The Basic idea of this post, its to establish a debate, where we can discuss the different or possible ways of how to read a city. transform this reading into a quantifiable info, that can become into tools to design the architecture Project.
The main core of the idea its about procedures, phases from the intangible to tangible, something that don't looks like architecture and how becomes into architecture.
Data, Quantity, Behavior,
in the era of communication and informational contest.
If that's the basic idea, what would be the more complex, advanced, idea?
One of the Big differences in reading cities (places / experiences) comes from the presumptiom that you can reduce cities into quatifiable data OR not. So, by starting a discussion on different ways to read a city by eliminating qualitative readings is handicapping the possible ensuing lines of enquiry.
In my view, the only thing you can measure in a city reliably is pretty much limited to temperature (if that) - and all the rest has to be described as experiences of phenomena, best not reduced to raw data, but used as factors informing design. (sometimes the fuzzy is harder than the hard)
Sep 22, 11 6:22 am ·
·
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.
HOW DO YOU READ YOUR CITY?
The Basic idea of this post, its to establish a debate, where we can discuss the different or possible ways of how to read a city. transform this reading into a quantifiable info, that can become into tools to design the architecture Project.
The main core of the idea its about procedures, phases from the intangible to tangible, something that don't looks like architecture and how becomes into architecture.
Data, Quantity, Behavior,
in the era of communication and informational contest.
If that's the basic idea, what would be the more complex, advanced, idea?
One of the Big differences in reading cities (places / experiences) comes from the presumptiom that you can reduce cities into quatifiable data OR not. So, by starting a discussion on different ways to read a city by eliminating qualitative readings is handicapping the possible ensuing lines of enquiry.
In my view, the only thing you can measure in a city reliably is pretty much limited to temperature (if that) - and all the rest has to be described as experiences of phenomena, best not reduced to raw data, but used as factors informing design. (sometimes the fuzzy is harder than the hard)
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.