Use existing building language:
research facility as "leech," where the labs are the "brain", the visitor's center/cafeteria the "heart" and the offices as the "lungs."
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments
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:
Seth,
I am glad to see that you are developing geometrical controls that have more to do with the pragmatic requirements of the program than the procedural methods you had started with (which relied on a series of intermediary "objects" that were manipulated to produce the eventual geometry of the building, rather than working directly on the matter of the program itself). What is not clear is why this shift—into working directly with the matter of the building—leads the forms to now become much more regularized than they were before. Particularly in the research block, but also in the T-shaped tunnels connecting the research block to the other wings, etc, the building is now organized much more conventionally than what you had before (the research block is now symmetrical and basically organized as two linear volumes connected by cross-pieces at right angles in plan). I am not sure why modifying the geometry of the exterior forms makes you change the organization so radically. What you have now in the research block is in fact a very conventional organization that is softened by a few exterior curves (rather than, say, being made out of boxes), to the point where it is not clear whether the curvature even helps at this point. In any case the research labs probably want a much more continuous/extensive area in plan rather than a series of very thin linear pieces.
The office wing is still much more in keeping with your original system, and here the geometry still has the potential to create a new or different organization for the building. It does seem like the forms are a little more controlled now than in the previous version. I still question what the transparent domes are doing for you—are they still only registering (making "legible") the cutting plane your procedural methods relied on, or do they come out of the programmatic requirements of the building? We would need to see a section of what happens in these bubbles, and plans of the different levels, interior renderings etc., to know what they produce. All we have to go on at this point are the exerior forms, so it is difficult to judge how the building is working internally.
You need to do detailed plan and section drawings of the building (and especially the office block) so we can judge, plus renderings or perspectives of the interiors that would tell us how these actually perform. What is the circulation? How does it relate to the domes or the voids in the plan? How many levels are there, what is the scale of the enclosure? What happens in the T-connector tunnel? Right now there is too little information.
Post a Comment