making BIG strides for a better tomorrow
What is good architecture? When considering the aspects of hot versus cold/ critical versus projective architecture, where do we land on the spectrum of opposites? Or are we in the in betweenness of both sides?
"Architecture is not an isolated or autonomous medium, it is actively engaged by the social, intellectual, and visual culture which is outside the discipline and which encompasses it... It is based on a premise that architecture is inevitably involved with questions more difficult than those of form or style."
- Carol Burns and Robert Taylor.
This statement lends itself to the projective nature of architecture. The notion that architecture is more than the building, but is a living thing composed of human interactions, adjacencies, and the culture of the time and place. But does considering these things as designers lead to architecture that can only remain in the present?
Bjarke Ingles Copenhill power plant, seen in his video Formgiving and visually leading more towards hot architecture, changes the landscape of Copenhagen. He talks about how because of this project, his children will grow up in a new version of Copenhagen and their experiences in the city will be radically different than his own. As seen above in the image, Ingles includes a ski slope and hiking trails that wrap the other programs within the building. His design also creates public space in an industrial complex that turns waste into clean energy.
Does how Bjarke Ingles think about design create a new context for buildings? If we stop focusing on mimicking the context or the culture of the present, would our designs change to be more progressive and allow us to set the stage of what a new cultural context could be?
Michaela,
ReplyDeleteGreat analysis on BIG's designs and their place in architecture. Your question about "considering these things as designers lead to architecture that can only remain in the present" got me thinking if it is even possible to design for the future. is there some kind of architectural middle ground that can exist in times of both eccentric and simple architecture? Or even ornamental and modern architecture? If someone would've designed buildings the way we do today in the 1900's would they have been scorned? Is the design difference solely based on the better construction and materials we use today? Its interesting to think about architecture in this way and to answer my first question, no, I dont think its possible to design for the future but we can always try.
Michaela,
ReplyDeleteThis is an interesting perspective on a potential pitfall of projective architecture. I suppose it is accurate that a projective architect studying a particular context can only push the design as far as the intended user is willing to allow. Perhaps there is a middle ground, as Daniel suggested, in which the architect takes liberties to not only recognize the context, but push it in a particular direction, in pursuit of a better future.