Invisible Forms and How They Shape Space

            

by Arif Javed

          As I asserted in my previous blog post, the primary nature of an architect’s job is to shape space through the use of the architectural form. It doesn’t matter whether the space that is being shaped is a landscape or a building; the theory remains the same. However, in certain situations the most powerful experiential quality of an architectural work might not be the form but the lack thereof. It seems that oftentimes the way architects make a statement is through openly revealing how their design shapes space, but in my opinion an almost more powerful statement is made when the architect lets the form of the design be completely amalgamated into the landscape. Two such projects that use what I would term the invisible form are the Moses Bridge by RO&AD architects and the Blur building by Dilller Scofidio + Renfro.

            I always consider architectural bridge designs, especially pedestrian ones, to be fascinating because in these designs the experience is quite literally dominated by the path. I believe that a successful bridge design causes the destination to fade in importance as the journey becomes something to enjoy by itself. This quality is absolutely achieved by the Moses bridge, a pedestrian structure by RO&AD architects in the Netherlands that spans the moat of a Dutch fort that has been repurposed into a recreational structure. The form of the bridge is almost completely invisible; it is sunken, like a trench, into the water. This means that the water comes up almost to the edge of the bridge causing the bridge to completely fade into the landscape. The way I interpret this use of almost nonexistent form is that the architects wanted to take emphasis off of the fabricated structure while emphasizing the impact of the surrounding landscape. I think this work beautifully exhibits the importance of the architectural idea of shaping a procession through a space; due to the way the RO&AD minimized the form of their design they managed to not only emphasize the landscape but also add a new layer of harmony and communion with the natural elements by placing the occupants of the space within the moat.

            The Blur Building was designed and built in 2002 for the Swiss expo; thus it can essentially be considered as more of a temporary pavilion than an actual building. As this was the nature of the project this means that the project had basically no program but it is still an interesting work that functions somewhere along the line between installation, art, and architecture. The Blur was conceptually a building with no form; it consisted of two long ramps that took occupants out across the water towards a platform shrouded by a fabricated cloud. I think that this design challenged the idea of architectural form by creating a structure that has close to no form. However, though the project lacked a definitive form Diller Scofidio + Renfro absolutely used architecture to create an experience and sculpt the space. Similar to the Moses bridge, the experience of the project was largely defined by the procession that the architects defined. To reach this enigmatic floating cloud one would have had to walk out over the water until they arrive at a space and are enclosed by the “blur” and a wall of white noise. I would think that this work embodies a similar idea to the Moses Bridge in that while the visitors walk across the ramp they increasingly become immersed in the landscape until they reach the cloud which shrouds and isolates them while simultaneously unifying them with the nature of the site.

            After considering how these two projects function as architectural works while simultaneously challenging my conception about the function of architectural form I think I would like to amend the assertion that I referenced at the beginning of this post. I would now state that in my opinion the primary nature of the job of the architect is to shape space in order to create a significant experience. Usually this is most successfully done through an architectural form, but as the Blur building and the Moses bridge show it can be done equally as well by cloaking, getting rid of, or generally minimizing the use of form in order to maximize the impact of the landscape or site.

Moses Bridge

View of Moses Bridge from
 farther away

Blur Building

The Blur Building: A Contrived Landscape

by - Nick Tafel

A battle that many architects face for their entire careers is how their building ties into and works well with the landscape it is placed in.  It can be quite difficult to tastefully join a building to a landscape so that it plays off the landscape and vice versa.  Many times the success of a building as an unobtrusive piece of architecture lies solely in the relation of the building to the landscape.  There is no one simple solution to making a building join with the landscape in a symbiotic manner.  It is a choice of many different variables like form, placement and materiality that determines the overall success of a building in a landscape. To examine the success of this relationship I think the Blur project by Diller and Scofidio is an innovative example of how to compliment the existing landscape.

            Blur by Diller and Scofidio was built as a temporary structure in 2002 for the sixth Swiss National Exhibition.  The main attraction of the building was the fact that it was surrounded at all times by a perpetual cloud generated by the building itself.  The building had an innovative system of perforated steel panels which were pumped with water to create artificial clouds.  These artificial clouds enclosed the building completely in a cloud that shrouded it from view and enclosed those visiting the building.  On the lake where it was situated, Water, land and clouds are the only other things out there.  With this innovative use of water to create clouds, the building complimented the landscape and became a successful, artificial addition to nature.  The form of the building lends itself to looking like a cloud.  The light structure allows it to float unassumingly and playfully above the water similar to a real low-lying cloud.  It is shaped such that if there were an outer skin, it would be a round, elliptical shape, reminiscent of a cloud.  When the cloud was generated, it hugged the shore and the water, tying the structure into the landscape even more.  This structure was made so light by the cloud that it seemed even like the whole building was suspended inside of the cloud which made for an enhancement of the natural landscape.  Overall this structure was successful in tying into the landscape and becoming a part of the nature.

            Having artificial things act as naturally as this structure did is very difficult.  As I discussed the MOMA roof garden before, there is a point where nature become too contrived and does not mimic nature but takes the wonder, the connection and the discovery out of nature.   This structure brings something otherwise unattainable, a cloud, to ground level and allows you walk through it and experience a piece of nature that may never be experienced in the same way.  Diller and Scofidio very successfully captured a cloud and allowed humans the ability to walk through it and allowed true discovery to happen.  When the bounds of design are pushed too far concerning nature, the idea of nature is lost in the complex language of the design and truest form of experience and discovery is lost.  This, in my opinion, is what happened at the MOMA roof garden.  The landscape was much too contrived and overdesigned.  Here the design was tastefully adequate for what they wanted to accomplish and the true discovery of nature was persistently present.

http://www.xa-xa.org/uploads/posts/2011-05/thumbs/1304522800_blur_building_04.jpg

http://vietnamproject.vn/resource/upload/gallery/Blur_Building_6.jpg

http://www.cliphitheryon.com/images/jpg/architecture/Blur_2.jpg

One with Nature

By: Khris Kirk

"All architecture is shelter, all great architecture is the design of space that contains, cuddles, exalts, or stimulates the persons in that space."- Philip Johnson

Architects design spaces that invoke a feeling for a person. They want people to feel a certain way when they are within their space. One method that some architects have been doing lately is bringing a person within nature and letting them experience the space from a different viewpoint. Being one with nature. Two examples would be Diller and Scofidio with Blur and RO & AD architects with the Moses Bridge.


The RO & AD architects designed the Moses Bridge to bring a person within the moat to Fort de Roovere. Moats were used as a defense against enemies that were attacking a fortress. The only way to get across a moat was with a draw bridge. Since the area around the fortress is used for hiking, running, and biking, people needed a way to get across the moat. The RO & AD architects decided to put the bridge within the moat, making it nearly invisible to the eye. The bridge is like a section cut within the land. By allowing a person to be within this section, they get to experience being within nature. The RO & AD architects could have designed a regular bridge that stretches across the moat, but instead, they took the effort to change a person's view from above to within. This unique experience will live on with people who visit the site. RO & AD architects have successfully engaged people to feel one with nature with the use of their designed space.



Diller and Scofidio took a similar direction with bringing someone into nature; however, they took a different approach. They designed a structure called the Blur. The idea behind this is to bring a person on top of a cloud. Many people dream of being on a cloud as a child, and Diller and Scofidio have made it possible. As a person approaches the Blur, it starts as a bridge towards a huge cloud. A person cannot see the structure unless they are far away. Once on the Blur, there is a viewing point where a person stands above the cloud and can see out onto the lake. Diller and Scofidio have created a space that gives the feeling that a person is in the air and standing on a cloud. The name Blur even gives the impression that as you are within the cloud and upon the structure, a person can’t see clearly in front of himself. The people beyond them are blurred. This is another sensation that the space has created for a person. Taken as a whole, Diller and Scofidio create a man-made structure that provides the sensation of being within a cloud and on top of a cloud, bringing a person within nature.

 Overall, both RO & AD architects and Diller and Scofidio have successfully created spaces for people to experience the nature around them. They did not just create a structure that is used to as shelter or a means to get somewhere, but they went further. They used their skills to bring a person into a space and feel what they wanted people to feel; and that would be to be one with nature. 

Links

Diller and Scofidio, The Blur Building

Moses Bridge, RO & AD Architects