ARC 6989 Reflections on Architectural Design

Transcription

The University of Sheffield
School of Architecture
ARC6989 Reflections in Architectural Design
May 2011
Submitted by
Reza Fallahtafti
MA Architectural Design
Registration No: 100127443
Dutch Response
Introduction
The Netherlands is well-known for its architecture and architects. Dutch architects
such as Rem Koolhaas(OMA) and MVRDV architects are widely praised in the
world. Density and public realm are the most important themes of MVRDV’s work
and OMA, unlike what we barely see in MVRDV’s work, has a very creative
approach in terms of form toward their projects. This paper will discuss the way
these two Dutch firms respond to the project’s demand (program, site, client, etc)
through different case studies from the two firms. Obviously they have totally
different approaches towards response but some projects can be found in their
portfolio which use, what that can be called, a diagrammatic approach toward design
which Joshua Prince-Ramus calls it hyper rational process in OMA’s design1. In this
sort of projects, they normally take advantage of the demand to shape their projects,
and take an innovative way to respond to that demand. They use different spatial
and functional diagrams to shape sections and plans and, particularly in the projects
that will be discussed in this paper, they illustrate demand and the program in a very
demographic way and make use of them to form their final design.
MVRDV
MVRDV is a firm that works on commissions and academically at the same time.
Their very famous book is KM3 that embodies MVRDV’s research toward density. In
KM3 they presented some research by design works such as Meta city/Data town
and Pig City which triggered controversies about pig farms and meat industry
throughout Europe. The movies show Utopias and future visions of the city as the
habitat of people. Movies often assume what cities look like in the future,
extrapolating current habits, uses, architectural trends etc. They are very ambitious
as if they were aiming for the ultimate, and they investigate in every project every
potential to its maximum.2 We can call the MVRDV’s approach in research as
‘Research by design’. They investigate every avenue through plenty of proposals
and consider every possibility as a case to study.
MVRDV also design buildings as an answer to concrete problems, benefit from
prototypes and architectural, ecological and urban problems to respond to the
1
Joshua Prince-Ramus, TED, Joshua Prince-Ramus on Seattle's library <
http://www.ted.com/talks/joshua_prince_ramus_on_seattle_s_library.html > [accessed 20 April
2011]
2
Hera Van Sande and Yves Schoonjans, ‘Interview-Part 1: Office & Identity’, a+u MVRDV Files 2,
436(2007), 38,39.
projects’ demands. They introduce themselves as architects who show the spatial
consequences of social behaviour (this is what they claim, but we can say this
aspect in MVRDV’s work has been neglected [Author]), spatial potential, etc by
visualising and making as much as possible3, a sort of design through making that
can be seen in some famous architects’ works including Rem Koolhaas, Frank
Gehry etc.
Their projects have a strong formal connection although they look very different at
the first glance. We can see a very rich research material in some of their works like
KM3 , and on the other hand very rich architecturally and technologically detailed
design in others like Silodam or Double House in Utrecht. In this case they are totally
different from other offices.
They use much of prototypes and patterns to give an order to the project, and this,
unlike MVRDV says that they take different approaches to every project, has made
some of their projects look alike to some extent; for example, in Berlin Voids (1991)
they used the idea of puzzle for spatial relationship between the units.(below)
Berlin voids by MVRDV
Source : El Croquis MVRDV 1991-2002
In the Double House in Utrecht (1995-1997), although the task was totally different
and MVRDV took a different approach to respond to the client’s demand, the
outcome looks to some extent like what we see in Berlin Voids, Balcony Dwellings in
Zoetermeer (1997- ) and Nauge D’art [Douze Terres] (2001). It actually looks like two
pieces of a puzzle complementing each other.
3
Hera Van Sande and Yves Schoonjans, ‘Interview-Part 1: Office & Identity’, a+u MVRDV Files 2,
436(2007), 38,39.
Balcony Dwellings in Zoetermeer by MVRDV
Nauge D’art [Douze Terres] by MVRDV
Double House in Utrecht:
Double House in Utrecht by MVRDV
The owner of the land did not want to have whole ground he had bought, so decided
to share with someone else. The two owners demanded different spaces, so
MVRDV decided to again use a puzzle like shape to fulfil the clients’ need instead of
using a straight line to divide the building into two dwellings.
BARCODE HOUSE:
Barcode House by MVRDV
The villa is located in Munich, Germany, stretches itself across two rectangular
building plots on the site forming a barcode collage. The program is determined by
the client according to their daily routines.4
MVRDV rearranged the program in boxes with the same size and different width,
and in a very simple and lovely manner they took a barcode’s pattern to form the
building. A very big volume is divided into ten parts each stand for one strip of the
barcode. Amongst them nine are specified for the proposed functions and one is a
curtain crosses over the gap to unify the building.
The interesting fact about the ten strips is that what happens inside each stripe is
reflected in the width, material, facade and colour of the skin. In other words, each
stripe has its own personality and is unique.
It is quite different from what we normally see from MVRDV. The approach MVRDV
took in this project is very interesting, and making a relationship between different
spaces in a building and a barcode looks very smart; however, the make process is
not as rich as the response although the outcome is a very nice building.
Overally, OMA has been more creative toward their projects than MVRDV.
4
MVRDV, ’Barcode House’, MVRDV Projects, < http://www.mvrdv.nl/#/projects/201barcodehouse>[accessec
25 April 2011]
Rem Koolhaas(OMA)
This paper has chosen two projects from OMA that are designed the way is
discussed so far. As Joshua Prince-Ramus(2006) argues there are three ideas in
these projects’ design process:
1.
This can be called a hyper-rational process that goes further
beyond what people assume a rational process and equally conclude
to a product that would not be called a conclusion to rationalism.
Seattle Central Library By OMA
Source: [email protected]+u
2.
This process does not have a signature. There is no such a
authorship which architects are obsessed with. This is the result of
editing and team-working.
3.
It challenges the high modernist notion of flexibility. High
modernist defines flexibility as singular spaces that are generic and
almost anything can happen within them.
Barcelona pavilion by Mies Van Der Rohe
Photo from: http://www.dezeen.com/2008/11/25/mies-van-der-rohe-pavilion-installation-by-sanaa/
What in OMA’s flexibility happens is, whatever actually is in the
building in the opening day or whatever that seems to be the most
immediate need starts to dwarf the possibility of anything else that
could have happened. It is a different kind of flexibility, something
that is called ‘compartmentalised flexibility’...”5
In the below diagram we can see the immediate need (green) starts to expand and
dwarfs everything happens in the building. In the next 5 years of the building it may
happen to the red section.
5
http://www.ted.com/talks/joshua_prince_ramus_on_seattle_s_library.html > [accessed 20 April 2011]
The idea is that the architect, within that spectrum, identifies a series of points and
designs specifically to them. They can be pushed off-centre a little bit, but in the end
still as much of that original spectrum as the architect originally had hoped is
obtained. With high modernist flexibility that doesn’t really happen6.
6
Seattle central library:
They specified two different core positions or principles showing by word-made
diagrams about history of the book and its role in libraries.
This is the first one showing books are technology that people have forgotten, but a
sort of technology that will have to share its dominance with any other form of truly
potent technology or media.
The second one is that libraries since the inception of Carnegie Library tradition in
America had a second responsibility and that was for social roles.7
This is a simple diagram of the design idea. The upper one is what can be seen in
contemporary libraries that have used the high modernist flexibility. Anything can
happen anywhere without considering the future of the library and the books.
Libraries made with this diagram are very generic with generic spaces; The reading
room looks like the copy room and the magazine area. The problem which is
depicted in this diagram is that in the future the social responsibility of the book is
engulfed by the expansion of the book shelves.
The lower diagram is the core design proposal. Simply compartmentalise those
activities whose evolution could be predicted, make the spectrum more certain, put
them in boxes and design specifically for them and put the activities that cannot be
predicted on the rooftop.8
7
8
This diagram shows the library’s program (the very left one). The third diagram
shows the recombination of everything. What you see on the right is the design of
the library. On the left hand side of the diagram is a series of five platforms, sort of
collective programs and on the right are more indeterminate spaces whose evolution
in the future cannot be predicted9. It literally is the design of the building that lead to
the first study model.
9
Those five boxes are the five things on the left side of the final diagram that are sized
and converted to five compartments. Within each box a very separate activity is
happening and the area in between is a sort of urban space, connecting specified
boxes. In other words, stable future in the boxes and unpredictable future on the
rooftop. The boxes are displaced in a way that respond the best to the urban context
and this has provided the opportunity for the project to be a unique piece of
architecture.
Second Project: The Dee and Charles Wyly Theatre in Dallas
The client demanded a provisional space for performance that they can simply
transform it for a performance that needs a different scene. A brand new building
that has a pristine but keeps a sort of experimental nature to do different kinds of
performances. And the second, it was a multi-form theatre, they do different kinds of
performances in repertory. So they needed to be able to quickly transform between
different theatre organizations.10
So what OMA did was to simply put the theatre on the top, and stack what is typically
known as front house and back house above house (theatre) and below house. It
helped OMA to redefine other elements such as fly tower, acoustic enclosure, light
enclosure, etc as well. This way the director could easily transfigure the scene for
different performances.
Source: http://www.sundancechannel.com/sunfiltered/2010/07/rem-koolhaas-sweeps-the-biennale/
10
The artistic director now has a palette that he or she can choose from between a
series of forms, because that enclosure around the theatre that is normally trapped
with front-of-house and back-of-house spaces has been liberated.11
Conclusion:
This paper scrutinised the way these two offices approach their projects and respond
to them providing some case studies.The programmatic and diagrammatic approach
that both offices take towards their commissions is not a new movement in
architecture, but



11
This sort of response to the project not only fulfils all the requirements and
demands within the project of from the client, but also creates a kind of nonpredictable architecture that varies from project to project. They do not lead to
so-called a signature architecture such as what we see in Zaha Hadid’s and
Frank Gehry’s work.
It allows the architect to put the function and what the client needs in priority
than creating a piece of art that consequently leads to change of use like what
we see in Vitra fire station by Zaha Hadid which is now converted into just a
building for visiting.
This way of response to the site that was discussed in this paper seems to be
very simple, but works very well in terms of client demand and sometimes, as
we see in Seattle public library, leads to a masterpiece of architecture.
Bibliography
TED Talks. Performed by Joshua Prince-Ramus. 2006.
Van Sande, Hera and Schoonjans, Yves, ‘Interview-Part 1: Office & Identity’, a+u
MVRDV Files 2, 436(2007),38-45
El croquis, MVRDV 1991-2002, (El croquis, 2003)
A+u,[email protected]+u, special issue, (a+u Publishing Co., 2000)
http://www.mvrdv.nl/#/projects/201barcodehouse
http://www.dezeen.com/2008/11/25/mies-van-der-rohe-pavilion-installation-by-sanaa/
http://www.sundancechannel.com/sunfiltered/2010/07/rem-koolhaas-sweeps-thebiennale/

ARC 6989 Reflections on Architectural Design

Transcription

Similar documents

notes

Panther Press - Olathe Schools

FLORENCE,I

Fall Savings!

Welcome Party for the Matt James Family June 13-16, 7:00

Enhancing Wright`s Legacy in the Pacific Northwest

Presentation - Green Seattle Partnership

Join the fiesta! - Fiestas Patrias

August 2014 - Seattle Architecture Foundation