for anyone but myself i would say the point of architecture is space and how people experience it. all the rest is just a means to an end. to me that means your critique is missing the point of why buildings look like they do.
if you want to analyse buildings i think it is a great exercise but you have to look at it with an ambition to understand what is going on and why. starting with the preconditions you have makes your analysis a little bit irrelevant really, and worse i am not sure you are learning anything from it...which is a pity because there are a lot of lessons to be learned from the projects you picked.
sorry to be all teacher-y. i gived my students an analytical assignment the last two semesters and many of them have the same problem, pre-judging what they see and missing the real cool stuff that makes the architects they look at so special.
No, I understand the facets of space.
But, coming from more a planning side... I do not give credit to architects for those spaces. I prefer to consider owners as operators of space.
An auditorium is just a room of chairs without users utilizing that space-- an opera house is not an opera house without singers, dancers, stage managers, ushers and box office attendants. To say someone designed an opera house is a bit of a misnomer because it is not an opera house without an actual opera.
Space is owned by its user and by the participants of said space. To echo the notion of Rem Koolhaus' work, the creation of underutilized space is essentially junkspace. And to predefine spaces can either lead spaces to be great places or it can doom them into neglect, obsolesce or misuse.
The architectural creation of an intellectualized space is ephemeral at best.
While many may marvel at the exterior and structure of the CCTV tower, the reality is a building as complex as that has thousands if not tens of thousands of users.
Their experience of space-- no matter how clever, cerebral or enculturated it maybe-- from the front door to their desk may last as long as 5-10 minutes with the bulk of that time confined within an elevator.
And with the repetitive nature of entering and leaving the building-- which could be anywhere from 1 to 15 times a day-- the experience of it more than likely becomes stale and blends together.
What constitutes space for many of these office works in their offices, desks and cubicles-- the desk with the crooked drawer that always ends up pinching a finger, the random chilly drafts, the photos of loved ones, the tiny arts and crafts made from stolen office supplies.
While one might think of the larger picture, the overall flow of the office... the user, who in defining their own space, may never walk around the corner. This same user will also probably occupy the same 55-85 sqft of space for the next decade.
And when it comes to office buildings, owner-as-operator-of-space tends to take open plan offices and section them off with mazes of cubicles. And sometimes the reverse happens too. But an office is just a room without office workers laboring away.
This same very office worker whose actions define the space as an office may never care or notice about the function of the facade and the core. Their priorities could lie elsewhere-- like the amount of steps to the nearest restroom, which floor has the fewest amount of workers therefore the cleanest toilets or which vending machine has the best snacks.
a little late to this discussion, since this is a crowd that might be interested in Tall Building research and design, thought i would let you know that the countries foremost High rise Thesis program at IIT has been effectively shut down by the dean in all of that persons wisdom. A terrible loss to Architecture.
In relation to form of tall buildings i will only say to unicorn, that up to about 40 stories, architects can play with whimsical ideas, and arbitrary shapes, but past 40 stories, you cant ignore the fact that we live on planet earth, where gravity and wind loads become a factor.
i would say as technology advance, the skin and actual volume departs in different direction... or may be it should be in the first place! the skin respond to weather, the volume respond to function.
ok UG, but what does that have to do with structural honesty and the use of concrete to make boxes? i haven't seen the interior of CCTV but the museum by sanaa has some powerful interior spaces composed of those boxes you are upset about...not sure what you are trying to get at except that you think you caught these great architects actually being mediocre?
also not sure where planning comes into the equation, or at least not the way you have presented it...nor how planning ties into the original complaint...
not that it hasn't been interesting pr anything, but somehow it feels like you are looking for a problem to drape your conclusion over.
?
Well, honestly I have no idea why space came into this arguement or why I was ambushed about it.
Especially when I prefaced my original post that I maybe over simplifying or over reducing it.
Even more so that I was told I didn't understand space because I was criticizing the practice of filling interesting volumes with stagnant suppurt structures. Which is actually kind of funny because my idea of looking past a concrete core would inevitably lead to even better and more creative uses of structure and volume!
Plus, there's this whole part of my original post:
"Are there any "super structures"-- large buildings to skyscrapers -- that don't utilize the ol' concrete core? There's some obvious exceptions such as stadiums, attennae and towers."
You know the part where I was looking for an actual counter example of someone not participating in the practice.
And you countered with "without speaking for anyone but myself i would say the point of architecture is space and how people experience it. all the rest is just a means to an end. to me that means your critique is missing the point of why buildings look like they do."
The point with planning is planning is essentially the concept of space or a point in space in relation to passage of time. Many architects like to think they create interesting "space" but often their approach is "object creation" at specific points in actual time.
And I was saying it is nearly impossible to practice object creation when your object is constantly being manipulated by many users of the intended object over a period of time.
And no offense to Sanaa, their museum is beautiful...
[img]http://www.arcspace.com/architects/sejima_nishizawa/new_museum2/14new_museum.jpg width=415[img]
But I wouldn't call that "thrilling."
jump, structural honesty is an interesting phrase. I would think I would be in favor of it as a practice though.
Although, such an area of concern as you said may be outside of architecture, if the point of architecture is space and how people experience it.
DisplacedArchitect interesting point re: external forces and gravity.
Why are concrete cores "partially all a lie"? Or not structurally honest? Some structures are made possible by concrete cores.
Concrete cores for some building/construction/structure types can make a lot of sense in many ways, as some have pointed out. It may lack ingenuity for ingenuity sake, but its use doesn't lack integrity as it seems to be suggested. In fact, there are a lot of compatibilities between concrete and steel. Concrete doesn't do well with tensile forces, while steel does. Concrete holds up well under high heat, while steel essentially loses all strength after a certain temperature point. They are both chemically and in terms of thermal expansion coefficient, can be very compatible depending on steel composition - different metals are less compatible to each other than structural steel is to concrete.
But sure, architecture isn't and shouldn't always be created via the path of least resistance. If the issue is the centralization of the vertical circulation combined with the structural usage, I would argue it may often be a sensical response to the programmatic & structural needs. If the issue is with the material selection, this may reflect regional material availability, regional labor forces, proven construction methods (i.e. slip form), etc. With an unlimited budget/resources and time, sure there may be alternatives if it is a response to program and need, and somehow the priority of NOT having a concrete core is higher than other needs on the project, it can certainly be valid.
UG, sorry not an ambush, just an evolution of the discussion.
your original post if i understand it is that the fancy shapes we were looking at were not really all that interesting, just compositions of boxes. the answer is very plainly, yes but so what? as long as those boxes are achieving things that other boxlike configurations do not do then there is more than enough going on. for me the bit that matters is space, for others it will be something else. for you it was the validity of the shapes which were not apparently structurally honest enough to suit?
do i have that wrong?
as far as structural honesty goes apart from the blob both the museum and the cctv are pretty expressive structurally and in many ways rather wysiwyg, though i don't think many people really care about that sort of thing anymore.
as for planning, hmm, not sure what your point is there. cctv does more on that score than most of the high rise buildings in the area. sanaa's building fits seamlessly into the existing urban fabric, and even the floor level is flush so going inside is just a matter of sliding in. that is a small thing, but perhaps a bit better than most. the blob however is just a big ol monster sitting there. i don't believe it has any planning ambitions just looking at it...but what that has to do with the concrete core i still don't get... i fear i am misunderstanding your real point?
@nam, structural honesty was a requirement for us in undergrad. we were taught by a guy who worked for mies and he would always use that phrase. i used to believe it but nowadays i find it not so important. great if it can be done, but otherwise not so big a deal...it was funny enough the good mr. Remment who convinced me of the point with his BIGness article.
perhaps what Unicorn is getting at is that these buildings are part of a "banal architecture, a professional embodiment of a striving for the beautiful, a good "school" performance which sought consciously to be beautiful."
"idea that has resulted in the view that beauty is a matter of caprice, that it is merely a freak of imagination to one man divine, to another hideous to another meaningless. We are familiar with the assertion, that, should a man put eleven stove pipe hats on top of that cornice of his buildings and find them beautiful why then they must be beautiful. Yes, perhaps to him; but the only possible conclusion is, that, like the eleven hats on the cornice, he is not beautiful, because beauty to him is utter violation of all the harmonies of any sequence of consequence of his own nature. To find inorganic things of no truth of relation beautiful is but to demonstrate the lack of beauty in oneself and one's unfitness for any office in administering the beautiful, and to provide another example of the stultification that comes from the confusior of the curious with the beautiful."
these are from the Wasmuth Portfolio quotes of Frank L. Wright.
I think they answer jumps confusion about what bothers Unicorn, and answers why strucutural honesty is as important to expressing the truth of anything.
For the planning part, it was specifically how I tend to view architectural objects over lapsed time.
Now, I wasn't necessarily trying to call B.S. on the whole space creation thing, I was merely hinting that space as a created object, especially architecturally, doesn't always follow intended purposes or may not stay the same space over a specific time period.
But, in fancier art circles dealing in the most obscure historical and philosophical standpoints...
... the practice of Art is known as "object creation."
In the simplest of terms, object creation is the creation of an object (person, place, thing or idea) that exists within the physical realm and is observable.
But specifically, variety of objects are known as ritual objects as interesting because while they maybe art on their own... their representation changes drastically as they were created as art as tools.
Their creation is static and the concepts they represent are fairly permanent. However, ritual objects incorporate various actions-- ceremonies, offerings, touching-- that completes the creation of the object. Essentially, the incorporation of action into an object is what makes many objects art.
In the western world, the idea of object creation became fairly secularized and simplified as piece of art was usually only considered a single object with a single purpose and a single intent.
From about the 600s to the 1800s, there was relatively structural concept behind object creation with the exception of object creation originating from other cultures or the occult. (Don't get caught with these!)
LONG BORING HISTORICAL POINT OVER, kind of.
Modern architecture, as an extension of modern art, is kind of humorous in some aspects-- the humor isn't limited to architecture but art as a whole.
Modernism, while reactionary in most capacities, is inspired by an influx of Far Eastern and African concepts during the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
African art instilled many concepts in modernism-- art as total abstraction, art as process, art as temporary (consumable). While many artists understood the complexities of African art, many aspects were lost.
For many African cultures, art represents a variety of object creation of ephemeral and fleeting ideas. Sometimes, the end created object is not necessarily important as the process of commit the object creation is found to be even more important.
Some pieces of art are only art when they are being moved as the embodied idea behind the object was strictly created for the object to be moved to be understood.
And another concept was the degradation of objects themselves. Like emotions, ideas often change through the passage of time. A process of grieving can be represented through the creation of an unfired clay object which will eventually disintegrate.
The overall concept I'm driving at is that object creation can occupy 4 dimensions-- as a point, as a distance between two points, volumetrically and from some point past present future to another point past present and future.
While architecture certainly observes time as a part of object creation, urban planning can be considered as a practice of object creation of many objects over a timeline.
Architecture can be static and fixed.
But, planning without time is impossible.
great thread
seems an argument can be made that blobs, nifty parametric designs, etc, are significant b/c of what they imply about the evolution in data management & operationalization & the way in which the facade gives voice to these innovations and less about ways in which such facades really speak to the evolution of structural form or how we occupy space
with respect to evolving paradigms for structural form, donna may have hit the nail with ref to coral and joachim's tree and meat houses ---
and with respect to evolving notions of space, there are many references ---
with respect to the expression of structure vs adornment discussion, i always like to bring up scotts', the architecture of humanism --- from which one can argue both in favor of UG's perspective and against --- in favor in that there is an implied depth to the resonance of a design when the innovations realized through the aesthetics inhere in the structure and formal organization of the spaces and functions and that such a formal quality is often appropriate in the design of substantial architecture ---- against his perspective in that there are several fallacies noted by scott, including the literary fallacy, the mechanical fallacy, the academic fallacy, ... in which the logic of a proposition is carried through design to the detriment of the design itself, specifically the experience it can offer --- so that one must know when to let the design be a result of how we as humans use it, how our bodies' can enjoy it and benefit from it, even if that means the logical proposition or statement implicit is less rigorous
Holla!
so time is important to you. can you tie that back to the examples and the problem with the boxes? i am still missing that link somehow.
DA, i know you love FLW, but wow that is just not good writing. frankly (no pun intended) i find much of what frank did rather ugly (maybe that is his endearing point?). he did a number of seriously great buildings along the way but that man let a lot of crap shake out of his sleeves (to borrow his phrase)...
lol - and the barcelona pavilion was all about structural honesty...
unicorn: tall buildings need something structurally rigid to deal with lateral and shear forces. the easiest way to do this is through the elevator/stair core in the center of the building - as concrete is both good as a shear wall and fire-resistant material (as you know). plus, this way you can free up the exterior for unobstructed glazing.
"crazy forms" happened because someone discovered that the envelope doesn't need to be a flat plane - and we have computers/software that makes figuring out how to build the skin a lot easier. IMO - the "concrete core" is what makes these forms possible.
I was addressing your concept of "creating space."
Without specific examples of the created "spaces" of these buildings (with the exception of the SANAA building, which I've been inside), it's not necessarily easy to make a tie.
I was making the point when architecture blurs the line of facilitator (making a place, providing square footage, meeting general requirements) and object creator (art, inclusion of abstract)...
... the ideas that the architect values or the implied use and meaning is often not the same experience or understanding that translates over to users at any specific point or over an lapsed timeline.
To think of it this way, a dining room be definition is a room where people eat.
Is it still a dining room if no one eats in it?
Does that make living rooms, offices, lobbies, elevators, bedrooms or even closets dining rooms as well?
Are dining rooms not also studies, game rooms, studios, offices or even classrooms?
So, when you say "without speaking for anyone but myself i would say the point of architecture is space and how people experience it."
Quantify that into any specific construct with a redeemable, testable concept.
But my problem with the 'banal' concrete box comes down to this--
All of these buildings in some capacity (except for SANAA) function the same regardless of user or architect.
The facade implies something fantastic. It implies that these buildings are something other than elevator banks and hallways.
In reality, there's little of anything different here programmatically past maybe an atrium, lobby, a few lounges and an observation deck.
If your acting as architect-as-facilitator, then you've done your job.
If your acting as architect-as-object-creator, then you're doing a poor job.
There's also a hierarchical concept to these buildings that I don't like because they lack diversity between private and democratic spaces. All of the best "spaces" in these buildings that have any variety or uniqueness to them will be handed out to the most privileged.
And toasteroven! Good response!
That's what I as basically assuming is the compromise exists in some capacity.
However, I'd still like to see a building over 6-8 stories try something different. I suppose a place to start is to look at buildings that have substantial atria.
substantial atria sound promising --- actually, throughout your post the interior of the Cooper Union's new building came to mind
as far as someone trying to rethink of how we occupy space at a fundamental level, and through a very poetic lens, gins & arakawa's architectural body comes to mind
see their idea of reconceptualizing residential space at:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/03/garden/03destiny.html
also Oosterhuis' hyperbody MUSCLE projects, though for different reasons:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e5ycPQ2Iy68&feature=player_embedded
but this seems a bigger issue than just designers failing as object creators --- there's a similar argument raised with respect to the design of space, form and experience in Second Life and serious games --- why is that that people love to fly in second life but seem fundamentally incapable of reconceiving their relationship to environmental form and space? so that after flying, they still want to land and walk into their traditional virtual house where the laws of gravity, physics and some limitations related to socio-economic status will still apply to them
if we can't reconceive our relationship to space and form when their are no rules, then how can we in the real world?
your latest post also struck a chord with me on another level --- people engage space and form in very different ways all of the time and enjoy it, but consider it inappropriate for 'normal' environments, why?
whether it is climbing a tuna tower on a sport fisher as the boat bounces along at 30 knots and then hanging out up there despite the wind and the chop, or iron hangers running up and down W shaped columns and sitting on their wrenches, or people climbing multi-story scaffolding as fast as monkeys, hanging out on fire escapes, bounding along catwalks and up and down ladders, acclimating to the rocking of waves, making treehouses for their kids and playing with them inside, living in lofts with all manner of suspended usable space, or in the constraints of a submarine, thoughtlessly walking across or lounging on uneven terrain, hot terrain, cold terrain, rough terrain, moist terrain, even reading/writing/drawing using a laptop while on such inclined/variable terrain without thinking anything of it
why not have a little of that joy and playfulness of relationship to space and form within an architectural setting?
welcome to the world of commercial real-estate. these buildings are meant to be objects/symbols to look good on brochures. the interiors often change every 5-10 years anyway (tenants expand and contract, owner's tastes change), so there's no point in spending a lot of time designing the inside (maybe the lobby) - unless you want to fundamentally change how people lease space. all you're doing is providing the shell and SF - and another architect/interior designer will take over for the tenant. commercial developers will not like un-leasable SF unless you make a very compelling argument for it.
residential high-rise is different, there's a little more design in the units, but once you're getting high-end, the tenant's going to redo everything anyway, so really you're only again providing SF with enough windows.
you've touched upon the problem of large buildings - really, the only space that has potential to be truly "democratic" are the first 2 or 3 floors - everything above is just SF, only accessible by elevator. I think OMA and Rex have grappled with these issues in a few of their projects...
hm, maybe i get it UG. you want expressive exterior design also be expressive/inventive function ?
toasteroven pretty much covers the reason it doesn't work so easily. i would say oma and rex have based their careers on making that problem into a design starting point. "why design a banal floor?" is usually the start, then they work out other ways to make the architecture interesting. same with sanaa. it is all carefully thought out but they know when it isn't necessary to design. i guess mediocre architects are the ones who haven't learned when to stop....
regarding space, well that is a pretty big one. if you want to you can use the sanaa building in NY. blocks shift over to create openings for light to enter the building from above and to make exterior spaces that would otherwise have to be carved from a massive block. it is pretty smart, shifting the blocks around like that. structurally i suppose the correct answer would be to have a straight and unwavering skin but since they get so much out of such a small transformation it is really rather smart. myself i don't like that long interior stairway but the rest of the place is nice, especially from the outside.
anyway, the blocks shift to make cool and or excellent spaces. that is the point. if you take another example, say the metabolists just to stay japanese, the shifting boxes for them was used not to create space, inside or out, but to create a visual impression of modularity. which was fake. interesting but not actually something anyone got to enjoy because the spaces left over were not really designed primarily for inhabitation. take for example the shizuoka newspaper building by kenzo tange
spaces are created but not as succesful as sejima and nishizawa's effort in my book, simply because the ambition was graphic rather than spatial.
i guess you can imagine more and better examples. the point for me is that there is a trade made when taking design decisions. you get something for every move that is taken. if you are a good architect you get something very special. if you are a mediocre architect you take the first answer that satisfies the requirement but does nothing/little more (corporate architecture ). if you are a bad architecture you get something that doesn't work and is horrible to be in too (bad corporate architect?)
most of the really great stuff not only looks good but has fantastic spatial qualities. so if you analyse it graphically according to the elements the lessons only come from when the connection is made between that fundamental form and the things that are "gotten" from how they are arranged.
now that i think on it, that is why we ask architecture students to analyse buildings. or it is at least why i do it. if they are able to understand the basic stuff and express it graphically i give them a C. if they are able to show they understand what came from those shapes for the users i give them a B or an A. If they can then tie all of that stuff together with the history and the culture of the past and today then they probably get an A+. sometimes a smart student comes through and understands. most struggle. they think it is a stupid exercise....i think this thread proves otherwise. lots of interesting things can come of the observation that buildings are just concrete cores with bits hanging off the middle...
;-)
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.