What is the Value of Temporary Design

In our last class of Contemporary European Architecture we discussed the importance of temporary architecture in the design field today.  One question that kept coming back to my mind during class was the question of whether or not architects should be putting great thought into designing temporary pieces of architecture if they are going to be taken down anyway.  I came to the conclusion that whether these pieces of architecture are going to be taken down or not, they should have the same design process as a normal building. 

What does temporary mean?  Temporary, in terms of a building, can be described as something that is built with the knowledge that one day the building will be taken down.  In this day and age, a building is not built to stand for 500 years, therefore, in a way, a buildings are temporary in a sense.  If you think about a building in that way, then all buildings deserve the same design process, because all space need to have thought put into them to be impacting spaces nonetheless.

A good example of a well designed temporary structure is the German Pavilion by Mies van der Rohe in Barcelona.  This Pavilion was built in 1929 at the International Exhibition.  The pavilion was torn down in 1930, as it was to be a temporary exhibit at the exhibition.  The pavilion was revolutionary in its design and a true masterpiece.  It was lost for many years but was rebuilt in 1983 to the architect’s specifications.  The fact that this building was so influential in its year of existence shows how well designed it was by Mies.  I would argue that a temporary piece of architecture like this can be just as influential as any other “permanent” building.  It the building invokes emotion and feeling within the viewer then it is a successful building, whether it is there for 2 months or 20 years.
The Serpentine Pavilion in London is a great example of why temporary exhibits should warrant the same depth of design that longer term buildings do.  Each year a new pavilion is designed to go in the same place.  The great thing about this is that it invites completely different design styles to take place on the same site every year.  This way, the site has a fresh new feeling every year with the new pavilion.  Every pavilion has its own specific style and specific strengths in design.  If a pavilion were placed there that was undesigned and never rethought, this area would be much less interesting.  The refreshing new designs make for an experience that  cannot happens many other places because a new building gets built every year.
I believe that temporary buildings should be designed as equally as longer term buildings.  All buildings will one day come down, it is just a matter of when they will come down.  Therefore, we need to put thought into every structure that is designed so that all architecture can make meaningful moves to impact the viewers.  This allows for interesting design situation since it is a temporary structure.

Acropolis Museum: A Part of the Landscape

This semester in Italy has been extremely helpful in developing a sense of site for me.  By that I mean that I have become much more site conscious through both projects that we have been working on and though the things I have studied both in this class and through filed studies.  The sites that we have been asked to address in Genoa have both been extremely difficult to address because of their historic significance, elevation changes, and community interaction.  This has caused me to have an eye for what we must do as architecture students to use the site to our advantage.  In Contemporary European Architecture, I have examined several examples of how to effectively address both nature and the site.  During my independent travel I had the chance to visit the Acropolis Museum in Athens which was a prime example of how to effectively address a historical site and even allow the historical site to play a huge part in the effectiveness of the finished building.

            The Acropolis Museum, designed by Bernard Tschumi, is placed on an archaeological site of ancient Greek ruins.  The amazing treatment of the site begins with the way that the buildings acts on the site.  The building is perched up on structural pillars and seems to float over the site.  This takes care of the problem of the building ruining any archaeological value of the site.  Next, Tschumi elected to use glass floors throughout the building in order to let the viewer to see the ruins below in their excavated state.  Not only does Tschumi carefully place his building on the site, but he also celebrates the site by making it visible through the floors.  Through my posts, I have been trying to find buildings that effectively and tastefully blend with their surroundings.  This one was one my favorites because I discovered it on my own while traveling and was able to tell through the studies that I had done that it was a building that successfully made use of the site in the design.  Through my studies of parasitic, natural and site sensitive architecture, I have found that this type of architecture is something that I am very interested in.  The interesting thing about architecture is that every site you will encounter is different.  Therefore it is important to know that you must observe the site very closely and make note of important site features that can be used to your advantage.  I hope that some of the lessons I have been learning will carry on in my architectural career as I continue to improve as a designer.              

            While blending the site successfully in the building, the building was also refreshingly simple in its design and very easy to walk through.  Upon walking into the building, you find very quickly which way you are being guided by the building.  The building gently guides you along a path all the way to the top of the building at which points it open up a beautiful view of the city of Athens from all sides.  Through my sketches I found that the building was not only simple but clear as to its intent for the visitors.  Also, as a design student I was able to appreciate the tectonic quality of the structure in this building.    

What is a Campus?

          A campus can be defined ranging from a complex for buildings of higher learning to a large, usually suburban, landscaped business or industrial site.  If you combine these two ideas of what a campus can be and combine them with the field of architecture you can begin to find what begins to happen at areas like the Biennale and the Vitra Campus.  If a Campus is being created to educate one on architecture, it only makes sense that the buildings of the campus are thoughtfully designed and teach their own lessons about form and design.  The Vitra Campus and the Biennale Pavillions clearly show how a combination of actual architecture and education can be combined to effectively maximize what can be learned from them.

            The Vitra Campus in Germany was built in the 1940s on an old factory site.  Starting in 1981, buildings began to be built by famous architects including,  Nicholas Grimshaw, Frank Ghery, Zaha Hadid, Tadao Ando, Alvaro Siza, and Herzog and De Meuron.  By placing all of these thoughtfully designed buildings in one place, the site naturally began to attract lovers of architecture from all over the world.  Because of this, it also became a place to learn about architecture in one of the best ways possible: by observing and experiencing the designs of those who are very practiced in architecture.  One of the most recent additions is the Herzog and De Meuron Vitrahaus which houses the Vitra furniture design company.  This building appears as many extruded planes that intersect with one another.  At first glance, it may even seem random how these volumes are intersected with one another.  Having visited and explored this building, I can tell you that there is nothing random about the way this building was arranged.  As you walk through the various floors and spaces, you are guided by an ingenious circulation pattern.  The opening as the end of each of one of these long volumes has a very intentful positioning to either reveal the inside to outside, the outside to the inside, or both.  Walking through this building was quite incredible to watch house they combined each of the spaces into one awesome spaces that flows from threshold to threshold.   Walking through this building was, in my opinion, much more educational than reading about it in a book.  As an educational piece of a campus, this building is effective in teaching about how a thoughtful design process can lead ultimately to an effective building.

            The Pavilions at the Architecture Biennale in Venice were just as effective in educating me on architecture as the Vitrahaus was.  As mentioned, I think that the best way to learn about architecture I to personally experience architecture that was been effectively designed.  This was clearly evident to me in the Pavilions at the Biennale in Venice.  Unfortunately because of closures, was not able to explore any of the other buildings at the Vitra Campus.  At the Biennale I was able to explore 10 of the different  architectural pavilions.  As I mentioned in my earlier post about the Biennale, this exploration of not only the exhibits, but the buildings was extremely educational.  It was like I was walking through a small city of interestingly designed buildings and spaces.  I was able to take notes and sketch things that I noticed and could then incorporate into my work.  The Norwegian Pavilion (above) was one of the most interesting pavilions that I found at the Biennale in the way it connected with the environment and treated light. ­­­

            Here I think the word campus becomes redefined.  In both of these examples, I was not being taught by a teacher in a classroom or a book.  I was being taught through observation, experience, and discovery.  In my opinion, this method is much more viable in the world of architecture than any other method of teaching.  Architectural education should, in my opinion, focus on this method of discovery in its teaching. 

Parasitic Architecture and its Effectiveness- Nick Tafel

As buildings continue to age, the idea of complimentary architecture must enter into all of our minds.  As students of design, we face the task of using the existing structure of a building in a new and creative way more so now than in the past years.  The need for new buildings seems to be lessening and the need for the retrofitting of old buildings is becoming a much more popular idea.  These complimentary “parasites”, as they are called, can be found in many different shapes and sizes.  Many offer not only cost efficiency, but also space efficiency.  They allow the clients to add a certain amount of space to their existing building in a tasteful and interesting way. Parasitic architecture allows for a whole new set of design challenges. I would like to discuss a few examples of parasitic architecture and their successfulness in becoming integrated with the environment around them.  I think as architecture continues to evolve as a profession; the viability of these parasitic additions will increase exponentially. 

The Laymann house by Meixner Schluter is a great example of how a complimentary addition can make use of the existing structure and design of the a building but still add a great deal of its own design and interesting ideas.  The addition is built around the existing structure of the old house.  It encases the old house and extends out on one side to add a new living room.  The nice thing about this addition is that the existing house is still recognizable in the design of the living room.  Schluter even left some of the façade of the existing building exposed in an effort not to hide what was once there.  To me this is a very nice idea: that he is celebrating the structure of the old house rather than hiding it away.  Also, if you look into the living room in the first picture, you can see that the new loft/balcony was informed by the lines that were once created by the roof.  This is something that you see throughout the house altogether.  The designer was very careful to make design decisions that were informed by the existing structure of the house.  Because of this, the house keeps its original spirit but has been refined into a new structure.  This building also makes use of a new building technology called Poroton, a self insulating brick that can be used in place of standard framing and insulation.  The combination of the cost efficiency of this addition and the architect’s close attention to the articulation of the old house in the new design makes it a successful example in my opinion. 

Another successful example of an integrated parasitic building, but in a different way, is the  Invisible House by Francois Roche.  During the pre-deisgn of this building, the residents of the area raised concerns about a building being built here.  They said that they did not want to have an obtrusive building here that would take away from the garden that existed there.  Because of this, Roche decided to make the building completely under a blanket of ferns and mask it completely from view.  Here, Roche did not have a building that he had to utilize, he had to connect into the nature.  This technique, done quite successfully, allowed the residents to enjoy the comfort of their garden and also allowed Roche to build here.  The windows are even masked with a series of organic glass bulbs to hide them from view further.  This is where parasitic architecture becomes quite interesting.  If you notice, Schluter and Roche both had to adjust to different design parameters for their installation to be successful.  Schluter’s was successful in celebrating the building while Roche’s success came from masking the building completely.  That, to me, is the most interesting thing about these parasitic installments.  Each of them has their own set of design problems to be solved so the end result is therefore just as unique as a normally designed building might be.

        
http://coolboom.net/en/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/wohlfahrt-laymann1.jpg
http://coolboom.net/en/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/wohlfahrt-laymann7.jpg
http://www.architizer.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/roche.jpg

Biennale: Exploring the Pavilions

by Nick Tafel

Going to the Biennale during our stay in Venice was a very interesting and exciting experience for me as a young student of architecture.  I walked through the doors with no idea as to what was going to be there.  The exhibits for contained as part of the Biennale were fantastic but more so than the exhibits, I enjoyed the pavilions as their own pieces of architecture completely independent of what was inside them.  It was immensely interesting to walk through this small town of architecturally diverse buildings that each had their own charm about them.  I would like to examine a few of these Pavilions and their own architectural charm.  I enjpy that the creators of the Biennale were this sensitive to the work that was being put on display.  This allows the viewer to not only enjoy the work that is on display but also enjoy the space that they are exploring.

The first Pavilion that I noticed to be architecturally appealing to myself was the pavilion that represented the Nordic Areas of Europe.  It consisted of one simple large space for the exhibition and large sliding glass doors for the public to enter through.  The genius in this building came through in the treatment of the light and also the pavilion’s obvious connection to nature.  Immediately upon walking into this pavilion, I was impressed with the space as a space that was conducive to displaying work well.  In my sketch you can the Brie-solel on the top of the building that interact with the normal day lighting of the space and allow for a very soft, easy light to gently cast onto the works that are being displayed.  The connection to nature is very evident as a tree grows directly through the building in the front.  Also, the large sliding glass doors on the sides allow for the exhibition space to feel like it is an indoor/outdoor space.  While it feels similar to an outdoor space, the building still offers the protection of harmful sunlight and the elements. 

Another Pavilion that I was impressed with was the Brazilian pavilion.  The exterior materiality was refreshingly simple and refine and the use of the cantilever over the doorway provided for a nice entry condition.  The exterior consisted of dark wooden panels arranged vertically.  The concrete mass that is cantilevered out over the doorway in the middle allows for the rhythm of the wooden panels to be broken up.  The hollow concrete mass that hovers above the door is quite impressive for the shear fact that it is reinforced concrete rather than steel or something more conventional.  It gives you the feeling that, at any point, the whole building could topple onto its side.

For me, the Biennale was the most interesting when I had the chance to explore the pavilions from different countries.  They were small, architecturally interesting buildings on their own.  In my opinion, many of these little buildings could stand alone with no exhibit and still be interesting enough to stand on their own as an exhibit.  

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

When a Garden Loses its Function

For centuries, gardens have been used to relax the body, and the mind, and allow people to connect back to nature whether that be in a suburban neighborhood or in an urban area.  With the expansion of cities and urban centers, people have sought this connection back to nature with the creation of urban gardens and roof top gardens in urban centers.   However, when does the design of these gardens start to hinder their purpose and functionality?  At what point does the garden become more of a design experiment and less of a functional space.

A good example of this is the rooftop gardens on the Museum of Modern Art (MOMA) in New York.  The MOMA contracted famous landscape architect Ken Smith to design a rooftop garden to spice up the roof.  The new garden was scheduled to open at the same time as the Groundswell exhibit.  Many were expecting great things from Smith and many were disappointed by what the final product was.  The product was a 17,000 sq. ft. artificial garden consisting of 85 plastic rocks. 560 artificial boxwoods. 300 pounds of clear crushed glass. 4 tons of recycled rubber mulch.  The garden is not open to public use or circulation of any sort and may only be seen from the adjacent buildings.  While this garden requires little to no maintenance or upkeep, at what expense is this achieved? The essence of the garden here, in my opinion, is completely lost.  The intimacy, the exploration, the tranquility, and the connection to nature are lost because the garden is not occupiable. That is why I believe this piece became a test of how far someone could push the meaning of a garden.  In this case, it was pushed too far.  I believe that, if anything, this has become more of a piece of contemporary art, something just to look at, than a garden.  Are garden is meant to be enjoyed and experienced, not looked at from far away.

This begs the question of the viability of an artificial garden to be used as a garden.   Is it possible to have such a garden that can create the same feeling as a true rooftop garden?  In this case, I believe that there was a disconnect between this installation and the true purpose of a garden.  A much more successful green urban installation, in my opinion, was the Lincoln Center’s green roof in the Hypar Pavilion. This piece of green work can be explored and used by the public every day during the warmer months of the year.  It allows the public to sit and enjoy a lawn much like the one they might find in a less urbanized area.  In this sense It is much more successful than the artificial garden on the roof of the MOMA.  This is a green installation that you can feel, touch, and enjoy.  Architecturally this piece of work is still very interesting as it is a twisted parabolic plane that is suspended by what only seems like glass.  While this green installation does not boast the impressive size of the MOMA garden, it can be used and enjoyed by the public.  It is not held up on a podium for the public to look at but not touch.

http://agreenliving.org/tag/lincoln-center/

http://laud8.wordpress.com/2010/08/03/the-museum-of-modern-art-roof-garden-new-york/

http://serenityinthegarden.blogspot.it/2010/07/ken-smith-landscape-architect.html

http://articles.latimes.com/2005/mar/23/entertainment/et-moma23

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/11/garden/11NATU.html

http://www.greenroofs.com/projects/pview.php?id=423

The Kulturforum

By Nick Tafel

Berlin suffered a huge loss in the 1960s when Berlin split into the East and West.  West Berlin was left without a sense of centralization and left without a city center.  This posed a challenge and an opportunity for the architects, planners and designers of the progressive West Berlin.  Starting from fresh, a diverse group of designers came together to create the Kulturforum in West Berlin, giving this side of the city a centralized area for gathering and cultural expansion.  The designs of Mies Van Der Rohe and Hans Schauron are just two of the many buildings that make up the Kulturforum.  The interesting thing about this complex is that it was built all from the 60s forward.  This makes it a much more modern take on what an urban center should be.  The building that make up the complex all served the purpose of bring art and culture to the west side of Berlin, a culture that was much lost with the split from the other side of the city.  The center continues to bring culture and art together today, as it is still a busy and widely used area.  The building include, Mies Van der Rohe’s Neue Nationalgalerie which was the very first museum of west Berlin and has become a very important exhibit space for art that ranges all the way from the classics to contemporary German painters.  While some say that the Gemaldegalerie is not the most architecturally exciting on the exterior, this building holds arguably one of the most important art collections in all of Germany and maybe in all of Europe and boasts impressive architecturally designed interior exhibition spaces.  The Kunstgewerbemuseum (museum of decorative arts) holds the most important collections of skilled craft arts in all of Germany. Situated on two different sites, this complex holds the work of skilled craftsmen ranging from post-antiquity to present.  The museum for musical instruments by Edgar Wisniewski shows an impressive collection of about 800 musical instruments ranging from the 1600s until present day. Rolf Gutbrod is responsible for the Museum of Prints and Drawings at the Kulturforum which is one of four of the most important collections of sketches, watercolors, pastels and prints in the world. Here you can find works ranging from Warhol to Botticelli to Rembrandt. A cultural center like this would not be complete without the Berlin Philharmonie and the Chamber Music Hall.  Both of which revolutionized the listening experience of the audience by placing the ensemble in the middle of the room and allowing a centralized, balanced listening experience for all the listeners in the halls. Schauron and Wisniewski worked together on developing both these musical halls starting as early as the 1960s with sketches and ending in the 1980s with the completion of the Chamber Music Hall.  The State library and Ibero-American institute, located in the same complex, provide literature to the masses as well as a place for cultural Germany to have cultural and academic interdisciplinary exchanges with Latin America, Spain, the Caribbean and Portugal. The Wissenschaftszentrum was founded in 1969 as a complex where 140 social scientists work with development of trends, adaptation issues and possibilities for innovation of modern societies.  Lastly, St. Matthews church on Kulturforum.  This church was built originally in 1844-46 and was lost when Germany was ravaged by the war. This building was reconstructed in 1956-60 and has become an important part of the Kulturforum with its publicly open tower that offers an impressive view of the Kulturforum complex.  The Kulturforum complex started as a center for art and culture to flourish and to this day it does just that. It provides architecturally interesting buildings that not only are visually stimulating but artistically interesting on the inside and provide a sense of community and centralization for Berlin.