it got me thinking, as i was drawing much needed lines that seperated one level from the other...rerouting the wheelchair-bound
elsewhere...as per bjork's line : 'where is the line with you', where does a concern for one begin and for the other end.
that many should suffer a 'preference', a line drawn between one group and the other. hey, if only to reroute every disability. or do certain ones get to be their own creatures, other species?
there is always the 'within reason' reasoning but
if u were disabled, would u really like to experience the backdoor of buildings...say? but, would you give this
up? and isnt that , for all its noble intentions and cleverness, a declaration of an internal universe against an unsympathetic external one. its so interiorized. and the first is just an open palm to be ascended.
this goes unedited, my pupils are bracing each other. so tired and still thinking of him. always. waiting and aching. tonight ill try to cry myself to sleep. its like making love then falling to sleep.
again bjork: 'he slides inside, half awake, half asleep'
i appreciate your point... but universal acc is supposed to mean that disabled people can use the building the same way as non disabled people... this can be impossible in some situations, but relegating wheelchairs to the back door in a new building is just bad planning, that can almost always be avoided
yearning for more than a blue day...
i enter your new life for me
that was more besides the ..well not point. the relegating-bad planning that is. the way steps delicately section of land, root buildings, they're lost somewhere between being discovered (naturally) and being artifice. that slight change in level at the threshold of awareness.
and then this universality u mentioned...the wheelchair best suited to an unmodulated open plan. all ambiguities done away with, a ball set free on a frictionless surface (conceptually, but of course there there should be grip). maybe white. the idea of ground alters.
i do not attack one or the other, that would be pointless. but simply musing over that such a simple uncomplicated gesture, usually thought of as a just a regulation/ethical matter on the part of a designer built different worlds.
and sometimes saying things directly can be like touching hearts... they stop. and sometimes they should.
One day I’ll grow up, I’ll feel the power in me
One day I’ll grow up, of this I’m sure
One day I’ll grow up, I know a womb within me
One day I’ll grow up, feel it full and pure
But for today I am a child, for today I am a boy
For today I am a child, for today I am a boy
For today I am a child, for today I am a boy
.
.
.
One day I’ll grow up, I’ll be a beautiful girl
was there a boy who said it so simply, so directly, so without irony or sarcasm? without sniggering, without locker room wounds? to be that free, im trying (to stop hating).
'that won't fly in texas. You can't separate the accessible path from the main path.'
of course you do, but them being seen next to or parallel or whatnot to
each other signifies a measure of unity. but still there is no synonimity. they travel different routes, necessarily. again, this isnt about regulations. also there is conservation work that demands compromise.
"for all its noble intentions and cleverness, a declaration of an internal universe against an unsympathetic external one."
isn't this really what all architecture is about - otherwise the intentional differentiation of space wouldn't really matter would it?
my wife and i are designing a booth for our preschool daughter's school carnival tomorrow. what does the world look like when you're 3'-6" tall? i'm trying to remember...
incidentally, the fire dep't can't show up because the carnival is on 9-11 and they're on alert, presumably. rita's re-enactment season?
we live in tokyo where all travel is done by subway and elevators are a rarity still. try carrying a much-heavier-than-it-looks stroller, child included, up 4 flights of stairs just to change trains sometime. it is only a glimpse of the world of the handicapped but to be honest if i had an elevator to get me up and down those stairs i wouldn't care less if the access was in the main stream, in the front, in the back, or underwater. for now all i would like to have is a bit of accessibilty period.
can't imagine how the old folks get around the city, never mind those who use wheelchairs, walkers and the rest...
So true. As soon as you have a kid you understand the plight of those in wheel chairs. We were looking for a townhouse to live in and the sight of a single step before the entry was enough for us to run away. My wife went to a bank the other day and was trapped at the entry unable to go up the flight of steps. THe security guard told he could let her in via the service elevator accessed from the rear alley.
YA RIGHT!!
i've written this before, but think it's appropriate to this discussion: we all want the best of what we design to be appreciated by the public (because it's great, right?), so if we exclude part of the public, we've failed (right?). if we're in the u.s., we need to keep in mind that we're part of an aging population. the percentage of people requiring accessibility accommodation is increasing daily as the boomers age.
if every project starts with an assumption that it will be universally accessible, we design better and for more people. not just the person in a wheelchair, but ups delivery and mom with a stroller. it works for everybody and it can then be clear to everyone how great your project is.
cellar seems to be questioning whether this doesn't mean that we miss out on some design opportunities, whether some subtleties of moving up and down and marking elevation or spatial variation, setting up certain points-of-view, etc. aren't given away through allowing wheelchair, walker, crutch, stroller, dolly access.
either you 1) accept that, yes, you do have to give these things up, 2) decide that you only care about SOME of the population, or 3) you get smarter about designing so that you can accommodate everyone and still achieve the same design excellence.
yes, that was a point
but moreso,i will be more crude, the wheelchair as a modernist contraption rolling in a space unobstructed. a plan libre rolling beaneath the wheelchair. again, that specific idea of the ground.
(in a history of ground) modernism understood generically of course... there is also the raumplan shifting and changing that is antithetical to the miesan continuous roof-ground channelling of space. ( interestingly, i observe, the structures that obey the miesan dictum are more likely to be seen as clean cut modernism than the raumplan ... perhaps because the loosian motif echos the 'ad hoc' spontaneity of traditional building (personally, i associate it to mediterranean houses...and not incidentally, outside stairs are part and parcel of the architecture...as opposed to fire escape stairs for instance, a necessary accessory usually))
such creations as the plan libre have been very kind to the wheelchair, a machine to be sat on. but, is it more than incidental? is there a notion of mobility (the wheel wasnt invented with modernism of course...but this hybrid wheel-chair (which is you think about it is one of those machinic monsters of hybridity on the margin of architecture..from da vinci to daniel libeskind , a vehicle of sorts...i still have to google the origins of the wheelchair...) common to both?
whether the wheelchair can be , i use this reflexive terminology with a pinch of salt, 'rethought' alongside,or on top of, or otherwise, its ground-architecture would make a good student project. a quasi literary device that writes its own architecture, but im slightly bullshitting now.
'if every project starts with an assumption that it will be universally accessible' this word is a wonderfully non-incidental mark, 'universal'.
the stairs bit is obvious.
also the el jeffe generalizing reply is completely discredited by the bourdeaux/malaparte comparison. we see how the different designs for the different maneuverings bear the marks of societal prejudices (a prejudice is not necessarily bad, it is necessarily existing though). not in terms of accessibiliy, but in an experiential manner. the malaparte is really all about the outside, it is almost non-architectural. an object to be ascended. the koolhaas haus is the opposite, it is mostly an internal world with the wheelchair in place of the vitruvian man. the clients own internal world, far away from the cruelties of the outside.
stairs and wheelchairs
it got me thinking, as i was drawing much needed lines that seperated one level from the other...rerouting the wheelchair-bound
elsewhere...as per bjork's line : 'where is the line with you', where does a concern for one begin and for the other end.
that many should suffer a 'preference', a line drawn between one group and the other. hey, if only to reroute every disability. or do certain ones get to be their own creatures, other species?
there is always the 'within reason' reasoning but
if u were disabled, would u really like to experience the backdoor of buildings...say? but, would you give this
up? and isnt that , for all its noble intentions and cleverness, a declaration of an internal universe against an unsympathetic external one. its so interiorized. and the first is just an open palm to be ascended.
this goes unedited, my pupils are bracing each other. so tired and still thinking of him. always. waiting and aching. tonight ill try to cry myself to sleep. its like making love then falling to sleep.
again bjork: 'he slides inside, half awake, half asleep'
i appreciate your point... but universal acc is supposed to mean that disabled people can use the building the same way as non disabled people... this can be impossible in some situations, but relegating wheelchairs to the back door in a new building is just bad planning, that can almost always be avoided
yearning for more than a blue day...
i enter your new life for me
thats it
so your right bout that
that won't fly in texas. You can't separate the accessible path from the main path.
that was more besides the ..well not point. the relegating-bad planning that is. the way steps delicately section of land, root buildings, they're lost somewhere between being discovered (naturally) and being artifice. that slight change in level at the threshold of awareness.
and then this universality u mentioned...the wheelchair best suited to an unmodulated open plan. all ambiguities done away with, a ball set free on a frictionless surface (conceptually, but of course there there should be grip). maybe white. the idea of ground alters.
i do not attack one or the other, that would be pointless. but simply musing over that such a simple uncomplicated gesture, usually thought of as a just a regulation/ethical matter on the part of a designer built different worlds.
and sometimes saying things directly can be like touching hearts... they stop. and sometimes they should.
One day I’ll grow up, I’ll feel the power in me
One day I’ll grow up, of this I’m sure
One day I’ll grow up, I know a womb within me
One day I’ll grow up, feel it full and pure
But for today I am a child, for today I am a boy
For today I am a child, for today I am a boy
For today I am a child, for today I am a boy
.
.
.
One day I’ll grow up, I’ll be a beautiful girl
was there a boy who said it so simply, so directly, so without irony or sarcasm? without sniggering, without locker room wounds? to be that free, im trying (to stop hating).
'that won't fly in texas. You can't separate the accessible path from the main path.'
of course you do, but them being seen next to or parallel or whatnot to
each other signifies a measure of unity. but still there is no synonimity. they travel different routes, necessarily. again, this isnt about regulations. also there is conservation work that demands compromise.
i like the fly though. maximum accessability.
i meant access ability
"for all its noble intentions and cleverness, a declaration of an internal universe against an unsympathetic external one."
isn't this really what all architecture is about - otherwise the intentional differentiation of space wouldn't really matter would it?
my wife and i are designing a booth for our preschool daughter's school carnival tomorrow. what does the world look like when you're 3'-6" tall? i'm trying to remember...
incidentally, the fire dep't can't show up because the carnival is on 9-11 and they're on alert, presumably. rita's re-enactment season?
u also miss the point
how horrible
children dont like booths
some people should just not have children
i'm not in the position of making executive decision of how to run the school's carnival, i'm trying to make the best of it.
like the architects i respect, i just try to nudge the ship in the right direction.
sorry i missed your point, mea cupla.
my daughter likes booths. and carnivals.
we live in tokyo where all travel is done by subway and elevators are a rarity still. try carrying a much-heavier-than-it-looks stroller, child included, up 4 flights of stairs just to change trains sometime. it is only a glimpse of the world of the handicapped but to be honest if i had an elevator to get me up and down those stairs i wouldn't care less if the access was in the main stream, in the front, in the back, or underwater. for now all i would like to have is a bit of accessibilty period.
can't imagine how the old folks get around the city, never mind those who use wheelchairs, walkers and the rest...
So true. As soon as you have a kid you understand the plight of those in wheel chairs. We were looking for a townhouse to live in and the sight of a single step before the entry was enough for us to run away. My wife went to a bank the other day and was trapped at the entry unable to go up the flight of steps. THe security guard told he could let her in via the service elevator accessed from the rear alley.
YA RIGHT!!
i've written this before, but think it's appropriate to this discussion: we all want the best of what we design to be appreciated by the public (because it's great, right?), so if we exclude part of the public, we've failed (right?). if we're in the u.s., we need to keep in mind that we're part of an aging population. the percentage of people requiring accessibility accommodation is increasing daily as the boomers age.
if every project starts with an assumption that it will be universally accessible, we design better and for more people. not just the person in a wheelchair, but ups delivery and mom with a stroller. it works for everybody and it can then be clear to everyone how great your project is.
cellar seems to be questioning whether this doesn't mean that we miss out on some design opportunities, whether some subtleties of moving up and down and marking elevation or spatial variation, setting up certain points-of-view, etc. aren't given away through allowing wheelchair, walker, crutch, stroller, dolly access.
either you 1) accept that, yes, you do have to give these things up, 2) decide that you only care about SOME of the population, or 3) you get smarter about designing so that you can accommodate everyone and still achieve the same design excellence.
yes, that was a point
but moreso,i will be more crude, the wheelchair as a modernist contraption rolling in a space unobstructed. a plan libre rolling beaneath the wheelchair. again, that specific idea of the ground.
(in a history of ground) modernism understood generically of course... there is also the raumplan shifting and changing that is antithetical to the miesan continuous roof-ground channelling of space. ( interestingly, i observe, the structures that obey the miesan dictum are more likely to be seen as clean cut modernism than the raumplan ... perhaps because the loosian motif echos the 'ad hoc' spontaneity of traditional building (personally, i associate it to mediterranean houses...and not incidentally, outside stairs are part and parcel of the architecture...as opposed to fire escape stairs for instance, a necessary accessory usually))
such creations as the plan libre have been very kind to the wheelchair, a machine to be sat on. but, is it more than incidental? is there a notion of mobility (the wheel wasnt invented with modernism of course...but this hybrid wheel-chair (which is you think about it is one of those machinic monsters of hybridity on the margin of architecture..from da vinci to daniel libeskind , a vehicle of sorts...i still have to google the origins of the wheelchair...) common to both?
whether the wheelchair can be , i use this reflexive terminology with a pinch of salt, 'rethought' alongside,or on top of, or otherwise, its ground-architecture would make a good student project. a quasi literary device that writes its own architecture, but im slightly bullshitting now.
'if every project starts with an assumption that it will be universally accessible' this word is a wonderfully non-incidental mark, 'universal'.
the stairs bit is obvious.
also the el jeffe generalizing reply is completely discredited by the bourdeaux/malaparte comparison. we see how the different designs for the different maneuverings bear the marks of societal prejudices (a prejudice is not necessarily bad, it is necessarily existing though). not in terms of accessibiliy, but in an experiential manner. the malaparte is really all about the outside, it is almost non-architectural. an object to be ascended. the koolhaas haus is the opposite, it is mostly an internal world with the wheelchair in place of the vitruvian man. the clients own internal world, far away from the cruelties of the outside.
i have to run
if my generalization wasn't true, then there'd be nothing below the precious stairs at malaparte.
yes, the trees for the wood
and the wood is still a double entendre
clever dickie, maybe better to stick with the 3'6'' preschool way of looking
...breeders
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.