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:
Sergio,
It is good that you are starting to tighten the geometry of the building and the holes as you go into the specifics of the plan and the section. The schematic plan diagrams are helpful in establishing how programs relate to the perimeter or to the interior profiles of the holes. But it needs much more information to flesh out these blank areas in the plan: with the finer-scale structural grid that infills between the very large scale triangular geometry (the lines connecting the holes); the desk areas and circulation pathways that would function within these open areas; the organization of lab spaces, and how this is different from the offices; where the sectional connections are (ramps? stairs?); etc. In reality "open areas" of office are actually highly specific in the placement of work areas, partitions, furniture, etc.; you know this from some of the office precedents we looked at. Do the different areas in plan break down into different sectors of office space? Would the ratio of holes to open plan have to be different in offices versus labs, or in offices versus multipurpose space, etc.?
The sections should also make clear what you are trying to do on the site, where you enter into the middle areas of the building and slope down to reach underground or lower level programs at the edges of the building. It is not so clear yet how you are achieving this, or what the benefits are. The section you have drawn looks far more conventional, with a basement level and first floor with undulated roof above it. (The undulation of the roof in the 3D drawings is another question: what are these tied to in plan? Is it purely formal, or are you getting something programmatically out of the slopes of the ceiling?) I am not so sure why it is a good thing to have underground program. If you are trying to produce a strong difference between the two levels, you may have to extend the "basement" in plan so you can produce a site condition where you walk over the top of it (like the research space in Le Corbusier's Olivetti project), punctuated by sunken courtyards, before entering the building on the upper level. If you are not trying to produce difference between the two levels, I would push the building up a half level, so the ground entry is at split-level (between lower and upper levels) and you either move up or down. Is the terracing still there? Where are the outdoor areas?
Settling these issues in the building form should also let you go back to the landscape organization, which right now seems to have separated from the building itself. I had mentioned trying to produce much larger continuities between the landscape mounds (to make dunes etc.), since these are not bound by the same requirements as the building program. Also, why does your building seem much smaller than the other projects that have more floor levels, are distributed much more extensively in plan, etc.? Do their systems produce too much square footage, or is yours too compact (or both)?
Post a Comment