First post: Studio

I guess I'll do the honors for the first post for the group.

I was clicking through the school blogs section of Archinect and I found an article that is eerily similar to what we are trying to do with module.

Here is the link for the article.

http://www.archinect.com/schoolblog/entry.php?id=87228_0_39_0_C

and

http://cornell-convivium.blogspot.com/

Basically, he and a group of students are analyzing the learning environment they are in. Pedagogy, time management, academic structure all come in to play. I know that Marisa has commented on the subject of re-thinking the academic structure for architecture. I think it is a valuable discussion, especially after reading the comments the blogger was suggestion.

Personally, I feel that the difficulties from studio are inevitable. Therefore, I need to adapt myself to the environment I'm rather than change the environment. However, that may not be the best approach. Maybe there does need to be a reassessment of our learning environment. I think it is safe to say that studio is not a healthy environment to grow in. The suggestions that Kyle, the blogger said, were directed towards the other classes we have to take. What if we removed those classes and could focus solely on studio? It might extend the schooling but may be their is worth to it.

I am starting to realize how important it is to be aware of the non-architecture related things we are learning from studio. What bad habits are we picking up that are worked so deeply in our subconscious that it may require another environment as intense as studio to work out? I fear sounding dramatic, however, I have concerns. Maybe this is a good place to get the dialogue flowing. I feel that I tend to repress my frustrations towards studio in order to not complain but maybe its time to cross the threshold, and take an objective stance on our learning environment and let it out.

Too High Tea with Terunobu Fujimori

image courtesy of dezeen.com

image courtesy of designcrack.com

a fruitful bit o' diggin' yielded this architectural gem today.

Terunobu Fujimori is a Japanese architectural historian and architect who, after a well-developed career as a researcher, decided to design buildings of his own. This tea house was for his own use and enjoyment. For more info check Fujimori's own site.

Just a quick, fo' fun post today!

good ol' boring architecture

New and exciting is great, and boring and old is bad. Right? maybe?

Let me preface this by saying that I haven't done much research on the subject, but I have made a lot of my own assumptions. Of course, this completely qualifies me to shoot my mouth off about it.
Some buildings are just good at doing what they do. The architect knew the job the building had to do, and desigined accordingly. Usually with these buildings, they have nice moments, and the inhabitants generally enjoy living/ working/ playing/ eating/ whatevering inside them without taking much notice of how their built environment is assisting their enjoyment. Is it such a terrible thing to strive for making these sort of buildings?

Sort of. An architect's primary responsibility should be to make space that considers its users and effectively engages its program and, if possible, future programs that may present themselves. If you're building achieves this through a standard procedure, in ways that have been done thousands of times, well then great. You still probably have an idea of why these methods work and why fix something that's not broken. Congratulations your building works.

Taking larger risks can mean larger rewards, sometimes. It's always interesting when architects question the fundamentals. Why do we have to do it this way? What does it mean to eat, or sleep or view, or rest? These questions can lead to some absolutely terrible buildings. They also can lead to buildings that are beautiful physical representations of an idea about living, but don't seem to work on a realistic, day-to-day basis. It seems like our history books are full of buildings like this.

The problem is that as an architect it's difficult enough to balance the clients needs and expectations, with your own ideas about architecture. Adding the risk of trying to answer too many questions and the job seems nearly impossible. Unless, of course, you've established yourself enough to gain rich clients that want you to make big clear moves in your architecture, even at the expense of smaller, basic details and programtic requirements. Starchitecture is often it's own worst enemy, ask Frank Gehry.

Maybe it's simply about finding a balance between fresh hot, and functional. The idea of building something that "looks nice" on the street and achieves success through the rigorous employment of standards and precedence set by others is somewhat dull. However, designing a flashy building that only works in one way isn't all that appealing either. Focused questioning can lead to some beautiful and unique solutions, and standard solutions can fill in the blanks. This allows a building to have an identity with out losing it's practicality.