A month has passed and I am amazed. Time really flies when you are having fun.
I received notice from the NewSchool of Architecture & Design offices that I made the Dean's List for academic achievement in the Summer Quarter. Now the pressure is really on! People are watching!
And this quarter's projects are a lot more interesting. I am working on a new school of architecture based upon the programs offered at NewSchool. Interestingly, the proposed site overlooks Balboa Park (San Diego's answer to Central Park, and home of the world renown San Diego Zoo, among other attractions). Unfortunately it is under the flight path of landing planes coming into Lindbergh Field (San Diego's downtown airport). So again, I am dealing with height restrictions and noise as the proposed site is not too far from the fire station I designed this past summer.
Initially I developed a series of boxes on the site to fit the almost 200,000 sqft program requirement into the 49,800 sqft "shoebox" site. Then inspiration struck in the form of a piece of pie. Suddenly the studio building (almost 45,000 sqft on its own) became round with movable segmented walls on the radius. The simple structure requirements and opportunity for flexibility seem to meet the program needs quite nicely.
My next working model will be a building with another variation: the individual floors of the studio will not be concentric (eccentric?), and not truly round either. I am afraid it will be one of those unreasonable student projects that would, if constructed, cost an arm and a leg. Oh well, I guess that is where I am supposed to be. I get little but positive feedback. Moving right along....
I received word that "Metropolitan Home Magazine" will cease publication after the end of 2009. Wow; another cultural icon bites the dust. I remember in the 1970's and early 80's when it was still called Apartment Life and full of clever solutions for small-space living. Hmmm I wonder where that market is today? Up until about 9 years ago, I had every issue, since the beginning. Who knew that they might become collectible (???).
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
So the quarter has finally come to an end. And it was nip and tuck right up to the end on Friday. At the last minute, or so it seemed, a new assignment fell to my desk. Seems that every quarter at NewSchool of Architecture & Design, students put together a portfolio presentation that represents the work done over the past quarter. It is meant to be a record of the work and really helps the student to analyze their progress over the quarter. The studio instructors also use it to recall the work they have reviewed in the various critiques over the quarter (ie: ones grade comes more-or-less directly from this process).
During the Wednesday session of our final week, after the fire station was due, we were treated to a lecture on the merits of "In Design," an Adobe program designed for the tasks at hand in creating a book or magazine. I was panic stricken as I thought I was expected to put together a "book" of my work. Well, some of that panic was appropriate. However, in lieu of learning a new, and quite sophisticated, program I did a MS PowerPoint presentation which accomplished the same end. ....without the two day panic of learning new software.
So when I finally get around to publishing some photos, you will see how it all came out. I was working on tutorials for Adobe Photoshop last night. Interestingly, there is a culture at NewSchool which I find challenges my ethics. I bought a student version of Adobe Photoshop. I went through the rigmarole of getting vetted by Adobe as a bonafied and legitimate student. And quite a rigmarole it was. They must have thought that somebody who wanted to pay for the software was actually trying to cheat them (???).
Perhaps the folks at Adobe might have been surprised by the idea that a student actually wanted to purchase their software. This is because they probably know that, apparently, most students rip-off the software from other students. Which brings me to the point of ethics and workability.
It seems to me that a system which condones or tolerates the, patently illegal, pirating of software is on the wrong side of the ethical and workability paradigm. That this same system is promoting the proprietary nature of designers' solutions is paradoxical, at the very least. I wonder about a workable solution to this problem (???).
The software which students learn in schools like NewSchool of Architecture & Design is expensive. There is no question that the software manufacturers are interested in leading students to the conclusion that their software is the "best thing since sliced bread" when it comes to solutions for some particular set of architectural or graphic communication problems. And, I am quite certain, that there is some advantage for the software companies considering lenience when it comes to enforcing copyright laws. No software company would want the bad PR of coming down on the future market for their products.
Some software companies take the approach of providing the software free of charge to bonafide students. This lessens the pressure for illegal pirating and promotes the use of the software in an environment of trust and mutual gain. For eventually, the student becomes a professional and is in an environment where resources can be made available. It would only be prudent for the student to recommend that software "X" be purchased. After all, it is the one software they will know inside and out.
It seems to me that it behooves the institutions of learning to band together to demand this approach from the software companies they serve. To assume that students will always do the right thing is assuming too much. It is not unlike assuming that a dog will sit back, not lunging for the food on the coffee table during the only moment when no one is looking. Students are a product of the environment in which they are tutored. There is no getting around this.
During the Wednesday session of our final week, after the fire station was due, we were treated to a lecture on the merits of "In Design," an Adobe program designed for the tasks at hand in creating a book or magazine. I was panic stricken as I thought I was expected to put together a "book" of my work. Well, some of that panic was appropriate. However, in lieu of learning a new, and quite sophisticated, program I did a MS PowerPoint presentation which accomplished the same end. ....without the two day panic of learning new software.
So when I finally get around to publishing some photos, you will see how it all came out. I was working on tutorials for Adobe Photoshop last night. Interestingly, there is a culture at NewSchool which I find challenges my ethics. I bought a student version of Adobe Photoshop. I went through the rigmarole of getting vetted by Adobe as a bonafied and legitimate student. And quite a rigmarole it was. They must have thought that somebody who wanted to pay for the software was actually trying to cheat them (???).
Perhaps the folks at Adobe might have been surprised by the idea that a student actually wanted to purchase their software. This is because they probably know that, apparently, most students rip-off the software from other students. Which brings me to the point of ethics and workability.
It seems to me that a system which condones or tolerates the, patently illegal, pirating of software is on the wrong side of the ethical and workability paradigm. That this same system is promoting the proprietary nature of designers' solutions is paradoxical, at the very least. I wonder about a workable solution to this problem (???).
The software which students learn in schools like NewSchool of Architecture & Design is expensive. There is no question that the software manufacturers are interested in leading students to the conclusion that their software is the "best thing since sliced bread" when it comes to solutions for some particular set of architectural or graphic communication problems. And, I am quite certain, that there is some advantage for the software companies considering lenience when it comes to enforcing copyright laws. No software company would want the bad PR of coming down on the future market for their products.
Some software companies take the approach of providing the software free of charge to bonafide students. This lessens the pressure for illegal pirating and promotes the use of the software in an environment of trust and mutual gain. For eventually, the student becomes a professional and is in an environment where resources can be made available. It would only be prudent for the student to recommend that software "X" be purchased. After all, it is the one software they will know inside and out.
It seems to me that it behooves the institutions of learning to band together to demand this approach from the software companies they serve. To assume that students will always do the right thing is assuming too much. It is not unlike assuming that a dog will sit back, not lunging for the food on the coffee table during the only moment when no one is looking. Students are a product of the environment in which they are tutored. There is no getting around this.
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
Counting Down
I am counting down to the wire as we wrap up the fire station projects and move on into long-span structures. I am looking forward to designing an airport (I think). I haven't posted much lately as I have been spending alot of time working in the studio. The callous is back on my index finger and I haven't even started my final model for the fire station yet!
The final model is more about presentation than about design opportunity. I am very pleased with the various reviews my new concept has received. And so it is now up to me to demonstrate model building skills that are in concert with my design. I am thinking three-ply chipboard (a type of cardboard, most similar to the cardboard back of a yellow legal pad; just two or three times the thickness).
I did a rendering yesterday that well illustrated the concept as viewed from the neighborhood across the street. I was pleased to see that the private areas remained private, and the public areas were obviously accessible. I think that my concept will work (and I pledge to add pictures to this blog just as soon as the quarter is over).
I am excited about this process and the prospect of wrapping up this project. There comes a time when it is simply a production problem with limited design yet to be input. This is that time.... time to crank out the work.
At the same time, I am feeling pretty good about my other classes. I am sure I will be stumped by the challenges of studying for finals while attempting to complete a huge amount of work in studio for the final jury on this project. But that is what enthusiasm and inspiration (that comes from nothing) is all about.
That's all for now.
The final model is more about presentation than about design opportunity. I am very pleased with the various reviews my new concept has received. And so it is now up to me to demonstrate model building skills that are in concert with my design. I am thinking three-ply chipboard (a type of cardboard, most similar to the cardboard back of a yellow legal pad; just two or three times the thickness).
I did a rendering yesterday that well illustrated the concept as viewed from the neighborhood across the street. I was pleased to see that the private areas remained private, and the public areas were obviously accessible. I think that my concept will work (and I pledge to add pictures to this blog just as soon as the quarter is over).
I am excited about this process and the prospect of wrapping up this project. There comes a time when it is simply a production problem with limited design yet to be input. This is that time.... time to crank out the work.
At the same time, I am feeling pretty good about my other classes. I am sure I will be stumped by the challenges of studying for finals while attempting to complete a huge amount of work in studio for the final jury on this project. But that is what enthusiasm and inspiration (that comes from nothing) is all about.
That's all for now.
Sunday, August 23, 2009
No Mundane Design Allowed!
I just posted on Facebook that I am aware that I will never design a building in my career that will be dependent upon fossil fuels as its main source of energy. It is a fact that any building I draw will have a design life-time that will outlive fossil fuel on this planet. I am amazed by this consideration, and I am wondering how all the old buildings, whose design life-time has not been fully utilized, will be adapted. Surely we cannot continue to discard the resources that have gone into all those existing buildings designed before this awareness arrived (???).
Having read recently that the Sears Tower in Chicago is being retrofitted to meet "new building" energy standards, I am aware that there is a lot of work to be done. Imagine how one might redesign such a monolithic structure so that natural ventilation (convection) and day-lighting are even possible (???). Or consider that it might need to be covered on its South-most facades with active solar photovoltaic panels to acquire enough solar electric to power the building. This is truly a mammoth undertaking.
I have considered that, in five or ten years, the profession of Architecture will not be as we know it today. I am aware that the considerations which will be foremost in our minds will no longer be so focused upon what the building looks like. Blade Runner, one of my movie favorites, was made in 1982 (Ridley Scott, Director) and set in 2016 (just seven years from now). The architecture looks nothing like what we see being built around us in downtown San Diego. I wonder how much things will change; and how prescient Ridley Scott's notion of this nearby future will turn out to be (???).
I had a midterm jury review for my fire station (see Abstract Concepts and Mundane Buildings, below). My presentation was well received. I was praised for my process, and my graphic presentation. I was happy with the critique; and even expected the comment that this building looks a little like an '80's Schoolhouse (read as mundane). I was, however unclear where to go from there.
I took a day off to ponder (actually I took a day off to recover, as the preparations for the jury took more than I anticipated -my first "all-nighter") and came back to my project with a renewed perspective. I am convinced that the creative process comes "from nothing" and that inspiration and innovation are the result of providing the creative mind room to work, with limited distraction. It was as if a new vista had formed over the day I spent catching up on sleep, laundry, housekeeping, grocery shopping and the like.
I sat down to review the comments made by the jurors and was inspired to revise, completely, my design concept. In the process, I have created a new building that does not suffer in the realm 0f the mundane. If anything, it is architecture in a new light. It is like nothing I have ever seen before, and like nothing I could have preconceived. I am jazzed by the new ideas, the new forms and the reinterpretation of function, if not necessarily in that order.
And I have the challenge of learning how to make this building, and every one I design, from here on out, to be as independent as possible when it comes to resources; particularly energy. I have heard that there is a new Dean, Jennifer Wolch, at UC Berkeley in the College of Environmental Design. Her expertise is in the area of Sustainability. I am excited to think that this is one place where the expectations of the future in architecture are being considered, now. I am looking forward to an opportunity to tap into that environment. And I look forward to bringing that same standard of inquiry to my work at NewSchool of Architecture & Design in the meantime.
Having read recently that the Sears Tower in Chicago is being retrofitted to meet "new building" energy standards, I am aware that there is a lot of work to be done. Imagine how one might redesign such a monolithic structure so that natural ventilation (convection) and day-lighting are even possible (???). Or consider that it might need to be covered on its South-most facades with active solar photovoltaic panels to acquire enough solar electric to power the building. This is truly a mammoth undertaking.
I have considered that, in five or ten years, the profession of Architecture will not be as we know it today. I am aware that the considerations which will be foremost in our minds will no longer be so focused upon what the building looks like. Blade Runner, one of my movie favorites, was made in 1982 (Ridley Scott, Director) and set in 2016 (just seven years from now). The architecture looks nothing like what we see being built around us in downtown San Diego. I wonder how much things will change; and how prescient Ridley Scott's notion of this nearby future will turn out to be (???).
I had a midterm jury review for my fire station (see Abstract Concepts and Mundane Buildings, below). My presentation was well received. I was praised for my process, and my graphic presentation. I was happy with the critique; and even expected the comment that this building looks a little like an '80's Schoolhouse (read as mundane). I was, however unclear where to go from there.
I took a day off to ponder (actually I took a day off to recover, as the preparations for the jury took more than I anticipated -my first "all-nighter") and came back to my project with a renewed perspective. I am convinced that the creative process comes "from nothing" and that inspiration and innovation are the result of providing the creative mind room to work, with limited distraction. It was as if a new vista had formed over the day I spent catching up on sleep, laundry, housekeeping, grocery shopping and the like.
I sat down to review the comments made by the jurors and was inspired to revise, completely, my design concept. In the process, I have created a new building that does not suffer in the realm 0f the mundane. If anything, it is architecture in a new light. It is like nothing I have ever seen before, and like nothing I could have preconceived. I am jazzed by the new ideas, the new forms and the reinterpretation of function, if not necessarily in that order.
And I have the challenge of learning how to make this building, and every one I design, from here on out, to be as independent as possible when it comes to resources; particularly energy. I have heard that there is a new Dean, Jennifer Wolch, at UC Berkeley in the College of Environmental Design. Her expertise is in the area of Sustainability. I am excited to think that this is one place where the expectations of the future in architecture are being considered, now. I am looking forward to an opportunity to tap into that environment. And I look forward to bringing that same standard of inquiry to my work at NewSchool of Architecture & Design in the meantime.
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Teddy Cruz speaks at NewSchool
This afternoon's studio was interrupted with a presentation from Teddy Cruz of Estudio Teddy Cruz. Mr. Cruz is a former NewSchool faculty member who did his undergraduate work in Architecture at CalPoly in San Luis Obispo, CA and his Master's in Architecture at Harvard's Graduate School of Design. He is an impassioned speaker with a fascinating ability for complex thinking. His speaking was supplemented with fantastic graphics illustrative of his sophisticated conceptual approach (though somewhat unsophisticated in their graphic style).
I was intrigued by his characterizations of architecture as a manipulation of money and process. He created a dichotomy by describing the difference between those projects with "clever money and stupid process, and those with stupid money and clever process." It is a fascinating spectrum I am sure; particularly when one can evaluate from his perspective on a wide(er) range of projects.
The practice of Estudio Teddy Cruz, as presented, is not so much about Architecture (as I have come to know it- having to do with the creation of buildings, place-making and space-making), but rather a complex dialogue in Urban Planning and Environmental Design that is informed by Architecture, and social and economic studies. His work, as presented, certainly takes one away from the ocular-centric (myopic) approach that is the focus of most of my projects at NewSchool of Architecture & Design (thus far; remembering I am in my first quarter).
My recent experience working for global development concern, Emaar, in the Newport Beach, CA offices, was experience working with the kind of "top-down" development approach that Cruz distrusts. His philosophical approach is more grass-roots oriented; dealing with the density of socio-economic transactions per acre rather than the number of salable housing units per acre.
Curiously, the whole time I was working for Emaar, I was fascinated by the global marketing of the SoCal suburban design approach practiced by Emaar. What has not worked so well here in Southern California (based upon the approaching demise of sustainability of suburbia caused by depletion of essential fossil fuel resources) seems highly desirable in the face of the challenging conditions existing in suburban Cairo. And while it may be that our SoCal suburban dream is more desirable than the existing options in Cairo, one wonders if the projects we were working on at Emaar Design Studio will ever be built as planned; and if the density of units will continue to be one of their defining factors.
What is compelling about this lecture was the depiction of a larger opportunity for design. Not unlike the evolution of a species, the design of the built environment is evolving to survive in conditions which threaten its continuation. Our ever present awareness of the depletion of fossil fuel resources means that structures designed today cannot be built with any expectation of dependence upon fossil fuel. The lifetime of buildings on the drawing boards today will see the depletion of those resources on this planet. So to co-op a phrase from process planning today, we must design with our "best-practices" in mind while at the same time fulfilling the role of the seer; looking into the future in a way we have not dared before.
The feel-good moment in the lecture was realizing that we (as architecture students, prospective architects, environmental designers, etc...) have the opportunity to insert the learnings of our failed policies and practices into the opportunities of developing cultures. Complex thinking indeed.
I was intrigued by his characterizations of architecture as a manipulation of money and process. He created a dichotomy by describing the difference between those projects with "clever money and stupid process, and those with stupid money and clever process." It is a fascinating spectrum I am sure; particularly when one can evaluate from his perspective on a wide(er) range of projects.
The practice of Estudio Teddy Cruz, as presented, is not so much about Architecture (as I have come to know it- having to do with the creation of buildings, place-making and space-making), but rather a complex dialogue in Urban Planning and Environmental Design that is informed by Architecture, and social and economic studies. His work, as presented, certainly takes one away from the ocular-centric (myopic) approach that is the focus of most of my projects at NewSchool of Architecture & Design (thus far; remembering I am in my first quarter).
My recent experience working for global development concern, Emaar, in the Newport Beach, CA offices, was experience working with the kind of "top-down" development approach that Cruz distrusts. His philosophical approach is more grass-roots oriented; dealing with the density of socio-economic transactions per acre rather than the number of salable housing units per acre.
Curiously, the whole time I was working for Emaar, I was fascinated by the global marketing of the SoCal suburban design approach practiced by Emaar. What has not worked so well here in Southern California (based upon the approaching demise of sustainability of suburbia caused by depletion of essential fossil fuel resources) seems highly desirable in the face of the challenging conditions existing in suburban Cairo. And while it may be that our SoCal suburban dream is more desirable than the existing options in Cairo, one wonders if the projects we were working on at Emaar Design Studio will ever be built as planned; and if the density of units will continue to be one of their defining factors.
What is compelling about this lecture was the depiction of a larger opportunity for design. Not unlike the evolution of a species, the design of the built environment is evolving to survive in conditions which threaten its continuation. Our ever present awareness of the depletion of fossil fuel resources means that structures designed today cannot be built with any expectation of dependence upon fossil fuel. The lifetime of buildings on the drawing boards today will see the depletion of those resources on this planet. So to co-op a phrase from process planning today, we must design with our "best-practices" in mind while at the same time fulfilling the role of the seer; looking into the future in a way we have not dared before.
The feel-good moment in the lecture was realizing that we (as architecture students, prospective architects, environmental designers, etc...) have the opportunity to insert the learnings of our failed policies and practices into the opportunities of developing cultures. Complex thinking indeed.
Thursday, August 6, 2009
Abstract Concepts and Mundane Buildings
After a greuling session of formal critiques by studio mates, instructors and TA's, I am spent. Yesterday's pin-up of progress drawings was an amazing learning experience. I was fascinated by the variety of solutions to what appeared to be a simple program with some narrowly defined parameters (not the least of which is a too-small site crammed up against a freeway that is more than ten feet higher than the average elevation of the site).
The most fascinating thing was the abstraction(s) of process by some of my classmates. Perhaps I have been in the world of work for too long... or not in the world of education for so long... My in-progress drawings are solidly in the realm of construction documents. Admittedly, there are flaws, unknowns, details which have yet to be created, structural elements that are possbily the wrong size, or the wrong visual weight. And all of that can be resolved in the next five weeks.
I believe my building is actually build-able without too-terribly much stretching of the current technology. It looks a little mundane (in elevation views, all the sculptural richness is flattened out) and that troubles me. So what's the problem??? I am guessing that my mind is grounded in a way that the other students are not. I have no abstract reasoning that is too difficult to graphically communicate. I have no abstract concepts that have never before been built. I have no abstract reasoning that I do not have words to adequately express. And I feel bad about this. (???)
Still, the building will address a standard of sustainability that is far beyond anything attempted in most municipal construction projects. The facility will depend heavily on natural daylighting, stored solar thermal, and solar electric that is grid connected for net-zero (design goal) night-lighting and AC, recycled "gray" water for site landscaping, natural ventilation / convection in the public spaces, and sustainable materials use wherever possible. The firefighters will be treated to spaces that are created with spiritually restorative qualities meant to manage the stress of life as a firefighter/medical "first responder."
What am I missing?
The most fascinating thing was the abstraction(s) of process by some of my classmates. Perhaps I have been in the world of work for too long... or not in the world of education for so long... My in-progress drawings are solidly in the realm of construction documents. Admittedly, there are flaws, unknowns, details which have yet to be created, structural elements that are possbily the wrong size, or the wrong visual weight. And all of that can be resolved in the next five weeks.
I believe my building is actually build-able without too-terribly much stretching of the current technology. It looks a little mundane (in elevation views, all the sculptural richness is flattened out) and that troubles me. So what's the problem??? I am guessing that my mind is grounded in a way that the other students are not. I have no abstract reasoning that is too difficult to graphically communicate. I have no abstract concepts that have never before been built. I have no abstract reasoning that I do not have words to adequately express. And I feel bad about this. (???)
Still, the building will address a standard of sustainability that is far beyond anything attempted in most municipal construction projects. The facility will depend heavily on natural daylighting, stored solar thermal, and solar electric that is grid connected for net-zero (design goal) night-lighting and AC, recycled "gray" water for site landscaping, natural ventilation / convection in the public spaces, and sustainable materials use wherever possible. The firefighters will be treated to spaces that are created with spiritually restorative qualities meant to manage the stress of life as a firefighter/medical "first responder."
What am I missing?
Sunday, August 2, 2009
3D Thinking
After developing a new set of muscles, due to holding pressure on the railroad board and the steel rule while cutting with an Xacto knife, and developing a callous on my index finger from driving the Xacto blade through the various other modelling materials, I am finally seeing some light. I always thought I had excellent 3D modelling in my head. Having thought so means that I was skeptical that model making had much purpose; save for developing "brains in my finger tips." I became even more skeptical as the callous on my index finger over-took the growth of the "brains."
This past week, upon revising (and revising again) my concept models for the fire station I am working on (designed to replace station house #3 in San Diego with a modern, up-to-date facility suitable for a larger crew), I saw the light. I realised that there were some things I could learn from the modelling process that I couldn't grasp any other way. And there is the reason for this exercise.
Currently in production of drawings to support my design concept, I am moving back into the documentation phase having sculpted a concept for a building about which I and my instructors are satisfied. It doesn't look anything like my initial concept. And it doesn't look anything like what I saw in my mind's eye. I guess this is progress as, in fact, it looks better.
I am reveling in my sense of being suited to the work I am undertaking. I have no question in my mind that this is the place and time for me to be doing this. I am clear, however, that I am in a process of credentialing a good deal of design process knowledge which I already possess. Still, there are the new things which I can learn. Much of this is technological rather than theoretical knowledge (Obama's "retooling"). I need to update my technological skills to support my design processing.
I am beginning by updating my 3D thinking. While the idea of "brains in my fingertips" is still to gel, I am certain that there is a way in which I have created some new muscles that are not related to the physical craft of modelling. And I am certain that more 3D modelling (digitally speaking) will be coming soon.
This past week, upon revising (and revising again) my concept models for the fire station I am working on (designed to replace station house #3 in San Diego with a modern, up-to-date facility suitable for a larger crew), I saw the light. I realised that there were some things I could learn from the modelling process that I couldn't grasp any other way. And there is the reason for this exercise.
Currently in production of drawings to support my design concept, I am moving back into the documentation phase having sculpted a concept for a building about which I and my instructors are satisfied. It doesn't look anything like my initial concept. And it doesn't look anything like what I saw in my mind's eye. I guess this is progress as, in fact, it looks better.
I am reveling in my sense of being suited to the work I am undertaking. I have no question in my mind that this is the place and time for me to be doing this. I am clear, however, that I am in a process of credentialing a good deal of design process knowledge which I already possess. Still, there are the new things which I can learn. Much of this is technological rather than theoretical knowledge (Obama's "retooling"). I need to update my technological skills to support my design processing.
I am beginning by updating my 3D thinking. While the idea of "brains in my fingertips" is still to gel, I am certain that there is a way in which I have created some new muscles that are not related to the physical craft of modelling. And I am certain that more 3D modelling (digitally speaking) will be coming soon.
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Conceptualizing
Watching Alan Rosenblum, Newschool of Architecture & Design faculty, talk about de-constructing "concept" was inspiring to me. After spending the afternoon working on a an abstract concept model (not to scale, just shapes and inter-relationships, a loosy-goosy sort of thing), I learned just how abstract the process of conceptualizing can be. The first year graduate students were dealing with a way of deconstructing and reconstructing concept that was truly fascinating to me.
The assignment forced the students to look beyond their preconceived notions of concept and then turn out results that were beautiful and strikingly original. And in the systematic process, the result you might have thought was your solution gets destroyed (literally cut to shreds) and reassembled in a new way. Twice!!! The whole process repeats and you destroy the second solution, only to begin again (anew). The resulting output was fascinating to view and the process stunning to comprehend.
While intuition and pre-conception are often thought to be at the essence of creative thought, this exercise opens ones eyes to the possibility of process driving creativity. While I do think that the process can be made to enhance the result, there is still an intuitive assess/catalogue/analyze/assemble function (or series of functions) that is dependent upon the intuitive application of some principles of design. Why one solution derived from the process turns out better than another is solely dependent upon some "creative inspiration that comes from nothing."
To this day, this creative process is not able to be automated. For if design could be exclusively process driven, then robots could do it. And goodness knows lots of companies would prefer to have robots doing design; rather than the chaos and excitement, frustrations and triumphs, and the happy accidents that surround most of us creative types.
The efficiency experts might love it if automation could overtake the creative process. And then there would be the unhappy result of a world of uninspired solutions to design problems. A process driven sameness and monotony would overwhelm the senses like too much rich food overwhelms the digestion. Or like (supposedly) Tuscan inspired villas have overtaken Southern California. The resultant would be a clamor for unique solutions to separate "us" from "them" via unique expressions of personality and tres banal cliches of....
Wait! This already sounds so familiar. Did design get automated already? Did I miss something?
The assignment forced the students to look beyond their preconceived notions of concept and then turn out results that were beautiful and strikingly original. And in the systematic process, the result you might have thought was your solution gets destroyed (literally cut to shreds) and reassembled in a new way. Twice!!! The whole process repeats and you destroy the second solution, only to begin again (anew). The resulting output was fascinating to view and the process stunning to comprehend.
While intuition and pre-conception are often thought to be at the essence of creative thought, this exercise opens ones eyes to the possibility of process driving creativity. While I do think that the process can be made to enhance the result, there is still an intuitive assess/catalogue/analyze/assemble function (or series of functions) that is dependent upon the intuitive application of some principles of design. Why one solution derived from the process turns out better than another is solely dependent upon some "creative inspiration that comes from nothing."
To this day, this creative process is not able to be automated. For if design could be exclusively process driven, then robots could do it. And goodness knows lots of companies would prefer to have robots doing design; rather than the chaos and excitement, frustrations and triumphs, and the happy accidents that surround most of us creative types.
The efficiency experts might love it if automation could overtake the creative process. And then there would be the unhappy result of a world of uninspired solutions to design problems. A process driven sameness and monotony would overwhelm the senses like too much rich food overwhelms the digestion. Or like (supposedly) Tuscan inspired villas have overtaken Southern California. The resultant would be a clamor for unique solutions to separate "us" from "them" via unique expressions of personality and tres banal cliches of....
Wait! This already sounds so familiar. Did design get automated already? Did I miss something?
Monday, July 20, 2009
Group Project: Site Analysis
I just completed an assignment that involved working in a small group. I joined a group for this assignment because I felt like I would be able to learn something more from the others in the group. I am still feeling my way in this new educational environment. Going it alone doesn't seem to be the right course of action.
Thankfully, I also realized early-on that the percentage of work completed would be more-or-less equivalent to the amount learned. That is to say, doing the entire assignment by myself would be more work; and with less opportunity to learn from others. It seemed like a winning situation. And it was, though not quite for the reasons I forecast.
I learned much in completing the assignment because I did a lot of the work on my own. This was a particular area of Architecture about which I know very little. I have never had to make a site analysis presentation. Most of my work as an interior designer involved projects where site analysis meant redesigning the furniture assortment for the deck and / or patio. ...Not considerations of the impact of zoning regulations, or the fact that the site was within an area considered to be an aircraft landing buffer zone.
What was most educational for me was realizing that no matter how much energy one puts into a group project, the outcome, in terms of learning, is proportional. This was very obviously true for one member of our group whose participation was limited (due to a previously planned trip between last week's assignment and this week's due date). His lack of participation showed when our Professor asked questions about the Site Analysis and its implications for the design solution.
In the end, I was genuinely proud of my work and that of my teammates. I think we delivered the "Team 1" spirit we were determined to show. And the analysis showed that spirit as well. Now the challenging, creative, work of turning that analysis into inspired concepts begins. I continue to be inspired (with inspiration that comes from nothing!). And for this I am truly grateful. That, and for the sound sleep that comes of being past the previous deadline, and ahead of the clock on the next one. ...tick, tock, tick, tock...
Thankfully, I also realized early-on that the percentage of work completed would be more-or-less equivalent to the amount learned. That is to say, doing the entire assignment by myself would be more work; and with less opportunity to learn from others. It seemed like a winning situation. And it was, though not quite for the reasons I forecast.
I learned much in completing the assignment because I did a lot of the work on my own. This was a particular area of Architecture about which I know very little. I have never had to make a site analysis presentation. Most of my work as an interior designer involved projects where site analysis meant redesigning the furniture assortment for the deck and / or patio. ...Not considerations of the impact of zoning regulations, or the fact that the site was within an area considered to be an aircraft landing buffer zone.
What was most educational for me was realizing that no matter how much energy one puts into a group project, the outcome, in terms of learning, is proportional. This was very obviously true for one member of our group whose participation was limited (due to a previously planned trip between last week's assignment and this week's due date). His lack of participation showed when our Professor asked questions about the Site Analysis and its implications for the design solution.
In the end, I was genuinely proud of my work and that of my teammates. I think we delivered the "Team 1" spirit we were determined to show. And the analysis showed that spirit as well. Now the challenging, creative, work of turning that analysis into inspired concepts begins. I continue to be inspired (with inspiration that comes from nothing!). And for this I am truly grateful. That, and for the sound sleep that comes of being past the previous deadline, and ahead of the clock on the next one. ...tick, tock, tick, tock...
Thursday, July 16, 2009
Pacing
There are several meanings to the word: Pacing. I can think of it in terms of pacing back and forth when I am processing thought. It doesn't really serve any particular purpose; save dispelling some pent up emotions or relieving some kinetic stress. Then there is the pacing one does when one is trying to conserve energy in any particular drill.
I guess that, lately, I have been doing both. I am fascinated by my work in school. There is great opportunity and challenge here, if not particularly as I might have thought. I am learning most, it seems right now, about the process of Architectural education. I pace. And I am pacing myself in anticipation of the opportunity to really dig into some deep topic in Architectural Theory.
One of my instructors started out with great enthusiasm and the possibilities appeared quite good. The front page of the course syllabus has a quote from Peter Eisenman: " When music teachers teach their students, they don't teach them composition by having them compose. Instead, they have them listen to music. In architecture schools very few people listen to the music, as it were. They're thrown right in and asked to design."
This is the same instructor who gave a 48 hour Case Study of a Super Hero assignment, and immediately followed with the resultant 5 day assignment to design the Lair of the Super Hero and create a scale model of the design (see prior post). Thrown right in, all right. Where is the listening in that? (To be clear, there is a Field Trip on the docket).
I continue to be grateful to other studio-mates who have been enormously helpful in directing me to resources, stimulating thought about solutions, and sharing ideas about education and career. There is a camaraderie here that is wonderful. I hope I can live up to the challenge and provide my share of assistance in the future. The scales seem un-balanced today as there is so much I need to learn.
An example of this is the large amount of technology which must be gotten under control. When last I used a Scientific Calculator, the alternative was a Slide Rule. Does anybody know what that is anymore? I asked a dear friend if she was familiar with a Slide Rule and she replied "Is that something like an abacus?" Not quite, but close in concept, if not in age. Oh, and the Newfangled Scientific Calculators were $179.00. The one I just purchased was $12.99. Another example is the need for AutoCad and other computer graphics packages.
So I sat down to take a quiz in my Statics class earlier this week. I was prepared; or so I thought. I knew the process to resolve the effect of two different forces on an object. I knew the parallelogram method. I knew the formula (from trigonometry over 35 years ago) thanks to a brief refresher on the first day of Statics. So I wrote out the solution and then turned on my new Scientific Calculator. There was a code in the window that I did not understand. And the calculator would take no inputs.
I sighed heavily, embarrassed to the core, and took my plight (and the calculator) to the instructor's desk to explain why I was going to fail the quiz. She offered her super-duper extra fantastic Scientific Calculator for my use and gave a quick lesson. I returned to my desk thinking perhaps the day was saved. I struggled to do the calculations and began to throw in the towel. The instructor returned my calculator to my desk, saying she wasn't certain how it happened, but the code was gone, and the calculator was taking inputs. Hallelujah. With a clickety clack of key strokes, I was done in a flash. Thank goodness for small favors.
I realize that I am somewhat of an albatross in the class room. I ask questions. Challenge the teachers on matters of importance to me. Wonder about the outcomes of this or that process and the inter-relationships of all the new things I am learning. I am certain that I will be challenged to find ways of learning that suit my perspective on life. And thank goodness there are others around who share that desire to learn. I love listening to the music.
I guess that, lately, I have been doing both. I am fascinated by my work in school. There is great opportunity and challenge here, if not particularly as I might have thought. I am learning most, it seems right now, about the process of Architectural education. I pace. And I am pacing myself in anticipation of the opportunity to really dig into some deep topic in Architectural Theory.
One of my instructors started out with great enthusiasm and the possibilities appeared quite good. The front page of the course syllabus has a quote from Peter Eisenman: " When music teachers teach their students, they don't teach them composition by having them compose. Instead, they have them listen to music. In architecture schools very few people listen to the music, as it were. They're thrown right in and asked to design."
This is the same instructor who gave a 48 hour Case Study of a Super Hero assignment, and immediately followed with the resultant 5 day assignment to design the Lair of the Super Hero and create a scale model of the design (see prior post). Thrown right in, all right. Where is the listening in that? (To be clear, there is a Field Trip on the docket).
I continue to be grateful to other studio-mates who have been enormously helpful in directing me to resources, stimulating thought about solutions, and sharing ideas about education and career. There is a camaraderie here that is wonderful. I hope I can live up to the challenge and provide my share of assistance in the future. The scales seem un-balanced today as there is so much I need to learn.
An example of this is the large amount of technology which must be gotten under control. When last I used a Scientific Calculator, the alternative was a Slide Rule. Does anybody know what that is anymore? I asked a dear friend if she was familiar with a Slide Rule and she replied "Is that something like an abacus?" Not quite, but close in concept, if not in age. Oh, and the Newfangled Scientific Calculators were $179.00. The one I just purchased was $12.99. Another example is the need for AutoCad and other computer graphics packages.
So I sat down to take a quiz in my Statics class earlier this week. I was prepared; or so I thought. I knew the process to resolve the effect of two different forces on an object. I knew the parallelogram method. I knew the formula (from trigonometry over 35 years ago) thanks to a brief refresher on the first day of Statics. So I wrote out the solution and then turned on my new Scientific Calculator. There was a code in the window that I did not understand. And the calculator would take no inputs.
I sighed heavily, embarrassed to the core, and took my plight (and the calculator) to the instructor's desk to explain why I was going to fail the quiz. She offered her super-duper extra fantastic Scientific Calculator for my use and gave a quick lesson. I returned to my desk thinking perhaps the day was saved. I struggled to do the calculations and began to throw in the towel. The instructor returned my calculator to my desk, saying she wasn't certain how it happened, but the code was gone, and the calculator was taking inputs. Hallelujah. With a clickety clack of key strokes, I was done in a flash. Thank goodness for small favors.
I realize that I am somewhat of an albatross in the class room. I ask questions. Challenge the teachers on matters of importance to me. Wonder about the outcomes of this or that process and the inter-relationships of all the new things I am learning. I am certain that I will be challenged to find ways of learning that suit my perspective on life. And thank goodness there are others around who share that desire to learn. I love listening to the music.
Saturday, July 11, 2009
Me, Modeling?
Well, only three days into my first quarter in Architecture school, I got an assignment that totally stopped me in my tracks. After completing an old-school marker-rendering of the thinking man's super-hero (Batman, of course, in the pose of Rodin's The Thinker), I was asked to design Batman's lair (the Batcave) and build a scale model. What a fascinating (literally) assignment! And of course, it is made all the more fascinating by the fact that I have never before made a to-scale architectural model. Oh, did I tell you it is due to be critiqued on Monday afternoon? Guess where I am spending the weekend?
So I am learning first hand the value of the studio experience. A kind, young man with lots of model making expertise has been very helpful. It is amazing how the studio depends upon the value and expertise of each individual member. This is particularly true in the studio called Vertical Studio. When I registered, I considered that it might be about high-rise design. It is not... This studio is called Vertical because it is one of the few studios that are offered to all levels of students, from beginning undergrads to graduate level students. Also fascinating.
The school studio environment is a little "quiet" when it comes to critiques. I anticipated lively critiques and interactive discussions in the studio. I am finding, most people keep to themselves. Still, I am grateful for the opportunity to learn from the more advanced students and to share what I know with them and the beginners alike. I guess it only takes a few out-going folks to broaden the perspective.
Also on my dockett, is my first CADD assignment. I think I can already see how this appeals to many designers. Still, for someone who can draw, it is a little like switching from a fineline felt-tip to a calligraphy brush. They are both tools, useful for different kinds of communication. There is something vrey comforting about feeling ones way through a design problem with a felt-tip pen in hand. The motions and gestures of drawing are so mesmerizing; as are those of the calligrapher with a fine brush. I am certain with practice CADD can become a way-of-life, too.
I am planning to post a picture after I complete my model for the Batcave. I am liking how it is turning out. That is to say, I am liking it at this stage. I remember the 1960's TV series "Batman" and have gotten most of my context for the design from that programs many episodes. Time will tell if my studio thinks that I have gotten it right. Certainly, I will have learned alot about modeling.
So I am learning first hand the value of the studio experience. A kind, young man with lots of model making expertise has been very helpful. It is amazing how the studio depends upon the value and expertise of each individual member. This is particularly true in the studio called Vertical Studio. When I registered, I considered that it might be about high-rise design. It is not... This studio is called Vertical because it is one of the few studios that are offered to all levels of students, from beginning undergrads to graduate level students. Also fascinating.
The school studio environment is a little "quiet" when it comes to critiques. I anticipated lively critiques and interactive discussions in the studio. I am finding, most people keep to themselves. Still, I am grateful for the opportunity to learn from the more advanced students and to share what I know with them and the beginners alike. I guess it only takes a few out-going folks to broaden the perspective.
Also on my dockett, is my first CADD assignment. I think I can already see how this appeals to many designers. Still, for someone who can draw, it is a little like switching from a fineline felt-tip to a calligraphy brush. They are both tools, useful for different kinds of communication. There is something vrey comforting about feeling ones way through a design problem with a felt-tip pen in hand. The motions and gestures of drawing are so mesmerizing; as are those of the calligrapher with a fine brush. I am certain with practice CADD can become a way-of-life, too.
I am planning to post a picture after I complete my model for the Batcave. I am liking how it is turning out. That is to say, I am liking it at this stage. I remember the 1960's TV series "Batman" and have gotten most of my context for the design from that programs many episodes. Time will tell if my studio thinks that I have gotten it right. Certainly, I will have learned alot about modeling.
Monday, July 6, 2009
First Day of School
Today is the first day of Summer Session '09 and I am so looking forward to school. I remember this enthusiasm from my childhood years. Of course, by the time I got to high school, and my first days at St. Olaf College, I was less than wildly enthusiastic. Today, however, is an exciting milestone for me. I have been wanting to study architecture since I was about 12 or 13 years old. And I start with Environmental Biology, and Vertical Studio.
I remember the genesis of my interest in architecture very clearly. I was in a Boy Scouts of America "Explorer" program created by an architect who was also our Scoutmaster. One Saturday, we went to the offices of Armstrong, Torseth, Skold and Rydeen (of Minneapolis, MN). The day's activities included a brief design charrette, of sorts, for a fountain plaza at the entrance to a building. I remember that day, fondly, as the day I first learned something about process-thinking. More importantly, I remember the fascination I felt, and the inspiration (which came from nothing). I was in awe of it then; and I remain in awe of creative inspiration to this day.
In my family, the idea of being an architect was supported and encouraged as an ideal; if not particularly practicable. Neither of my parents had graduated from college. Their support was of the variety: "you can do whatever you decide." That idealism, born of a rush of middle-class growth, following my parents' depression-era upbringings and WWII resettlement, was a significant part of the challenge. That there was freedom was clear. Unfortunately, there were other distractions calling for my attention.
One might consider the distractions with regret. I prefer to consider those distractions with honor as they have made me the person I am. We are, however, a product of our circumstances only to the extent that we allow those circumstances to speak for us. Recently, I have learned that I can create my "being," without regard for the circumstances. It is this learning that allows me the opportunity to create a new career at this stage of my life. That, and the support of all my friends, clients, and loved ones.
So here am I, at the beginning of a new era in my life. When my peers will be processing payouts for their retirement plans in the not-too-distant future, I will be beginning a new career in architecture. At long last, after all these years.
I remember the genesis of my interest in architecture very clearly. I was in a Boy Scouts of America "Explorer" program created by an architect who was also our Scoutmaster. One Saturday, we went to the offices of Armstrong, Torseth, Skold and Rydeen (of Minneapolis, MN). The day's activities included a brief design charrette, of sorts, for a fountain plaza at the entrance to a building. I remember that day, fondly, as the day I first learned something about process-thinking. More importantly, I remember the fascination I felt, and the inspiration (which came from nothing). I was in awe of it then; and I remain in awe of creative inspiration to this day.
In my family, the idea of being an architect was supported and encouraged as an ideal; if not particularly practicable. Neither of my parents had graduated from college. Their support was of the variety: "you can do whatever you decide." That idealism, born of a rush of middle-class growth, following my parents' depression-era upbringings and WWII resettlement, was a significant part of the challenge. That there was freedom was clear. Unfortunately, there were other distractions calling for my attention.
One might consider the distractions with regret. I prefer to consider those distractions with honor as they have made me the person I am. We are, however, a product of our circumstances only to the extent that we allow those circumstances to speak for us. Recently, I have learned that I can create my "being," without regard for the circumstances. It is this learning that allows me the opportunity to create a new career at this stage of my life. That, and the support of all my friends, clients, and loved ones.
So here am I, at the beginning of a new era in my life. When my peers will be processing payouts for their retirement plans in the not-too-distant future, I will be beginning a new career in architecture. At long last, after all these years.
Saturday, July 4, 2009
Lyle IS My Name
After all these years of not dealing with educational institutions (it has been awhile), I am facing the challenge of being unique. As multi-cultural as our world has become, it is fascinating to me that institutions still have limited name categories. The world of names is fascinating in and of itself; what with hyphenated names becoming more popular. And then there are the cultural differences in names. One would think that the increasingly global education market would force educational institutions to rethink the somewhat predicatable (and very Anglo-saxon) way that names are categorized.
I am fascinated when people take exception (or make what I find to be embarassing jokes) regarding names from other cultures which seem to mimic words from their own languages. An example of this is a new friend named Hai; pronounced like the English slang greeting: hi. To giggle or poke fun at this name is really sophomoric; and quite possibly antagonistic. While there is some confusion associated with the greeting, upon meeting: "Hi Hai!" it can only be due to one's own myopia.
The world is full of names. In fact, it is peculiarly human to categorize and name things. And this is where I run into problems with my name. The inflexible categories created by institutions never seem to fit me. And for that, I am chastised; something which I find particularly offensive. At registration at NewSchool of Architecture and Design, I was told that I could file a "nick-name" request. This points up a flaw in the institution's record keeping because I don't have a "nick-name."
While I realise that my name is a little uncommon, there is nothing nicky about it. It is not a shortened version, or a favorite or pet name created by some acronym or combination of names. Tradition, in my family, dictated my given name. And I have always, since birth (with the short term exception of a transition period when my identity was in flux during my teenage years) been called Lyle. During the period in question, one of my teachers tried to give me a real nick-name based upon my "institutional" name. This just didn't identify me and, in fact, was confusing to all those who already were using that nick-name for their own name. So I quickly re-identified myself as Lyle.
Then there is the uniqueness of being a professional interior designer with more than 20 years of experience practicing under my given name. Only when airlines started enforcing the rule of identification did I begin to create travel documents using my "institutional" name. I remember the akward moment when I received travel documents for a trip to a client's home in Michigan with my name all mixed up. This was after September 11, and clearly those documents would not admit me to the airplane. Thankfully the airline was able to correct the error. Since then, I always make sure every one clearly understands my name. My name is Lyle; it is my given name. The only thing particularly unique is that I am not called by my first name (which I will from now refer to as my "institutional" name).
This rant will probably have no impact upon the institutions which create name records. I am certain that, in these tough economic times, there are issues of far, far greater importance. If perhaps ones own consciousness is raised, as mine has been recently by meeting Hai, the possibility of a future in full recognition of the significance and meaning of names will exist. And maybe, just maybe, an institutional record will be created that fits my name.
I am fascinated when people take exception (or make what I find to be embarassing jokes) regarding names from other cultures which seem to mimic words from their own languages. An example of this is a new friend named Hai; pronounced like the English slang greeting: hi. To giggle or poke fun at this name is really sophomoric; and quite possibly antagonistic. While there is some confusion associated with the greeting, upon meeting: "Hi Hai!" it can only be due to one's own myopia.
The world is full of names. In fact, it is peculiarly human to categorize and name things. And this is where I run into problems with my name. The inflexible categories created by institutions never seem to fit me. And for that, I am chastised; something which I find particularly offensive. At registration at NewSchool of Architecture and Design, I was told that I could file a "nick-name" request. This points up a flaw in the institution's record keeping because I don't have a "nick-name."
While I realise that my name is a little uncommon, there is nothing nicky about it. It is not a shortened version, or a favorite or pet name created by some acronym or combination of names. Tradition, in my family, dictated my given name. And I have always, since birth (with the short term exception of a transition period when my identity was in flux during my teenage years) been called Lyle. During the period in question, one of my teachers tried to give me a real nick-name based upon my "institutional" name. This just didn't identify me and, in fact, was confusing to all those who already were using that nick-name for their own name. So I quickly re-identified myself as Lyle.
Then there is the uniqueness of being a professional interior designer with more than 20 years of experience practicing under my given name. Only when airlines started enforcing the rule of identification did I begin to create travel documents using my "institutional" name. I remember the akward moment when I received travel documents for a trip to a client's home in Michigan with my name all mixed up. This was after September 11, and clearly those documents would not admit me to the airplane. Thankfully the airline was able to correct the error. Since then, I always make sure every one clearly understands my name. My name is Lyle; it is my given name. The only thing particularly unique is that I am not called by my first name (which I will from now refer to as my "institutional" name).
This rant will probably have no impact upon the institutions which create name records. I am certain that, in these tough economic times, there are issues of far, far greater importance. If perhaps ones own consciousness is raised, as mine has been recently by meeting Hai, the possibility of a future in full recognition of the significance and meaning of names will exist. And maybe, just maybe, an institutional record will be created that fits my name.
Saturday, June 27, 2009
Architecture Walking Tour of Banker's Hill / Hillcrest
It is amazing that we can each view the same scene and see different things. Under the direction of Michael Stepner, FAIA, former City Architect for the City of San Diego, and current faculty member at NewSchool of Architecture & Design, I saw some new things in previously viewed scenery; thank you Michael Stepner. I have been in the vicinity of the first suspension bridge in California (Spruce Street Bridge) before; even walked accross. Today, I learned that several of Irving Gill's home designs in the area were spec-homes built by a 'couple' of women contractor/developers in the first two decades of the 1900's. Awesome.
I also learned that San Diego has had two different 'sanctioned' styles; one before the Balboa Park development that is based upon our famous Missions, and one after Balboa Park based upon Spanish Revival architecture (imported by way of a New York "society" design firm). Seems that the early taste for Spanish Revival after the 1915 Panama-California Exhibition overcame (in popularity) the honest simplicity of form and materials offered by our favorite son, if not native, Irving Gill. Does anybody know the name of the Architect who directed the design of the Spanish Revival Balboa Park structures? Thought so. Honesty and simplicity, elegance and parsimony seem to win out every time. And Architecture, good or bad, has a long, long, long memory.
With newly opened eyes, I looked at some new mixed-use development and urban infill. The Hillcrest Rite-Aid is a challenging example of poor design and unfortunate siting. The inward facing store concept is suitable for a freeway site, with bold graphics gestures that would be recognizable at freeway speeds. In the intimate neighborhood setting, it fails, miserably, to address the street with any type of human scale or interaction. Three sides of the building are nothing but tall, brick walls at the edge of the sidewalk; not very suitable for the walkable neighborhood. And Michael Stepner pointed out that the parking lot, with few trees and little other vegitation, does little more than raise the ambient temperature of the neighborhood with its black asphalt surface.
Having seen the sprawling, nearby Atlas complex grow during my years here, I was fascinated to hear the following from Michael Stepner, FAIA. I think I will paraphrase: It is a good thing to have good ideas; just don't use all of them on one building. I wholeheartedly agree. Having been inside one unit plan in this complex, I can now say that I am "underwhelmed" by the complex; inside and out. It really is amazing what people will pay for bad design.
The economy may have had some effect on the leasing of Atlas' ground floor retail spaces; it appears pretty bleak. I wonder if the real problem wasn't poor planning (design); creating not-so-highly visible retail spaces on such a highly travelled street. Many of the spaces have recessed windows, which when viewed on-angle from a passing car, are obscurred by the alcove columns. Further, in broad (typical in San Diego is very broad) daylight, the highly reflective low-E coatings used on the retail windows also create mirrors of outdoor, daylit activity. If given the opportunity, I will endeavor to design some mixed-use spaces where the efficiency of planning more nearly mirrors the need and uses for space; and no recessed, mirrored windows will be in use; thereby providing accessible retail space with a clear view.
Oh, and then we saw Trilogy. Hmmm. I am reminded of a story a dear friend and Architect in Palm Springs tells of his time in architecture school at the University of Wisconsin, Madison. A professor he admired would comment, when a student project was off the mark, "I never would have thought of that." This is akin to the commonly used "well that is one way to solve this problem." One way indeed; and the Trilogy could have used a few more reviews prior to being rushed to market. Will anyone remember that architects name?
I also learned that San Diego has had two different 'sanctioned' styles; one before the Balboa Park development that is based upon our famous Missions, and one after Balboa Park based upon Spanish Revival architecture (imported by way of a New York "society" design firm). Seems that the early taste for Spanish Revival after the 1915 Panama-California Exhibition overcame (in popularity) the honest simplicity of form and materials offered by our favorite son, if not native, Irving Gill. Does anybody know the name of the Architect who directed the design of the Spanish Revival Balboa Park structures? Thought so. Honesty and simplicity, elegance and parsimony seem to win out every time. And Architecture, good or bad, has a long, long, long memory.
With newly opened eyes, I looked at some new mixed-use development and urban infill. The Hillcrest Rite-Aid is a challenging example of poor design and unfortunate siting. The inward facing store concept is suitable for a freeway site, with bold graphics gestures that would be recognizable at freeway speeds. In the intimate neighborhood setting, it fails, miserably, to address the street with any type of human scale or interaction. Three sides of the building are nothing but tall, brick walls at the edge of the sidewalk; not very suitable for the walkable neighborhood. And Michael Stepner pointed out that the parking lot, with few trees and little other vegitation, does little more than raise the ambient temperature of the neighborhood with its black asphalt surface.
Having seen the sprawling, nearby Atlas complex grow during my years here, I was fascinated to hear the following from Michael Stepner, FAIA. I think I will paraphrase: It is a good thing to have good ideas; just don't use all of them on one building. I wholeheartedly agree. Having been inside one unit plan in this complex, I can now say that I am "underwhelmed" by the complex; inside and out. It really is amazing what people will pay for bad design.
The economy may have had some effect on the leasing of Atlas' ground floor retail spaces; it appears pretty bleak. I wonder if the real problem wasn't poor planning (design); creating not-so-highly visible retail spaces on such a highly travelled street. Many of the spaces have recessed windows, which when viewed on-angle from a passing car, are obscurred by the alcove columns. Further, in broad (typical in San Diego is very broad) daylight, the highly reflective low-E coatings used on the retail windows also create mirrors of outdoor, daylit activity. If given the opportunity, I will endeavor to design some mixed-use spaces where the efficiency of planning more nearly mirrors the need and uses for space; and no recessed, mirrored windows will be in use; thereby providing accessible retail space with a clear view.
Oh, and then we saw Trilogy. Hmmm. I am reminded of a story a dear friend and Architect in Palm Springs tells of his time in architecture school at the University of Wisconsin, Madison. A professor he admired would comment, when a student project was off the mark, "I never would have thought of that." This is akin to the commonly used "well that is one way to solve this problem." One way indeed; and the Trilogy could have used a few more reviews prior to being rushed to market. Will anyone remember that architects name?
Of great interest was the discussion among those participating in the tour. One recent graduate of the Masters Degree program at NewSchool was heard to say: "Find your focus early and work on it throughout your program. The years pass quickly, and you will want to focus so you don't end up being finished" (without learning what you want to learn). He was more poetic than that statement, but that is the gist of the commentary. I like this thought. I still have a few days to decide my focus (my orientation to the school, campus, policies, is next week, classes begin the following week). Learning how to avoid hearing "I never would have thought of that!" or "that is one way to solve the problem" just won't be quite enough.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
