The Build Up

By Shawna Hammon

Lecture – “Staying Together: Complementary Architecture”

Real estate for iconic, stand-alone buildings is quickly becoming limited especially in older cities where the fabric is so tightly knit.  So more and more often we are renovating existing buildings by integrating new program into the existing shells of structures that are sometimes landmarks or icons for the cities in which they reside. 

Prentice Women’s Hospital by Bertrand Goldberg in Chicago is one example of this.  A long time battle has been waged over whether or not to tear this gem down to make way for new medical research facilities.  Northwestern University, which owns the building, believes demolition is the most economic solution and seems to be winning the battle.  Preservationists believe Goldberg’s landmark structure should be preserved and built around.  Architects from around the country have spoken up against this demolition, some even proposing alternatives.  Gang Architect’s went to the drawing board when demolition became a serious possibility.  What Jeanne Gang brought back was a floating, scalloped tower that showed opponents that it is possible to preserve this icon while still providing the much needed program.  This debate has demonstrated that preservation and renovation are going to become more common place in the coming generations of architectural development as we strive to protect some of our most distinct icons while making space for our increasingly urban population.

Prentice Women's Hospital & Gang Architects' Proposal

With this debate very much on my mind, I went to Amsterdam during independent travel.  It was here that I noticed a very distinct vernacular among the canal houses – they all possess roughly the same characteristics – narrow, tall facades crowned with a richly ornamented gable top with a hoist beam.  I thought it might be interesting to incorporate Cedric Price’s six strategies for existing buildings – reduction, addition, insertion, connection, demolition, and expansion - in this vernacular.  I wondered how each of these would change the function of the vernacular or enrich it.  These diagrams are the result of this study:

 

Six Strategies applied to Amsterdam Vernacular

Reduction – The canal house no longer relates to the adjacent façade.  Although one could argue that they didn’t share the same cornice lines or datum to begin with, so I’m not sure if much is lost or gained with this move.

Addition – This is a parasitic approach to finding additional program, but because of the compact site this move will change the feel of the street since it overhangs the sidewalk so significantly.

Insertion – This move is similar to reduction, except new program has been inserted into the vernacular.  In this case, a portico on the piano nobile was been added to engage privately with the street-scape.

Connection – This move attempts to maintain the façade, but allows for expansion between buildings or a simple connection for families that may own multiple houses on a block.

Demolition – The façade is completely change and is no longer a part of Amsterdam’s vernacular.  The major characteristics that identified it as part of this vernacular are completely lost; this move detracts from the neighborhood.  Preservation of these key characteristics is paramount for this vernacular.

Expansion – This is the reality we are facing as our population continues to grow and become more urban, our only choice is to grown upward while still respecting the historic fabric of our surroundings.  This move is reminiscent of Jeanne Gang’s proposal for the new medical research facility, a move I expect we will start to see more often as we preserve our past.

Cedric Price - Six Strategies

Sources:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/18/arts/design/adapting-prentice-womens-hospital-for-new-use-in-chicago.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

http://www.architecture.org/reconsidering-an-icon-solicited-entries

Evolution of Gardens

By Abbie Gentry

What is a garden? Some would answer a plot of land with vegetation. Others would visualize an earthy node for gatherings. Some might even argue that the word could even refer to something the size of a box, like a window box planter (“Garden”). This seemingly all-inclusive, vague term has a past to match its ambiguous meaning. Historically speaking, a garden was purely functional. The purpose of a garden was to harvest food or medicine. Gardens existed solely to grow food or to serve as a place to explore the medicinal qualities of plants. Later, gardens developed into more leisurely spaces to be enjoyed as a promenade or as a retreat from the strain of the everyday life. Today, most public gardens have evolved into a combination of both aesthetics and function. Gardens serve the public as a place of respite; a place to congregate for recreational activities; a place to educate about and celebrate botany; a place of scientific experiment; and the list goes on.

Today, urban gardens can be used to not only provide a haven but also to function as a city’s water filtration system. Kathryn Gustafson’s Kulturpark Westergasfabriek in Amsterdam is a prime example of this. Rather than choosing plants simply from an aesthetics view, she designed the area using certain plants that have the ability to purify water. This was a wise move economically for the city because this natural filtration system is efficient and multi-functional as well as negating the need for an eyesore of an industrial purification plant.

Although the image of a garden that typically comes to mind is that of a vegetated space, it does not even need to possess actual plants to earn the title “garden.” The landscaping of Ken Smith is proof for that. Rather than using live vegetation that would require upkeep, and thus time and money, he designed a landscape entirely out of artificial materials on the rooftop of the Museum of Modern Art building in New York. From afar, the space seems alive and thriving. Up close, however, one realizes that the boulders are all built from the same plastic mold and the “grass” is actually crushed glass and other recycled materials (Raver).

Another thing that has changed over the years is the emotive qualities of gardens. Traditionally gardens were to serve as a retreat from the city; a quiet place of solitude and relaxation. Today, it symbolizes community. It has become the meeting place of urban locals to congregate. People are encouraged to be active in these spaces rather than lackadaisical. These large urban gardens more often than not include bike paths, running paths, playgrounds for children, and large areas for recreational activities.

I believe that gardens will continue to evolve and adapt to the needs of people. They will persist in educating the public, providing a place of physical and mental restoration and serving as a common ground between the city and the country.

Sources Cited

“Garden.” An Encyclopedia Britannica Company. Merriam-Webster. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/garden

Raver, Anne. “A Rooftop Garden with Synthetic Green.” The New York Times. 11 November 2004. Web. 5 September 2012. <http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/11/garden/11NATU.html>

Breaking and Creating

By: Emma Lyne Pouch


           In a building each room has reason and serves a specific purpose. It breaks down a large space to make it useful and give meaning. We even see this on a greater scale in city planning, a dividing of space to provide significance. With all of this organization it would only make sense to continue it into the landscape design of the surround areas. That is were a landscape architect comes into the picture. In today’s modern landscape designs we see an emersion of large spaces being broken down to create different views and surroundings. Particularly in the large cities it is nice to have a place to get away, to lose sight of the big city and have an escape. It Europe’s contemporary architecture we see the movement coming to life in places such as Paris, Bordeaux, and Amsterdam.

Masterplan of Parc Citroen

            In 1992, Gilles Clement completed the Parc Citroen project that involved breaking down 60 acres into two greenhouses, one central park area and 8 smaller gardens. Although the large open parks are what most people associate with Parc Citroen, it is the smaller parks that bring character. Each garden was assigned a metal, a planet, a day of the week, a state of the water, and a sense and then it is referred to by a color. All these factors come together to create different experiences, some soothing and peaceful, others filled with the sound of rushing water and movement. They are fabricated to produce the sense of being in a secret garden and traveling from one to another with free organic motions. But when we zoom out to see the master plan we find a clear, formal pattern with the center space reflecting the very geometric gardens in an 18^th century style. Clement broke down this sizeable open land and assembled a space filled with many emotions and experiences.

Ariel view of Cultuurpark Westergasfabriek

            Over a decade later Catherine Mosbach designs the Jardin Botanique project in Bordeaux with a similar idea and yet different approach to the concept of breaking up and dividing spaces. On this long promenade we find a mix of wet and dry land with varying types of plants. The geometric concrete path along a pond of water is broken up into many small pieces just big enough for people to weave through that each contains a different species of plant. Mosbach designs a field of cultures, individual miniature gardens that show the landscape of France over the seasons. This space is all about interacting with the space and being able to learn from it.

            Another example of dividing and repurposing spaces is the Cultuurpark Westergasfabriek in Amsterdam. The park designed by Kathryn Gustafson in 2004, takes an old industrialized area and transforms it into a green environment meant for reflection and learning from the past as well as a culture center. Similar to Parc Citroen we find a central axis that links the small spaces and sites the stretch down the large acreage. Gustafson’s design also resembles the Jardin Botanique in the dynamics of vegetation and it’s use throughout the park. What is most successful about this collection of three varying parks is the breaking down of spaces. The designs are able to create different experiences within a setting that make the land more interesting and keep the people utilizing the space.