This past week’s lectures and notes mostly made me think about how much architecture has changed over time as well as how much it can impact our lives directly, even if we are not aware of it. Obviously we know architectural styles are ever-changing from even basic history and things we see every day. But one thing that has always amused me is the way people envision the future, and use architecture to represent that. We tend to think of futuristic architecture as very clean, often with a lot of glass, sometimes metal, light colors-white especially, and either with many straight lines or full of curves, or some combination of the two. And we can see that these sort of tenants haven’t changed a whole lot from the past decades as far as ‘futuristic’ architecture goes, but how they’re implemented has. I remember I went on a tour of the campus of UCI and when passing the computer science building. Built more than a couple decades ago, it was, at the time, thought to be very futuristic-looking. When seeing it now, however, it definitely dates itself to when it was built. But that’s part of the point, that architecture is always evolving, including how we see its future. (pic link of building for reference: http://www.classrooms.uci.edu/gac/images/ICS-1.jpg) The impact architecture has, even indirect, was also a focus for me. Mostly this had to do with Le Corbusier’s ideas of having skyscrapers nestled in parks. It’s an idea that I love, since being able to walk to anyway I would need to go (or take well-organized public transportation if need be) is something I strongly desire. Green spaces can seem fleeting in cities than often seen overcrowded, which is why putting everything in sky scrapers and having beautiful parks is something that could be great, and more environmentally friendly too. Sprawling cities and suburbs also can encroach on areas that were previously wilderness and put a number of animals in danger (like the butterflies mentioned in the powerpoint). Taking up less space and using it more wisely could help alleviate this. There are so many bonuses to this style of architectural planning that I feel like I could go on and on but the point is, it influences not only us in our lives but also the world we just happen to be a part of.
After reading this lecture, I am reminded that everything is constantly changing and evolving. I loved what Wade Graham said about how architecture is history and “read as layers recording change over time”. Architecture allows people to see the advancements we have made, it also allows us to appreciate older buildings while drawing ideas from them on what to improve. I never took this into consideration or even paid attention to the details but he also mentioned that places often feel disjointed. This happens because some architecture is started by one individual or group but is finished my another. Cities are a work of art and can be created by one great mind or developed by a group of amazing artists. Every day I am amazed by the brilliance and ideas that come from the human brain and looking at the architectural models added to my amazement. These models allow us to see a person’s vision for buildings come to life. We can build entire cities in a smaller form to figure out how everything will fit together while testing new ideas to fix major problems. There are many directions people can go with architecture, whether it be a more futuristic route or a route that helps with wildlife conservation. Overall, this lecture helped show the impact that architecture has and ways to brainstorm the creation of cities as we evolve.
Upon completion of this lecture module, It really shows that some elements of design are constantly changing, but other elements are the same. Architects are, for the most part, stubborn people, resulting in their constant "fingerprint" on their works. Take for example the French Architect Le Corbusier, who believed primarily in a bland and minimalist design for most of his buildings, but he began to slowly incorporate these elements over the course of his life, resulting in vary modernist and in my opinion quite horrid looking structures for most cases. Each year we look towards architects to essentially "lay out the future of our cities" and we trust them to make designs that are unique and awe-inspiring. Unfortunately we occasionally get things that you have no choice but to shake your head at but every once in a while you have that building that you stare at and say to yourself, "This is it. Nothing greater than this can ever be built by man."
After the reading the lecture, I realize there is a sense of change revolving around elements that stay the same. I know that makes little sense but throughout the lecture there was a continuing idea that the future of city living would be this shiny, clean place made with materials like metal, glass, and steal. A Utopian society, a dream-like place where there are no problems or struggles for the people. There is a complicated relationship taking place between building with speed and growth within the architectural communities. This has led to many cities feeling “disjointed” (page 4). I found it interesting that there seemed to be an agenda among architects that often lead to ecological and political struggles. Focusing on Le Corbusier’s ideals, cities would have an insane combination of minimalism, modernism, and Utopian. These building would withstand time, and be meant to last. With all this going on in these cities, they would somehow work with their natural surroundings and be environmentally friendly. One of the quotes by Tadao Ando reflects my goal for this project “You cannot simply put something new into a place. You have to absorb what you see around you, what exists on the land, and then use that knowledge along with contemporary thinking to interpret what you see” (17). I like the idea of working and/or blending into the natural environment. If part of this project is to incorporate architecture discussed in class, I’m not sure how I will use Le Corbusier’s ideas.
In this week's lecture, the most interesting architecture to me is the Sendai Mediatheque by Toyo Ito. I was impressed by the space concepts of flowing feeling and transparent sense. Although these concepts are not necessary from the purely functional point of view, he breaks the homogeneity of buildings that are well known in the daily life, showing the way that modern buildings are supposed to be. As far as I know, usually in the frame structure, architects will try to build four columns at each corner with the same interval, but Ito broke them down into a number of spiral-shaped fine iron column as the core of transparent pillars. Those pillars run through the floor, also contain the equipment system, such as the elevator and the stairs, lighting and ventilation from the roof. And people can see the internal functions vertically. From Sendai Mediatheque, I deeply felt the uncertainty of modern architecture. It is a free existence, which is not bound by the inherent thinking of people.
Throughout the lecture I got a sense of, not so much holistic change, but more so of change that occurs in layers. The idea that there's a large presence of juxtaposition within cities themselves of things we used to value culturally and things we now value culturally. However, I will say that some values are decently consistent. For example, "World of Tomorrow", as stated in the article, still has heavy influences on today's architecture. One such influence is our use of large, geometric structures that are largely composed of glass and heavier metals. While some trends may be due to structural stability I do believe that covering every inch possible in glass is a long lasting aesthetic choice. Dialing back to the idea of change in layers and juxtapostion, I believe "World of Tomorrow" is a wonderful example of this as well: One picture in particular actually. The photograph that was taken during the beginning off its preview. In this photograph you see a juxtaposition of the buildings, that still have a modern feel, juxtaposed with the cars that we no longer view as modernistic models.
Does everything have to be symbolic? When an author says the curtains were blue, does it always mean the room has an air of sadness and melancholy?
I'd like to make a building that just looks good. Does a building have to make a statement about politics, humanity, or whatever? It seems almost exhausting, every building having to be a work of multi-tiered conceptual art designed to make to feel a certain way.
I like Le Corbusier's style a lot. Really cool, wish it didn't have such a terrible name for the style, "brutalist". I recently went to Carson City and had the opportunity to check out the Supreme Court of Nevada building.
It was pretty cool looking, and the grey skies of the day certainly added to the "brutality" of it. Could have been in St. Petersburg if not for the giant words. The buildings certainly have a presence, lets you know who's in charge. This is a style I enjoy in fiction and art, not real life. I would not like to live in the world of Brazil, by Terry Gilliam.
It is a real shame the World of Tomorrow never came to fruition. The ideas of the mid-20th century were awesome, but I guess ideas evolve with the society that influences them.
Toyo Ito is pretty cool, his buildings (as far as I know) don't say anything more than "hey, I look pretty neat. Check me out"
This past week’s lectures and notes mostly made me think about how much architecture has changed over time as well as how much it can impact our lives directly, even if we are not aware of it. Obviously we know architectural styles are ever-changing from even basic history and things we see every day. But one thing that has always amused me is the way people envision the future, and use architecture to represent that. We tend to think of futuristic architecture as very clean, often with a lot of glass, sometimes metal, light colors-white especially, and either with many straight lines or full of curves, or some combination of the two. And we can see that these sort of tenants haven’t changed a whole lot from the past decades as far as ‘futuristic’ architecture goes, but how they’re implemented has. I remember I went on a tour of the campus of UCI and when passing the computer science building. Built more than a couple decades ago, it was, at the time, thought to be very futuristic-looking. When seeing it now, however, it definitely dates itself to when it was built. But that’s part of the point, that architecture is always evolving, including how we see its future. (pic link of building for reference: http://www.classrooms.uci.edu/gac/images/ICS-1.jpg)
ReplyDeleteThe impact architecture has, even indirect, was also a focus for me. Mostly this had to do with Le Corbusier’s ideas of having skyscrapers nestled in parks. It’s an idea that I love, since being able to walk to anyway I would need to go (or take well-organized public transportation if need be) is something I strongly desire. Green spaces can seem fleeting in cities than often seen overcrowded, which is why putting everything in sky scrapers and having beautiful parks is something that could be great, and more environmentally friendly too. Sprawling cities and suburbs also can encroach on areas that were previously wilderness and put a number of animals in danger (like the butterflies mentioned in the powerpoint). Taking up less space and using it more wisely could help alleviate this. There are so many bonuses to this style of architectural planning that I feel like I could go on and on but the point is, it influences not only us in our lives but also the world we just happen to be a part of.
After reading this lecture, I am reminded that everything is constantly changing and evolving. I loved what Wade Graham said about how architecture is history and “read as layers recording change over time”. Architecture allows people to see the advancements we have made, it also allows us to appreciate older buildings while drawing ideas from them on what to improve. I never took this into consideration or even paid attention to the details but he also mentioned that places often feel disjointed. This happens because some architecture is started by one individual or group but is finished my another. Cities are a work of art and can be created by one great mind or developed by a group of amazing artists.
ReplyDeleteEvery day I am amazed by the brilliance and ideas that come from the human brain and looking at the architectural models added to my amazement. These models allow us to see a person’s vision for buildings come to life. We can build entire cities in a smaller form to figure out how everything will fit together while testing new ideas to fix major problems. There are many directions people can go with architecture, whether it be a more futuristic route or a route that helps with wildlife conservation. Overall, this lecture helped show the impact that architecture has and ways to brainstorm the creation of cities as we evolve.
Upon completion of this lecture module, It really shows that some elements of design are constantly changing, but other elements are the same. Architects are, for the most part, stubborn people, resulting in their constant "fingerprint" on their works. Take for example the French Architect Le Corbusier, who believed primarily in a bland and minimalist design for most of his buildings, but he began to slowly incorporate these elements over the course of his life, resulting in vary modernist and in my opinion quite horrid looking structures for most cases.
ReplyDeleteEach year we look towards architects to essentially "lay out the future of our cities" and we trust them to make designs that are unique and awe-inspiring. Unfortunately we occasionally get things that you have no choice but to shake your head at but every once in a while you have that building that you stare at and say to yourself, "This is it. Nothing greater than this can ever be built by man."
After the reading the lecture, I realize there is a sense of change revolving around elements that stay the same. I know that makes little sense but throughout the lecture there was a continuing idea that the future of city living would be this shiny, clean place made with materials like metal, glass, and steal. A Utopian society, a dream-like place where there are no problems or struggles for the people. There is a complicated relationship taking place between building with speed and growth within the architectural communities. This has led to many cities feeling “disjointed” (page 4). I found it interesting that there seemed to be an agenda among architects that often lead to ecological and political struggles.
ReplyDeleteFocusing on Le Corbusier’s ideals, cities would have an insane combination of minimalism, modernism, and Utopian. These building would withstand time, and be meant to last. With all this going on in these cities, they would somehow work with their natural surroundings and be environmentally friendly. One of the quotes by Tadao Ando reflects my goal for this project “You cannot simply put something new into a place. You have to absorb what you see around you, what exists on the land, and then use that knowledge along with contemporary thinking to interpret what you see” (17). I like the idea of working and/or blending into the natural environment. If part of this project is to incorporate architecture discussed in class, I’m not sure how I will use Le Corbusier’s ideas.
In this week's lecture, the most interesting architecture to me is the Sendai Mediatheque by Toyo Ito. I was impressed by the space concepts of flowing feeling and transparent sense. Although these concepts are not necessary from the purely functional point of view, he breaks the homogeneity of buildings that are well known in the daily life, showing the way that modern buildings are supposed to be.
ReplyDeleteAs far as I know, usually in the frame structure, architects will try to build four columns at each corner with the same interval, but Ito broke them down into a number of spiral-shaped fine iron column as the core of transparent pillars. Those pillars run through the floor, also contain the equipment system, such as the elevator and the stairs, lighting and ventilation from the roof. And people can see the internal functions vertically. From Sendai Mediatheque, I deeply felt the uncertainty of modern architecture. It is a free existence, which is not bound by the inherent thinking of people.
Throughout the lecture I got a sense of, not so much holistic change, but more so of change that occurs in layers. The idea that there's a large presence of juxtaposition within cities themselves of things we used to value culturally and things we now value culturally. However, I will say that some values are decently consistent. For example, "World of Tomorrow", as stated in the article, still has heavy influences on today's architecture.
ReplyDeleteOne such influence is our use of large, geometric structures that are largely composed of glass and heavier metals. While some trends may be due to structural stability I do believe that covering every inch possible in glass is a long lasting aesthetic choice. Dialing back to the idea of change in layers and juxtapostion, I believe "World of Tomorrow" is a wonderful example of this as well: One picture in particular actually. The photograph that was taken during the beginning off its preview. In this photograph you see a juxtaposition of the buildings, that still have a modern feel, juxtaposed with the cars that we no longer view as modernistic models.
Does everything have to be symbolic? When an author says the curtains were blue, does it always mean the room has an air of sadness and melancholy?
ReplyDeleteI'd like to make a building that just looks good. Does a building have to make a statement about politics, humanity, or whatever? It seems almost exhausting, every building having to be a work of multi-tiered conceptual art designed to make to feel a certain way.
I like Le Corbusier's style a lot. Really cool, wish it didn't have such a terrible name for the style, "brutalist". I recently went to Carson City and had the opportunity to check out the Supreme Court of Nevada building.
http://www.courthouses.co/wp/wp-content/gallery/nevada/0563c13.jpg
It was pretty cool looking, and the grey skies of the day certainly added to the "brutality" of it. Could have been in St. Petersburg if not for the giant words. The buildings certainly have a presence, lets you know who's in charge. This is a style I enjoy in fiction and art, not real life. I would not like to live in the world of Brazil, by Terry Gilliam.
It is a real shame the World of Tomorrow never came to fruition. The ideas of the mid-20th century were awesome, but I guess ideas evolve with the society that influences them.
Toyo Ito is pretty cool, his buildings (as far as I know) don't say anything more than "hey, I look pretty neat. Check me out"