utilitarian, efficient construction, flexible change of space, community participation in space forming, light weight, easily rebuilt if damaged in earthquake....
too outdated? i just love it, but i feel like there is a reason why all these theories stayed theories.
5 comments:
ok, i think there is a discrepancy between the literal nature of the research you were doing last term and the theoretical nature of these precedent studies. If you examine the forces that resulted in these forms, you will find something more useful. The ideas that drove these physical infrastructures like plug-in city strove to create a live-work city where individuals as opposed to corporations had more control over the built environment. I think this idea is critical in a post-disaster area of high population density...
The question is how to design a deployable unit with an accompanying urban strategy that can be quickly built/accessed after the earthquake.
The forms and collages are seductive, but that quality is not essential to the strategy. Certain forms like this have been built, for example Centre Pompidou in Paris. This "works" to an extent, but they fucked it up by building partitions that are pretty fixed in the open plan and adding circulation in the wrong areas. This could have worked like archigram intended if curators got the project more. I don't think a project of that scale is the answer. The part of plug-in city that is applicable isn't necessarily the framework, it's the "plug-in" part.
doesn't research always have to be literal? i mean the reason i am attracted to these ideas are because of the possibility for the community to have some control over their urban environment. the framing is basic, utilitarian, possibly less expensive than other forms and could supply utility lines. i can't tell if you are saying this is applicable or not to my project....
i am trying to emphasis the ability of communities to become more resilient if they have more of an understanding of their urban environment. i cannot think of a better idea to make a space resilient than to make a space that is easily fabricated and modularized. does that make sense?
things are rarely literal. i took a class on it. it's actually quite difficult to be literal. and no, those ideas about superstructures lead to practices today like Kieran Timberlake, for example, who take superstructure to mean the sea of pre-assembled, off-the-shelf programming elements available them through the commercial building market. they work within the limits of the market often to transform the way we think about construction industry 'readymades'...
yes! i want to be able to explore the production and construction of structures that emphasize economic, efficiency, ease of fabrication, to meet high quality demands... is it too late to explore these ideas for my thesis, any other resources you can think of that discusses these ideas? i think ill write to KT. i keep trying to decide what to focus on for my thesis... its about structuring the spaces that enable communities to have conversations and greater interaction...but sometimes i am lost on how to explore this or how to make it a real project..suggestions? i just want to make this so much more than just a building!
be careful, i think you should design (underline). these relationships you're talking about are less aesthetic and more programmatic, diagrammatic, etc... i don't know why you're trying to value engineer the project. you either have to:
A. make diagrams (possibly begin with your site drawing?) that express how your building is REACHING OUT to the community/ provides aid to them in different phases of disaster
OR
B. work on your building, emphasizing the kinds of phases in which the building could be made (or undmade by disaster), then re-made (post-disaster), but this option means you have to start really designing your bldg and finding specific examples of prefabricated building products you would use.
Post a Comment