Hot Environmental Design
Bringing the discussion back to the earlier ides of "hot" architecture vs "cool" architecture, I was intrigued by the Ecosistema Urbano project shown on Tuesday. This seems like an example of extremely "hot" design focused towards environmentally sustainable design.
These structures broad primarily work to create cool breezes through the space while creating some energy via solar panels on top. However, it does this on a rigorously engineered structure that towers over the shaded space below. Its easy to think that all this is a bit much, that the energy spent making such a technically precise folly is unnecessary when the same goals could have been achieved by must simpler, quiet, "cool" means. After all, this is very different from the example we saw of the architects who decided no to intervene in an existing park at all.
However, after Thursday's lecture, I suppose that is the point. Every now and then you need that "environmental monument" to bring this topic to the forefront of people's minds. But this is definitely a unique situation, I do not think things this "hot" should necessarily be on every public plaza, park, etc.
I'm intrigued! Would "cool" sustainable architecture hide all of it's systems, passive and integrated? Would the human experience be amplified yet go unnoticed?
ReplyDeleteI loved that you called it a folly! Haha I agree with you and Nick, what would a "cool" solution be? solar panel shades with water sprinklers in the shape of something familiar? Idk but it is fascinating to think about it. I don't particularly like the aesthetics of the towers but like you said, that is the point, their performance and not their aesthetics but instead of making a point that way, could the sustainability of them and the way they look be married? (Don't get me wrong, they will look nice with all the green around them but they are still a liittle too intrusive for me in those plazas.
ReplyDeleteIn a way, I think this project exists as more of a sustainability monument, using technology as a way to signify a collaboration with the environment. I am always skeptical of these ultra technological types though, as I feel that sustainability (i guess what you call "cool") can be much more natural, passive, and less expensive. I suppose it is the opposite approach to this project: instead of building a machine to create a new environment, it is more about building smart in order to take natural forces that exist in an environment and and enhance them or make them more comfortable.
ReplyDeleteInteresting point of view! I never thought about looking at them as a sustainable monument. During class I wasn't a big fan of this project. The weird silo that creates a fake forest in the middle of an empty plaza, does not seem like a favorable destination to me. I don't like fake as much, especially when it comes to trees and nature in a park. But when you consider the context and look at it as a monument, rather than trying to be something it's not, it becomes more successful.
ReplyDeleteThere is absolutely value to be had in monumental architecture. Not in the sense of massiveness, but more in the presence of a statement. These projects are important for the influence they will carry going forward.
ReplyDelete