NEW SITE! markitectsworld.com

Hello all!

I feel it is only right to no longer update this site with content that is not related to my thesis – so I have begun a new site which will be updated with new thoughts as they come and has some old ones on there too!

After a lot of wordpress related frustration – please head over to http://www.markitectsworld.com for more markitect related work!

This site is now called http://www.orchestratedcity.wordpress.com as I accidentally deleted markitectsworld.wordpress URL from the internet all together!!!!!!

I hope you all continue to follow my work and thanks for following!

[click the image below to be forwarded to the new site!]

THE LATEST ITERATION! MA ARCHITECTURE: COMPLETE!

below are images showing the latest iteration of the ‘vertical city’.

to sum up…

“The scheme explores and discusses issues of flexibility, scale and context. It challenges the general preconception that vertical cities are un-contextual by establishing new forms of contextual relation.

By re-establishing a new centre[s] of Berlin, multiple urban issues must be addressed. The scheme aims to behave and express itself as a city while knitting itself into the existing urban grain of Berlin. Programmatic relationships within the tower happen in three dimensions over time, therefore allowing it to be in constant transform.

The project itself is a series of iterations, each challenging different issues. What is seen as the ‘final’ scheme is merely the beginning of the next iteration.”

diagrams: 01_programmatic hierarchy. challenging the programmatic hierarchy that is native to Berlins culture
02: scale_”bigness is no part of any urban tissue”, Rem Koolhaas.
03: context_how the tower begins to relate to context through shadow and event.
04: hyper-context_creating spaces of permanence that do not effect Berlins existing urban grain.

the city. ref# chapter 14 p.141
What constitutes a city? This is a mash up of the varied architectural expression that is found in the city. In contemporary towers, this is lost. Vertical cities do not behave not have the ambition to work as normal cities do.

cross section through the city. ref# chapter 8 p.75
“The problem is not architecture . The problem is the reorganisation of things that already exist.” Yona Friedman.
This series of drawings show how the city can begin to reduce itself.
01: buildings of the city. A cross section through different buildings.
02+03: breaking down the building. The spire can be detached from the church space, and parks and monuments can be scattered across the entire city.
04: spaces absorb more than one program. The church becomes an office, and the spire is merged with the telecoms tower. The city can continually be reduced.

orchestrated space. ref# chapter 19 p.177
time based drawing.
The planes move at different tempos which reveal space at certain times. These spaces exist within the frame work.
a church and cinema.
01: a church. The planes are organised to create a tall space. The stain glass windows are coloured plastic seats which create the atmosphere and expression that is native to a church.
02: disassembled. The planes re-configure themselves to allow light to pass through the entire structure.
03: a cinema. The seating is re-organised and the space opens up to allow for cinematic projection.

 

impact plan. ref# chapter 18 p.174.
The permanent volumes of the tower now effect parts of Berlin where potential development could occur. The city now responds to the tower, although originally the tower was a response to the city. The tower now becomes an important part of the future planning of Berlin.

under construction_elevation. ref# chapter 20 p.182.
The tower is made up of many similar masses that are found on ground level Berlin. Parts of the tower are responding to sun light by allowing light to pass through specific areas to allow light to reach specific buildings at ground level.

plans. ref# chapter 20 p.183.
top: A vertical horizon.
As the structures reconfigure, facades penetrate outwardly therefore creating a vertical horizon at ground level Berlin. ref# chapter 17 p.169.
middle: The church and the church (dissassembled). At specific times light must pass through the structure to ground level Berlin. ref# chapter 18 p.174.
bottom: the stadium/gallery/hotel. The threshold between stadium and gallery becomes storage for hotel which unpacks when needed. ref# chapter 12 p.133.

a network. ref# chapter 20 p.182.
The goal of the tower is to begin a network to create poly centres in Berlin. The towers link to eachother and are stabilised by cables to surrounding metro stations that have a dual purpose as structure

 

PROCESS BOOK:

“This contains every part of my journey regardless of the relevance or success it has with my project as it stands now. The project was a result of many iterations that challenge the same subject. What is seen as the ‘final’ solution is in actual fact just another iteration looking to challenge and discuss new things and is merely the beginning of the next…

 This document will lace images with thoughts which have been extracted from a blog I have been [trying] to keep up to date whilst doing the project.”

click link below:

PRESENTATION:

Here is the presentation – sorry there are no notes on it to explain each slide – but hopefully you will get it…!

http://issuu.com/the_markitect/docs/130530_presentation_complete

http://issuu.com/the_markitect/docs/130530_presentation_complete

 

 

 

scale / context? / a dialogue with the city.

Below are a series of diagrams that begin to explain how the tower becomes ‘contextual’ and begins the discussion about scale. Why are towers always seen as uncontextual? It becomes a matter of how you define context…

S C A L E . 

A series of drawings comparing different well known buildings known for their scale.

statue of liberty – in scale, out of place.

Berlins TV Tower – out of scale, in place? Located in the same city in what is considered the city centre according to google maps. The tower has now been placed in the new geographical centre.

Burj Khalifa – out of scale, out of place? The worlds tallest tower now celebrates the geographical centre of Berlin! But as a mass it can be seen as out of scale.

Proposed – a break down of mass. The individual masses are similar scale to the existing Berlin. Does this mean it is in scale? the mass is just reorganised in a different way, vertically.

by reorganising the similar mass found in the city, we create a new city. [quote from torre david, informal vertical communities book]

_

C O N T E X T .

*family friendly version! rem koolhaas – “bigness is no longer part of any urban tissue.” S,M,L,XL

closed: like most contemporary towers they are closed. they have no expression. they cast shadows.

… have a closer look…

open: when the tower is active the facade shifts as well as interior planes to allow for spatial opportunities for programs to exist. This constantly changes throughout the day. The tower now has an expression.

a speckled shadow…

an event: the tower reconfigures itself for an event. this speaks about a transformation that happens to a different tempo.

… usain bolt junior winning the neue berlin olympic 2092… spectators watch from the tower stands.

tower responding to specific site conditions. at ground level Berlin certain buildings will need light at specific times. the tower has the ability to let light pass through as it reconfigures its panels. the towers mass is broken down and the tower becomes hyper contextual.

light passes through the tower to have less impact on the quality of light below.

the geographical centre and its requirements.

the buildings that effect the tower are an office and school. the tower will cast shadows over these buildings from 11am – 1pm. the tower reconfigures itself to allow light to pass. RED ZONE = LIGHT IMPACT ZONE.

R U L E S   O F   N E U E   B E R L I N:

pro domo vandal. some changes to the story.

the shoe bag: the bag takes form of its contents. the same bag can house many different shoes, indicating many different contents, therefore expressing the inside. the bag can also have nothing inside.

the configuration. NO SHELVES. the bags hang in free space. this is a 3 dimensional field condition. they have cross axis relationships. the contents will change, meaning the configuration will alter. this adds the dimension of time. the bags are constantly negotiating space between. the frame holds them together.

left page:
01: The tower frame acts/is artificial ground.
02: structures that inhabit the frame have the ability to be ‘invisible/non-existant’ and are multi programmable.
03: relationships occur cross axis and are relative to the existing ground level Berlin. The relationships are constantly transforming.
right page:
01: a space frame tower is erected.
02: parts of the frame are taken away to cave new space for multiple programs.
03: the structure of the space must be able to pivot to allow light to pass through when needed.
04: if expansion is required more frame is taken away and used on the additional towers.

the tower acts as a new horizon. my previous studies regarding programmatic heirachy have become void. a church can be near the bottom but obtain value by being seen on the new horizon. horizon is a 3 dimensional thing…

Anyway, I hope that makes sense! a lot of the thought is premature. Now.. to try and draw this thing…

anonymity? the varied expression of a city.

this is a drawing I should have done a while a go – but better late than never…

I will add some more words later regarding this pair of drawings.

the city: the multiple typologies and architectural expressions found in a city reflect the contents of the tower.

the contemporary tower: a single holistic expression that does not express the multiple uses that makes it function.

CRIT 02: WIP

multiple programs: 24/7 buildings.

church/market/cinema: a daily transform.

kindergarten/observatory: a daily transform.

museum/hostel: a daily transform.

commuter rail/roller coaster: a spontaneous transform of program.

arena/offices: a slower tempo of program.

within these images a spatial and architectural hierarchy exists. The market simply becomes a market IN a church. the market does not stand on it’s own as it is supported by the space of the church. Can this be changed so that each shift in program has a supporting space that has the spatial and expression that belongs to the program?

t r a n s f o r m i n g   b u i l d i n g s .

the following buildings show how the buildings shift to support the change in program. The goal was to keep native architectural expressions which would be found in the specific program.

the church/the market/ the cinema. [surface]

The following building shows how the movement of surface begins to redefine space.

01: church. between the hours of 9am-12pm the church exists. the front is oriented towards the sun. There is a tower and an arched church window. The bell of the church is the speakers of the cinema.

02: market. the structure opens up to create a space for markets to take place. the structure defines the space of the market.

03: cinema. the structure reconfigures itself from 5pm onwards into a cinema. the church tower becomes the ticket sales desk.

the kindergarten/ the library/ the observatory. [re-purposing structure]

the following buildings use the re-purposing of structure as a form of contracting program. The structure of the kindergarten is used as swings and library shelving.

01: kindergarten. morning. the observatory room is used as a circular reading room as it is on ground level.

02: transition. the observatory acts as a lift also. when lifted the space below becomes free to use.

03: observatory. evening. the observatory is lifted hydraulically to function correctly above the other buildings.

the hostel/ the hotel. [unpacking]

the following scheme uses the idea of unpacking to change program. structure, such as wall or column, does not necessarily act as structure, but act more as objects that spatially optimise the space for the required program.

01: the museum/hostel. The space must be grand.

02: the museum. day. The plan is open to allow a free circulation around the artefacts.

03: the hostel. night. the walls fold out and compartmentalise the space into room. beds fold out from the walls.

m o d e l . 

The model is the first iteration of the tower.

model: elevation. the city can continue to grow and expand like a normal city. floor slabs are lifted at strategic times to allow for optimum sin light to the programs below.

model: city scape. as there is no roofscape, the cityscape becomes vertical. therefore iconic structures must be more horizontal to be seen more easily.

plan: the geographical centre of Berlin.

section WIP: the programs need to react to each other. they effect each other and have relationships in all three dimensions through time.

WIP: a cinema, a market, a church, a …

 

another quickie…

just a few crude proposals I am throwing up so I can remind myself of what I have done before everything becomes a blur!

need to upload some supplementary sketches!

iso

reconfigure the space to fit multiple programs

exhibit the statue of liberty!?

 

WIP: a flexible tower? allows for continuos development. arrangement of program is based on sun paths.

church

cinema

market

this proposal shifts throughout the day. the sun paths determine the re-programming of the building.

 

CRIT 01: thesis.

see below for better quality drawings! some are re-posts.

analysis – different colours represent different programs.

rush hour? maximum city network. black buildings represent residential buildings.

day time: the merging of city islands. the white buildings are permanent residential bases. the black area is ‘void’ space to inhabit by deployable structures.

a spatial syntax of berlins roads. they clearly define what are the main arteries of berlin.

overlaid: bus routes. another method of fragmenting the city – however they are very similar to the spatial syntax.

closer: agent based simulation within the city. it defines the natural flows of the city, therefore defining the urban islands.

a spatial syntax of a single island. the mass of buildings are the only obstruction. there are very clearly defined circulatory axis’, but also a lot of ‘dead’ space around buildings. there are two different types of site that can support two varying tempos of program.

fully deployed: the road is reclaimed. the road supports multiple programs. programs occur more locally.

rush hour: the road is used for transportation. the canopy is closed.

closed canopy: all roads are in use.

fully deployed: one road is used as a main artery. programs exist on the other roads.

shadow: a method to create a less imposing canopy is in progress!..

the boxes indicate the many mashed programs. they can also be read as rooms. a pedestrian infrastructure is also deployed to allow pedestrian crossings over to other islands as well as shortcuts over buildings.

J – “that is one big motherfu*ker… You make Peter Cook look like a boy scout!”

 

 

shifting blocks: the building blocks have been placed above the roads surrounding the geographical centre of Berlin.

cropped.

the blooming city! the temporary city blooms when needed. it creates a bridge between different urban islands and creates a more localised urban fabric.

attached: the deployable structure attaches itself to existing buildings allowing for a further expansion. [i know this is structurally optimistic!]

plan of closed space: the ground marks the space that exists at certain times.

closed: the space contracts.

the pallasseum. there are 3 levels of site. the road, the deadspace and the abandoned building. they all offer a site for programs that can occur over different periods of time.

 

MA:

“there is a lot of space on the site, so why build on the road?”

exemplify this site – not one strategy – some areas are open, some areas are not.

 

J:

“be aware of the scale you are working at”

“discuss other scales” [parasol] is at a middle scale – which he is skeptical about. making a tent that big won’t work!

“what if the deployable thing is closer to the buildings…” [maybe more parasitic?]

“builds up from the existing and more spread from existing structures.. not about making one system but looking at specific typologies and see what they have to offer a new discussion with the city – a new middle form that can combine…”

**where do the ‘boxes go’ can they have another life – do they pack up and become a road/noise barrier etc..

 

BL:

milan conference centre – lots of things happen beneath the roof.

 

MA:

“why is it necessary to shade? [big roof] test the strategies basically (climate/light/life) – road it not only for transportation, it is also for life.”

“it is too rigid and too insensitive.”

“is densification really important.”

 

N:

not a good idea to make an argument about densification and Berlin.

“it is not about densification – how can the street be filled and emptied. a variable condition.”

“this project is dealing with the idea of an ongoing temporal re-distribution of road and building.”

“questioning the permanence of the street… tap more directly into this.”

“build it – model it – develop it.”

“it doesn’t express the change in situation.”

 

MA:

“basic sections on the street and services.”

 

R:

diagram showing the cities rhythms.

 

 

J:

a strategy – show one or two examples

 

BL:

“could you not propose a new street?”

 

 

 

 

 

Re-claiming the roads.

Berlin is made of islands. Many islands. what separate these spaces are roads. But are all the roads in the city necessary? This is valuable space that can be occupied. At certain times [not during rush hour] many of the cities arteries become dormant. A method of reclaiming these roads could be a solution to densifying the city – only during specific times.

The city can bloom.

Using the site surrounding the Pallasseum I have begun to propose a [very crude] method of a solution.

A canopy is deployed to cover the area of road allowing it to be inhabited.

 

different colours represent different programs.

rush hour? maximum city network. black buildings represent residential buildings. the city is made of many small islands.

day time: the merging of city islands. the white buildings are permanent residential bases. the black area is ‘void’ space to inhabit by deployable structures. only main city arteries are active for transport.

 

 

rush hour: the road is used for transportation. the canopy is closed. (the smart car was the only image I found in perspective! it is not a statement!)

fully deployed: the road is reclaimed. the road supports multiple programs. programs occur more locally.

 

By reclaiming the roads and merging many city islands, a more localised environment is achieved – therefore densifying the city. The programs that take place are temporary and only need a space to support it during specific times.

 

closed canopy: all roads are in use.

fully deployed: one road is used as a main artery. programs exist on the other roads.

the boxes indicate the many mashed programs. they can also be read as rooms. a pedestrian infrastructure is also deployed to allow pedestrian crossings over to other islands as well as shortcuts over buildings.

shadow: a method to create a less imposing canopy is in progress!..

 

This is one method of densifying Berlin. The canopy acts not only as a shelter but also a signifier to a road closing. Methods of car storage and deployable program specific spaces and equipment need to be thought out – like I said it is crude! By thinking of the boxes as rooms, we can create any type of building through the amount and size of deployable rooms.

 

 

 

A quicky: some sketches.

 

a series of sketches that got my thoughts rolling. the caption highlights the essence of each sketch…

density: how dense is too dense? is stacking the only solution to densifying? no.

what do you need to support a program? space. if a bed was in the space above, it is a bedroom. if books are in this space, it is a library. if a painting is hung in this space, it is a gallery.

introducing an entirely new urban fabric to allow for densification? This allows for all outdoor space to be covered – allowing these places to allow program to occur.

existing buildings can unfold themselves to give them additional space to allow for a reprogramming at specific times. the house becomes a permanent fixture, while all other programs are temporary. Most programs have a degree of temporality.

the canopy only needs to shelter during specific times. it can deploy itself at certain times to allow a temporal shelter, to match the temporal program. what actuates this canopy?

the fabric shelters all buildings, all roads, all public space. the roads of Berlin can be reclaimed as useable space.

the relationship between building and road is inversed. during the night people live in buildings – during the day, people work, play, learn on the roads.

cars can become essential parts of the city. they are a piece of urban furniture.

 

The Orchestrated City | Thesis Programme.

http://issuu.com/the_markitect/docs/orchestratedcity

Please read the above document! This is the reason I haven’t posted any new findings for a while! The document outlines the direction my project will take and the goals and topics I wish to explore.

CHRISTMAS CRIT!

please click to enlarge

I will explain the final part of my project as soon as possible! Some of the stuff I have discussed in my blog so far has been included, or has been made dormant, in my design approach.

 

 

 

 

Four Moments…

Just a quick one… I have briefly looked into the history of Berlin and its development. I have highlighted four moments that I consider altered Berlin regarding its urban fabric. They are:

01: Urban Expansion outwardly.

The City has been continuously growing from its small medieval roots. The map below shows the expansion that has occured from 1650 – 1890. The industrial revolution increased the speed of the growth.  The population grew from 322,000 in 1840 to 1,122,000 in 1880. After WW1 the greater Berlin Act meant that the suburbs were included which meant that Berlin had now grown to 883 km2 and now consisted of 20 boroughs and the population was now nearly 4million.

Berlin expansion from 1650-1890.

02: The Repositioning of the Victory Column.

“The Victory Column originally stood in Königsplatz (now Platz der Republik), at the end of the Siegesallee (Victory Avenue). As part of the preparation of the monumental plans to redesign Berlin into Welthauptstadt Germania, in 1939, the Nazis relocated the column to its present site at the Großer Stern (Great Star), a large intersection on the city axis that leads from the former Berliner Stadtschloss (Berlin City Palace) through the Brandenburg Gate to the western parts of the city. At the same time, the column was augmented by another 7.5 metres, giving it its present height of 66.89 metres. The monument survived World War IIwithout much damage. The relocation of the monument probably saved it from destruction, as its old site – in front of the Reichstag, at exactly 1500 metres, (one Roman mile), from the proposed new north-south triumphal way of the Nazis in line with the Imperial Victory Avenue in the Tiergarten – was destroyed by American air raids in 1945. Without a British-American veto, the French would have dynamited the monument after the war.”

text from wiki

 

Victory Column location 1900.

Victory Column location now.

03: The Re-Programming of Berlin through a Crisis WW2.

bombed facade.

bomb victims were taken to an exhibition hall.

people lived in stations (sorry this is London – I couldn’t find a photo of Berlin!)

children play in a bombed church.

During and after the war, the city was damaged. People began to inhabit different areas for safety. The city was re-programmed. There was also a sense of community as boundaries were forcibly broken down – people were forced to share space and to deal with the war together.

04: The Berlin Wall.

The Berlin Wall

The wall divided Berlin into two different entities. The City had no true centre. The two separate sides had there own version of the centre – therefore decentralising Berlin. When the wall fell, a linear void was left where the death strip was once located. In my opinion this space was an opportunity to create a linear centre that combined the two sides throughout the entire city. However, it became a kind of left over space that gradually got developed.

The city of Berlin is in constant change and it still expanding outwardly. There are many awkwardly large spaces in Berlin and a lot of vacant land. As a scheme the city could become densified and in doing this vertically it would become hyper-centralised. The moving of the Victory Column was a part of the process of the wider scheme of Germania. It would be interesting to figure out the process by which the vertical city can happen. What would move first, the sprawl of the centre? What would happen to the land left over?

WIP: Urban Expansion v2

A couple sketches, a couple thoughts.

The Orchestrated City v2:

The buildings are constantly moving. In effect the building becomes a vehicle. The movements of building relates to the previous studies of programmatic hierarchy. The city is constantly changing in hierarchy and structure, as do the relationships between buildings. – this can also be related to ‘The Stored City’ which will be later discussed in this post…

Orchestrated City: the buildings act as vehicles constantly moving depending on its position in the programmatic hierarchy.

The Stacked City: [hyper centralised city]

This is a static solution. The city is modelled around a column that stores every building, allowing the city to keep its varied architectural expression, unlike a Skyscraper that houses different programs and has a unified architectural expression. The notion of centre is challenged in this scheme. What is the centre of a city after all? Nowadays the centre is a place where the land is most expensive because it is ‘the centre’. The value of land is based on location. However, by reconfiguring the city into a stacked column, the value of land is now dependant on light. The inner core of the new stacked city, the centre, will be where the less valuable land is, and that is where the suburbs will be re-located. Therefore the centre now becomes the suburbs, and the suburbs becomes the centre… [see diagrams to make sense of that sentence!]

densified column city: the core has dissolved into many smaller suburban structures. The outer areas of the column are for the more iconic structures of Berlin. The column becomes an exhibition of the iconic architecture of Berlin.

above: modern city: value of inner city land is higher than surburbia.
below: future city: the stacked densified city means the new ‘inner city’ is worth less as it is less desirable than the outer areas where there is more light and views. The more vertical you are the more valuable it is also.

The Stored City:

This method of densifying the city revolves around a ‘free space’. This ‘free space’ can support any program, is a public space, and is the main axis of the city. All buildings are stored around this axis, like drawers. When the buildings are activated, the buildings slide out into the ‘free space’ and people inhabit them. This means that the city is essentially reduced. The only buildings in use are temporarily in the ‘free space’ and then stored when not in use. The activated city is always a reduced version of the entire city. The city is constantly transforming as different buildings enter the ‘free space.’

Buildings are stored around a ‘free space’. The ‘free space’ can maintain any program as different buildings inhabit the space at specific times of day, week, month, year…

Stored City: Monuments are slid out into the ‘free space’ during the day to view, and housing during the night to sleep in.

Plan: the stored city hides behind an artificial valley that stores the buildings until needed. The stored city runs along an axis.

WIP: urban layering.

How would you layer the whole of Berlin using a similar vertical solution to what has been discussed in the previous posts?

What are the parameters? How do you locate buildings/ districts/ programmes/ infrastructures within a vertical city? Most urban planning would be carried out using a plans, however, this will be a reconfigured urban planning exercise where section will have to be used. Relationships between programs are now 3 dimensional. There will be places where the program has to relate to something in front, behind, above and below. What is too dense? Can the city be reduced to a 3 dimensional entity where there are multiples layers of ground?

The Vertical City.

Cities expand outwardly, where surburbs fringe the inner city and are connected using infrastructure. Cheaper housing is located there, where land is less valuable than the inner city. If we were to stack the city, it would make sense for surburbia to exist where land has less value. This would be the core of the stacked city, where there is less light and less views. Light would become the material that value is measured by. The outer area of the vertical city would be the most valuable. The buildings that now exist within the city centre would now be distributed among the outer areas of the stacked city. Monuments, museums, cathedrals, high price housing would clad the core of the vertical city. The idea of the city centre has now been shifted by the vertical reconfiguring of the city.

Berlin: Population Density, 2011.

Berlin: Population Density, 2xxx.

The Reduced City.

What makes programs work? Similar to ‘The House for a Priest’ shown in previous posts, can this be done with the city? ‘The House for a Priest’ begins to reduce many different buildings that operate many different programs into one. Merging the telecoms tower with the church spire and making the living room into the altar. Can this be done with an entire city? The thing that will be lost is architectural expression. One of the successful things in James Wines ‘High rise for Homes’ is that the houses have different expressions – it is not a skyscraper that has a single expression. If we could reduce a city as much as possible, I imagine a free void, free of any type of expression. A space where everything and anything can happen. Surrounding the void is storage of ‘things’. Effectively a massive cabinet which contains things to allow programs to operate. When a program occurs, the necessary things are requested and provided for the event to happen.

Do programs only operate because they are fuelled by specialist equipment? i.e. put a bed, a kitchenette and a living space into a church and that church is a house. Put a MRI scanner and surgery room in a park and that park is a hospital. Put a projector and screen into a petrol station and the station is now a cinema[http://www.cineroleum.co.uk/] . Put all of this equipment into one space, and that one space is a city. 

 

 

Research: Urban Expansion.

Just some thoughts and images of projects that interest me…

Cedric Price – what will the next egg be…?

Edgar Chambless – Road Town, 1910. 

A linear city built above a railway. What comes first? Does a city expand when the infrastructure allows easy access farther away, or does the infrastructure expand when the city expands?

Edgar Chambless – Road Town, 1920. Railway below, public promenade above!

Frank Lloyd Wright – Broadacre City Plan, 1934-35

Each american family would have one acre of land. The majority of transport would be done by automobile.

Frank Lloyd Wright – Broadacre City Plan, 1934-35

Yona Friedman – Spatial City, 1958-62.

A megastructure that sits above the existing merges the urban and rural areas together.

Yona Friedman

Yona Friedman – Spatial City, 1960. A megastructure that sits above the existing merges the urban and rural areas together.

Constant’s New Babylon, 1956-69.

A hovering transformable city. Constant’s social goals were self-fulfillment and self-satisfaction.

New Babylon, Paris.

New Babylon

James Wines – Highrise of Homes, 1981.

A vertical stacking solution for homes that allow individual expressions of buildings.

James Wines, Highrise of Homes.

James Wines – Highrise for Homes.

Le Corbusier – Plan Voisin, 1925.

A vertical city.

Le Corbusier – Plan Voisin.

Plan Voisin.

MVRDV – Jakarta, 2012.

Described as a mixed use “vertical city.”

MVRDV – Jakarta, 2012.

Patrick Abercrombie – Green Belt, London.

A protected green area hugs inner London to avoid further expansion of the city. It is a fixed boundary precaution made to prevent growth.

Patrick Abercrombie – Green Belt, London.

The video shows how development is occuring away from the city, however the city could be more dense… and there is a really awkward cut to a goat at 1:57!!

 

Nail Houses [added Dec 2012]

Unlike the Green Belt that is government initiated, Nail Houses are houses that remain in their location as the occupants do not want to move to allow development to occur. They become antiques in a newly developed environment. They maintain their architectural expression and then look alien to their new context, even though the new context is alien compared to the past!

nail house, china

 

 

Urban Sprawl [the board game].

A board game based on growing towns, urban sprawl style!

Urban Sprawl – The Game.

Don’t judge a game by it’s cover…

These are all references at the moment that I find interesting for different reasons. The game in particular where normal people can become real town planners to make money. There are examples of a linear urban expansion – based on untilising infrastructure or bridging between the rural and the urban, which raises the question why?  There are examples of stacked schemes, all of which are static examples.

I will continue to add to this post as more references pop up! Feel free to give me more!

Density: the big squeeze.

How dense can it be before it is too dense? How many programs can we squeeze into one container? Can we create a completely flexible/adaptable space that maintains its values within the hierarchy? Using a similar approach to the cross section through the Orchestrated City, can this be applied to a building? Can we treat a building like a small city, and the city like a big building?

Corbusier’s Unite: statically stacked programmes including a pool, running track and school on the roof and interior shopping streets within the residential block.

This is a very crude proposal touching on the subject.

close-up: church tower merged with tele coms tower

The telecoms tower is in use all the time. It is tall, not to be iconic, but purely out of function. The church tower is tall to be iconic, but also allows the sound of the bell to travel farther. The two towers can be merged, creating a dual program within one container.

the church, the priest’s house, the telecommunications tower.

The space within the bell/telecommunications tower can be inhabited by the priest. The living room can have a dual purpose as the altar also. The space of the church is unfolded when services need to take place. The building grows to meet the demands at a specific moment in time. This is ‘a House for a Priest.’ But even the name has been given a hierarchy relative to its program! I refuse to call it a ‘Telecommunications Tower’ or ‘a Church.’ However, the fact that a priest inhabits this and lives here makes this three way program ‘a House for a Priest.’

The Orchestrated City.

Using the existing relationship between the bunker and the Pallaseum explored in the previous posts, I decided to challenge this by using the surrounding areas as a part of the stacked relationship. What defines a buildings value? In the cities programmatic hierarchy what is at the top and what will be at the bottom? Obviously these things will differ from person to person, and this is the problem! What if the city had fixed boundaries and we could eliminate the urban sprawl? What if there was an extreme condition of the green belt? I will attempt to re-configure the city.

Existing programmatic uses of the site.

use of the site: the bunker, Pallasseum and immediate site.

The rings highlight the amount of use happening in the building[s] within the ring. As you can see the site itself is in constant use – however, these are all broken down into different programs that occur across the site. The outer ring indicates a year cycle, the middle is a week, and the three inner rings are weekdays, Saturday and Sunday respectively.

isolated programs found across the site.

These diagrams show human tendency. I, for one, would definitely not fit into this routine, I sleep late, work late, and live in the studio more than at home! But as a starting point this was based on tendencies.

The church is used for morning prayer only and during the weekend for services. When the church is not used, the space lies dormant. The telecommunications tower is actually in use all the time, however it is unmanned. Public spaces do not have a set routine, however have more use after hours of work and school and during the weekends and they accommodate a plethora of activities. However, the use of public space can be influenced greatly by unpredictable variables, such as the weather.

 

Stacking the site.

Using the relationship established between the bunker and the Pallasseum I stacked the programs (crudely!).

stacked programs – the white grid shows the extent of site that has been stacked

layers of program.

By stacking the programs, I had to figure out what should be where, and why? …

the church sits above all…

In this case the church does. Can you build over a church and justify is as much as building over a road, an office, a school… However, the church is not used often, and not by as many people as other programs. In actual fact the city is a model of constantly shifting programmatic hierarchies.  The hierarchy itself is not based on one factor, such as use, it is based on many things such as how iconic something is, how functional is its location, when is it in use.

 

The transforming stacked city as a well oiled machine!

The next step is to define which programs have the most value and when, so that they can be put in the correct position of a constantly transforming 3D matrix of a city. The value of each building rises and falls within the context of time. 

the city as a constantly transforming model

I imagine this to be a three dimensional matrix where programs move freely through the various layers of city fabric to their specified points when they are in use. The church would only reach the top of the hierarchy during prayer times and weekend services, whereas the offices and schools are at the top during hours of learning and working. This is the ideal – a well oiled machine. This model is based on use. But as said before, the hierarchy is deeper than that. There are anomalies, such as poeple who work at home, or are house parents. There are also unpredictable events (which I will not be looking into yet!).

 

The Orchestrated City.

method: collaging stacked programs over a day cycle.

0400am

0800am

1300pm

1800pm

The sections above show the space purely to do with program. The structure is stripped out as program does not have to be bound by material. The sections act as a cross section through the city, cutting through different programs, typologies, atmospheres and architectural expressions. The apartments are canvasses for the inhabitants to express themselves, where as in the school students express themselves through a patchwork of chosen posters on the wall, and the church expresses itself without any influence a part from natural light and stain glass windows.

When making this section, you realise programs that are usually attached do not have to be. Buildings are merely containers of different programs. The tower of the church can be disconnected from the church space – they have different values and therefore can be detached from each other within the hierarchy. The church tower has an iconic value. It must be high and visible and must ring a bell for different occasions. The church space is only used during the mornings and for weekend services. It only climbs the hierarchy during these times. In actual fact it can spend most of its time at the bottom. Some residents go to work and some stay at home. The uninhabited flats can sink to the bottom of the hierarchy, whilst the inhabited ones can go to the top.

This highlights the fact that different programs have values based on different factor. The car park has to be close to the road because it is functional. The school and offices are valued on time of use, as these spaces are used in a routine. The church tower has an iconic value, whilst the church space is about time of use. The telecommunications tower is tall as it is functional for it to be that way. The bunker is abandoned and has a visual value as it is a physical memory of what happened before. All of these things effect the way these programs move through space.

The city is an orchestrated one. One composed by the values of people.

 

 

 

Programmatic Dependencies

My previous post briefly examined the ideas of programmatic hierarchies. I used this to create a crude and quite rushed proposal – but here we go…

The Pallasseum bridges the bunker.

elevation: the bunker and the housing are structurally independent.

placing the church below the housing.

placing the church above the housing.

As discussed in the previous post, what happens if you replace the bunker with a church. How would people respond to this? This would probably not be liked much! The idea of bridging over a church seems disrespectful. Could you place the church above the housing? This would be a better solution.

placing infrastructure below the housing.

placing the infrastructure above the housing.

Infrastructure constantly gets bridged over. Tunnels exist and there is an underground system also. Many programs happen above this. The idea of raising infrastructure has been done before. Railways and roads are raised. The Westway in London is one example of this. However this did not make the place surrounding the Westway anymore desirable. Elevated pedestrian walkways have also been tried in London, trying to segregate the pedestrian from the vehicle. There stands a hierarchy in itself with circulation.

Fight for Verticality: the 3 dimensionalised city.

There is a type of value that comes with the verticality of a building – and not only in an iconic sense. What would happen if cities could only grow vertically, and the idea of a horizontal expansion was not possible? – i.e. the boundaries of a city were fixed. If we had to begin layering the city there would need to be a reason why certain buildings/programs belong at the top, and why others belong at the bottom. And then of course, what would happen if a building had a change in program, and if that program was considered more, or less, valuable in the hierarchy? Can this building change height or does it remain fixed which means eventually the entire city becomes a blur of the programmatic hierarchy? What would happen to areas like Harlem in NYC or Brixton in London that are being gentrified in this three dimensionalised city?

Maybe certain factors would have more or less value. If you live deep within the 3D gridded city, you would have less natural light, but you would have more heat in the winter and shade in the summer. Also, you wouldn’t be able to extend your house as easily as you can today as there would be obstructions above and below.

Or

Could I completely inverse the relationship and say that being closer to the ground is more valuable as you are more stable then being higher up. Bank, museums, embassies etc. could all be grounded and stable whilst other programs would be higher up, continuously being built upon… anyway I am digressing!

overlaid images of model. space above housing responds to a change in condition.

Programmatic Dependencies: a flexible model of the hierarchy.

What happens when a program can only exist when another program allows it to.  What if the space of a church is temporarily constructed when there are enough exhaust fumes from the road. This changes the programmatic hierarchy and places the road above the church. It also forces a direct relationship between the road and the church – unlike the bunker and the housing which do not integrate at all.

Michael Rakowitz: Parasite. These structures house the homeless and are constructed by air conditioning units.

Maybe the hierarchy itself should be in constant transformation. It is a flexible model that shifts when certain conditions are met. But what are these conditions?

Programs and conditions [very briefly].

There are two types of program. The predictable and the unpredictable.

_predicatble: things which are done as part of a routine. e.g. going to work, having lunch, etc.

_unpredicatble: things that are based on a variable. e.g. going for a picnic, going to accident and emergency!

There are certain conditions that have to be met to execute certain programs, e.g. I start work at 9am, or it is sunny so let’s go to the beach. Can I create an architecture that responds to this?

Also, what are the time spans. Things happen daily, weekly, yearly or very rarely like a solar eclipse.

Proposal [a quicky].

plan: on top of the housing are many mechanical vents.
elevation: the vents can be used to create/activate new space. they are dependant on the program of cooking.

section: people are cooking below as it inflates the space above. the space depends on the action of cooking to occur.

The proposal responds to the vents found on the roof of the Pallasseum. The vents are at their optimum performance during certain periods – lunch time on the weekends and dinner times everyday. I proposed some inflatable structures that deploy when the vents are in use. The structures are at the moment programme-less. Initially I wanted the space to be an improvised space. At the moment they can be seen as more of a signifier or indicator than an architectural space. These spaces only exist when the conditions for the deployment are met. What I would like to do is allow a space to change over many different conditions, and for certain conditions to override others, e.g. the heat of the sun to override the power of the vents. The spaces created would be inhabited only at certain times when the structure is deployed. However, after writing this entry I think it may be nice to bring the idea of the 3D city into this…  I got to think about this more…!

_______________________________________________

St Thomas Church, London. Operating theatre located in the roof of the church.

Osaka Stadium [1998-1999]: after being disused it turned into a showroom for prefab housing.

 

The Pallasseum: Programmatic Hierarchy.

Pallaseum Housing from Pallastrasse.

The Pallasseum is a housing project that was built in 1977 by Jürgen Sawade. The housing project bridges over an existing bunker. There are many factors why I feel as though this is an interesting site of study and possibly proposition.

 

 

01: the bunker.

a) the inverted city: The bunker is a building type that exists through out Berlin. They are made from a ridiculous amount of reinforced concrete. From my reading, walls are on average 3m thick! The bunkers had many uses – but what interests me is the idea of the internal city. Thousands of people were sheltered in these huge concrete boxes, but there were many things that were needed to make this box into a liveable unit. As an example, the Blochplatz bunker had a substation the provided power and an emergency generator. It had a good communication system. It had two air intake towers which provided air for just under 4000 people. And a water supply and waste water disposal. These bunkers were miniature boxed cities.

b) bomb proof = future proof: As a result of the well constructed and well reinforced construction, bunkers are very difficult to demolish – especially now where things have been built around them. I visited the Sammlung Boros Bunker where it has been converted into a private art collection with a pent house suite above. Our guide told us it took 6 months to dismantle the roof of the bunker to allow the extension to be built! 6 months! It is safe to say these bunkers are here to stay!

Many of these bunkers have been preserved as a result of programmatic change. Some are clubs and some are for the arts, but is there a way to really use them? The Pallaseum is the first provocative example of [kind of] integrating the bunker [it isn’t really – I will expand later!]. So this leads me to my next point…

 

02: the relationship between the bunker and it’s surroundings.

a) The Pallaseum: a statement.

The Pallaseum is the housing project that spans over the bunker. It does not touch the bunker in any way – it purely bridges it. There are several reasons why this may be.

– future proofing: It could have been a case of future proofing. If they managed to figure a way of demolishing the bunker safely it would not effect the housing.

– unsure: maybe the decision was made not to touch the bunker as they were just unsure on how to. Maybe the bunker was simply in the way of the building!

– it is a statement: It does not touch the bunker because it doesn’t need to, or it doesn’t want to. The Pallaseum could have bridged the bunker and continued further. But it doesn’t. Instead it bridges the bunker and as it just about passes it, the housing touches ground again by its large concrete stilts. In other words, the housing does just about enough to prove a point. They still exist as two separate and independent buildings structurally.

a architectural statement?

 

03: programmatic hierarchy.

Can you adopt this method of layering buildings across the city. If we replace the bunker with a church, would this be ok?

can the bunker be replaced with something else?

 

Within every city, there is a programmatic hierarchy that is embedded in the culture. How can we begin the understand this and manipulate this. If this is done well, I guess we can truly have a considered vertical and dense city. Infrastructure is usually on the bottom of the hierarchy. We always bridge over these. However, it’s because of the development of infrastructure that allows for the horizontal expansion of a city also. What would happen if infrastructure became vertical because it had to?

On top of the hierarchy are maybe sacred places of worship. How can we build on top of these? Although there are examples where places of worship have now become thriving clubs where activities far from praying occur… Arguably, this hierarchy is actually in constant change and constant transformation.

These changes occur over days, over weeks, over months and over years. The church is used on Sundays, when a school is used during weekdays. The market opens on Saturday and the beach is used when it is sunny. There are routines that suggest a constant and predictable change. But there are some programs, such as going to the park, that are related to the weather. Can a building respond to all of these changes? Or maybe people use the building as it responds to nature. Maybe a program-less building that in reality is highly programmatic!

so two things to end on…

1: the building is a machine that is operated by nature.

2: the people respond to the actions of the building. [sorry if that doesn’t make sense – but it does to me at the moment!]

maison du peuple – jean prouvé

mechanical floors, roofs and walls. the building responds to the complexity of programmatic shifts.

fun palace – cedric price

programmatic diagram – does the architect do this or does the building inform this?

proposition 01: preserving the image.

site of attack: tv tower, Alexanderplatz.

reason: Looking into the future, tv and radio signals will not be used as everything is shifting over to the internet. What will happen to the tower in the year 2050? The tower may not be demolished for a couple of reasons. 1. it is to expensive to demolish it. 2. it is in a built up area so it will be tricky to demolish it. 3. it is an icon.

proposal: What will the new life of the tower be? The Fichtebunker was preserved through programmatic changes that suited the present times. Maybe the tower will do the same – but it must allow for some adaptations to occur.

My very crude proposal allows the tower to grow in a way that will be ‘invisible’.

It will preserve the image of Berlin rather than the building itself.

geo tagging – Alexanderplatz

I used googlemaps geo tagged photos to figure out where people take the most photos of the TV tower. I will use this as the starting point. This view will be the ‘image’ I want to preserve.

By projecting the field of view from this point there will be a projection shadow behind the tower which will be out of sight of the viewing spot. This allows the public to view Berlin as it once was from this place only, but allow the growth and expansion of the buildings to occur detached from the postcard image of Berlin.

camera projection. viewing the ‘preserved’ Berlin.

elevation showing the ‘invisible zone’

As said, this is very crude. The form shown is purely indicative.

By allowing to build in the ‘invisible zone’ the surrounding area will have to be developed to guide people to take photos from the specific point.

projections to allow invisible buildings

The surrounding buildings will also have the ability to grow in the ‘invisible zones’.

The same approach could be used on other sites. Not just buildings but even scultpures…

Brandenburg Gate: preserving the image.

“the image” – from the front.

from the side – room for extension.

A policy would have to be made where future developments on buildings would be directly informed by specific points of view to allow for the ‘invisible’ to be built.

field work [week 01]

This is a summary of my interests in Berlin – in chronological order…

01: the temporary monument.

balloon grounded.

balloon in air

the temporary monument – a signifier

The balloon above acts as a viewing platform (note to self: do this next time in Berlin!). The balloon hovers above the city when enough people have boarded the balloon. The actuator of this device are the amount of people on the balloon who have paid money to view Berlin from above. I could walk through Berlin, and within every 10 minutes or so I could clearly see this balloon in the air. It was a point of focus. The drawing above is an overlay of many streetscapes I stood at where I could see the balloon. The streetscapes are always shifting, whilst the balloon is in plain vision. The reason why I find this interesting is that this could be a signifier of ‘something’. It can be activated through another ‘something’. Maybe something as absurd as baking soda and water, or even body heat. Much like the idea of a gasometer which indicates the amount of gas being used around the city, or the siren which would indicate an attack on the city, this balloon, or something similar, could do the same.

mon·u·ment/ˈmänyəmənt/

noun: A statue, building, or other structure erected to commemorate a famous or notable person or event.

tem·po·rar·y/ˈtempəˌrerē/

adjective: Lasting for only a limited period of time; not permanent.

A monument, and to a certain extent architecture in general, works against the idea of temporary. Albert Speer’s ruin value was the idea that buildings should be designed so that if it eventually collapsed, it would leave behind aesthetically pleasing ruins that would last for a long time without any maintenance. The architecture will still have a life – just one that allows it to still stand and not be taken away. It must still have a presence – it must still exist. Architecture is something that aims to be preserved, or built to last. We use durable materials, we apply coats of paint onto things that rot, we patch what is broken, we reinforce things that are loose. Sometimes, we embrace the unforeseen, and it makes the architecture more iconic like the Tower of Pisa. However, as humans, we have a weird attachment to the idea of decaying, maturing, ageing, growing. We just cannot resist! We use materials like cor-ten that look cool as they rust away and drip brown rusty stains on the ground below, and we have a fascination with derelict and abandoned buildings – especially in Berlin.

This leads me to my second interest…

______________________________________________

02: ideas of preservation and conservation. [a hot topic in Berlin]

pre·serve/priˈzərv/

verb: maintain (something) in its original or existing state.

con·serve/kənˈsərv/

verb: protect (something, esp. an environmentally or culturally important place or thing) from harm or destruction.

noun: A sweet food made by preserving fruit with sugar; jam. [I prefer this meaning]

The idea of preservation and conservation ties in well with the idea of the monument and contrasts with the idea of the temporary. Here are some examples I found of how things have been preserved of conserved – in a loose sense.

the berlin wall: in pieces

a: the Berlin Wall.

ebay: I found a piece of the wall being trying to be sold for $7,200! All over Berlin you can find fragments of the wall being sold. How has something that a) is made from concrete and b) a part of negative history has value? From being a part of a wall that divided a single city, the wall has now been shipped all over the world as valuable bits of concrete. Here is a list for you – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Berlin_Wall_segments

If you could predict this happening, couldn’t you weave this into a plan to develop your scheme. If you need to expand you could sell bits of the building which would fund the next phase!

_______________________________

fichte-bunker, kreuzberg

b: the gasometer/bunker/luxury housing.

This structure has lived through many changes – and is still alive today – and being used. Originally, it use to be a gasometer that stored gas to the gas powered street lamps of Berlin. As electric street lamps were used, the gasometer had no use and was abandoned, until the WWII. It was converted into 6 storeys of bunker which had its own hospital and postal service with other bunkers. It was an internal city. During the Feb 3rd 1945 air raids, around 30,000 people took shelter in this bunker. After the war is was then used as a homeless shelter where conditions were so bad it was closed down. It now sits as luxury housing. The housing only sits on the roof of the bunker, and an external lift was made to gain access to the houses.

From a structure that provided for the city and had an extrovert relationship to the surroundings, to an internal city where thousands of people lived, and now as a highly exclusive part of the city were a few people live, this building has been preserved through programmatic shifts and change in functionality.

_______________________________

Kaiser Wilhelm Memorial Church

c: Kaiser Wilhelm Memorial Church.

The Kaiser Wilhelm Memorial Church was partly demolished during the war. It still stands today as a partly demolished church. The area where the church stands was to be developed and the new scheme proposed to get rid of the church entirely. The public reacted to this and through the power of the public the scheme had to include the broken church. It is now being restored and sits behind a cladding that makes it appear to be an office block from a distance. The church was preserved in a damaged state as a symbol of what Berlin had gone through and as a result of a public up rise.

here is a contrasting example…

Heinrich von Kleist Park

By patching the wounds that were inflicted on these stone columns obviously they have managed to hide the defects. However, as there is such a contrast the story of these wounds are preserved. This opposes the idea of the Kaiser Wilheim Memorial Church as that was left in the damaged state – where as this method hides the physical defects but allows you to realise what was once there.

_______________________________

Cathedral of Light: Albert Speer

d: Cathedral of Light, Albert Speer.

To me, this acts as a temporary monument. The material of light is used to create space and boundary.

So how can you take the idea of preservation and conservation into the future?

welcome: berlin, city of illusions.

So, our study trip for this years project is Berlin.

I will post some things which I find interesting here…

01: Sprinklers in Tiergarten.

I was walking along Tiergarten when I saw this! I had to stop and watch this! Also, watch the video for the complete experience – well as close to complete I can give you…

sprinklers in Tiergarten

02: large screen at the preparations for a street party at Brandenburg Gate. [this is not what it looked like when I was standing there! – that is the point!]

large screen at Brandenburg Gate

Both of these examples speak about illusion and visibility. The sprinklers in Tiergarten which are constantly rotating, only revealing a full spectrum of colour at a specific moment – when the conditions are correct. If the sun is in a different place (or should i say the earth in a different position!) the spectrum would not be created. The contrast of colour almost marks out 3 dimensional space which lasts only temporarily… and it will never be in the same place again – every rotation of the sprinkler will shift where the spectrum appears by a very minimal amount that is relative to the earths movement. The spectrum is always moving. Also to add, viewing this spectacle can only be seen at the position I am standing – if you begin to try and inhabit the colour it may disappear or move away as it is relative to the point of viewing. That is why I always have trouble finding that pot of gold at the end of the rainbow!

The second example I find very interesting. It speaks about the relationship between vision and device. You can never ‘capture’ the actual appearance of the screen. Through different lenses the screen acts totally differently. The photo is not what it looks like when I was standing there, nor does the video footage. What happens if you can only see something through a lens – it is an illusion. This example relates well to this experiment on youtube (I love youtube!)

This is insane!! when you begin to match the frequency with the frames per second you achieve totally different things – however the outcome is still the same – the same amount of water is dripping at the same time, at the same speed from the same distance – but it appears to be completely different.

Can you make an illusionary building – one that cannot be captured through the lens… you can only witness the true building when you there? Or you can only witness the true experience through the lens…? Maybe you only experience things when you play it back in the future? This could open some interesting explorations…..

project 01b: capturing the ripple.

here are a few images from the second week of the 2 week project we had at the beginning of the new term…

Above: these are a series of playful tests trying to understand the behaviour of the water. By obstructing the path of water the ripples can be dictated. Each series of images represent just under half a second of time.

overlaid ripples: half a second of movement.

traced geometry of the movement of ripples

by tracing the ripple I worked out how the ripple behave relative to the obstructions – so I decided to create a random situation by placing the different obstructions into random places within the boundary. I then predicted how the ripples would behave by following the rules I had made from the previous drawing. Below are the results….

my prediction…

overlay of prediction and the experiment

verdict: it was close… enough! the prediction I made following the rules I had made from the previous experiment actually produced a quite accurate prediction – however, it did not take into account the interference caused by the more perpendicular obstructions. Also, these experiments were not carried out in any lab conditions (far from!) so there were many variables (amount of water poured, accurate water entry etc…)

switching the scale.

applying the same principle into the urban fabric. ok – I have fabricated a fake scenario (one which is unbelievable – well at least seems so at the moment!)

crude i know! testing the ripple shadow with the urban fabric.

islands brygge, copenhagen

overlaid ripples

the idea behind this was to show how the urban fabric would begin to adjust/adapt itself to the forces created by the ripples. Where there places of ripple shadow would be places of opportunity for easy construction. However, the idea of the ripple and its shadow can be multi scalar and self initiated. The scenario above shows a scenario closer to a massive bomb in a flooded copenhagen, but the ripples can be caused by a leaf falling on the water, and the shadow can be made from a door frame.

and as a very loose link – but to something that I find interesting… how can I three dimensionalise this idea… maybe like this!

This is non-newtonian fluid. It reacts to the different frequencies pumped through the speaker. My initial thoughts were can you dictate the “flow” of this semi solid/fluid material by simply created a frame work that is needs to grow around to create space? Along side this thought was the idea of the composer. By playing different frequencies you can achieve different effects (I have never done this but I am assuming the different effects would be related to growth speed, height of growth etc.) This means you can begin to create different spaces depending on the different frequencies played. The architect must compose a track of different frequencies to achieve different things – or maybe has to compose a track of varying frequencies just to keep this fluid erect as gravity is always working against it. Obviously, these experiments are on a very small scale, and I highly doubt you can achieve something like this at a much larger scale… but ideas have to start from somewhere!

If you want to see what this can achieve on a larger scale see the video below! I was thinking, why don’t they just use this in gyms!? Why do we use treadmills when you have non-newtonian fluid where you have to keep moving on it, otherwise you will be eaten by the ground… haha!

project 01a: capturing a ripple.

I have set out to capture a ripple – but how!?

A ripple is something that is in continuous transformation. And there are many factors that effect a ripple which gives it a sense of randomness. These are just a few experiments of trying to capture a ripple – nothing more, nothing less…

I thought of a way to capture the force of a liquid passing through another liquid, therefore creating a kind of under water ripple. I used molten wax and cold water. Below are a few examples and a video of how this turned out…

ripples 01

ripple 02

The above examples are products of pouring cold water into a layer of molten wax that sits above hot water. As the cold water passes through the molten wax, it cures the wax and it is instantly cooled into the shape of the water passing through. The process is random, but can it be controlled? Is it possible to deploy the same form over and over again – probably not – especially in these non-scientific conditions!

I began to try and dictate the flow of water by adding obstacles – this was unsuccessful. The idea behind this was that you could “print” certain forms by directed the flow of water. Here are some results…

ripples attached to frame

ripples attached to frame

As you can see, the frame acted as a net and stopped the wax form from passing through the frame. Instead the results was more of a surface rather than a deep shape. The wax would set instantly, therefore preventing water to pass freely. In other words the path of water was actually guided through the instantly solidified wax.

After trying to capture a ripple it made me think of the idea of freezing a moment. Tidal waves create habitable spaces – but can only be inhabited by skilled surfers which must remain in motion to stay inside. Eventually these spaces disappear again until another one is generated. It is a type of instant architecture. 

tidal wave – a type of instant architecture

Could we generate instant architecture and keep it for a certain period of time?

frozen tidal wave!

…maybe.

ok – I admit…

I have been a major flop. I have not managed to update this blog at all!! However, the new academic year has begun – and so should a new approach to this whole blogging thing!!!

Just to round up last years project – here is a quick edited down version of it that was entered into a competition, and magically won a prize!!! I am still surprised now!!! [click on the image below!]

a reduced version of my fourth year project

… when I have some time I will upload more process from this project. I was a long journey, and is interesting to see how many ideas came about and were disposed of! Also – I may in the future, want to carry on with this project as I enjoyed it so much!!

… the journey begins…

and hopefully it will last. I have attempted to begin many blogs before – and they have all kind of… f i  z   z    l      e      d           o         u          t            !

this one I am hoping should be great!

my goal is to treat this like a cyber sketchbook… of my work, of your work, of anything that interests me – a visual booklet of interesting things according to the markitect! sounds good… lets hope it lasts!