I've just started a second year design studio and our project is an old coal loader site on a harbour.
I've always had some trouble developing slightly abstracted site analysis/studies that later form an important foundation for developing design concepts. I know later site studies include technical analysis like sun path diagrams. I feel that these are slightly different from the abstracted site studies that try to derive a meaning of the site? I was hoping to get some tips about the type of things I should be studying the first few times I visit the site. What do experienced architects usually look at? What do they look to for inspiration on site? And how are these best represented in drawings? Are there any recommended books out there that show examples?
So I think that this is a very broad question and cannot be answered in a few sentences or paragraphs. I think that you have to start from what impresses/interests you upon arrival at the site. Knowing about the site's history, geographic location, and climate, etc. may yield interesting jumping off points. Things like roads and pathways may of interest to you in terms of seeing potential connections between two areas that are currently segregated.
I think that when you are trying to come up with a project/building/intervention at a site, rather than having a certain type of building/intervention already defined as part of the design problem at a particular site, then you will have to really go with your gut in terms of what is most interesting about the site... what information is more relevant- sun angles or the site's history.
Part of what makes your site interesting is the fact that its part of an old coal loader site... Its industrial and probably has existing infrastructure. Coal mining has always been a huge source of income to people in the surrounding areas. Perhaps there is a reason for why its abandoned? What is the geographic context in which this coal loader is set? What views do you have there? What does the site look like? Composing images and diagrams of the site can synthesize this information better.
Developing a site analysis is contingent upon developing a language of expressing that analysis. Then the aesthetic of that analysis can transfer into a building's design.
Research 'eidetic images'. Some found them helpful in teasing out or elucidating embedded site information. They developed really thoughtful projects.
Disclaimer: I never used it as a research or design tool.
i suggest looking at the geological, anthropological, hydrologic, history of the site and look for patterns to incorporate into your project. the cosmic cowboy antoine predock is good at this.
Have you ever heard the expression: "read between the lines." Abstraction helps filter something that is literal and extract new information from it... Abstracting a site works in the same way, otherwise you are left with things that you already know or can simply get from google earth, in which case, you may as well just be designing wall marts in the middle of nowhere, just figuring out where to place the main entrance, driveway, parkig lot, and figurin out the orientation of the building....
As you may know, the above type of project (the walmart type) is an example of architecture with a big "E" not architecture with a big "A". I hope that as a good architect, you realize the cultural value of architecture, not just in terms of money, but also in terms of cultural capital (heritege). Abstraction of a site helps architects reach beyond the obvious and respond to a site's hidden or implied meanings and qualities, both as a space and place.
Abstraction of a site helps architects reach beyond the obvious and respond to a site's hidden or implied meanings and qualities, both as a space and place.
That's an unfair question because the trap you are laying is so blatantly obvious. That undid whatever argument you had going. Try again. With some effort this time.
Im not saying you are, but you did accuse me of contaminating argument by including the word "Holocaust," as an implication of the memorial's relationship to a sensitive historical topic, rather than taking it for what it is... A piece of architecture...
its kind of like laughing at the word "penis" while attending an anatomy class...
Except we were discussing abstractions and implications. I was thinking of your loaded example in the context of your previous posts is all. Just my opinion.
I was hoping you were going to finesse a finer example into the thread so the original poster could use it as a precedent of some kind.
BulgarBlogger, do you know the difference between art and architecture?
And since you asked, Eisenman's Holocaust-Mahnmal is crap. It's a bad imitation of a cemetery that has none of the power or emotion of Arlington, Meuse-Argonne, The Vietnam Memorial, Hiroshima's Peace Park and many others.
I clearly cannot have this argument with you because you obviously don't understand that at a point, art and architecture can be one in the same...
As for making a value judgement as to which memorial is more powerful, I think that is very subjective and each has it's own unique response to the site... And in the end, do you think you are more able to judge a project's worthiness,impact, and success than the panel of architectural critics that cited the eisenman memorial as worthy of the respect and attention it has gotten?
It's not an argument, it's a discussion. There is no need to be adversarial, especially in response to a simple question.
Amusing contradiction between your comment on subjectivity followed by questioning the validity of my opinion.
You not only fail to engage the question I raise but then go start a new thread with that specific title, in which you ask others for their opinions rather than voicing your own. It's not that difficult a question.
but I can only think of dirty ones, and as I respect the integrity of online discourse, I shall refrain from posting about other people's mothers and what not.
Firstly, as fun as the forum is, I dont provide personal information online. I woll say I am younger than 30 and almost registered.
Second- relax: I am simply passionate about the topic and don't feel adversarial...i started a new thread not to stir up animosity, but to call attention to a topic I believe is at the center of the debate between professionals and academics...
Last but not least: my personal opinion and belief is that there is such a thing as "the art of architecture," something that many of us forget or lose touch with over out years of practice- especially in a bad economy when we are trying to keep afloat... I don't know why you became an architect, but I chose this profession because I was drawn to the rich heritage architects provide to society, expresses in built forms that are beautiful and functional... If they were only functional, i would most likely have chosen to become an engineer. So yes- for me there is a difference between art and architecture, but they are not mutually exclusive...
Age was only questioned in a rhetorical sense as the post was immature.
To get back on topic:
"derive a meaning of the site" sounds like a bunch of pseudo-philosophical bullshit. The site presents a physical and legally defined set of conditions in which one operates. Clearly defining those conditions - and communicating them in the same manner (which is what architectural drawing are all about) is essential to the design process. Combining these conditions with a development program that defines function creates the set of parameters that the architect must work with.
"abstracted site analysis/studies that later form an important foundation for developing design concepts"
This makes sense if you omit ‘abstract’. Are you talking about the stylistic presentation of site studies? And thus we return to the difference between art and architecture.
Architectural Site analysis/study tips
Hello,
I've just started a second year design studio and our project is an old coal loader site on a harbour.
I've always had some trouble developing slightly abstracted site analysis/studies that later form an important foundation for developing design concepts. I know later site studies include technical analysis like sun path diagrams. I feel that these are slightly different from the abstracted site studies that try to derive a meaning of the site? I was hoping to get some tips about the type of things I should be studying the first few times I visit the site. What do experienced architects usually look at? What do they look to for inspiration on site? And how are these best represented in drawings? Are there any recommended books out there that show examples?
Thanks!
I will be the first to reply, I guess...
So I think that this is a very broad question and cannot be answered in a few sentences or paragraphs. I think that you have to start from what impresses/interests you upon arrival at the site. Knowing about the site's history, geographic location, and climate, etc. may yield interesting jumping off points. Things like roads and pathways may of interest to you in terms of seeing potential connections between two areas that are currently segregated.
I think that when you are trying to come up with a project/building/intervention at a site, rather than having a certain type of building/intervention already defined as part of the design problem at a particular site, then you will have to really go with your gut in terms of what is most interesting about the site... what information is more relevant- sun angles or the site's history.
Part of what makes your site interesting is the fact that its part of an old coal loader site... Its industrial and probably has existing infrastructure. Coal mining has always been a huge source of income to people in the surrounding areas. Perhaps there is a reason for why its abandoned? What is the geographic context in which this coal loader is set? What views do you have there? What does the site look like? Composing images and diagrams of the site can synthesize this information better.
Check out Perry Kulper's drawings... http://archimorph.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/2805101275068680centralcaliforniahistorymuseum.jpg
Hope this stirs up some ideas...
also... google "condemned buildings" by douglas darden... his drawings are AMAZING!
Check out this website of one of my professor's from college who taught me digital media and the art of "mapping"...
http://www.dis-section.com/5_gdp.html
Developing a site analysis is contingent upon developing a language of expressing that analysis. Then the aesthetic of that analysis can transfer into a building's design.
Disclaimer: I never used it as a research or design tool.
Find a niche and exploit it.
Gehry: Trash
Koolhaas: Parody
Hadid (& Schumaker): Bullshit
etc., etc.
i suggest looking at the geological, anthropological, hydrologic, history of the site and look for patterns to incorporate into your project. the cosmic cowboy antoine predock is good at this.
Exactly WTF does abstraction have to do with site analysis?
Mr Jaff:
Have you ever heard the expression: "read between the lines." Abstraction helps filter something that is literal and extract new information from it... Abstracting a site works in the same way, otherwise you are left with things that you already know or can simply get from google earth, in which case, you may as well just be designing wall marts in the middle of nowhere, just figuring out where to place the main entrance, driveway, parkig lot, and figurin out the orientation of the building....
As you may know, the above type of project (the walmart type) is an example of architecture with a big "E" not architecture with a big "A". I hope that as a good architect, you realize the cultural value of architecture, not just in terms of money, but also in terms of cultural capital (heritege). Abstraction of a site helps architects reach beyond the obvious and respond to a site's hidden or implied meanings and qualities, both as a space and place.
Abstraction of a site helps architects reach beyond the obvious and respond to a site's hidden or implied meanings and qualities, both as a space and place.
Now that is some first-rate third-class bullshit.
Care to explain?
So you must think the holocaust memorial in berlin, an entirely topographically abstract project is bs... Correct?
That's an unfair question because the trap you are laying is so blatantly obvious. That undid whatever argument you had going. Try again. With some effort this time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law
Actually I was talking about the memorial in terms of its design, not in terms of its relationship to politics...
The memorial is a topographic cnstruction. Eisenman litterally took the existing topography, inverted it, amd abstracted it...
In that sense there isn't much abstracted. He extruded the topography.
I'm not an abstraction-hater.
Furthermore, you must think deconstructionism as a whole movement is bs as well...
trolling...
Im not saying you are, but you did accuse me of contaminating argument by including the word "Holocaust," as an implication of the memorial's relationship to a sensitive historical topic, rather than taking it for what it is... A piece of architecture...
its kind of like laughing at the word "penis" while attending an anatomy class...
Sorry for the misspellings... On my smart phone...
Except we were discussing abstractions and implications. I was thinking of your loaded example in the context of your previous posts is all. Just my opinion.
I was hoping you were going to finesse a finer example into the thread so the original poster could use it as a precedent of some kind.
Look at the architecure pf carlo scarpa and sverre fenh, and peter zumthor for starters...
...also look into landscape urbanism as a movement in architecture....
BulgarBlogger, do you know the difference between art and architecture?
And since you asked, Eisenman's Holocaust-Mahnmal is crap. It's a bad imitation of a cemetery that has none of the power or emotion of Arlington, Meuse-Argonne, The Vietnam Memorial, Hiroshima's Peace Park and many others.
I clearly cannot have this argument with you because you obviously don't understand that at a point, art and architecture can be one in the same...
As for making a value judgement as to which memorial is more powerful, I think that is very subjective and each has it's own unique response to the site... And in the end, do you think you are more able to judge a project's worthiness,impact, and success than the panel of architectural critics that cited the eisenman memorial as worthy of the respect and attention it has gotten?
It's not an argument, it's a discussion. There is no need to be adversarial, especially in response to a simple question.
Amusing contradiction between your comment on subjectivity followed by questioning the validity of my opinion.
You not only fail to engage the question I raise but then go start a new thread with that specific title, in which you ask others for their opinions rather than voicing your own. It's not that difficult a question.
Just out of curiosity, how old are you?
ohh, so many answers to that question . . .
but I can only think of dirty ones, and as I respect the integrity of online discourse, I shall refrain from posting about other people's mothers and what not.
Miles,
Firstly, as fun as the forum is, I dont provide personal information online. I woll say I am younger than 30 and almost registered.
Second- relax: I am simply passionate about the topic and don't feel adversarial...i started a new thread not to stir up animosity, but to call attention to a topic I believe is at the center of the debate between professionals and academics...
Last but not least: my personal opinion and belief is that there is such a thing as "the art of architecture," something that many of us forget or lose touch with over out years of practice- especially in a bad economy when we are trying to keep afloat... I don't know why you became an architect, but I chose this profession because I was drawn to the rich heritage architects provide to society, expresses in built forms that are beautiful and functional... If they were only functional, i would most likely have chosen to become an engineer. So yes- for me there is a difference between art and architecture, but they are not mutually exclusive...
Age was only questioned in a rhetorical sense as the post was immature.
To get back on topic:
"derive a meaning of the site" sounds like a bunch of pseudo-philosophical bullshit. The site presents a physical and legally defined set of conditions in which one operates. Clearly defining those conditions - and communicating them in the same manner (which is what architectural drawing are all about) is essential to the design process. Combining these conditions with a development program that defines function creates the set of parameters that the architect must work with.
"abstracted site analysis/studies that later form an important foundation for developing design concepts"
This makes sense if you omit ‘abstract’. Are you talking about the stylistic presentation of site studies? And thus we return to the difference between art and architecture.
Are you talking about the stylistic presentation of site studies?
I think that is what the poster was originally getting at... Abstract representation...
do you know what the difference is between representation and analysis?
Hi,
Appreciate this was a while ago but if its still relevant, take a look this blog post ...it talks about what to look for on your first site visit
Happy to answer any questions
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.