Announcement Announcement Module
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Form:uLA- POD3 Page Title Module
Move Remove Collapse
X
Conversation Detail Module
Collapse
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    approach 1-
    massing study for entry sequence [through retractable 'front lawn']


    the text from the previous post was from a recent lecture, dealing with the POD issues [and other generic conditions in our studio]...
    Attached Files
    Last edited by Form:uLA; 23-02-2008, 20:20. Reason: text

    Comment


    • #32
      I was actually taking a break from re-reading Wood's essay on "Freespaces" and "Heterarchies" in Anarchitecture: Architecture is a Political Act (with an aim to introducing it to my studio) when I saw your text. Divergent motives lead to something formally similar, in many respects!--although Wood's "freespaces" are supposedly conceived of as build-able, potentially movable structures of no determinate program, aside from the socio-political transformation of war-damaged and divided European/Western urban areas, and your POD (by its title) has an overt residential program but no such motive or context.

      Both your POD work and the freespaces are characterized by a kind of nearly-floating, capsule-like quality and non-orthogonal tectonics. Since I'm unlikely to ever get a response from Lebbeus (maybe), would you care to explain what generates the formal qualities of the POD? In the absence of the typical strictures of architectural development (transcending "clients, contractors, and cities"...not to mention budget, site, and even gravity) why does the POD look like a space-craft pod, and not some other way?
      Attached Files
      Last edited by Lewis Wadsworth; 23-02-2008, 21:20. Reason: wording

      Comment


      • #33
        lewis-
        can you please explain your wording:

        " And why do you think we (I know I'm not the only one to feel this way) are all reminded of Lebbeus' work of nearly 15 years ago when we see your projects?"??

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Form:uLA View Post
          lewis-
          can you please explain your wording:

          " And why do you think we (I know I'm not the only one to feel this way) are all reminded of Lebbeus' work of nearly 15 years ago when we see your projects?"??
          Actually, I removed that question because it was obvious (I'd already answered it myself) that the answer was the fact that both projects are pod-like and composed of planes and shapes assembled non-orthogonally. Since I edited it immediately, I'm amazed you caught my mistake.

          Anyway, why does the POD look the way it does...overtly like a capsule or lunar lander in some respects? If you want to address the similarity to the freespaces, since the programs are so divergent, I'd love to have your thoughts on that. Woods conceived of the freespaces as mobile, and in fact has a drawing of one being transported by a heavy helicopter--which might explain his works' capsule-like qualities--but I think there is something else going on as well.

          Comment


          • #35
            Good question Lewis.... perhaps too tough for me to answer [in the way the crowd will appreciate], but I will try.

            There are actually several answers I think. One is simply... I don't have an answer as to why my "work" looks the way it does. Part of me wants to say the question is a bit like "Why do you like chocolate ice cream"?... but I know what would not approach the seriousness of the inquiry. In general, my/our work has always explored the romantics and systemic of "machine" [Machinogenesis, as Wes Jones calls it in an essay for my book]... so that might be an overly-generalized response... that it HAS to look like that... for what else would it look like?

            Another answer might be that the obsession with mechanics and kinetic, phenomenological spaces has driven the work to be expressive of things that are... "naturally"... mechanic and expressive. One might wonder if it looked like another thing, but was still as motion and technology based... would the inquiry be "why doesn't it look like a machine.. after all it IS one..."

            There have been discussions about transport.. I assume similar to Wood helicopter drawing or Jones' mountain cabins... but no exploration has been done architecturally beyond the diagram.

            Streamlined, efficient surfaces... festooned with organic growth, thus making them chaotic surface condition drive the "look" of the work as much as anything... the attempt to both solidify and explore what organic machine life [AI??] might look like, given the chance to flourish.... since I don't REALLY know what that looks like.. these.. as ALL non-built [or yet to be built] projects are.... are indeed hypotheses.... until such a time as they may or may not move into the "next phase" of construction [or shall we say constructive applications..], though still being experiments [the beauty of which... are allowed to "go wrong"...]


            more to come on this topic...

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Form:uLA View Post
              Good question Lewis.... perhaps too tough for me to answer [in the way the crowd will appreciate].
              Which crowd would that be?

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Form:uLA View Post
                Good question Lewis.... perhaps too tough for me to answer [in the way the crowd will appreciate], but I will try.

                There are actually several answers I think. One is simply... I don't have an answer as to why my "work" looks the way it does. Part of me wants to say the question is a bit like "Why do you like chocolate ice cream"?... but I know what would not approach the seriousness of the inquiry. In general, my/our work has always explored the romantics and systemic of "machine" [Machinogenesis, as Wes Jones calls it in an essay for my book]... so that might be an overly-generalized response... that it HAS to look like that... for what else would it look like?

                Another answer might be that the obsession with mechanics and kinetic, phenomenological spaces has driven the work to be expressive of things that are... "naturally"... mechanic and expressive. One might wonder if it looked like another thing, but was still as motion and technology based... would the inquiry be "why doesn't it look like a machine.. after all it IS one..."

                There have been discussions about transport.. I assume similar to Wood helicopter drawing or Jones' mountain cabins... but no exploration has been done architecturally beyond the diagram.

                Streamlined, efficient surfaces... festooned with organic growth, thus making them chaotic surface condition drive the "look" of the work as much as anything... the attempt to both solidify and explore what organic machine life [AI??] might look like, given the chance to flourish.... since I don't REALLY know what that looks like.. these.. as ALL non-built [or yet to be built] projects are.... are indeed hypotheses.... until such a time as they may or may not move into the "next phase" of construction [or shall we say constructive applications..], though still being experiments [the beauty of which... are allowed to "go wrong"...]


                more to come on this topic...
                Have you actually considered what it might feel like to inhabit one of these pods or do the people in this theoretical world not care about comfort, or light, or views, you know, all those dumb little things we, the great unwashed unappreciative crowd hold in such high regard when we design spaces?

                Comment


                • #38
                  Instead of writing something myself, I just quote lavardera's words from above:
                  Originally posted by lavardera View Post
                  The difference is there is no airs or presumptions about these being real works, and in fact once released from that presumption they seem more free to pursue the ideas they have suggested.
                  This is an academic approach and doesn't need to address the needs of comfort.

                  Why do crowds dare to ask for comfort anyways.
                  People! tzzzz.
                  Last edited by back2b; 24-02-2008, 05:17. Reason: sentence structure

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    If there are no airs or presumptions about these being real works, and thus the work disregards the laws of physics, the inherent properties of materials, the effect on the end user and its place in the landscape, then it all seems rather like a broken pencil to me.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by lewisuk View Post
                      Which crowd would that be?
                      the ones pointing at the emperor's new clothes

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by tommyoh View Post
                        Have you actually considered what it might feel like to inhabit one of these pods or do the people in this theoretical world not care about comfort, or light, or views, you know, all those dumb little things we, the great unwashed unappreciative crowd hold in such high regard when we design spaces?
                        i think, to my sadness, you misunderstood my intentions.

                        My architecture, or at least SOME of my architecture... attempts to explore other issues than the ones only addressed by our "real" world. That's what they are experimental.. and more often than not..."fail".

                        can you define comfort? is yours the same as mine? or hers or his? is it because someone told you what comfort is? if i am "comfortable" inside a machine.. am i 'wrong'??

                        i am not asking anyone to subscribe to the experiments... just to discuss them in intelligent architectural terms, which we seem to be doing for the most part.

                        but please chill on the statements about unwashed crowds and such... that's not what the statement was meant to be.

                        asking about light and comfort. however, are fair questions. i dont think my PODS avoid any of those issues... but perhaps in ways that are not seen as "normative" or conservative...
                        Last edited by Form:uLA; 24-02-2008, 16:02. Reason: punctuation/comfortability...

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by tommyoh View Post
                          If there are no airs or presumptions about these being real works, and thus the work disregards the laws of physics, the inherent properties of materials, the effect on the end user and its place in the landscape, then it all seems rather like a broken pencil to me.
                          i dont recall these particular projects disregarding physics OR materiality... and we tried to make the design respond to a NEW USER group [the project started with a look at how peeps might use "dwell" in the future.. when things are not to perfect or tidy or spread out...]...

                          the landscape was NOT an issue in this particular project.

                          and maybe i missed the memo... but a broken pencil as a tool seems pretty friggin cool to me...
                          Last edited by Form:uLA; 24-02-2008, 16:04. Reason: text

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by tommyoh View Post
                            Have you actually considered what it might feel like to inhabit one of these pods or do the people in this theoretical world not care about comfort, or light, or views, you know, all those dumb little things we, the great unwashed unappreciative crowd hold in such high regard when we design spaces?
                            i think ALL THE TIME what it would be like to be inside these.....
                            that's why i design them

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Lewis Wadsworth View Post
                              Actually, I removed that question because it was obvious (I'd already answered it myself) that the answer was the fact that both projects are pod-like and composed of planes and shapes assembled non-orthogonally. Since I edited it immediately, I'm amazed you caught my mistake.

                              Anyway, why does the POD look the way it does...overtly like a capsule or lunar lander in some respects? If you want to address the similarity to the freespaces, since the programs are so divergent, I'd love to have your thoughts on that. Woods conceived of the freespaces as mobile, and in fact has a drawing of one being transported by a heavy helicopter--which might explain his works' capsule-like qualities--but I think there is something else going on as well.
                              so if i understand your question, in the context of my post on Chomsky's structural syntax, then you are asking SURFACE STRUCTURE questions. The DEEP STRUCTURE questions are on one hand both easer and harder to explain.... but this thing still boils down to "house" or "dwelling" or "domestic condition"....

                              the Surface condition is a bit harder to pin down, i suppose... but again deals with a personal obsession of the machine... and an exploration of the beauty and amazing interior and exterior space that machines make [for me at least].... and that a pulley system for example should be expressed as a celebration of said system, instead of hiding it in another way.... that all parts are expressed and celebrated, often somewhat removed formally, to allow each component to shine in its own right.... so that I attempt to make the SURFACE STRUCTURE resonate with as much expression of itself as i can...

                              if you are asking what every single little piece does and therefore how it should look.. i dont know of any architect that has 110% control over how every single thing looks in their constructs... they are limited [or influenced] by stock items, material availabilities, knowledge of physical behaviors of materials and systems... and therefore work WITH these to express something...

                              when working with a client, i don't always get to redesign a door... we often use a 'standard' door.. then detail the door and the 'housing' to make it our own [me, the client, the contractor, etc...]... but I have to know how 'door' works and comes off the shelf at Home Depot to work within its confines.. and respond accordingly.


                              great question.... and this type of discourse always makes me rethink my position....

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                a continuation?

                                since it dies here.... a link to my blog...

                                http://form-ula.blogspot.com/

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X