Hello, This my first stint with sketch up, this is the open hand monument on chandigarh, tried something with pages, and etc etc(for the first time), thought I would paste it

These are some of the views of the capitol complex, and some real pics, got a bit excited., getting great results from sketch up!

actual pic, view from highcourt towards the assembly

middle of the plaza...looking towards assembly and secretariat

pic of the same view

The highcourt

Now...for some doubts, Kindly assist!
1) is it possible to transfer an object from one layer to another, like in autocad? if yes, how?
2) is it possible to 'lock' layers, and yet make it 'visible'? (as in autocad)
3) Renderings- is it limited to 'shaded with textures' in sketch up? is it possible to get refined renderings as in max.?
4) camera settings- is there any such thing? can we tweak the camera to get 'distorted/exaggerated' images?

Cheers,
Navin

sry, PS: 5) REFLECTIONS! is it possible in sketch up?? or should it be added in PhotoShop?

Now...for some doubts, Kindly assist!
1) is it possible to transfer an object from one layer to another, like in autocad? if yes, how?

Yes, and it is simple with the layers toolbar. select the object and then select the layer you want to put it on.

2) is it possible to 'lock' layers, and yet make it 'visible'? (as in autocad)

lock? I'm not sure if you can lock layers...

3) Renderings- is it limited to 'shaded with textures' in sketch up? is it possible to get refined renderings as in max.?

Sketchup is not a rendering program. But there are many renderers that work well with SU, just check out the various software forums on PPB for some more info.

4) camera settings- is there any such thing? can we tweak the camera to get 'distorted/exaggerated' images?

Yes simply change the field of view. Using the zoom shortcut, you can type in the field of view. this shows up in the VCB in the bottom right of the screen. Or just use the field of view command in the camera menu.

And to 5.: there are workarounds to show reflections, but it involves making a mirror duplicate of the model and using varieties of opacity for the floor/mirror/glass/etc...but, there is no easy way.

2) is it possible to 'lock' layers, and yet make it 'visible'? (as in autocad
)


The closest thing to that would be grouping. Select a group of lines/faces > right click > select "create group". Then you can put the group on its own layer. This way the group still shows up, but it is essentially locked and will not interact with other parts of the model until it is exploded. You can also make groups within groups. This is a very powerful tool in SU, one to not be without!

Cheers!:cheers:

Cheers to that... Thanks

I read that one of the major criticisms was Corbusier's decision to design the complex around the car. I think it said that it was a 20 minute walk between buildings. Additionally, Keneth Frampton speaks of the failure of the modern movement to synthesize with non-western regions of the world. Well, it's better than the concept for Voison, I guess... That and his hand were pretty tied up in red tape.

I read that one of the major criticisms was Corbusier's decision to design the complex around the car. I think it said that it was a 20 minute walk between buildings. Additionally, Keneth Frampton speaks of the failure of the modern movement to synthesize with non-western regions of the world. Well, it's better than the concept for Voison, I guess... That and his hand were pretty tied up in red tape.

Hey, Is it possible for you to provide me with the links to that article/criticism, I havent come across this particular point of view. Not with respect to the capitol complex.
OR, If you are talking about the design of the city itself., then yes, Chandigarh feels too "European" to be an Indian city. When I had been to the capitol complex, I met up with 2 Spanish architects., spoke to them, and they compared Chandigarh with other Indian cities (they had visited previously)., Varanasi (and I forgot the other one-delhi or kanpur). Apparently, all they had to do was stand at a place, and the crowd had pushed them all around the city. Then we looked around, (we were standing in the plaza) and the whole area was completely barren. Stark contrast.
Anyhow, currently doing a thesis on "extension to the corbusier's high court" and trying to tie up the capitol complex with the rest of the city with some additional programs. Would love to discuss 'modernism in east" or "Corbusier in East" or "chandigarh":D
Cheers,
Navin

The point of view came from the king of pretentious himself. The passages I was referring directly to are contained in Kenneth Frampton's "Modern Architecture: A Critical History".

He begins by praising Corbusier for evoking monumentality without directly referring to the western languages and speaks of the ability of this architecture to sever the colonial ties. Then, the praise ends. In addition, this article is a few decades old.

"The realization of Chandigarh proper, as an abstract and ill-advised plan, can hardly be separated from the political aspirations of India at the time of its independence. For Chandigarh was more than the capital of the Punjab, it was the symbol of the new India. It epitomized the idea of a modern industrial sate, the utopian destiny which Nehru had envisaged for India in total opposition to Gandhi's will. Thus Chandigarh had already been laid out as a picturesque motopian suburbia by the American planner Albert Mayer, before its hasty rationalization into a more or less orthogonal road network at the hands of Le Corbusier, in association with Jeanneret, Drew, and Fry. The emerging crisis of Western enlightenment, its inability to nurture and existing culture or even to sustain the significance of its own Classical forms, its lack of any goal beyond constant technical innovation and optimum economic growth, all see to be summed up in the tragedy of Chandigarh - a city designed for automobiles in a country where many, as yet, still lack a bicycle."
-Frampton, Modern Architecture: A Critical History pg. 230.

I too will be writing on Chandigarh this semester. After studying the impact of Kahn in Dhaka, I figured this would be a logical progression. Hopefully, I will have some of my own thoughts on the subject soon.

The emerging crisis of Western enlightenment, its inability to nurture and existing culture or even to sustain the significance of its own Classical forms, its lack of any goal beyond constant technical innovation and optimum economic growth, all see to be summed up in the tragedy of Chandigarh - a city designed for automobiles in a country where many, as yet, still lack a bicycle."
perhaps frampton was in a hurry to pass a statement. he didn't think about the 7 Vs and the cycle tracks along the V3s.
also chandigarh has the highest density of automobiles per person in India.

I think we need a separate thread about this... with lots of pictures too... :not worth

My teacher just shared a link to this video. I hope to watch it in the coming days.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3105962764586397711&q=street+movie+a

I think we need a separate thread about this... with lots of pictures too... :not worth

There is here. (http://www.pushpullbar.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3970&highlight=Chandigarh)

He begins by praising Corbusier for evoking monumentality without directly referring to the western languages and speaks of the ability of this architecture to sever the colonial ties. Then, the praise ends. In addition, this article is a few decades old.

"The realization of Chandigarh proper, as an abstract and ill-advised plan, can hardly be separated from the political aspirations of India at the time of its independence. For Chandigarh was more than the capital of the Punjab, it was the symbol of the new India. It epitomized the idea of a modern industrial sate, the utopian destiny which Nehru had envisaged for India in total opposition to Gandhi's will. Thus Chandigarh had already been laid out as a picturesque motopian suburbia by the American planner Albert Mayer, before its hasty rationalization into a more or less orthogonal road network at the hands of Le Corbusier, in association with Jeanneret, Drew, and Fry. The emerging crisis of Western enlightenment, its inability to nurture and existing culture or even to sustain the significance of its own Classical forms, its lack of any goal beyond constant technical innovation and optimum economic growth, all see to be summed up in the tragedy of Chandigarh - a city designed for automobiles in a country where many, as yet, still lack a bicycle."
-Frampton, Modern Architecture: A Critical History pg. 230.

I too will be writing on Chandigarh this semester. After studying the impact of Kahn in Dhaka, I figured this would be a logical progression. Hopefully, I will have some of my own thoughts on the subject soon.

Ive read a book called 'Making of an Indian City' by Ravi Kalia., Its not a overly critical book. But its excellent to understand the situation under which Corbusier has designed. Political influences, political pressures and many more, other than the usual planning constraints.
I personally havent read what Frampton has written ( will be getting the material soon)., but Ive read many critical analysis of chandigarh. Some 'specialists' have also said that it will soon be declared as a 'heritage city'. Because, apparently there is no scope for the city to grow.(majority of the people are involved in administrative sector and not the commercial sector) Outskirts of the city (panchkula and kalka) are supposed to be the places which will see an economic boom.
Corbusier seems to have solved the traffic problems, might have given tremendous open spaces and vistas, which can sustain the traffic and population for the next 100 years., maybe. But there is very little incentive for people to actual come to chandigarh.
And coming to the city being 'western' and not indian, I keep questioning myself, towards a possibility of designing an actual city. Are there any cities that are 'successfully' designed? in this modern age? only other city thats designed that I know is Brasilia., which again is seen as a failure in planning.
I personally feel, cities cannot be designed from scratch, it evolves, so in order to 'design a city', I think the starting point should be a town (or something which is of a smaller scale) and the town must be boosted with infrastructure and scale, and gradually expanded in land area. Anyhow, Thats how Ive seen things. Any "success"fully planned cities?

hi navin,

i had a look of you model (quite nice, btw) and noticed that it is not grouped. this is a very common problem when people are starting with SU.

if you want to start with SU on the right foot i would suggest you acquire some sound modelling habits (it took me several months to do myself) like, for instance, these:

- draw everything on layer0 and leave it always as the active layer
- after modelling any object (or each one of its parts, if it is large) do group it: this way its faces and edges will not "stick" to parts of other objects
- after that you can assign objects to layers (which, by the way, are for visibility only in SU) using the Entity Info panel.

are you planning to model the whole chandigarh capitol. in case you do, please post it here. and do not forget to organize its parts properly (groups and layers).

regards

Hey, thanks. I know what you mean., it really helps in designing if its grouped. MUCH easier to change things around. realised it, better late then never :D
I had proceeded to a much complex model, (part of my design) which Ive posted in http://www.pushpullbar.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7195
Ive always used autocad for 3d modelling. Having fun with sketchup now.
Anyhow, have a look at the 'other model'., I know it can frustrating when you try to fiddle around with it., but would love to hear your comments on that.
Cheers, thnx for having a look at this one.
Navin