skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Mat-Systems, Material-Organizations: Silicon Hills Technology Park
Introduction
To regulate systems—existing and designed—is the role of the contemporary architect. Systems are governing practices, rule sets, manners of assembly, part-to-whole relationships, and networks. Increasingly, architectural design can be understood as the management of interrelations and degrees of correspondence between multiple systems—technical, structural, material, ecological, infrastructural, and sociocultural.
The influence of abstract organizational principles on corporeal/material constructs will be a central point of examination for design research. The studio will frame the horizontal spatial planning practices of mat-building typologies and the vertical material constructs of thickened wall-surfaces as distinct but reciprocally related forms of material-organization—systems that exhibit a predisposition toward continuity and a potential for differentiation. We will invent novel systems of organization at the intersection of visual and spatial fields, with the promise of eliciting new formations capable of providing diverse social ecologies and alternative performative characteristics.
Our investigation will depart from traditional modular organizations (uniform and repetitive) in favor of systems of complex repetition. Modernist architectural space sought to establish consistency between parts and wholes through modular logics made possible by the processes of industrialization; these methods relied on regulating systems and planning grids to organize space, particularly in plan organizations. While modules are stable or homogeneous systems of elements that can only be replicated or aggregated, complex repetition is an example of part-to-whole patterning that can become locally specific. While early attempts at complex patterning systems were still periodic (based on filling space with more varied yet still fixed parts), new tools allow us to explore aperiodic and non-recursive part-to-whole relationships, based on variable but specifiable parts and geometries. The studio will explore the possibility to organize flexible part-to-whole relationships that can grow and differentiate to produce complex material-organizations.
Archive
-
▼
2008
(65)
-
▼
October
(43)
- New Scheme_Plan;Zoom-in / Site+Building mass Secti...
- Interim Review_Study Models_Sanghyuk
- Interim Review_Building Design_Sanghyuk
- Interim Review_Site and Programmatic strategy_Sang...
- Interim Review_Abstract System_Sanghyuk
- Ik Joo, Lee(mid term review)
- No title
- I have discreased the area that my project takes,...
- Benjamin-oct-22
- 10-22-08 Site Strategy
- No title
- Sanghyuk_21 Oct, 2008_urban strategy
- Sanghyuk_21 Oct, 2008_framework + program
- Sanghyuk_21 Oct, 2008_building footprint+layers
- Sanghyuk_21 Oct, 2008_study model
- peter3
- peter2
- peter
- SERGIO'S SCHEMES
- Benjamin-oct.21
- Daniel digital post
- Daniel digital post
- This a schematic model of my possible structure
- Use existing building language:research facility a...
- No title
- No title
- Vili: Presentation #3
- Daniel carving ribbons
- No title
- No title
- No title
- No title
- No title
- No title
- No title
- No title
- Seth: Presentation #3
- Section-case study_sanghyuk_14 oct, 2008
- Zoning+Circulation study_sanghyuk_14 oct, 2008
- 10/14/08 Ik Joo Lee
- No title
- hello class and welcome to our new studio
-
▼
October
(43)
Grid Focus by Derek Punsalan 5thirtyone.com. Converted by Blogger Buster. Distributed by : Blogger Blog Templates of the Fractal Blog Network
1 comments:
Daniel,
The project seems to have undergone a good amount of editing/tightening since the last version. It seems more deliberate in how you are using the different bends and curvatures of the long slopes in the landscape to produce different connections in plan and in section. The particular connections you want to make (and why these are better than other sorts of connections, or better suited to different programs) are still a bit unclear—it would help to label the section drawings in your catalog. Are these just options/potentials of your system, or is each one of these different sections tuned to a particular relationship between programs you want to achieve? How is the sectional relation different between different programs, and why?
I also think you are at a point where the plans and sections need to start carrying much more detailed information about the different programs, so we can judge what these bends and connections are producing at a much finer grain. In your site plan you indicate "office space" and "research space", but what happens when you put in the actual desk areas, circulation pathways, private offices, etc.? Where are the other programs outside of the generic ones (office and research)—social programs, etc.? How do these relate to the office areas? The point of the project is precisely to explore new performances for office environments, but right now there is not enough detail to judge how these office spaces actually perform—we only know where they are located.
I think if you add this inforomation you will also discover that there may need to be much wider areas in plan where there are lateral connections, not just long lines of plan that only touch at a few points. Some programs might be better suited to a long linear organization, but others (like research) might not. What do you do in that case? How can your system accommodate much wider or less linear areas?
In terms of production, the siteplan and section catalog are fairly clear, but the wireframe views are a start only. Right now they do not show much beyond what the plan and sections are showing. They either need to be at a different scale (more zoomed in, not so far away from the building), or at a different angle (if you are cutting them to show a section with the interior visible behind, then the section should not be at such an oblique angle). In general the level of information in the drawings needs to be higher and less abstract—floors need to have thickness, building areas need to be enclosed, we need to know what is transparent, what is solid, etc.
Post a Comment