I like the idea that a building was once looked at as "an opportunity to improve the human condition" and now is precieved as "an opportunity to express the human condition", to me this shows how art can be incorporated into essential needs such as shelter, yet serve multiple purposes at the same time, a blending as humans evolve and become more educated and aware.
This chapter of the book is quite intriguing because it has to do with theory, something we have not touched upon in our studios. The name of the book "Points and Lines" is interesting in the sense that points and lines together form a system. But I feel like something is missing. When connected together, don't points and lines form a surface? But besides that, points are looked at as stations and lines are perceived as pathways. A new concept was introduced to myself, the idea of material practice. My understanding of this concept is that architecture today has strayed away, to an extent, from making the image of a building phenomonal or with meaning to making a productive building. Infrastructural Urbanism incorporates this concept to form an "urban park of the 21st century" in which the infrastructure is flexbile in the sense that it can accomodate for change. The quote at the end of the article sums up the chapter quite nicely, "the time has come to approach architecture urbanistically and urbanism architecturally"
Honestly, I had to read most of these paragraphs multiple times just to grasp what this man was trying to say. The piece on the aircraft carrier and the B-24 bomber was interesting but almost confusing with its analogies to architecture, and then it quickly jumps into "infrastructural urbanism". The part on material practices was something that I felt has always been known and wasn't sure how it fit. Form follows function, isn't that how it goes. Did he create the "seven propositions" of infrastructure? Why was it hard for me to find on those pages where that came from? The Beirut bit talks about unifying the city while "respecting the essential diversity of the city to come". What about the city that IS, not the city to come? His proposed operations seem pretty logical. I don't completely agree with the statement on how "unity is achieved by the continuous rhythm of the roof structure, while the diversity of city life is cultivated below." So if all the outside walls of the buildings are different, but the roofs are the same then unity is achieved?
This was definitely interesting as our first reading of the semester. Architecture has always been an interesting topic to me and the way it relates Landscape Architecture. A line from the text that I feels sums up a problem that many architects and LAs struggle with is "How can one impose a measure of unity while respecting the essential diversity of the city to come?" Not only do architects and LAs have to work with each other to solve problems, but they have to work with the people, the ecology, the culture, and the existing conditions that make each place unique. The cooperation of the two, combined with all of the preexisting elements create interesting expressions using shape and form.
I thought the beginning of this article was really hard to understand. Even when I reread it I still don't get it... The part I liked the best that helped me relate it to landscape architecture was when he went into detail about the different surfaces, movement, program, patch typologies, and infrastructure. It broke it down into terms I understood. It makes sense that the points and line are the framework for future development.
The reading on Infrastructure Urbanism was filled with a lot of references and discussions on things that I think went over my head- partially due to the somewhat complicated idea structures presented and also because I simply didn't am not overly knowledgeable with the issues and characteristics of post modernism and modernism architecture. That being said there were a few things that I took from the reading that I thought were interesting.
I really appreciated Allen's term "infrastructural urbanism" and how he defined it as "an architecture dedicated to concrete proposals and realistic strategies of implementation and not distanced commentary or critique". I feel that this new approach to architecture is a decently well balance one between the ideologies of a modernistic architecture and that of a post modernistic architecture. i think it's important to create and to actually design and build things that are realistic enough to one day become a material thing, but at the same time I think that it is important to make sure you're not just slapping together something that you think looks good. Having the capacity to both design with a foot in the door of reality while still pushing the envelope of creativity, meaning and design is what I felt this chapter was arguing for.
It goes without saying that someone like myself would greatly appreciate it if some of the jargon within this reading was replaced with simpler terms. sadly, it is what it is and i fumbled through it as best as possible. i would however like to know exactly what 'semiotic architecture' is. even Google couldn't get me a straight answer on that one. Something i did enjoy was when he wrote about how architecture has the ability to "actualize social and cultural concepts" and how it can contribute things that "strictly technical disciplines such as engineering cannot." I feel that this is absolutely true and that the discipline of LA has an even greater and more profound effect on the social and cultural. I also was interested with their efforts in the later part of the reading to look at new development strategies "refusing the chaos of the suburban landscape without resorting to nostalgic urban patterns" i feel that this is to be one of the greatest design challenges of the coming decades.
I had a rough time reading through this and really understanding every point, however I did take away a few things. Allen said “ In infrastructural urbanism, form matters, but more for what it can do than for what it looks like” and that “Infrastructural work … allows for the participation of multiple authors.” From this I believe he is saying that it’s not just what the infrastructure looks like, a truly great concept is more than just an interesting exterior. Therefore what the infrastructure offers its surroundings is what makes the form important. And allowing influences from different people in different fields of work will help generate ideas on how the infrastructure can do more. Also that “a city culture… cannot be recreated overnight on the basis of a single ‘master plan.’” This I think it really important. There is more to just creating an idea and adjusting the site to it. The master plan is not a finished product. A great design has the ability to change and helps guide that change.
I definitely read through this once and then went through it again with my highlighter to get a better understanding of what I read. I really appreciated how the author described each shift as architecture evolved. It made it easier for me to see the time line and understand how it moved through different styles and ideas.
I really liked how postmodernism effected architecture. It's like it opened pandora's box. By demanding a meaning in architecture it opened architectures signifying capacity on which "no limit could be placed on signified content."
I also really appreciated the seven propositions. Walter Benjamin is quoted in the text having written that "construction fulfills the role of the unconscious,' he articulates the capacity of certain structures to act as a scaffold for a complex series of events not anticipated by the architect-meanings and affects existing outside of the control of a single author that continuously evolve over time." I feel as if this statement is a great way to set up the 7 propositions because it leaves architecture open to change. Then the 7 different proposals acted to me like the different ways different cities take on the challenge of planning for and letting go of architecture as much as it can be the different ways that one city has tried to handle architecture over many years.
the idea of architecture being replaced by the landscape is an interesting one. i think that just as architecture is strongly influenced by culture and often blending of many cultures as in our life time, so should be the landscape, dynamic and ever changing. a type of natural succsession that is loosely controled by a combination of people, natural processes and the driven idea of sustainability. Just as in La Villette and other parks these man-made dynamic landscapes have become integral parts of the areas in which we live and work. With the rise of post-modernism it looks as if this concept (a good one in my opinion) is here to stay.
I like the idea that a building was once looked at as "an opportunity to improve the human condition" and now is precieved as "an opportunity to express the human condition", to me this shows how art can be incorporated into essential needs such as shelter, yet serve multiple purposes at the same time, a blending as humans evolve and become more educated and aware.
ReplyDeleteThis chapter of the book is quite intriguing because it has to do with theory, something we have not touched upon in our studios. The name of the book "Points and Lines" is interesting in the sense that points and lines together form a system. But I feel like something is missing. When connected together, don't points and lines form a surface? But besides that, points are looked at as stations and lines are perceived as pathways. A new concept was introduced to myself, the idea of material practice. My understanding of this concept is that architecture today has strayed away, to an extent, from making the image of a building phenomonal or with meaning to making a productive building. Infrastructural Urbanism incorporates this concept to form an "urban park of the 21st century" in which the infrastructure is flexbile in the sense that it can accomodate for change. The quote at the end of the article sums up the chapter quite nicely, "the time has come to approach architecture urbanistically and urbanism architecturally"
ReplyDeleteHonestly, I had to read most of these paragraphs multiple times just to grasp what this man was trying to say. The piece on the aircraft carrier and the B-24 bomber was interesting but almost confusing with its analogies to architecture, and then it quickly jumps into "infrastructural urbanism". The part on material practices was something that I felt has always been known and wasn't sure how it fit. Form follows function, isn't that how it goes. Did he create the "seven propositions" of infrastructure? Why was it hard for me to find on those pages where that came from?
ReplyDeleteThe Beirut bit talks about unifying the city while "respecting the essential diversity of the city to come". What about the city that IS, not the city to come? His proposed operations seem pretty logical. I don't completely agree with the statement on how "unity is achieved by the continuous rhythm of the roof structure, while the diversity of city life is cultivated below." So if all the outside walls of the buildings are different, but the roofs are the same then unity is achieved?
This was definitely interesting as our first reading of the semester. Architecture has always been an interesting topic to me and the way it relates Landscape Architecture. A line from the text that I feels sums up a problem that many architects and LAs struggle with is "How can one impose a measure of unity while respecting the essential diversity of the city to come?" Not only do architects and LAs have to work with each other to solve problems, but they have to work with the people, the ecology, the culture, and the existing conditions that make each place unique. The cooperation of the two, combined with all of the preexisting elements create interesting expressions using shape and form.
ReplyDeleteI thought the beginning of this article was really hard to understand. Even when I reread it I still don't get it... The part I liked the best that helped me relate it to landscape architecture was when he went into detail about the different surfaces, movement, program, patch typologies, and infrastructure. It broke it down into terms I understood. It makes sense that the points and line are the framework for future development.
ReplyDeleteThe reading on Infrastructure Urbanism was filled with a lot of references and discussions on things that I think went over my head- partially due to the somewhat complicated idea structures presented and also because I simply didn't am not overly knowledgeable with the issues and characteristics of post modernism and modernism architecture. That being said there were a few things that I took from the reading that I thought were interesting.
ReplyDeleteI really appreciated Allen's term "infrastructural urbanism" and how he defined it as "an architecture dedicated to concrete proposals and realistic strategies of implementation and not distanced commentary or critique". I feel that this new approach to architecture is a decently well balance one between the ideologies of a modernistic architecture and that of a post modernistic architecture. i think it's important to create and to actually design and build things that are realistic enough to one day become a material thing, but at the same time I think that it is important to make sure you're not just slapping together something that you think looks good. Having the capacity to both design with a foot in the door of reality while still pushing the envelope of creativity, meaning and design is what I felt this chapter was arguing for.
It goes without saying that someone like myself would greatly appreciate it if some of the jargon within this reading was replaced with simpler terms. sadly, it is what it is and i fumbled through it as best as possible.
ReplyDeletei would however like to know exactly what 'semiotic architecture' is. even Google couldn't get me a straight answer on that one.
Something i did enjoy was when he wrote about how architecture has the ability to "actualize social and cultural concepts" and how it can contribute things that "strictly technical disciplines such as engineering cannot." I feel that this is absolutely true and that the discipline of LA has an even greater and more profound effect on the social and cultural.
I also was interested with their efforts in the later part of the reading to look at new development strategies "refusing the chaos of the suburban landscape without resorting to nostalgic urban patterns" i feel that this is to be one of the greatest design challenges of the coming decades.
I had a rough time reading through this and really understanding every point, however I did take away a few things. Allen said “ In infrastructural urbanism, form matters, but more for what it can do than for what it looks like” and that “Infrastructural work … allows for the participation of multiple authors.” From this I believe he is saying that it’s not just what the infrastructure looks like, a truly great concept is more than just an interesting exterior. Therefore what the infrastructure offers its surroundings is what makes the form important. And allowing influences from different people in different fields of work will help generate ideas on how the infrastructure can do more. Also that “a city culture… cannot be recreated overnight on the basis of a single ‘master plan.’” This I think it really important. There is more to just creating an idea and adjusting the site to it. The master plan is not a finished product. A great design has the ability to change and helps guide that change.
ReplyDeleteI definitely read through this once and then went through it again with my highlighter to get a better understanding of what I read. I really appreciated how the author described each shift as architecture evolved. It made it easier for me to see the time line and understand how it moved through different styles and ideas.
ReplyDeleteI really liked how postmodernism effected architecture. It's like it opened pandora's box. By demanding a meaning in architecture it opened architectures signifying capacity on which "no limit could be placed on signified content."
I also really appreciated the seven propositions. Walter Benjamin is quoted in the text having written that "construction fulfills the role of the unconscious,' he articulates the capacity of certain structures to act as a scaffold for a complex series of events not anticipated by the architect-meanings and affects existing outside of the control of a single author that continuously evolve over time."
I feel as if this statement is a great way to set up the 7 propositions because it leaves architecture open to change. Then the 7 different proposals acted to me like the different ways different cities take on the challenge of planning for and letting go of architecture as much as it can be the different ways that one city has tried to handle architecture over many years.
the idea of architecture being replaced by the landscape is an interesting one. i think that just as architecture is strongly influenced by culture and often blending of many cultures as in our life time, so should be the landscape, dynamic and ever changing. a type of natural succsession that is loosely controled by a combination of people, natural processes and the driven idea of sustainability. Just as in La Villette and other parks these man-made dynamic landscapes have become integral parts of the areas in which we live and work. With the rise of post-modernism it looks as if this concept (a good one in my opinion) is here to stay.
ReplyDelete