DESIGN OR BUILDABILITY? STUDIO OR PRACTICE?

(BLTN…)

This is in response to the vibrant discussion on Studio Vs Practice. I rather enjoyed the throw outs by everybody. And my excuse for the silence was the prep for start of sem.. hehe.

I don’t really want to broaden the discussion. Great points have odi been made. Just want to throw in my simple way of seeing things and then close the Fido Anecdote.

Conceivably, there are 3 types of buildings:
1. Buildable and Built Buildings
2. Buildable but Unbuilt Buildings, &
3. Unbuildable Buildings

Those of us from Melb and here who are pretty focused on Type 1 sound like ppl who’ve seen the light, or something, after moving on. And really, there is great wealth in that arena. I’m not trying to be punny: Wealth monetarily as well as in an epistemological sense. Carry on, I say, carry on---it’s a wonderfully exciting adventure. Most of the precedents that inform our education in architecture (as far as schools of architecture go, as opposed to liberal arts faculties) are Type 1 buildings. And it is not true that Built Buildings have no “design”.

There is a great deal of Type 2 buildings around, in the Studio and in Practice. Ask any architect. Yes, there are shelved schemes in the drawer (hardisk) that the economy, the fickle client or competition jury set aside. Brilliantly designed and detailed though they may be. No? Yes, most 5th Year Thesis projects belong to this category, too.

Those of us who feel attracted to Type 3 buildings need not apologize for it, nevertheless. That your colleagues may not share your access to something so esoteric and unfathomable, do not understand their value, should not deter us. Because they shed so much light on the murkiness that is the muddied attempts at design in Type 1 and 2 buildings. Pragmatically, you need to be astute as you analyse your educational programme for crevices or plateaus which allow you to explore and place your Type 3 buildings.

At the end of the process that is Architectural Education, it is more than likely that you will be unable to divorce the Buildable from our “Unbuildable”. You will somehow see all 3 types in each of the projects you have designed. And we all hope that we will carry the holistic thing into practice. Reality, I reckon, is friendlier to the messy than the pure.

Oca, with his wonderful wit, has a way with metrical writing. I’ll just piggy back on him.

studio is studio…and practice is practice?
Some reckon studio is the practising for practice

My classmate who told me the Fido story never said which sch it occurred in. I would personally grade the guy A+ for wit, for the simple act opens up a whole world of discussion on animal rights, recycling, economy of means, brief expansion, etc. But I reckon he would earn a D or E for deliverables, unless he had videoed and packaged the performance…

In any case my classmate said the guy failed the project.

to learn ... the solid, void, space.... light, shadow, to make a building a building

Red is noted for highlight.

jsopeh says:
(if u get back and read this msg) uhm... could u explain me a brief difference between light and spaces (of the solids and voids)? because it seems to spaces and light are so closely related it troubles me to split their differences. i cant seem to separate and do a light experiential feeling without creating that space which channeled the light. its quite troubling to discover that. >< ! jsopeh says: all i understand so far is . without the solids n voids i cannot create any light experience basically because theres nothing to channel it with. but . what makes their difference if i were to take one of them away? endorphIAN says: solids are v deceptive things endorphIAN says: like the solid and void series u posted on blog endorphIAN says: we choose to name the spaces between the blocks "voids" endorphIAN says: cos we walk into them endorphIAN says: and we assume the other "closed box bits" are "solids" endorphIAN says: but that's just a the way we've chosen to draw a demonstration of what we understand as space endorphIAN says: we are trying to "capture" space in a "thumbnail" sketchup way endorphIAN says: if u were to draw "interior perspective" sketches instead, then we won't need to use those blocks of yours endorphIAN says: we would be drawing from a human-in-the-space point of view endorphIAN says: instead of from a God-in-heaven-looking-down point of view jsopeh says: (but i could've just zoomed in for that effect. wouldn't it be the same ?) endorphIAN says: yes and no endorphIAN says: that's where the trick is endorphIAN says: no human eye can see like God endorphIAN says: haha...that sounds so funny jsopeh says: hahah but.... its just the way we plan . we see it from above. (im supposing it would make a big difference if i designed everything from a eye level point of view)
endorphIAN says:
or, practically, the usual normal bld user experience is from the "interior perspective" point of view
endorphIAN says:
yes
endorphIAN says:
so u see, why we (boring tutors) don't often seem so excited when we see u guys designing from sketchup
endorphIAN says:
lol
endorphIAN says:
that's because it's v divorced from the down-to-earth experiential approach we're all after
endorphIAN says:
From up there, or sketchup there, it's all ocular---visual experience
endorphIAN says:
From down and in there, it can be more---all five senses, almost
endorphIAN says:
So, coming back to your solids and voids..
endorphIAN says:
From down & in (d&i) there you don't really need those massive blocks to enclose your spaces
endorphIAN says:
walls would do
endorphIAN says:
like, compare the pyramids with the Alexandria Library
endorphIAN says:
Don't u think so
jsopeh says:
hmmm ... but .... the pyramids had its own idea of ... mass and weight didnt it ? (though it was really the technology which limited them in)
endorphIAN says:
it was the tech and other considerations like permanence, security against intrusion, desire for height, monumentality, etc.
endorphIAN says:
but in terms of SPACE, it's like what i just said
endorphIAN says:
so back to your s & v
endorphIAN says:
your solids are not necessarily solid, rite
endorphIAN says:
they could be empty boxes
endorphIAN says:
which means they r spaces enclosed by planes
endorphIAN says:
which means they're not much different from your other "spaces in btw the solids"
endorphIAN says:
still following ?
jsopeh says:
yup
jsopeh says:
but one thing
right now . i get the point u're trying to make is . having a BIG solid.... and having a wall would create the same effect in spatial understanding.
jsopeh says:
so . why the size of solids in some designs ?
endorphIAN says:
right
endorphIAN says:
why indeed
endorphIAN says:
that u have to find out
jsopeh says:
haha !
endorphIAN says:
but for us now, we need to see how this discussion helps us
endorphIAN says:
ur next understanding is that therefore in composing those experiential spaces you posted
endorphIAN says:
you have, in actual built reality, an absolutely wonderful
endorphIAN says:
SECONDARY series of spaces, like supporting spaces to your main players
endorphIAN says:
which you, as the designer, need to orchestrate into the overall composition
endorphIAN says:
so that we get rhyme and rhythm and mystery and surprises
endorphIAN says:
and modulations of space and developments in character as you
endorphIAN says:
traverse the interior on an intentional and organised ROUTE
endorphIAN says:
and that basically is what designing a bld is all about.
endorphIAN says:
the EFFECT of decon is only an architectonic means to produce a certain character for your spaces in this line of thought.
endorphIAN says:
(Decon is more than that)
jsopeh says:
haha. i do see
endorphIAN says:
The other main issue u have is about light and space
jsopeh says:
yup
endorphIAN says:
Yes, without light we can't perceive the fullness of space
endorphIAN says:
I say "fullness" cos a blind person can still feel space
endorphIAN says:
by touch
endorphIAN says:
but not to the full extent a seeing person can
endorphIAN says:
so for practical purposes you may want to start by composing the space in physical dimensions or proportions
endorphIAN says:
v much in the way you've done on blog
endorphIAN says:
and then see how you can bring light in at those particular points
endorphIAN says:
or in that particular way to further accentuate the character that you have intended with the space
endorphIAN says:
i'm digesting my oats, that's why i can't sleep just yet
endorphIAN says:
lucky u
jsopeh says:
hm ... but to me . light only seems as one thing . "hope" and thats still so ..... symbolic
jsopeh says:
that whole .. hope n faith and .... god . and ... luck
jsopeh says:
uknow . the usual ! i dont see further than that
jsopeh says:
(haha . well very lucky me then)
endorphIAN says:
yeah, it's all that
endorphIAN says:
and more
endorphIAN says:
there's the function bit
endorphIAN says:
u need light to see la
endorphIAN says:
all this symbolism....it'll soon find it's balance with other stuff
endorphIAN says:
and i think this particular slant comes from not seeing/experiencing enough of architectural spaces first hand
endorphIAN says:
and merely thinking about it
endorphIAN says:
it gets v cerebral
endorphIAN says:
(pallasma)
endorphIAN says:
reading is not enough
endorphIAN says:
you need to go and BE in there with all your senses alive
jsopeh says:
what if ur feeling of it ... isnt the same as others? what happens then ? don't u fail to translate?
endorphIAN says:
well, you have to test it
endorphIAN says:
go out with your gang
endorphIAN says:
to various blds
endorphIAN says:
and discuss your emotional resposes with each other
endorphIAN says:
you'd be surprise at the commonality
endorphIAN says:
*responses

For pictures... refer to diagrams post

ADHOCISM @ FINDING PHARAOH

The Lecture, 'FINDING PHARAOH' Impressions From Egypt, was delivered this morning along with presentations by Studio 3 students on their Design Intentions for their Commemorative Centre for Taiping and with a briefing by Ms V on Portfolio Strategies.


Some in the audience applied the theory of Adhocism to handle the marathon session. (Thankfully it wasn't during my lecture!)

Definition of Adhocism in Architecture and illustration follows.

Notions of ‘Adhocism’ were coined by architectural designer, theorist, and sometime designer Charles Jencks and Nathan Silver in their book Adhocism: The Case for Improvisation (1972). They considered the ways in which designers could take immediate action through the use of readily available components in ways that had never been conceived in their original design.

(source: http://www.answers.com/topic/adhocism)

(Posted with permission from, and with thanks to, the performer.)

SITI & OMA - A Classic Love Story

I wish to express my gratitude to the following students who contributed content to my lecture, SITI & OMA - A Classic Love Story, this morning. They were, in the random order of the slides below, Kelvin Yong, Cheng Mao Yang, Jonathan Lim, Wong Ben Son, Tan Boon Ping, Thor Eu Ric, Nicholas Wong, Lee Sheng Hao, Lester Yong, Fong Yen Jin, Carey Ng, Ruth Dooley, Ong Jun Hao & Liew Wei Yang.

Comments are welcomed with thanks.