Timeless...

by: Francisco G. Zambrano

          Some people consider clothes to be architecture. Before this past lecture on temporary architecture, I would have disagreed with this statement a little. First off clothes are constantly changing every four months, styles come and go in a blink of an eye. The more and more I list the “differences” the more I can see the similarities. Especially when comparing clothes and temporary architecture.

        Simply by looking at the definition of temporary architecture. That which has a short lifespan that allows for experimental techniques to show new ideas. They also help us understand how Architecture can communicate to the world. This description is exactly what fashion is. It is a way that designers and people are able to communicate with the world and try out new techniques of construction, material usage, etc. Most clothes are temporary.

Fig.2 Seattle Space needle

Fig.1 Serpentine Pavilion by Toyo Ito 2002

            Shoot, there is also something that is similar to fashion shows for architecture, the London Pavilions. Every year, an architect is chosen to design a pavilion for Hyatt Park. In these pavilions, architects normally showcase new materials, new ways of construction, new understandings of organization and their way of design, or what they believe is the new “style” of architecture. For the past twelve years, architects have introduced to the world “styles” that have come and gone, but then like in fashion some designs have been made permanent.

Fig.3 Coco Chanel and her LBD

Fig.3 501 Levi jeans

            These pieces of architecture have been thought of as timeless such as the Eiffel Tower, the Glass Palace, the Space Needle in Seattle and the Barcelona Pavilion. These pieces of architecture are like the little black dress of Coco Channel or a pair of 501 Levi Straus jeans. These pieces of architecture and fashion were on the edge of their time and showcased the best of technology and design. They both paved the way for greater pieces and allowed for further advancement in their respective areas. But where as in fashion, the pieces are reproduced, in architecture these pieces remain as one of a kind, truly timeless pieces that lead the way to a better future.

Fig.4 Eiffel Tower leads the way in the modern use of iron construction

The Differences in an Experience

by Francisco G. Zambrano

Fig.1 Main corridor

          On my independent travel, I was able to visit the Jewish Museum by Daniel Libeskind at night. Now I have heard that the best time to visit the museum is during the day when natural light comes through the slits in the building and it cast “light of hope” through out the inside of the museum. But I believe that the best time is actually at night.

            Now, I do admit that at night I was not able to experience many things that I could have seen during the day, but I feel that the lack of light actually aids the effect that Daniel was going after. For example, there are places throughout the building where there is only a room with a ceiling that is as tall as the rest of the building. So basically they are pits. During the day there is little light that comes through small openings at the very top, but at night they have very little to no light. In the first pit that I went into, I felt so lost and belittled because there was a lot of echo, which made me think it was a large space, but I could not see anything at all so I had no sense of placement or anything. I was seriously lost. If there were some light, I feel that my experience in that room would have been very different.

Fig.2 Pit with the metal faces

            The next “pit” that I walked into was another quite interesting experience. A small light next to the entrance dimly lit this “pit”. Many metal faces that clattered when you walked over them covered the ground, which because of the tall ceiling, echoed even louder. When I looked up I could barely see the ceiling. The dark, barely visible ceiling reinforced the feeling of a deep pit that had no escape from the painful clatter from below my feet. The faster I walked, the louder it got.

Fig.3 Garden of columns

            These two pits are not the only places that light would have hindered the experience. Even the exterior parts of the museum looked gloomier and creepier at night. When I entered one of the outdoor gardens that had white columns jutting out of the ground with trees and shrubbery at the top, I was afraid to walk into or around it because it was only lit from one side. The idea of walking into the columns and not knowing or being able to see what was on the other side just creeped me out. I then understood what the Jews felt like when they were freed from the concentration camps or even what they felt like during the time when they were being prosecuted. Not knowing who to trust or where to go. If the sun were out, then this feeling would not have existed.

Fig.4 Exterior of the Jewish Museum

 

            In many cases, lights and shadows are deemed important and are sought after. Yet after this experience, I feel that darkness has a part that is much more important than light. Because of these dark spaces, I was able to experience the museum at a much more intense level.

Who We Are

by: Francisco G. Zambrano

          When we look at the architecture of a company, we see mostly only see their “look” or what they want to be seen as from the outside. In order to create a strong identity, there also has to be a strong idea behind the identity. Identity is not only composed of a visual but also of many “internal parts.” In most cases the “internal parts” are the beliefs and goals of the company. But many times these goals and or beliefs are not easily seen or noticed.  Thus we must look past this and understand why it is that they choose that specific design

Fig.1 Exterior of Apple on 5th Avenue NYC.

          One company, which has been able to create a strong identity that is visible beyond their architecture, is Apple. In every building, whether it is newly built or renovated you understand what this company is about and wants to be known for. When you first look at the glass cube on 5^th Avenue in New York City, you only see the glass cube in the middle of a plaza with the glowing apple logo in the inside. The glass cube is small compared to the neighboring buildings and plaza. This visual just simply blows your mind. It is amazing how a simple glass cube can make such a loud statement yet give importance to the neighboring buildings and the public. Once this is understood, you see how the design of the exterior of the store ties in with not only the interior of the store, but also the company’s identity. They create products and services that are minimal and simple yet make a loud statement.

Fig.2 Interior of Apple store on 5th Avenue NYC

Fig.3 Apple store in Paris, France

Fig.4 Interior of Apple store in Paris, France

         

          Now their buildings do not always make a large statement as that on 5^th Avenue. Many of their stores are in renovated old buildings that blend with the other surrounding buildings. From the outside the only thing that identifies the Apple stores are the simple window displays or the always-present white logos. The insides are treated in the same manner. They leave the interiors as original and simple as possible and fill the place with simple furniture. They want the buildings to be highlighted and have as much attention and presence as their products. The way they treat the buildings is the way the company aims to treat the environment, it’s customers and the world community, with respect.

            Apple is one out of many companies in the world that use architecture in order fortify their identity to the world. They wish to get their message across in many ways and forms as possible especially through architecture. By creating immersive environments where one can fully experience the products, yet at the same time understand what the company aims for besides selling their products, companies such as Apple, Prada, Gap, etc. are able to achieve and hold a strong identity in the tough world of consumerism. Because of this strong drive, people walk into Apples’ simple stores without needing excessive advertisement at the street front. Simply look at the Apple store in the Grand Central Station in New York, thousands walk in and the only way you know it’s Apple is by the little white apple at the top of the stairs.  

Fig.5 Apple store in Grand Central Station NYC

Learning from Our Roots

by: Francisco G. Zambrano

  

          Throughout history, there have always been problems regarding expansion for places to live and work. For a time, there was room to expand out into, but as time goes on, this is becoming less and less possible. In the past and still to this day, we have simply torn down buildings and just rebuilt on the site. The problem with this is that you end up with rubbish that is no use to anyone and is then placed elsewhere that could have been used for something better. We, especially architects, must consider architecture as preservation or the changing of a building. We must find ways to reduce the waste and work with what we have. This is where we enter the modern heritage or the new “modern way of thinking.” Our modern identity shouldn’t be about everything being new and clean, but rather low cost, low tech back to our roots, making use of what we have or what is already there.

The building we were obsessed with.

            

          There are many ways to do so, though extensions and additions are the most common. The approach that we focused on in class was that of creating a parasite. Now, in architecture, a parasite is not harmful but rather a dependent addition. Most additions are basically blended into the existing structure. The difference with a parasite is that it stands apart from the existing structure in a great way. It’s funny though how we were once obsessed with these structures when we were young. This parasitic structure that I am referring to is the classic tree house. The tree house was a parasite in that it used the tree, as it’s base structure that gave the tree house its height. One modern building that takes this cue, in a sort of way, was the Hotel Everland that was designed by Sabina Lang und Daniel Baumann. This hotel is basically the tree house that is then placed on top of existing buildings so that the hotel has amazing views and a great height, without having to have an actual tall base. In this way not only are they saving materials in order to build the height for the hotel pod, thing, but they are also saving land. 

The hotel uses the building as its "tree"

           

          

The roof was used as a usable outdoor
living space.

          Another project that takes this sense of a tree house, but in a somewhat much less direct way is the Didden Village designed by MVRDV in Rotterdam, Netherlands. This structure moves the private living spaces from inside the existing structure, and moves them to the roof. This not only frees up a lot of room inside the existing building, but also creates usable space on the roof. Now you might ask, why did they not simply make a complete indoor addition and blend it with the existing building like normal people? By leaving the private living spaces in little houses and the rest exposed, it creates usable outdoor space that was once not there. This adds to the experience of being in a different place. Then the blue is very important to this structure because the structure has to make a statement and act as its own. It is somewhat of a sculpture. 

 

These stairs remind me of the
way you access a tree house.

          

          Now moving to the inside living spaces, where the staircases enter from the private spaces. The twenty-centimeter distance between the staircases and the floor emphasizes the difference between the two types of architecture. The way that the staircases enter, add to the reason for preserving the existing structure. To some, the staircases interrupt the movement of the space, yet I believe that they add to it. The staircases, besides the fact that they are completely independent of the existing structure, are able to divide the space in a respectable manner by not intruding and being in the way. Without them I feel that the space would be too big and not homely.

           

In contrast with the Didden Village,
these stairs are dependent of the tree.

          It is amazing how a parasite in the architecture world returns life rather than the customary function of a parasite.  This is what I feel where our modern heritage should head. We should try to add and preserve buildings and bring them back to life rather than just destroy and rebuild or add and blend. We should learn to highlight the old with the aid of something new. 
We must learn from the existing buildings and find ways to preserve them and learn from their mistakes and find ways to fix them by making additions, changes, extensions etc. rather than destroy and forget.

”If the past cannot teach the present and the father cannot teach the son, then history need not have bothered to go on, and the world has wasted a great deal of time.”  

~Russell Hoban