Planning and policy debate is basically attached to the numbers and often questions can make a better explanation by numbers. When people are not aware of the amount of energy they use in a day the influence of using extra energy in the community will be harder to recognize for them. In addition by numbers they will have a better view of the amount of the each energy source in surrounding and the cost of it. One of our goals is decrease energy consumption in the world and to achieve this target it is better to use simple and acceptable numbers.
Simple numbers are more understandable, memorable and easier to compare information together. Apply the adjective instead of numbers will confuse public about reality. For example use “huge” as an alternative of actual amount. Using the acceptable number is as important as using simple numbers. Employ a huge number especially when it is not necessarily can be meaningless to the public. For example “American buys 2.6 billion napkin boxes per year” is not inform people but “Switching your gas and electricity supplier could save you up to $340 a year” is more real and practical.
Since sometimes numbers are selected to impress, change the fact, arguments or scare people instead of educating them using number when it is not a need can bring distrust to community. For instance in a climate when public don’t pay attention to numbers mass communication media such as news papers, radio and companies can provide wrong information.
Different questions about renewable energy, climate change, dioxide pollution and energy crisis are easier to explain with numbers. Some questions are: can people make a difference in the energy crisis by biking or walking instead of driving a car? How much energy efficiency will increase by using fluorescent lighting and LED lighting (Light Emitting Diode) instead of regular lighting? How much carbon dioxide pollution will reduce by changing our life style to advanced technology like hybrid car?
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
Stephen Ehrlich
Tonight’s lecture was one of the best spring lecture series. I really enjoyed Stephen Ehrlich’s projects. Creative, clean and programmatic design was some of the main features of his designs. Culture and community needs were two different elements that helped him develop his experience through design. Inspiration was another important key for him that he utilized in his projects. In most of his work the footprints of the inspiration was noticeable. In one of his projects he got his inspiration from the color of the tree in the site which was amazing. His design process to me was similar to this: He got the plain idea, mixed it with culture, formed it with architectural scheme, added modern look to it, added inspiration, some more material and then design is ready.
The only thing that raised question in my mind was the budgeting. He didn’t talk about the budget and to me in most of his work budget was not an issue. In this economy I really want to see how he can apply his unique ideas to low income housing or tight budget projects?
The only thing that raised question in my mind was the budgeting. He didn’t talk about the budget and to me in most of his work budget was not an issue. In this economy I really want to see how he can apply his unique ideas to low income housing or tight budget projects?
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
White vs Gray Debate …
The establishment of the society can be seen as the establishment of order through conventions, or more specifically, the establishment of a language through symbolic codes.
The roots of the modern architecture lie on the functionalism that have driven architects to design buildings based on their purpose. The functionalism talks much about the origin of signs but little about their nature. It proposed new words but no rules for their combination and no grammatical frame work for their use. The greatest achievement of the artistic movements of late 20th century was to understand the limitation of functionalism.
There were two strong reactions against modern architecture and its aspirations toward an architectural language. Both movements stand in opposition to the ordered rationality of modernism. The first and most extreme form was characterized by The Grays which were known for their postmodernism way of thought. The Grays ideology began with the theory and practice of Robert Venturi. His publication “Complexity and Contradiction in Architecture” (1966) argues against the purity, simplicity and clarity of modernism.
The second reaction is most clearly represented by the work of Peter Eisenman and four other architects who were known as The Whites. Peter Eisenman attempted to address the more basic questions of language, the grammatical questions. “What are the limits, qualitatively and quantitatively to the lexicon of architectural signs? What makes certain configuration architectural? Which shapes can or can not be used? And more important is how should they be articulated?”
There is a noticeable difference between the two reactions. By comparing the house X built in Bloomfield Hills, Michigan and Vanna Venturi House which Venturi designed for his mother in Chestnut Hill, Pennsylvania we can recognize that Eisenman is mostly concerned with the systematization of an architectural formal language. “The process of design becomes an exploration of the syntactic combination of elements (beam, column, and frame)” . In House X the process of design is a process of research into formal structures and shapes which comes to life through the design.
Eisenman challenges the incoherent definition and languages of modernism. However, Venturi opposes the idea of a unique nature for architectural sign (classical or modernist), sees it as a more complex entity and detaches it from the underlying structure of language. Eisenman’s work is a reaction against the architectural signs itself and in particular the idea of the meaning of the sign. In the process of establishing this structure “Eisenman sacrifices not only functionalism but humanism itself”. Eisenman contributed in the development of a new inspiration to architecture and merged them with contemporary theories of linguistics and information theory.
These two architects have dissimilar approach to users. Eseinman named his buildings by numbers and designed houses that are more sculptural than livable. But Venturi and the other Gray architects designed not only with pure symbolism and historical example, but with the user in mind.
In Venturi’s design structure is more than just roof and walls. It is an organized space for a specific use and specific user. In his design space and user are part of the design process. The most famous picture of the Vanna Venturi House is the picture of the house with his mother sitting in a chair in front of her house. Also, Venturi considered history, context, social and cultural aspects in his design while Eisenman struggled with architectural form and language of modernism.
By comparing the works of these two architects side by side the similarities in their designs can be observed. “Concern for aesthetics of the single family house” and “lack of human scale in their design” are main similarities in House X and Vanna Venturi House. The material of the structure, building’s program and location of the houses obviously did not change their architectural agenda. In fact, they both considered the development of their ideology than any other aspect of their design.
Aside from the philosophy behind these two buildings, each house has its own uniqueness. They both have their own extraordinary features and manifest the ideology that is hidden in these buildings. It also depicts that thoughtful ideas by architects often result in outstanding designs. Both Eisenman and Venturi contributed significantly to architecture. They influenced and formed the future of the modern architecture although there were many differences in their design philosophy.
The roots of the modern architecture lie on the functionalism that have driven architects to design buildings based on their purpose. The functionalism talks much about the origin of signs but little about their nature. It proposed new words but no rules for their combination and no grammatical frame work for their use. The greatest achievement of the artistic movements of late 20th century was to understand the limitation of functionalism.
There were two strong reactions against modern architecture and its aspirations toward an architectural language. Both movements stand in opposition to the ordered rationality of modernism. The first and most extreme form was characterized by The Grays which were known for their postmodernism way of thought. The Grays ideology began with the theory and practice of Robert Venturi. His publication “Complexity and Contradiction in Architecture” (1966) argues against the purity, simplicity and clarity of modernism.
The second reaction is most clearly represented by the work of Peter Eisenman and four other architects who were known as The Whites. Peter Eisenman attempted to address the more basic questions of language, the grammatical questions. “What are the limits, qualitatively and quantitatively to the lexicon of architectural signs? What makes certain configuration architectural? Which shapes can or can not be used? And more important is how should they be articulated?”
There is a noticeable difference between the two reactions. By comparing the house X built in Bloomfield Hills, Michigan and Vanna Venturi House which Venturi designed for his mother in Chestnut Hill, Pennsylvania we can recognize that Eisenman is mostly concerned with the systematization of an architectural formal language. “The process of design becomes an exploration of the syntactic combination of elements (beam, column, and frame)” . In House X the process of design is a process of research into formal structures and shapes which comes to life through the design.
Eisenman challenges the incoherent definition and languages of modernism. However, Venturi opposes the idea of a unique nature for architectural sign (classical or modernist), sees it as a more complex entity and detaches it from the underlying structure of language. Eisenman’s work is a reaction against the architectural signs itself and in particular the idea of the meaning of the sign. In the process of establishing this structure “Eisenman sacrifices not only functionalism but humanism itself”. Eisenman contributed in the development of a new inspiration to architecture and merged them with contemporary theories of linguistics and information theory.
These two architects have dissimilar approach to users. Eseinman named his buildings by numbers and designed houses that are more sculptural than livable. But Venturi and the other Gray architects designed not only with pure symbolism and historical example, but with the user in mind.
In Venturi’s design structure is more than just roof and walls. It is an organized space for a specific use and specific user. In his design space and user are part of the design process. The most famous picture of the Vanna Venturi House is the picture of the house with his mother sitting in a chair in front of her house. Also, Venturi considered history, context, social and cultural aspects in his design while Eisenman struggled with architectural form and language of modernism.
By comparing the works of these two architects side by side the similarities in their designs can be observed. “Concern for aesthetics of the single family house” and “lack of human scale in their design” are main similarities in House X and Vanna Venturi House. The material of the structure, building’s program and location of the houses obviously did not change their architectural agenda. In fact, they both considered the development of their ideology than any other aspect of their design.
Aside from the philosophy behind these two buildings, each house has its own uniqueness. They both have their own extraordinary features and manifest the ideology that is hidden in these buildings. It also depicts that thoughtful ideas by architects often result in outstanding designs. Both Eisenman and Venturi contributed significantly to architecture. They influenced and formed the future of the modern architecture although there were many differences in their design philosophy.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Eddie and Neal Jones
The lecture by Eddie and Neal Jones was incredible especially after a long day in studio and struggling with my project. I have a difficulty to solve the circulation in my studio project and at the end of the day I was almost losing my confidence and my patience. He started his lecture by telling a true story. The story was about his life and how he was working on his projects as a student with passion and creativity. During the lecture I was taking notes of his life lessons. In each project that he described you could see the philosophy behind each building design. “What does each building want to be?” Where landscape begins and ends and does it even have a beginning and ending or not?
Eddie Jones mentioned the beauty of a literal garden and in his projects landscaping was combined with buildings and one could not make a border between them. Everything that he did was followed by his final comment. “Never stop caring.” The passion and consideration for architecture in their designs were truly noticeable. He gave me plenty of positive energy and forced me to look at my project as a new opportunity to show my interest in architecture and to believe in my creativity.
Eddie Jones mentioned the beauty of a literal garden and in his projects landscaping was combined with buildings and one could not make a border between them. Everything that he did was followed by his final comment. “Never stop caring.” The passion and consideration for architecture in their designs were truly noticeable. He gave me plenty of positive energy and forced me to look at my project as a new opportunity to show my interest in architecture and to believe in my creativity.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Usman Haque and Omar Khan’s lecture
Although the Usman Haque and Omar Khan’s lecture was really interesting I had a hard time understanding the motivation behind their projects. For example “Open Burble” design by Usman Haque included of many white helium balloons attached together with a cell phone receiver inside each balloon. These cell phones were connected to colored lights separately. When people on the ground were calling a particular receiver inside one of the balloons, that balloon’s color was changing. It looks bright and incredible but what is his philosophy behind it? He didn’t provide any reason for coordinating and designing any of his work. Most of his design was excellent and flashy to watch for the first time and get excited with technology but nothing more than this. It was more about watching a new computer game with different colors and fancy look. “Moving Columns” by Omar Khan was another example of this absence of purpose. Depending on the level of carbon dioxide in the air, these columns were moving up or down. However, the reason behind using CO2 was not really clear. Why he didn’t use oxygen instead? On the other hand, Usman’s presentation was really nice but it did not discuss the philosophy and function of their design.
Monday, February 23, 2009
Gabby Shawcross’s lecture at ASU
Gabby Shawcross’ lecture was different in many ways than other lectures I have been to. In the first few minutes of the lecture two main questions popped in my mind. How sustainable their projects are? And also whether they used light in their design as an ornament or not? Although I got lots of good information from this lecture these questions are still unanswered for me.
At the end of the lecture I was certain that they picked light as a communication tool to make a connection between spaces and people. I believe that is what many architects attempt to achieve in their designs. For example Memory Project in London's Southbank is all about people, spaces and the relationship between them. It is a fascinating idea especially the ability to walk back to the earlier time of the day. Inside the structure, thermal cameras can detect people and show the surrounding of the building in a particular time as a function of people’s position with respect to the screen.
They are also very creative in using light features as an architectural tool. I think by listening to his lecture we could really observe their design philosophy. Also in some projects like Aeolian Tower, and Wind to Light I realized that there is a lot of usable energy in the nature that is not being used appropriately and has lots of potentials to be utilized in our day to day life.
At the end of the lecture I was certain that they picked light as a communication tool to make a connection between spaces and people. I believe that is what many architects attempt to achieve in their designs. For example Memory Project in London's Southbank is all about people, spaces and the relationship between them. It is a fascinating idea especially the ability to walk back to the earlier time of the day. Inside the structure, thermal cameras can detect people and show the surrounding of the building in a particular time as a function of people’s position with respect to the screen.
They are also very creative in using light features as an architectural tool. I think by listening to his lecture we could really observe their design philosophy. Also in some projects like Aeolian Tower, and Wind to Light I realized that there is a lot of usable energy in the nature that is not being used appropriately and has lots of potentials to be utilized in our day to day life.
Messie’s Lecture in ASU
Lecture was really interesting. Footprint of the nature was visible in all of his works especially when he was talking about frozen earth as a mold, using the beams with the same color of the landscape trees and having the skylight in the shower. He is very passionate about his work and honest about what he is doing and you can see this excitement in his designs. About digital world, I have had Jason Griffiths as a studio instructor last semester and he was giving us the lecture about digital world during the semester. I had to learn Rhino for my final project but I never deeply believed on digital methodologies to create building forms. In the lecture today I could really see the future of the design and how we can have our original ideas and push it to the unique design with technology. Also, I was fascinated with the way he builds things with his hands and experiences the new material in his design.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)