In our lecture this week, we discussed architecture as a method of fragmentation and accumulation, and ultimately, the representation of everyday life - which can be quite messy and chaotic. The projects by SANAA in the late 90's as well as other Japanese architects really embrace this attitude of fragmentation, but in a simple, clean way that doesn't hinder the activities of a user. These designers even used trees as compositional, "structural" elements to inform their architectural language, rather than simply adding to it to appear sustainable. Even the furniture inside the house pictured above (Moriyama House) aided in creating a proper environment, or home for its specific user - so why don't more architects think about furniture even in the conceptual design phase? This discussion really made me think about the process of design, and question if the way we've been taught is only an optional way of designing, not the only way. Why not think about trees, furniture, and things you tangibly encounter within the space, as early as you define a building's overall form? Although users are inevitably going to transform an interior (or exterior space) unlike the architect intended, does a strategy exist for creating a welcoming, as opposed to a stark, place where everyday activities can freely occur? In my opinion, the places where messy things happen and everyday routines are formed truly allow people to connect with architecture, whether or not that messiness was intentionally designed.
Comments
Post a Comment