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:
Peter,
While it is good that you have put your system onto the site to start deciding the form of the building, I am surprised that there has not been much more development in your system. It is still very close to your abstract study models, and it has not become any more specific now that you are picking which programs occupy the different areas of the shape. In your plan diagram (the one marked "First Floor Plan" and "Opening Spaces"), you have only put labels on some of the areas in between the wavy lines that make up your geometry, but we do not know more about how these propgrams actually work. Do private offices, multi-purpose, or cafeteria/kitchen need to have basically the same shape in plan? Probably not, since their program requirements are very different. In fact, the black line you draw around them may not even exist in plan, if these floor areas are simply filled-in holes of your geometry (look at the one filled-in hole in the model to see what I mean).
Where are your sections? What happens in the curved linear spaces that surround these filled-in plan areas? The fact that you have not drawn a section is extremely frustrating. You had a lot of hand sketches of sections that showed vertical circulation, how the walls would slant and connect to each other across the different floors, etc. But I do not see any of this in the project. At least you could have drawn these sketches digitally so you could put them into your CAD drawings and see what they would look like in plan, in the model, etc.—but you have not done it. If you do not take these sketches and ideas and actually put them into the project—into the real plans, sections, site plan, etc.—they do not exist. Right now, either you know much more about your project than what you are showing, but you have not bothered to draw it—or you do not know anything about what happens in the section, which is a disaster a week before the midreview.
You need to draw much more, work harder, and produce much more quickly. There is no section, the building geometry is exactly the same as what you had two weeks ago, and you are giving almost no information on how the building works in plan or on the site. Your diagram of small, working and large spaces does not help at all and is very crude. You will need to work much harder to have a project at the level of the other students by the midreview next week.
Post a Comment