Intention of Jean Nouvel

Social Housing is an important issue in architecture, it is often said that architects have a social responsibility to the public and along with sustainable design creating affordable social housing is seen as one of the best and most useful ways to fill this social responsibility. It is a really challenging project type to try and create a project that can accommodate to all the living needs of any number of different people in a way that they can live comfortably and happily, but also to construct in cheaply enough to make sure it is available to lower class citizens and can actually have a chance of making a positive social impact within a community. I think the most interesting example of this kind of architecture that we have seen in class is the Nemause social housing project in Nemause, France designed by French architect Jean Nouvel. This project really shows an active interest in creating a situation that could improve the social and economic situation in the town for a number of people even if the question of whether or not that was accomplished cannot be completely answered.

There is one point that came up with this project that I found particularly interesting, and it’s an idea that I came across when writing about Parasite blog post and the Sicilian houses in which the residents would add on in order to update their homes in a useful and affordable way. This was the idea of open source architecture in which the power of design is made available to those who have the most access and stake in the way in which a project is realized, the end user. In the Nemause housing project apartments are sold to residents as empty unfinished and unfurnished rooms and the organization and design of all of the interior space is left to them. Yet a kind of open source was never planned for by the architect or the city, the open ended nature of the apartments being sold seemed to be more as a means of keeping the apartments at an affordable price by letting users select their own finishes. Though I find this to be the most interesting aspect of the building it was never really intended to be a factor that drastically effected the overall design and intention of the building, in fact the architect went out of his way to make sure that he could limit the amount to which the residents could affect the appearance of the space by making them sign a clause saying they would not touch the concrete walls even within their own apartment. It seems strange that the thing I most like about the building would be something the architect was trying to stop from happening, I think it is very valuable that the façade could be changed by the user and the building could be constantly updated, and Jean Nouvel in an interview stated that he wishes the building to be stuck in time period in which it was designed, to never stray far from the specific vision he saw for the how the people can use his project.  

 

Oddity at the Vitra Campus

I find the idea of a corporate campus a strange project type, meant to be seen and impress the public it functions almost as a billboard, and yet simultaneously be necessary functional space need in some way for a building. They become a space that needs to be both public, in order to be seen and to create a memorable impression on the public but also private in order to efficiently run a business, this creates a very strange blurred distinction between the public and private.

The Vitra Campus in Germany is the best example of this strange architectural situation, being the location production for many of the Vitra products, it is a space that needs to function very well and yet it is still aiming to gain visitors and attention though architectural ideas used. This goes so far as to allow a Zaha Hadid fire station to be built that was more of an example, or a pavilion designed to show an architectural idea, rather than an actual functional fire station. And while the idea of creating a largely un-functional building in order to showcase a kind of architectural style is not completely invalid, it seems that a factory location is among the worst places to try and crate this type of project.  A building like this would seem very useless in such a functional environment, where its problems with inefficiency would cause problems and where it would be away from public viewing, serving as an unseen billboard for the company. Another oddity that is  created from the campus architecture is the mismatched and seemingly random style and forms of the different buildings, unlike the Italian Piazza, in which all the building follow a similar form and rhythm, and connect to one another in order to create one cohesive space. The Vitra Campus is many different building that all seem to be fighting to make a strong and memorable impression on their own and not through the combined organization of a unified complex with a cohesive idea of how the space is organized. These are the biggest differences that exist between the corporate campus and the traditional Italian Piazza.

After visiting the Vitra campus it left a strange feeling of disorganization and disunity, it felt somewhat liked an architecture exhibit, and in many ways, that is what it was. Because while every building had a specific function and aim many of them still seem to exist just in order to show a unique architectural style and idea, and to bring certain notoriety to the campus. The issue also came up that there where gates separation the area open to the public, which were made up of a gallery and display spaces, and the area that was gated of which was what would have been the more interesting projects to see, the working functional buildings in place at the campus. I think the lack of fluidity is really too much of a challenge to create a kind of corporate campus that can ever be seen as valuable as the more traditional and public model of the city square or Piazza.           

Impression of the Pompidou Metz

While poorly situated for the location of its program, the new Pompidou Center in Metz, France designed by Japanese architects Shigeru Ban, the project dose do an excellent job of responding to the positives of the site that it does have, and in creating a monumental and memorable space, with clear and functional spaces within the project. Before visiting the project I had not known anything about the city of Metz outside of what I had seen from project photos online and because of the position of the project within the city I thought that Metz would be a small and isolated town. The part of the city that is separated from the Pompidou center is dense and historical and would have been a much more interesting site for a new large modern art museum than its current position on the opposite side of the train tracks of the main station, surrounded by other contemporary projects and further developments of this historic city. As soon as this project was built it became one of the most important sites in the city, and instead it serves to further divide the city between a historical center and outward expansion.

                The thing that made this project most successful for me was way in which it was able to create a monumental and memorable space using a completely unique architectural language. When I see architecture I usually consider two different main aspects that are given varying levels of attention by an architect. The first consideration is the most obvious, the functionality of the building and the buildings ability to serve the users who will occupy it, and the second consideration is the impact, memorability, and emotional response that a project can create, most of the time that means coming up with a new and unique idea that has more of a goal to impress. There are many projects, and architects that focus more on one consideration than the other, but as with most things the best solutions is usually a balance between function and unique and hard to create kind of visual interest.

What impressed me most about Shiguru Ban’s Winning proposal for this project is the fact that the emotional response has clearly become the focus and yet the functionality of the project being mealy adequate does not seem to take away from the power of the project. When you walk into the large interior/exterior lobby space, which is covered by an amazing and fascinating and curved ceiling made up of bent wood set in a pattern, it is clear that the large box volumes that are stacked in the middle of this volume are secondary to the effect created by this roof.    

Open Source Architecture

The most useful example of parasitic architecture has to be that that wishes to change a piece of architecture in order to solve a specific problem with the use of new technologies or to improve a building functionality in a way that is reasonable and affordable for the users of the space and can extend the lifespan of the building. In the case of many of the example’s from the lecture the main aim seem to be based less on functional improvement and more on changing the emotional impression or the impact of the project, and while this is an important part of any work of architecture it is a less important consideration when compared with the possibility of making a more useable livable space that can improve quality of life. In the example of the Manuel Herz, Legal Illegal project that was presented at the German pavilion of the Biennale, an intervention made into an existing project which splits the existing space into to two separate parts, neither of which have the intended layout or function of the original design.

legal Illegal section

 And although it may seem that if done correctly these can be designed to be interesting spaces, they can never really be anything but fragments or portions of a whole. There are cases however where the parasitic intervention can be more successful and meaningful when used just for the purpose of added impact, the best case of this is the Parasite Las Palmas in Rotterdam, that was added onto the top of that building in Amsterdam, since it was constructed easily and cheaply and it was able to impact the skyline of the city in a major and noticeable way, and to really become what seems to be the simplest solution with the most impact that could be made possible for the project.  The houses in San Michele di Ganzaria, Sicily are similar in many ways to this project, because they are created by the residents, who add on only when they have the money available to do so, and always adding the cheapest possible solution, they are forced to come up with what is almost the purest and most direct kind of architectural solution, without relying on the genius of an architect to solve their problems. So in the same way these are the cheapest solutions with the most amount of impact, and since in come directly from the end user it is a much needed solution to a specific problem that exists.

Improvised Architecture

It would seem that one of the biggest problems with architecture is its permanence, and the idea the building is most functional and useful the day that it open, and only becomes less useful from that day on as user needs and space requirements change through time. This is why it is interesting to consider a kind of open source architecture in which the design of the building could be handed off to the end users and, based on wants and needs, the space can be changed and updated in the way that best suites the end user.         

Clarity at the Biennale

by Billy del Monte

Japanese Concept Model 

 Japanese Final Concept

After returning from the Architectural Biennale, I was really impressed with the overall experience from visiting the different exhibits, and pavilions on display, but for me the national pavilions was the most interesting part of the festival. After returning to Genoa and thinking back on these pavilions the ones that I remember most clearly and I think where most successful, were the exhibits that had some kind of cohesive message or theme to show about the current state of architecture within the nation, This was especially evident in the Finnish and Japanese pavilions. These two countries where both able to give real life examples of projects that were going on in their country that gave some insight into the style of the architects who worked on these projects, and showcased new and unique ideas that where coming out of these nations. Other pavilions where notable for the first impact they were able to make and for the, unique ways in which they set up for their display, if you had just walked out of the pavilion you couldn't really say you had any cohesive idea about the kind of unique ideas that are coming out of that country. For example the Russian Pavilion, while a completely novel and interesting piece of architecture on its own due to the unique system of coded tiles covering all of the interior space, seems that it was all made for the purpose of serving the information that had to be read off of a computer tablet, one project after another. This lead to the realization that the presentation of projects really came as an afterthought to the system the user must use to select the information. This is in sharp contrast to the example of the Japanese Pavilion which instead of trying to pick all the biggest projects from Japan that where worth displaying, they decided to find one project that most embodied the ideas and collective interest of their architects. By doing this they were able to look deeply into the entire creative process that a few young Japanese architects used to create a uniquely unifying piece of architecture and provide a specific understanding of that project. And also a better understanding of the process the Japanese architects use to solve the challenges of their particular situation, far better than a series of descriptions that just scratch the surface of many different projects, or even a feature of what the most well know architects from that country have been working on in the last two years. The Finnish Pavilion is similarly successful in its clarity as the Japanese Pavilion but uses a different approach, instead of focusing on one important project they decided to focus on one particular trend within their country that both reference the historic architecture of the country and show how there being applied to new ideas of design. Since many young architects in Finland have been working on doing new projects, often times with complex shapes, all in wood, they were able to find three examples of this to focus on for this exhibit and show the way in which this sort of new national style is developing. So at the end of the day I enjoyed most of the pavilions the ones whit the most cohesive theme and identity are the exhibits whose ideas where most understood and who I can take away the most. 

Finnish Pavilion

The Line Between Function and Experience

Two important elements in any architectural projects is the way in which the space is able to function, and the impact of the space, or the impression that it leaves on the viewer who is using or moving through it. And in the best most thought out projects these kinds of elements are very fluidly connected to each other in a way in which the both enhance the other one.

The Copacabana Promenade in Rio, the Hoenheim Nord Terminal, and the Touch of Evil Project are all examples of projects that in some way challenge the connection of impression of a project and the functionality of the space. In many contemporary projects build today the function is put as the main focus that drives the project, and this is a logical way to develop ideas, but these three particular projects are unique examples that see the impression that the space can make on the viewer as the driving force behind the concept and execution of all the elements of the project.

 The Copacabana promenade in Rio, by Robert Burley Marx, is a geometrical pattern that defines a space of a walkway through a park in Rio, the space is set up with a pattern that is based on the logical organization of simple geometry, yet is still completely curvilinear and seeming to have a natural quality that ungulates as you move through it, and although it is not a significant piece of architecture as far as function, it completely changes how the project is experienced, but it is part of a larger park project which has some functional elements tied with it, so it is not a project void of function.

The Hoenheim Nord Terminal and Car Park by Zaha Hadid is functionally a very simple project defined by the unique patterns and layout of the space effect the perception and impression of the project, creating different effects not just with the paint of façade of the project but also by the organization shape and layout of the functional and structural elements in a unique way which leaves a strong impression on the space and changes how it feels. So of all there of the examples this is the project that has the most functional architectural elements incorporated into the design, yet it is still a project that is commonly done in the most simple and cheapest way, without considering the experiential quality of the space.

 An Interesting example of a purely aesthetic change to a space, Is the Touch of Evil Project by NIO Architects, existing already as a freeway that was completely functional yet, needed some kind of visual interest to make the space a more meaningful and interesting experience. So this could almost be seen as a renovation project to the existing structure, which is unique because it is not improving the functionality of the structure in any way, but only seeks to change the experience. So in this way this has to considered the least architectural of the projects, it almost serves the same function as an art project added to any simple or functional thing in order to change the experience of using it.

Challenging the Perception of the Garden

     In the case of both Isamu Noguchi’s Sunken Garden in the Chase Manhattan Building, and Ken Smith’s rooftop garden on the MOMA building in New York, the architects have attempted to affect the way their non occupiable spaces are perceived by the viewer, and to differentiate their spaces from more traditional understanding of a garden. While neither of these spaces are by any means traditional gardens they can both be defined that way because of the way the designers created the space in a way that simulates nature and gives the viewer the impression of something more than what is actually in front of them. In this way every garden is in some way a simulation of a natural environment usually on a smaller scale and with some kind of applied order.

Both the Sunken Garden and the Rooftop Garden looked for unique ways to create spaces that both simulate natural spaces and also create new dynamic spaces serving similar functions. Both projects are gardens that are supposed to be seen but not occupied, and yet this means very different things for these two projects. In the case of the MOMA Rooftop garden the defining factor is the scale at which the viewer observes the garden, since it is on the roof that can’t be accessed by the gallery space of the museum, it is only viable from the point of view of the surrounding towers that have a perspective that is past the level where detail can be recognized. So the designer goes almost out of his way to use materials and details that individually have very little connection to the nature, or a traditional garden space, but when put together and seen from the perspective of the surrounding towers, create a cohesive whole that is reminiscent of a natural space. This very different from the way the Sunken Garden was conceptualized; with that space the scale at which the viewer could see the space was quite close despite the not being able to physically occupy it. The garden is also unique in that it gives two very different perspectives in which to view it, one being at the level of it yet separated by a wall of glass, and the other be one level above it yet being outside with it and hearing a feeling the way the water is moving through the garden. It should be no surprise that both projects claim to take inspiration form the Zen gardens of Japan, which where meditative spaces that, were also seen from the perimeter of the space and not occupied. These are some of the best examples in historical architecture of how to challenge the perspective of the viewer and to really influence the way that they can experience a garden, using a technique of a seemingly simple and easily understood layout, that still challenges the viewer to be able to truly understand how the space is layed out, and what kind of logic or thinking could have been used in order to arrive at the final setup.  

     

Architecture's Connection to Time and Place

by Billy del Monte

Architecture is always associated with the time and place in which it was made, and in the case of Nazi and Soviet architecture dismissed or not considered in the same light as other works of architecture that would have been produced in nation with a more agreeable ideology. In this way many important developments and unique ways of considering problems are disregarded for reasons witch are mostly unrelated to the ideas of these works. This really applies to all buildings, instead of understanding the specific considerations that apply to each project, often a more general motive and idea is assigned based on what is known of the time and era of its creation, especially when looking further into the past. This is a problem because many of the architectural ideas that are dismissed are from the largest and most controlling government systems, and while this usually did grant architects the same amount of freedom of design that could be had in other nations which are now seen in a more positive light, there where unique in the amount of investment that was put into large national projects, and the depth in which they were able to delve in to specific architectural ideas that formed the national identity of these powerful nations.

Soviet architecture is a good example of this. At the time of the communist revolution in Russia the party in power saw the need to develop a new, uniquely communist identify and began creating unique architectural theory that began move away from the ideas of the west at the time. The west also had little interest in the architectural ideas created by the Soviet Union, and as a result Soviet and Western Architecture remained largely dissimilar for most of the modern era. Seeing themselves as almost in competition with the western world, large investments were made in the field of Architecture and put towards the development of new and valuable ideas, ideas that in the eyes of the western world where spoiled by their connection with an ideology that was seen as dangerous. The most valuable architectural developments in the Soviet Union where related to urban planning, because new construction and development was being done at such a large scale they could consider plans at a large and more connected scale, as a result some of the most unique and forward thinking city plans of the time came from Russia. This is most evident in Berlin, which is a unique example of a city that developed while in the same era but with two separate architectural systems, In many ways East Berlin has a more appealing plan due to the order and organization that was able to be implemented on that side of the City, while West Berlin is made up of more individual projects without as much of a unifying system.