Too much like architects.
I can sympathise with theories driving both practices. The outcomes of the projects presented didn’t seem to ever push the boundaries far enough of what they purported to test; or pushed them in one direction only. Great ideas though to begin with-exciting practices but in an ideal situation they could be braver…
For instance, EAST’s café in Avery Hill Park. It didn’t look much more exciting than the scoffed at member of the public’s suggested design. The detailed program seemed to be nearly identical. Perhaps this could have been an aspect to then push-if someone is willing to spend so much time on the project for free to involve them rather than spending 3 hours thinking about the position of a downpipe for aesthetic reasons.
FAT are a bit bonkers. To describe houses as ‘Traditional Elements’ when describing the design of new residential is cool. To make these houses to be attractive and at cost is great. To make the room sizes standard, or closer to market and not LA standards and not translate any of the individuality and pride of the exterior of the building to that of the inside voids the whole idea.
Still thinking too much like architects.
Thursday 30 December 2010
T30 Starting Again 3, The Idea of City, Florian Beigel, Philip Christou
It would be too easy for us on the MA SPUD course to jump on the assertion that: 'The prerogative of the Architect is to work with the client and to interpret how to provide for the user.'
I felt that this method and that of MUF's, expressed the week before common in this way. To strip back a fundamental of the architectural process. For MUF, put in simple terms to identify an end user/group and provide, often through thorough consultation a relevant building and/or program. For Florian and Philip, to understand the potential end users through the demands of the client and thorough investigation. As we saw over these two lectures, both practices carry these processes off very well. The problem, as is commonly true is interpretation. Any person will have a different interpretation of the projects, the architects themselves had many through the lives of the presented works. A site visit on a different day would have unearthed and originated a wholly different project. I would be confident to say that projects brought to fruition by these two practices would be good, despite their individual potential for alternatives and such an ideologically different approach by the practices.
Surprisingly, with the relatively small numbers of architects, most are very bad.
My thought would then be, what is the better approach to teaching potential architects, is it MUF’s view to find an end user and develop the program that way or Florian and Philip’s, to rely on the skill of the architect. Both methods can be used cynically, done badly, ill-considered, partially ignored, given little time to.
In many ways, anything in between doesn’t really work.
As we have admitted, any end product is due to the interpretation of the designer. Both practices build beautiful objects.
Perhaps this is why Diploma Unit 01 are so picky about their student intake. I think I would like to learn the skills they teach, why they now use ‘Figure’ and no longer ‘Form’. It is clear that Philip and Florian are interested in new ideas; I was surprised by Florian’s comment that food production in the city was ‘a very, very important idea.’
‘Roads, given by the government interrupt everything.’ Florian
This was my favorite comment and I think one that in a way can be used to sum up the approach. The idea of giving to the city. The idea of city itself and its scale being inherent in all built things. Objects have different uses to different people. Objects are used differently all the time and over time. Objects of the city are used differently locally, and inter-locally, have different meanings nationally and internationally, if meaning at all and otherwise can be suggestive of other indicators of a built homogeneity.
Well, I could write a basket of snakes all day.
I felt that this method and that of MUF's, expressed the week before common in this way. To strip back a fundamental of the architectural process. For MUF, put in simple terms to identify an end user/group and provide, often through thorough consultation a relevant building and/or program. For Florian and Philip, to understand the potential end users through the demands of the client and thorough investigation. As we saw over these two lectures, both practices carry these processes off very well. The problem, as is commonly true is interpretation. Any person will have a different interpretation of the projects, the architects themselves had many through the lives of the presented works. A site visit on a different day would have unearthed and originated a wholly different project. I would be confident to say that projects brought to fruition by these two practices would be good, despite their individual potential for alternatives and such an ideologically different approach by the practices.
Surprisingly, with the relatively small numbers of architects, most are very bad.
My thought would then be, what is the better approach to teaching potential architects, is it MUF’s view to find an end user and develop the program that way or Florian and Philip’s, to rely on the skill of the architect. Both methods can be used cynically, done badly, ill-considered, partially ignored, given little time to.
In many ways, anything in between doesn’t really work.
As we have admitted, any end product is due to the interpretation of the designer. Both practices build beautiful objects.
Perhaps this is why Diploma Unit 01 are so picky about their student intake. I think I would like to learn the skills they teach, why they now use ‘Figure’ and no longer ‘Form’. It is clear that Philip and Florian are interested in new ideas; I was surprised by Florian’s comment that food production in the city was ‘a very, very important idea.’
‘Roads, given by the government interrupt everything.’ Florian
This was my favorite comment and I think one that in a way can be used to sum up the approach. The idea of giving to the city. The idea of city itself and its scale being inherent in all built things. Objects have different uses to different people. Objects are used differently all the time and over time. Objects of the city are used differently locally, and inter-locally, have different meanings nationally and internationally, if meaning at all and otherwise can be suggestive of other indicators of a built homogeneity.
Well, I could write a basket of snakes all day.
Monday 20 December 2010
Beasley Street meets Beasley Boulevard
Punk Rock Poet, John Cooper Clarke's take on urban renewal...
Saturday 4 December 2010
T23/1 Can we be directly overt?
‘Lovely-bubbly tomato growing projects.’ -v- Masterplans.
1:1 projects often have a very limited audience, mainly architects. Temporary use projects are often very expensive and again have a narrow audience. Alternatively, both can have more influence on the public consciousness than an expensive, lengthy, immediately out of date and little consulted Masterplan.
Some of the projects shown in the first presentation I thought probably failed to engage a worthy audience. Most architecture does. Who is to decide what a worthy audience is-we are.
Another 1:1 projects didn’t just engage the architect visitors, it engaged their children as well… Progress.
One of the projects shown I was involved with-the ‘Lovely-bubbly’ one. A method to make use of abandoned bits of land, to small or undesirable to sell to a profiteering developer, yet set within an extremely deprived community living in flat blocks with no private amenity space, and surrounded by fenced of public amenity. How dangerous can a patch of grass be that it needs a 6-foot fence? This project was set up to engage a community with their surroundings but more importantly each other. It has worked.
The project in question is being rolled out to 20 new deprived estates across London, the idea has spread across the country to other local authorities and is being exhibited in New York and Berlin. For the equivalent Masterplan, such as the Shoreditch LAP’s what has been the take up or immediate benefit to those who live and work in Shoreditch now and are undermined by the planning process. That’s not to say that encouraging development is bad, but during supposed times of economic strife isn’t it better to look at what you have, try to support it and improve and better communities to be in a better position to take advantage of eventual improved circumstance. At any point the poor cannot be shelved or ignored.
Anyway, its not just the value added of a Masterplan that should be questioned, as we have seen recently, Masterplans have different purposes at different points in time. One plan can be directly propositional, another can be overtly propositional. Perhaps we are at a point where the overt is more appropriate, where proposals don’t get to the built stage, but seeds of ideas are planted. Can we be directly overt? Not in the English language we can’t, but as planners we can.
‘Ensure that development positively benefits the local communities.’ A vision for the Royal Docks. How, who, what and why. Why should you care who lives there, especially if you don’t agree with them or the program has no relation. I can think of no program that bears no relation to its surroundings, even if that’s just the person who delivers the milk. Maybe you are next to a neo-Nazi encampment, but still you need milk. In the main, sites are chosen for programs because of the people who live nearby-not always solely positive reasons either. For instance, a call centre, you would think the program could be sited anywhere. Ring Thames Water or British Gas or Bt and you will most likely talk to someone in the Dearne Valley, South Yorkshire. Tax breaks and cheapest labour, and lots of land means call centres. You wouldn’t build a Tesco megasuperdupa store on the Scilly Isles-or would you-would be interesting to see a Tesco where you go round the isles by boat for convenience. Brings a whole new meaning when you see a trolley in a stream.
Anyway, this is a wider conversation.
How great it is to celebrate a pipeline carrying clean water. (I sound like a bit of a something here.) I like infrastructure, it is continuous, or it doesn’t work. There’s scope for adaption, alteration, maintenance and it could offer more to our built environment, but in the mean time it does its job. This is quite different to worshipping architecture, or architecture of worship, both floored. How can we make architecture that is continuous and floorless? Knock down the churches first.
Going back to the first comment about Masterplanning, ownership is one of the main difficulties, why would you think about who might buy the building after you have used it for your purpose? (A purpose can include building houses and selling them on.) Why would you pay for a new playground unless it benefited your clients or was a good press opportunity or you were forced to? Masterplanning seems to encourage this system, parcelling land and promoting gain, mainly financial. Masterplanners have a choice in how to promote development, I like the idea of advanced infrastructure, perhaps this is a new step in building strong identities to encourage growth. Localism anyone? Self sufficiency. This relies on strong, not weakened government and better overarching institutions.
Starting with the large scale, the built (or in process), the pinnacle and pride of the planning system is another approach and equally applicable to test the process compared to starting with the un-planable, the pop-up. Working down in built scale, document dependence, capital value. It will be interesting to see how provocative these projects have become at the end of the year. I disagreed with the suggestion that projects should be more pragmatic, they should be more idealistic. People don’t know what they want until you tell them! Just a provocation.
Does the world economy have a site? I quite like the CHORA approach. Why would you want to look at one site in isolation? The context of a site is not just the colour of the mud, the local brick, the people who live their and their lives, the local planning process and land ownership. The wider context affects a site more than any other, that’s why skyscrapers get built in the city-there’s little relation to the people who live in the block next door. Good in one way, because otherwise society wouldn’t exist; but perhaps the best way to improve/change the way a Masterplan is considered, proposed and implemented is to change society.
David Ricardo’s, Comparative Advantage can be used to describe certain aspects of a site, for example its location to transport or its relation to local workforce. A holistic spatial plan would set out to define areas of Absolute Advantage but relative to Absolute Advantage of community needs. This is impossible and advantage would be lost. Just like Ricardo argues against protectionism, developer brochures as Masterplanning is not only wrong but inefficient.
1:1 projects often have a very limited audience, mainly architects. Temporary use projects are often very expensive and again have a narrow audience. Alternatively, both can have more influence on the public consciousness than an expensive, lengthy, immediately out of date and little consulted Masterplan.
Some of the projects shown in the first presentation I thought probably failed to engage a worthy audience. Most architecture does. Who is to decide what a worthy audience is-we are.
Another 1:1 projects didn’t just engage the architect visitors, it engaged their children as well… Progress.
One of the projects shown I was involved with-the ‘Lovely-bubbly’ one. A method to make use of abandoned bits of land, to small or undesirable to sell to a profiteering developer, yet set within an extremely deprived community living in flat blocks with no private amenity space, and surrounded by fenced of public amenity. How dangerous can a patch of grass be that it needs a 6-foot fence? This project was set up to engage a community with their surroundings but more importantly each other. It has worked.
The project in question is being rolled out to 20 new deprived estates across London, the idea has spread across the country to other local authorities and is being exhibited in New York and Berlin. For the equivalent Masterplan, such as the Shoreditch LAP’s what has been the take up or immediate benefit to those who live and work in Shoreditch now and are undermined by the planning process. That’s not to say that encouraging development is bad, but during supposed times of economic strife isn’t it better to look at what you have, try to support it and improve and better communities to be in a better position to take advantage of eventual improved circumstance. At any point the poor cannot be shelved or ignored.
Anyway, its not just the value added of a Masterplan that should be questioned, as we have seen recently, Masterplans have different purposes at different points in time. One plan can be directly propositional, another can be overtly propositional. Perhaps we are at a point where the overt is more appropriate, where proposals don’t get to the built stage, but seeds of ideas are planted. Can we be directly overt? Not in the English language we can’t, but as planners we can.
‘Ensure that development positively benefits the local communities.’ A vision for the Royal Docks. How, who, what and why. Why should you care who lives there, especially if you don’t agree with them or the program has no relation. I can think of no program that bears no relation to its surroundings, even if that’s just the person who delivers the milk. Maybe you are next to a neo-Nazi encampment, but still you need milk. In the main, sites are chosen for programs because of the people who live nearby-not always solely positive reasons either. For instance, a call centre, you would think the program could be sited anywhere. Ring Thames Water or British Gas or Bt and you will most likely talk to someone in the Dearne Valley, South Yorkshire. Tax breaks and cheapest labour, and lots of land means call centres. You wouldn’t build a Tesco megasuperdupa store on the Scilly Isles-or would you-would be interesting to see a Tesco where you go round the isles by boat for convenience. Brings a whole new meaning when you see a trolley in a stream.
Anyway, this is a wider conversation.
How great it is to celebrate a pipeline carrying clean water. (I sound like a bit of a something here.) I like infrastructure, it is continuous, or it doesn’t work. There’s scope for adaption, alteration, maintenance and it could offer more to our built environment, but in the mean time it does its job. This is quite different to worshipping architecture, or architecture of worship, both floored. How can we make architecture that is continuous and floorless? Knock down the churches first.
Going back to the first comment about Masterplanning, ownership is one of the main difficulties, why would you think about who might buy the building after you have used it for your purpose? (A purpose can include building houses and selling them on.) Why would you pay for a new playground unless it benefited your clients or was a good press opportunity or you were forced to? Masterplanning seems to encourage this system, parcelling land and promoting gain, mainly financial. Masterplanners have a choice in how to promote development, I like the idea of advanced infrastructure, perhaps this is a new step in building strong identities to encourage growth. Localism anyone? Self sufficiency. This relies on strong, not weakened government and better overarching institutions.
Starting with the large scale, the built (or in process), the pinnacle and pride of the planning system is another approach and equally applicable to test the process compared to starting with the un-planable, the pop-up. Working down in built scale, document dependence, capital value. It will be interesting to see how provocative these projects have become at the end of the year. I disagreed with the suggestion that projects should be more pragmatic, they should be more idealistic. People don’t know what they want until you tell them! Just a provocation.
Does the world economy have a site? I quite like the CHORA approach. Why would you want to look at one site in isolation? The context of a site is not just the colour of the mud, the local brick, the people who live their and their lives, the local planning process and land ownership. The wider context affects a site more than any other, that’s why skyscrapers get built in the city-there’s little relation to the people who live in the block next door. Good in one way, because otherwise society wouldn’t exist; but perhaps the best way to improve/change the way a Masterplan is considered, proposed and implemented is to change society.
David Ricardo’s, Comparative Advantage can be used to describe certain aspects of a site, for example its location to transport or its relation to local workforce. A holistic spatial plan would set out to define areas of Absolute Advantage but relative to Absolute Advantage of community needs. This is impossible and advantage would be lost. Just like Ricardo argues against protectionism, developer brochures as Masterplanning is not only wrong but inefficient.
Friday 26 November 2010
Odessa
Arriving in Odessa is like a trimmed down Barcelona, all grid system and wide mature tree lined boulevards. Instant differences, though, lots of crows, for a seaside resort strange not to be intimidated by low flying Seagulls. Also, if your up early enough people gathering the newly fallen Autumn leaves and sweeping the streets, two to each street corner. Apparently large numbers of people are given a little bit of money to spend and hour or so a day to clear a little patch of street, old people, or people with other jobs to go to afterwards. This all leads to an immaculate street level environment within the city, seemingly good relations between neighbors, a little cash for those who might need it and, an awkward path to transverse between piles of leaves and rubbish, while carrying a big bag and with not much sleep from the night train just before.
This cleanliness ends at the cities edges. The inland lakes and marshlands, areas of such stunning natural beauty are strewn with rubbish of all kinds. We witnessed people dumping all sorts, an old lady appeared during one exploration with a bin full of plastic bottles over her shoulder, calmly she stepped a little way into a patch of reeds and tipped them out, right in front of us.
I could relate these to the typology of the nearby built form. A Soviet era suburb, a long procession of slightly differing housing blocks, thirteen stories high on average, with a road running out of the city and tram lines. All separated by strips of green space. Behind them slightly smaller blocks at around nine stories. Then a sharp contrast, down to private housing, some quite old, most newly built. Many different materials used, aggrandized frontages with bizarre references to classical form amongst many other styles. Seemingly the newer the house, the larger its surrounding fence, the larger the fuel capacity of its promenading car, the gaudier its architectural references.
The rubbish collection seems to still take place around the flat blocks, and everywhere little stalls selling allsorts, from spanners to cigarettes. These are particularly clustered around the various tram stops, the tram being the main course of access at the time of construction with little car ownership. Now many of the green patches down the centre of the blocks, buffering the road and tram lines as well as public walking and resting areas are taken up by tin forts with guard towers and barbed wire, storage for the locals’ cars. This is a shame as it blocks eyesight at street level across the boulevard between the blocks on either side. Patches where the original layout is retained feel more connected, more like a street, even though it is so wide.
The rubbish would have been at one time burnt in the furnaces of the centralised heating systems around the city, providing heat for the unitary blocks. Carbon output, and its associated implications for upgrading the system has pretty much stopped this.
Locations of the rubbish low-level architecture seem to correlate directly with highest levels of dumping.
We had the chance to talk to a few locals while on the trip, and especially the students of the University. Their feelings on the housing were that the old Soviet era blocks were dilapidated and ugly, yet they had lasted with little maintenance for many years and were all very much occupied. One girl talked about her newer private house, built 12 years previous, she liked it very much, though, through some pressing she did say that it was suffering itself, even with the amounts of maintenance they were willing to attribute it, doors were warped and drafty, salt ingresses through thin walls and it could get very cold in the winter. All practical considerations but what wasn’t mentioned was why the need for a security guard at the gate for the development, high fences, loud dogs, private cars, and why was there no proper route to the beach?
It was even more of a shame to see development now in the hands of large companies, building blocks at the edge of the city, beyond its previous limit, with poor access to transport, no balconies, seemingly a big no-no in Odessa and no built-in amenity spaces.
This cleanliness ends at the cities edges. The inland lakes and marshlands, areas of such stunning natural beauty are strewn with rubbish of all kinds. We witnessed people dumping all sorts, an old lady appeared during one exploration with a bin full of plastic bottles over her shoulder, calmly she stepped a little way into a patch of reeds and tipped them out, right in front of us.
I could relate these to the typology of the nearby built form. A Soviet era suburb, a long procession of slightly differing housing blocks, thirteen stories high on average, with a road running out of the city and tram lines. All separated by strips of green space. Behind them slightly smaller blocks at around nine stories. Then a sharp contrast, down to private housing, some quite old, most newly built. Many different materials used, aggrandized frontages with bizarre references to classical form amongst many other styles. Seemingly the newer the house, the larger its surrounding fence, the larger the fuel capacity of its promenading car, the gaudier its architectural references.
The rubbish collection seems to still take place around the flat blocks, and everywhere little stalls selling allsorts, from spanners to cigarettes. These are particularly clustered around the various tram stops, the tram being the main course of access at the time of construction with little car ownership. Now many of the green patches down the centre of the blocks, buffering the road and tram lines as well as public walking and resting areas are taken up by tin forts with guard towers and barbed wire, storage for the locals’ cars. This is a shame as it blocks eyesight at street level across the boulevard between the blocks on either side. Patches where the original layout is retained feel more connected, more like a street, even though it is so wide.
The rubbish would have been at one time burnt in the furnaces of the centralised heating systems around the city, providing heat for the unitary blocks. Carbon output, and its associated implications for upgrading the system has pretty much stopped this.
Locations of the rubbish low-level architecture seem to correlate directly with highest levels of dumping.
We had the chance to talk to a few locals while on the trip, and especially the students of the University. Their feelings on the housing were that the old Soviet era blocks were dilapidated and ugly, yet they had lasted with little maintenance for many years and were all very much occupied. One girl talked about her newer private house, built 12 years previous, she liked it very much, though, through some pressing she did say that it was suffering itself, even with the amounts of maintenance they were willing to attribute it, doors were warped and drafty, salt ingresses through thin walls and it could get very cold in the winter. All practical considerations but what wasn’t mentioned was why the need for a security guard at the gate for the development, high fences, loud dogs, private cars, and why was there no proper route to the beach?
It was even more of a shame to see development now in the hands of large companies, building blocks at the edge of the city, beyond its previous limit, with poor access to transport, no balconies, seemingly a big no-no in Odessa and no built-in amenity spaces.
Working With Planners
I was confused to hear that Shoreditch is in Tower Hamlets, the area I know as Shoreditch is mainly in Hackney, I don’t know if you agree? That area is to which I referred when asking a question in the ‘Working With Planners’ lecture with Jamie Ounan and Leigh Herington, about Shoreditch LAP 1 and 2. The actual document seems very noble in its outlook but the way it was described and seemingly its only practical application would be that of a developer’s brochure for the area. So this is progress from the UDP. The area has developed with seemingly little strategic intervention from planners from a dilapidated quarter to that of a extremely vibrant one, with many different cultural and economic centers and a good range of interest. This process did not come to being because of any planning consideration but market factors. It is rather a waste of energy to try and squeeze out some more value when it is very capable of fostering its own growth and development. Instead, there are many areas of the country and especially a Borough such as Tower Hamlets which could do with some support and crucially better understanding to aid improvement. Particularily further East in places like Bow, Stepney, Shadwell, Limehouse, Millwall, Blackwall. Already, the Shoreditch effect is spreading this way but these places have individual character of their own, perhaps you could encourage the development aspect but promote its existing qualities here, before it is lost.
The other point being that actual Shoreditch, as I would define it lies in Hackney, East of Old Street Station to around Kingsland Road. This area consists of arterial routes, populated by the drinking dens of the youngish middle class population, with the bits in-between these arteries and behind the pubs being housing estates of extremely low deprivation, relative to anywhere in the country. For the shining beacon of the report to be the regeneration of Bishopsgate Goods Yard is very frustrating. As I said then, let developers build what they want and demolish the arches, let them pay out of their ears in Section 106 and Community Infrastructure Levy money and do something worthwhile in these estates.
The other point being that actual Shoreditch, as I would define it lies in Hackney, East of Old Street Station to around Kingsland Road. This area consists of arterial routes, populated by the drinking dens of the youngish middle class population, with the bits in-between these arteries and behind the pubs being housing estates of extremely low deprivation, relative to anywhere in the country. For the shining beacon of the report to be the regeneration of Bishopsgate Goods Yard is very frustrating. As I said then, let developers build what they want and demolish the arches, let them pay out of their ears in Section 106 and Community Infrastructure Levy money and do something worthwhile in these estates.
T24 Start Again 1
I really wanted to ask this question, it was touched on a bit in the discussion but I was too shy:
‘All the speakers touched on the use of narrative as central to their work. In my limited experience I have seen the same narrative being used as the basis of proposals of very different nature. One architect could use the story to propose the planting of a strawberry bush where as the other could use the same narrative to justify a proposal for a whopping great big tower on a site. 1:1 intervention is becoming ever more popular and is often the interpretation of an individual or group and, though, often based on a narrative themselves can be an imposed intervention with no specific reference to or understanding of a site. A tool for communication, engagement or a set purpose.
Socially engaging architecture, if that’s what you propose, depends more on the will of the architect. Norman Foster doesn’t build a tea trolley to engage Somali newcomers and more historic residents in Liverpool, both famed for tea consumption by volume. Studio Weave haven’t built many large office complex, where as Lynch is…
Got a bit lost there and kind of answered my own question but, is it equally fair for architects to impose much larger buildings on the city?
People don’t know what they want until you tell them? We can see through statistical approaches that questions and answers are easily manipulated, I’ve done it myself with a questionnaire on ‘Livable Streets’ where everyone drove to work, the shops, even the local park yet ask the right question and the residents could be seen to want the roads to be taken up.
It’s very hard to imagine something different. We don’t have time. You can’t predict how a building will really be used, particularly at larger scales. I found this recently with Unit 10 in Odessa; I thought it would be rough, cold and aggressive. I found it to be none of these, cars seem to stop to let you cross the road every now and again, people were friendly and open, it was a pleasant city-even more so the poor areas, less affected by encroaching capital markets on a day to day basis but more so in a structural economic way, and in terms the correlation of receding government. I suppose the weather was just a bonus. (will write more separately, signposts of language?)’
Perhaps the question was a bit long. Any answers, I would like to know what people think to the main question: ‘Is it fair for good architects to impose large buildings on the city?’
Of course this brings up lots more questions, who chooses the ‘good’ architects, would that category of architects be capable? I think any architect with the right team is capable. Back to capital. I suppose this is the point Signy raised so won’t go into that much further.
Another good remark was Robert Mull’s, (he’d obviously been thinking about it for a long time-hahaha) ‘Individual conversation to discover communal perspective’. As was elaborated by Maurice Mitchell, where, ‘the particular beats the unusual.’ As was highlighted here, narrative is used for the purpose of the architect to highlight a collective need or an individual taste. ‘Taste’, now that’s a good one, Brutalism only!
I, therefore, will strive for vagueness in my own work, who knows, it might be used well.
P.S, didn’t particularly like much of the work on show.
‘All the speakers touched on the use of narrative as central to their work. In my limited experience I have seen the same narrative being used as the basis of proposals of very different nature. One architect could use the story to propose the planting of a strawberry bush where as the other could use the same narrative to justify a proposal for a whopping great big tower on a site. 1:1 intervention is becoming ever more popular and is often the interpretation of an individual or group and, though, often based on a narrative themselves can be an imposed intervention with no specific reference to or understanding of a site. A tool for communication, engagement or a set purpose.
Socially engaging architecture, if that’s what you propose, depends more on the will of the architect. Norman Foster doesn’t build a tea trolley to engage Somali newcomers and more historic residents in Liverpool, both famed for tea consumption by volume. Studio Weave haven’t built many large office complex, where as Lynch is…
Got a bit lost there and kind of answered my own question but, is it equally fair for architects to impose much larger buildings on the city?
People don’t know what they want until you tell them? We can see through statistical approaches that questions and answers are easily manipulated, I’ve done it myself with a questionnaire on ‘Livable Streets’ where everyone drove to work, the shops, even the local park yet ask the right question and the residents could be seen to want the roads to be taken up.
It’s very hard to imagine something different. We don’t have time. You can’t predict how a building will really be used, particularly at larger scales. I found this recently with Unit 10 in Odessa; I thought it would be rough, cold and aggressive. I found it to be none of these, cars seem to stop to let you cross the road every now and again, people were friendly and open, it was a pleasant city-even more so the poor areas, less affected by encroaching capital markets on a day to day basis but more so in a structural economic way, and in terms the correlation of receding government. I suppose the weather was just a bonus. (will write more separately, signposts of language?)’
Perhaps the question was a bit long. Any answers, I would like to know what people think to the main question: ‘Is it fair for good architects to impose large buildings on the city?’
Of course this brings up lots more questions, who chooses the ‘good’ architects, would that category of architects be capable? I think any architect with the right team is capable. Back to capital. I suppose this is the point Signy raised so won’t go into that much further.
Another good remark was Robert Mull’s, (he’d obviously been thinking about it for a long time-hahaha) ‘Individual conversation to discover communal perspective’. As was elaborated by Maurice Mitchell, where, ‘the particular beats the unusual.’ As was highlighted here, narrative is used for the purpose of the architect to highlight a collective need or an individual taste. ‘Taste’, now that’s a good one, Brutalism only!
I, therefore, will strive for vagueness in my own work, who knows, it might be used well.
P.S, didn’t particularly like much of the work on show.
Saturday 6 November 2010
T18 Manifesto MarkII
More than Planning Policy makes up how a City looks or develops.
The ideal is unattainable.
We all have different ideas about society and even the narrowest principle difference can mean a huge difference in lifestyle (relative to what I think is the narrow band of human lifestyles). So, an ideal society would be different in the imagination of us all, or more importantly how we aim to achieve it. Perhaps some people think the society we live within is ideal-they’re wrong.
This is my aim in architecture, a big ask maybe.
An emerging idea in urban change at the moment is change in perception. For instance, in the city do we need guard rails in the middle of the road to stop pedestrians crossing intermittently. Could we slow the cars down or make new, better crossing points? The drivers are speeding because they feel safe, shouldn’t pedestrians and cyclists be helped to feel safe within the law. Should we act within the law to change?
Perception is important. We have seen this in lectures where buildings that come under the categories of good architecturally and bad architecturally have different perceptions again to those who live/work there and those who have no direct interest apart from knowing of the building.
Localism is dangerous-how do we prove this and attack it?
Jumble, jumble, jumble, jumble. Nothing works, can we build anything?
Making good proposals is worthwhile, something often comes of it and that is good.
Perhaps we can set up the SPUD flying-picket, going to planning consultations and arguing a point. Would we be welcome? Could we agree amongst ourselves? Importantly-would it help? Perhaps we could choose a proposal we didn’t like and try and stop/change it, would that be a good exercise…
The ideal is unattainable.
We all have different ideas about society and even the narrowest principle difference can mean a huge difference in lifestyle (relative to what I think is the narrow band of human lifestyles). So, an ideal society would be different in the imagination of us all, or more importantly how we aim to achieve it. Perhaps some people think the society we live within is ideal-they’re wrong.
This is my aim in architecture, a big ask maybe.
An emerging idea in urban change at the moment is change in perception. For instance, in the city do we need guard rails in the middle of the road to stop pedestrians crossing intermittently. Could we slow the cars down or make new, better crossing points? The drivers are speeding because they feel safe, shouldn’t pedestrians and cyclists be helped to feel safe within the law. Should we act within the law to change?
Perception is important. We have seen this in lectures where buildings that come under the categories of good architecturally and bad architecturally have different perceptions again to those who live/work there and those who have no direct interest apart from knowing of the building.
Localism is dangerous-how do we prove this and attack it?
Jumble, jumble, jumble, jumble. Nothing works, can we build anything?
Making good proposals is worthwhile, something often comes of it and that is good.
Perhaps we can set up the SPUD flying-picket, going to planning consultations and arguing a point. Would we be welcome? Could we agree amongst ourselves? Importantly-would it help? Perhaps we could choose a proposal we didn’t like and try and stop/change it, would that be a good exercise…
T17 Glossary of Terms MarkII
1. Planning - A negotiation between factors affecting the built environment with the aim of steering develoment.
1a. Rationalise - Make according to certain guidelines/the prevailing rational.
2. Spatial Planning - Purposeful arrangement of objects within a given space. Often, with varying consideration to the relationship between object, space and use. Sadly mostly fixed when in situ.
3. Design - Exploring new possibilities in creation/reworking an object for a given purpose.
4. Urban Design - Attempt at managing the process of change within the built environment.
4a. Urbanity - One road in isolation is no different from another, whether it be in a city or countryside; all built things have some sense of urbanity.
5. Dissemination - Taking ideas and proposals to those who will be affected by them to develop ways to put them into practice; also, to receive a critical response. With the aim of using feedback to positively improve the project or process.
6. Pilot Projects - Smaller scale testing’s of larger design principles. Should be on small scale as larger process is subject to change.
7. Public Art - An attempt at focusing of the perception of an area and the attention of its inhabitants to a given identity. Waste of time.
7a. Inhabitants - Those who occupy/have a bearing on the use of, a given space. Could be considered that wider society and therefore everyone is included.
8. To Consider - Make a judgment on an appropriate course of action relative to the objectives, opinions and principles of those who consider. Otherwise: To deny others from the decision making process.
9. Masterplan - Collection of studies which are brought together and conclusions made for the continued development of an area. Otherwise: Ongoing conclusions of a process to alter an area.
10. Map. A specific description of an area using symbolism.
1a. Rationalise - Make according to certain guidelines/the prevailing rational.
2. Spatial Planning - Purposeful arrangement of objects within a given space. Often, with varying consideration to the relationship between object, space and use. Sadly mostly fixed when in situ.
3. Design - Exploring new possibilities in creation/reworking an object for a given purpose.
4. Urban Design - Attempt at managing the process of change within the built environment.
4a. Urbanity - One road in isolation is no different from another, whether it be in a city or countryside; all built things have some sense of urbanity.
5. Dissemination - Taking ideas and proposals to those who will be affected by them to develop ways to put them into practice; also, to receive a critical response. With the aim of using feedback to positively improve the project or process.
6. Pilot Projects - Smaller scale testing’s of larger design principles. Should be on small scale as larger process is subject to change.
7. Public Art - An attempt at focusing of the perception of an area and the attention of its inhabitants to a given identity. Waste of time.
7a. Inhabitants - Those who occupy/have a bearing on the use of, a given space. Could be considered that wider society and therefore everyone is included.
8. To Consider - Make a judgment on an appropriate course of action relative to the objectives, opinions and principles of those who consider. Otherwise: To deny others from the decision making process.
9. Masterplan - Collection of studies which are brought together and conclusions made for the continued development of an area. Otherwise: Ongoing conclusions of a process to alter an area.
10. Map. A specific description of an area using symbolism.
T19 Belfast
Thus far we are agreed that it is not just the physical context but also the social and political which informs the City. We also admit that all these driving forces cannot be predicted and we must make assumptions and assertions.
Belfast is an acute example where certain of its social and political factors can be pointed to, to explain particular physical factors. These physical objects include, Peace Walls, fortress like RUC barracks and housing estate layouts.
The lecture was very thorough in describing Belfast’s make-up, without necessarily, pictures of key buildings but descriptions of social or political events. Also, its geography, which along with the collective prejudice of the settlers/landowners/factory owners lead to ghettoisation of the Protestant and Catholic working classes. The Catholics with their lower paid, less skilled and, therefore, less secure jobs within the mills on the fast-flowing river edges of the hills to the North. The Protestants living on the flat, with more skilled jobs in the shipyards. The ship owners living in London, some of the very few able to travel aboard the ships in any dignity.
Please see: ‘Titanic’, James Cameron, 1997. A wonderful film-so romantic.
This is if the Catholics were allowed to work at all; Protestants got first priority. So, it can’t be blamed that easily on the Protestant working class.
It is a testament to how successful the social control had been that it took the large scale burning out of Catholic populations from mixed Catholic/Protestant areas to kick the Catholic working class into action.
The description of how the plantations affected land organisation was very interesting compared to the existing system of townland.
Could get carried away on two fronts here with the politics, so will go back to the built.
In some ways I liked the idea of making the big roads into more active streetscapes but with so much land and piecemeal development you wonder if there aren’t better sites-not necessarily centrally, and could it be interesting o retreat from the road or make a hierarchical buffer?
To finish on the term I liked the most: ‘Critical Reconstruction.’
Belfast is an acute example where certain of its social and political factors can be pointed to, to explain particular physical factors. These physical objects include, Peace Walls, fortress like RUC barracks and housing estate layouts.
The lecture was very thorough in describing Belfast’s make-up, without necessarily, pictures of key buildings but descriptions of social or political events. Also, its geography, which along with the collective prejudice of the settlers/landowners/factory owners lead to ghettoisation of the Protestant and Catholic working classes. The Catholics with their lower paid, less skilled and, therefore, less secure jobs within the mills on the fast-flowing river edges of the hills to the North. The Protestants living on the flat, with more skilled jobs in the shipyards. The ship owners living in London, some of the very few able to travel aboard the ships in any dignity.
Please see: ‘Titanic’, James Cameron, 1997. A wonderful film-so romantic.
This is if the Catholics were allowed to work at all; Protestants got first priority. So, it can’t be blamed that easily on the Protestant working class.
It is a testament to how successful the social control had been that it took the large scale burning out of Catholic populations from mixed Catholic/Protestant areas to kick the Catholic working class into action.
The description of how the plantations affected land organisation was very interesting compared to the existing system of townland.
Could get carried away on two fronts here with the politics, so will go back to the built.
In some ways I liked the idea of making the big roads into more active streetscapes but with so much land and piecemeal development you wonder if there aren’t better sites-not necessarily centrally, and could it be interesting o retreat from the road or make a hierarchical buffer?
To finish on the term I liked the most: ‘Critical Reconstruction.’
Tuesday 2 November 2010
Royal Albert Basin
The piecemeal development of the Docklands seems to have lead to some very different places in spatial terms. As mentioned in the lecture, the development at the Royal Albert Basin is fringed by The University of East London, the low density estates of Beckton and Gallions Reach, a drive-in shopping centre to the North. As well as its adjacency to the river and basin itself.
The University has no links to the area of Beckton. The only crossing of the tracks at Cyprus DLR station is when the students who live on campus do their shopping at Asda. Because of the Asda store being at the heart of Beckton and the Beckton DLR station close by, the people who live there tend not to bother crossing the busy dual carriageway to get to the huge Tesco and various stores of Gallions Reach. The students of the University choose in the main not to go to Gallions reach and either do their shopping at the Beckton Asda or even jump on the DLR at Cyprus station and go to Canary Wharf. The road infrastructure again is very problematic with no footpath along the side of the Royal Docks Road dual carriageway with the other options, to risk going through Winsor Park (scrubland beside the road) or along the desolate roads of the Royal Albert Basin site and beyond. By comparison Gallions Reach DLR station (the featured station in the lecture) is a quarter of the way to Gallions Reach from the University.
I suppose we can use the analogy of the ‘Bridge to Nowhere’, built to access the proposed Thames Gateway Bridge. There are big opportunities and many things in place in the Royal Albert basin area, which could be interesting and influential to the different parties but without the actual link it’s isolated, oversized and oversimplified and redundant to the cause of better place.
For the site itself, the lecture showed what a complicated story it has been to date and gave a great insight into the workings of any development of such size in a developed world city. Its very exciting the possibilities of using the tools at hand to influence a decision, whether that be friendliness with an individual or a commanding grasp of planning law. Perhaps most importantly being able to understand the interested parties agenda’s, and taking this into consideration while developing an approach for a better space.
I didn’t follow the final part about procurement too well, will have to ask further about that.
Did it feel like the current set of ‘advanced infrastructure’ was too much of a mirror to the advanced infrastructure of the past. That time nothing came of the surroundings, now little will be done in the short term and the site conditions may change all over again?
At least this round is more concerned with the local than the inter-local. Perhaps more can be done to address some of the issues mentioned above-I wouldn’t want to live there.
The University has no links to the area of Beckton. The only crossing of the tracks at Cyprus DLR station is when the students who live on campus do their shopping at Asda. Because of the Asda store being at the heart of Beckton and the Beckton DLR station close by, the people who live there tend not to bother crossing the busy dual carriageway to get to the huge Tesco and various stores of Gallions Reach. The students of the University choose in the main not to go to Gallions reach and either do their shopping at the Beckton Asda or even jump on the DLR at Cyprus station and go to Canary Wharf. The road infrastructure again is very problematic with no footpath along the side of the Royal Docks Road dual carriageway with the other options, to risk going through Winsor Park (scrubland beside the road) or along the desolate roads of the Royal Albert Basin site and beyond. By comparison Gallions Reach DLR station (the featured station in the lecture) is a quarter of the way to Gallions Reach from the University.
I suppose we can use the analogy of the ‘Bridge to Nowhere’, built to access the proposed Thames Gateway Bridge. There are big opportunities and many things in place in the Royal Albert basin area, which could be interesting and influential to the different parties but without the actual link it’s isolated, oversized and oversimplified and redundant to the cause of better place.
For the site itself, the lecture showed what a complicated story it has been to date and gave a great insight into the workings of any development of such size in a developed world city. Its very exciting the possibilities of using the tools at hand to influence a decision, whether that be friendliness with an individual or a commanding grasp of planning law. Perhaps most importantly being able to understand the interested parties agenda’s, and taking this into consideration while developing an approach for a better space.
I didn’t follow the final part about procurement too well, will have to ask further about that.
Did it feel like the current set of ‘advanced infrastructure’ was too much of a mirror to the advanced infrastructure of the past. That time nothing came of the surroundings, now little will be done in the short term and the site conditions may change all over again?
At least this round is more concerned with the local than the inter-local. Perhaps more can be done to address some of the issues mentioned above-I wouldn’t want to live there.
Saturday 30 October 2010
Cairns Street Apiary-Liverpool
Houses are due for demolition
Juxtapose the assumed worthlessness of the houses by creating uses for the back garden spaces
Spaces given to people who live in surrounding communities for their own choice of use
Modular systems provided to, perhaps cover a space, give it electricity or water...
A new street is formed along the tight passage between the gardens of opposite houses.
In the example above an apiary (bee keepers) has been set-up in the back garden.
The honey removed from the Bee Box, taken inside where it is processed into salable honey, while at the front door jars are collected, washed and re-labelled. The two processes meet in the middle and are boxed for transport or sold at a counter in the hallway.
The building becomes re-used as well as the garden.
Even Didgeridoo's are made under the stairs as the bee's wax is perfect for making the mouth pieces.
Poor quality images, sorry
T14 Liverpool-City As Shopping Opportunity?
Looking at Google Maps I have just realised that Cairns Street, shown in the Flickr images of the street party was the street in which I based my second year project.
Please paste: ‘Granby Street, Liverpool’ into Google Maps and you can have a look round on Street View and see what the lecture was referring to.
Again, the evenings Rip It Up And Start Again lecture dovetailed nicely with the themes of the Breakfast Lecture.
The key principle to take from the evening for me, came from an answer in the questions section. That the Biennial provided, ‘A structure for the maintenance of the city.’ The most important point of the survival of any city is that people value it, in terms of the economic possibilities but also its social possibilities. Art can be a good way to get to know eachother-normally through having a laugh at someone else.
The Marcus Coates’ project: Journey to The Lower World was my favorite artpiece. I question the implication that asking residents their issues with a place and community and then suggesting answers derived through a Shaman ceremony does not have any ulterior motive, but that’s good in this case. As we saw, the other forces smashing these communities all have ulterior motives and don't work for the good of the people they serve.
I question the assertion that there is dignity in poverty so poverty is fine. This is not acceptable. In a time when Heroin is so accessible it is neither practical.
‘Liverpool-A City That Dared To Fight’, Peter Taffe and Tony Mulhern. It lost. It’s still loosing and art won’t change that alone, just like one city on its own couldn’t win alone.
This brings us to the question, ‘What is a community?’
Please paste: ‘Granby Street, Liverpool’ into Google Maps and you can have a look round on Street View and see what the lecture was referring to.
Again, the evenings Rip It Up And Start Again lecture dovetailed nicely with the themes of the Breakfast Lecture.
The key principle to take from the evening for me, came from an answer in the questions section. That the Biennial provided, ‘A structure for the maintenance of the city.’ The most important point of the survival of any city is that people value it, in terms of the economic possibilities but also its social possibilities. Art can be a good way to get to know eachother-normally through having a laugh at someone else.
The Marcus Coates’ project: Journey to The Lower World was my favorite artpiece. I question the implication that asking residents their issues with a place and community and then suggesting answers derived through a Shaman ceremony does not have any ulterior motive, but that’s good in this case. As we saw, the other forces smashing these communities all have ulterior motives and don't work for the good of the people they serve.
I question the assertion that there is dignity in poverty so poverty is fine. This is not acceptable. In a time when Heroin is so accessible it is neither practical.
‘Liverpool-A City That Dared To Fight’, Peter Taffe and Tony Mulhern. It lost. It’s still loosing and art won’t change that alone, just like one city on its own couldn’t win alone.
This brings us to the question, ‘What is a community?’
T12 London's Urban Markers
Was it a joke?
Firstly to present any of these projects as an ‘intervention’ cannot be taken seriously. My understanding of an intervention is something that questions local conditions and often tests propositions to, hopefully, make an improvement. Most people do this with little cash, to ask for £10 million to plonk an irrelevant, unconsidered, unquestioned object anywhere is disgusting.
De-cluttering is indeed a popular phrase. One-by-one the panel jumped on this to describe the exciting jumble of the city, with distinct aspects to its make-up of parts. Why then do you need a marker to describe where you are? I don’t wander around the West End, lost and scared until I come across Nelson’s Column and think: ‘Thank god, now I know where I am!’ Anyway, I wouldn’t go there, I go to a pizza shop close-by where you can get a slice at the counter for relatively cheap and its relatively nice-This is my marker.
How does adding another object to the streetscape de-clutter?
How many monuments do we need? A question raised in the discussion. In a tight city like central London, we need a marker on every corner because you can’t tell where you are if you can’t see the next? Oh, but there is, isn’t there, because that café doesn’t exist anywhere else.
Just a note on the Ebbsfleet White Horse (should it have been a White Elephant?). I didn’t like this one either. I had never heard of Ebbsfleet until a few years ago, now it is one of only 3 locations in the country to have an international train terminal-isn’t this marketing enough? No one has ever heard of Northfleet, or Greenhithe or Singlewell, Ebbsfleet’s larger neighbors. I suppose this argument doesn’t sit with the Industrial park’s owners; but to whip-up some localism to satisfy their renewed (after admitted total initial failure) marketing strategy is unfair.
Firstly to present any of these projects as an ‘intervention’ cannot be taken seriously. My understanding of an intervention is something that questions local conditions and often tests propositions to, hopefully, make an improvement. Most people do this with little cash, to ask for £10 million to plonk an irrelevant, unconsidered, unquestioned object anywhere is disgusting.
De-cluttering is indeed a popular phrase. One-by-one the panel jumped on this to describe the exciting jumble of the city, with distinct aspects to its make-up of parts. Why then do you need a marker to describe where you are? I don’t wander around the West End, lost and scared until I come across Nelson’s Column and think: ‘Thank god, now I know where I am!’ Anyway, I wouldn’t go there, I go to a pizza shop close-by where you can get a slice at the counter for relatively cheap and its relatively nice-This is my marker.
How does adding another object to the streetscape de-clutter?
How many monuments do we need? A question raised in the discussion. In a tight city like central London, we need a marker on every corner because you can’t tell where you are if you can’t see the next? Oh, but there is, isn’t there, because that café doesn’t exist anywhere else.
Just a note on the Ebbsfleet White Horse (should it have been a White Elephant?). I didn’t like this one either. I had never heard of Ebbsfleet until a few years ago, now it is one of only 3 locations in the country to have an international train terminal-isn’t this marketing enough? No one has ever heard of Northfleet, or Greenhithe or Singlewell, Ebbsfleet’s larger neighbors. I suppose this argument doesn’t sit with the Industrial park’s owners; but to whip-up some localism to satisfy their renewed (after admitted total initial failure) marketing strategy is unfair.
T11 Lecture 3 What Happened to the Thames Gateway Dream?
From living in Docklands I know what a grim place it can be.
The main built form seems to be infrastructure, interesting then to hear Geoff Shearcroft’s statistics: 22% of land use in the UK being for roads compared to only 8% housing.
You could map the whole history of the Thames Gateway from its infrastructure. This is very evident around the Royal Docks and Beckton, where I am most familiar. The area and its infrastructure only exist because of the docks, which haven't operated for years. Many programs of renewed infrastrucure provision have been attempted to encourage re-development. The legacy of the Thatcherite programs with brick clad concrete bridges, 4 lanes wide which lead to fenced-off dead ends in mid air. Others altered to make into green connections between bits of residual scrub, left in the ‘frozen bits of land’ between concrete ribbons. Then the undulating DLR, bizarre for such a flat landscape. Affording great views (a matter of opinion) in places and dark depressions in others. Its so slow. Concrete, raw-nothing happening in the gaps though, cost seems to be the only consideration when it came to design.
At this point in the Thames Gateway the big sheds are not hidden, are even celebrated with prominent locations facing the infrastructure. Excel and the Royals Business park, even the Architecture School at UEL. Then this was the original theme for the area, large warehouses by the docks.
There was a good model a few years ago by an RCA student describing the infrastructure of the area, I will dig that out.
The observations about repetitive housing not meaning that what goes on inside the houses is the same was very encouraging. ‘While you were sleeping and trying to dream’ Things were being built and people carrying out their lives amongst it all.
Back to repetitive housing, this was a project done in Beckton about how people could adapt their houses to innovate or support changing circumstances: http://www.ucl.ac.uk/urbanbuzz/downloads/projects_03/CD-G-Workshop_Case%20Study.pdf
This is a very interesting new book on the subject, again, not sure about its conclusions but nice drawings!
http://www.dk-cm.com/projects/sub-plan-a-guide-to-permitted-development/
The main built form seems to be infrastructure, interesting then to hear Geoff Shearcroft’s statistics: 22% of land use in the UK being for roads compared to only 8% housing.
You could map the whole history of the Thames Gateway from its infrastructure. This is very evident around the Royal Docks and Beckton, where I am most familiar. The area and its infrastructure only exist because of the docks, which haven't operated for years. Many programs of renewed infrastrucure provision have been attempted to encourage re-development. The legacy of the Thatcherite programs with brick clad concrete bridges, 4 lanes wide which lead to fenced-off dead ends in mid air. Others altered to make into green connections between bits of residual scrub, left in the ‘frozen bits of land’ between concrete ribbons. Then the undulating DLR, bizarre for such a flat landscape. Affording great views (a matter of opinion) in places and dark depressions in others. Its so slow. Concrete, raw-nothing happening in the gaps though, cost seems to be the only consideration when it came to design.
At this point in the Thames Gateway the big sheds are not hidden, are even celebrated with prominent locations facing the infrastructure. Excel and the Royals Business park, even the Architecture School at UEL. Then this was the original theme for the area, large warehouses by the docks.
There was a good model a few years ago by an RCA student describing the infrastructure of the area, I will dig that out.
The observations about repetitive housing not meaning that what goes on inside the houses is the same was very encouraging. ‘While you were sleeping and trying to dream’ Things were being built and people carrying out their lives amongst it all.
Back to repetitive housing, this was a project done in Beckton about how people could adapt their houses to innovate or support changing circumstances: http://www.ucl.ac.uk/urbanbuzz/downloads/projects_03/CD-G-Workshop_Case%20Study.pdf
This is a very interesting new book on the subject, again, not sure about its conclusions but nice drawings!
http://www.dk-cm.com/projects/sub-plan-a-guide-to-permitted-development/
Monday 18 October 2010
T7 Urban Design Roles
Professional Roles:
Spatial Planner (official title of members of team within Haringey Planning Department)
Architect
Planner
Landscape adviser
Engineer
Councilor
Mayor
Surveyor
Quantity Surveyor
MP
Butcher
Baker
Candle Stick Maker (I suppose everybody is involved at some point?)
Spatial Planner (official title of members of team within Haringey Planning Department)
Architect
Planner
Landscape adviser
Engineer
Councilor
Mayor
Surveyor
Quantity Surveyor
MP
Butcher
Baker
Candle Stick Maker (I suppose everybody is involved at some point?)
T6 Urban Design Definitions
muf architectureart
muf have established urban strategies that successfully negotiate public and private interests in order to develop the economic and social potential for multiple occupations of public space. These projects are achieved through pioneering methods of consultation to identify the many and diverse desires contingent on a situation. Our working method draws together expertise in consultation, funding, landscape, traffic management, street furniture and information design.
Topio, Landscapes
Topio, is a landscape design and research practice which celebrates the art of place and the life of plants.
Every project evolves through listening, sensing and responding: an ecological approach that invites in the subtle energies of place in conversation with communities and practitioners in the field.
Yorkshire Forward-Regional Regeneration quango!
Making places ‘great'
Yorkshire Forward wants to help create places where people want to live, work and invest—seizing opportunities, fixing what’s broken, and building on what’s already there. Our Urban Renaissance programme provides a new way to overcome the challenges. We have a detailed understanding of the issues, and we're promoting the development of knowledge, expertise, skills and best practice.
What is a ‘great place'?
It's virtually impossible to define what makes a place 'great' - but the following are a range of likely characteristics:
Originality and great architecture
Creativity, culture, knowledge and learning
Permeable public spaces, public buildings and public life
Quality and accessible green spaces
High-quality, well-connected infrastructure
Engaged and thriving communities with a sense of belonging
Strong, ambitious leadership and governance
Civic pride and positive identity
Strong, growing businesses and flexible local economies
Accessible business support structures
Environmental consciousness and sensitivity
Equality, fairness and diversity—reflecting all ages, races and abilities.
muf have established urban strategies that successfully negotiate public and private interests in order to develop the economic and social potential for multiple occupations of public space. These projects are achieved through pioneering methods of consultation to identify the many and diverse desires contingent on a situation. Our working method draws together expertise in consultation, funding, landscape, traffic management, street furniture and information design.
Topio, Landscapes
Topio, is a landscape design and research practice which celebrates the art of place and the life of plants.
Every project evolves through listening, sensing and responding: an ecological approach that invites in the subtle energies of place in conversation with communities and practitioners in the field.
Yorkshire Forward-Regional Regeneration quango!
Making places ‘great'
Yorkshire Forward wants to help create places where people want to live, work and invest—seizing opportunities, fixing what’s broken, and building on what’s already there. Our Urban Renaissance programme provides a new way to overcome the challenges. We have a detailed understanding of the issues, and we're promoting the development of knowledge, expertise, skills and best practice.
What is a ‘great place'?
It's virtually impossible to define what makes a place 'great' - but the following are a range of likely characteristics:
Originality and great architecture
Creativity, culture, knowledge and learning
Permeable public spaces, public buildings and public life
Quality and accessible green spaces
High-quality, well-connected infrastructure
Engaged and thriving communities with a sense of belonging
Strong, ambitious leadership and governance
Civic pride and positive identity
Strong, growing businesses and flexible local economies
Accessible business support structures
Environmental consciousness and sensitivity
Equality, fairness and diversity—reflecting all ages, races and abilities.
T5 Site Background-Lea Valley
Simply the area action plans for the mid-Lea Valley area from the Borough's who control parts of the first Unit 10 site.
Spot the difference?
WALTHAM FOREST: http://www.walthamforest.gov.uk/figure1-5-ppg17-typology-access-walthamstow-
HACKNEY: leabridge.pdf/www.hackney.gov.uk/Assets/Documents/ldf-proposals_map.pdf
HARINGEY: http://www.cartoplus.co.uk/haringey/haringey.htm
Spot the difference?
WALTHAM FOREST: http://www.walthamforest.gov.uk/figure1-5-ppg17-typology-access-walthamstow-
HACKNEY: leabridge.pdf/www.hackney.gov.uk/Assets/Documents/ldf-proposals_map.pdf
HARINGEY: http://www.cartoplus.co.uk/haringey/haringey.htm
Friday 15 October 2010
T8 Lecture 2 What is the contemporary city made of?
It’s a good starting approach to understanding cities by visiting them and having a look round.
WW2 had caused massive social change in Britain. The transient nature of people’s surroundings or this perception had lead to people being less precious about unnecessary belongings, and had increased community collaboration through necessity. Churchill, the famous war leader was voted out at the first opportunity in favour of a Labour Government promising a Welfare State. Unfortunately, economic uncertainty in America lead to them recalling the massive war debts Britain owed, which lead to a much diluted version of the Welfare State being implemented. Does that have any relevance…
The lecture seemed to sit very well with our conclusions as a group to date. Politics and money have a much bigger say in our built environment than Architects-is this fair to say?
We’re still looking at architecture as object.
Jane Jacobs observes the city and makes common sense conclusions. This doesn’t mean that she knows best for the city (I haven’t got to the ‘Different Tactics’ section yet) but it shows that through observation, some local knowledge and a little presumption we can see a little past our social assumptions.
I would relate this to Park Hill, Sheffield.
I took a friend up to see it this year, I’d never been in the middle of it when I was younger because I’d grown up with the stories (and it’s a Sheffield United stronghold) but now only a few people live there I thought it was ok!
It was built by the City Architects to the emerging theory lead by the Smithsons in their unbuilt Golden Lane competition entry. With exposed concrete structure and raised deck access open to the elements (later a major criticism-open decks may work in French sunshine but in driving Yorkshire rain?-I think this is a bit irrelevant). As was mentioned in the lecture, Park Hill was considered successful by its residents for the first 30 years, with schools, play areas, shops, pubs, hairdressers, all part of the development and in the middle, not on some lonely edge. Also, that its decline correlates directly with the decline of the steel industry, at its absolute peak in the late 70’s; with jobs in the steel industry falling by 90% in the following 10 years as automation kicked in and competition closed other plants. Not forgetting Margaret Thatcher(the wicked witch)’s input, cutting inner city Council budgets to a third of their previous levels, with many maintenance budgets for public housing being scrapped altogether. Liverpool being the only Council, which temporarily resisted, with its Militant movement. Again mentioned in the lecture, but it is worth going to Liverpool to perhaps Toxteth. Its very weird; rows of terraced houses in good condition but to be demolished by their Council owners, next to a green site where the street outline shows where the next identical set of terraced houses were. Then on the same size site, following the same road pattern, a group of semi-detached houses, as seen in the lecture, of roughly a third the density of the terraced rows. Go to Granby Street, once a bustling row of shops with a long market where the flats above the shops used to be a valuable commodity, highly sought after by the young people of the area. Now a newsagent, with the traditional Liverpool plexi-glass surrounded counter, a Caribbean club and foreign food shop, a local Police outpost with anti ram-raid protection built into the surrounding pavement and by far the most popular, opposite the cop-shop the drug dealers who don’t seem to make any concession to hide what they are up to. Oh, and Ken’s barbers. Actually, sounds quite good there, I suppose it is in ways but you have to go perhaps.
Sheffield Council caved in, lead at the time by The Right Honourable David Blunkett MP.
Now Urban Splash aren’t redeveloping Park Hill because they can’t make such massive profits at the moment. They didn’t even bother fixing the structural concrete mentioned in its 2* listing, rather, they covered over the exposed rusting steel reinforcing bars.
I’ve got carried away with object now-its too easy.
Robert Mull’s question was a good one, in that it picked up on the main factor, which discredits, to most people the argument that the lecture was making. That it’s easy to be critical (clearly its not because more people would be so), without proposing a solution. Owen Hatherley’s was to revert to and improve his Socially Democratic England 4. Clearly, at least in the short term this will not be the case. So, us SPUD’s need to be looking for a New England, and not take Billy Bragg’s stance…
It’s the first time I’ve listened to an SWP member for so long and not had to buy a paper-so that’s good.
Monday 11 October 2010
T4 Lecture 1 What is the city for?
Some more great terms brought up in this lecture, such as:
Publicness
City at night
Urban Metabolism
Arrival City
City Wilderness
and the basis for the lecture:
Freedom-for
Freedom-from
However, the questions were perhaps more telling towards our course. With a clear distinction between Diploma Unit 1's view of architecture as object compared to architecture as city and increasingly to architecture as world city and the architect as a worldwide protagonist.
Thursday 7 October 2010
T3 Film 1 Koyaanisqatsi
Godfrey Reggio, Koyaanisqatsi (film), Life out of balance, 1983
Philip Glass, Score
Life exists because of imbalances.
The Universe, because the spread of gravity was imbalanced (assuming gravity exists).
Life and evolution, because chemicals within cells became imbalanced and mutated.
Civilisation has been created from an imbalance of skills-specialisation, which allows increasing numbers to live together.
I would like to have seen more of the shots of the humans walking past camera; they had much greater intimacy. We get so used to vast unspoiled landscapes but don’t recognise them as we do a smirk. The story could have been told even more simply using one or the other.
Also, the speeding up and slowing down of sequences, was there a logic to this, or was it just taste.
The score did relate directly to the visual medium, however, if showing the actual images why not the accurate sounds as well.
T2 Manifesto 1
I’m English I suppose but not necessarily.
I never knew this before I came to London.
I was from Yorkshire; from Sheffield; from High Green; from the North side of High Green-oops, don’t tell people that, they will think you are posh.
No design is or can be perfect. Does this make design worthless? Design is necessary.
The intricacies of the city mean that making improvements mean exaggerating other faults, many changes are often wholly detrimental.
We make assumptions as designers that we will forge inherently positive objects for our built environment. However, with the different interests of those involved this becomes diluted or even purposefully the opposite.
So, I like to be critical.
Added Value is my favorite phrase at the moment.
Working on community gardens for the last year has given me a good insight into what added value can mean. Neighbors who had never met, water each other’s plants, socialise, fix each other’s washing machines, say hello, even fall-out. Better to not like someone than to not know them…?
The relative monitory cost of these projects is tiny compared, I believe to the outcomes. Can this value be quantified> It’s much easier to spend all your money on a couple of big projects than think of lots of tiny one’s with much higher added value.
I don’t like gardening that much, though, neither do they.
My third year tutors told me, that I was the worst student they had ever taught. My collection of buildings too understated (for a World Heritage Site). The reasoning of the different aspects too overstated.
‘Why don’t you put a dome on it?’
I didn’t have a reply to that one.
Good design is an inefficient process of change.
A planning role seems much more honorable than that of most architects. At least Planners work to minimum standards, doing a job of much less egotistical fancy.
For my degree dissertation I wrote about T.S. Eliot’s The Waste Land. In it Eliot suggests that everything has been done before and we can only re-jumble. Well, perhaps it has, but we seem to be constantly re-jumbling the same pieces. It makes sense that architects and planners are re-jumblers. Deck chairs on the Titanic? If people had been spread equally amongst the lifeboats, everybody would have got off.
Écriture-signposts of language; T.S. Eliot’s copy and paste style.
Think I may have given myself away.
T1 Glossary 1
1. Planning - Coordinated attempt to rationalise the development of the built environment. 1a. Rationalise - Make according to certain guidelines/the prevailing rational.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)