Ok slightly revised. I'm a lot happier with this.
Problem:
Suburban planning is often criticized for its low density, car-centered organization, and lack of third places. This has spawned urban planning strategies to increase density and encourage social interaction. While this is well-intentioned, if the actual architecture continues to be repetitive and generic, we are still failing to create distinctive places. “New Urbanist” and “Smart Growth” developments might indeed function better, but in many cases the overall quality is still anonymous. The current strategies for the creation of character are generally in two camps; one where the architecture attempts to create a faux-historic character, and one based on current contemporary trends of residential architecture which are potentially just as generic. The generation of authentic character is noticeably missing in the discussion.
Purpose:
Architecture should respond to the human desire for personal and community identity. Rather than designing with preconceived notions about aesthetic style, authentic architectural character should be derived from the distinct quality of a place, the identity of the users, and the innovation of the architect.
The strategies and precedents are so far the same as I posted before though.
Some issues to deal with:
- is it economically feasible to care about character? Is this only possible for custom homes, or can it be a strategy to differentiate multiple houses within a single development. Is is possible to design for customization and variety without it being horribly expensive? - there are historic precedents to how that might be done.
- is it a question of creating new communities or retrofitting existing ones?
I would recommend taking a moment and asking whether or not the term "authentic" is appropriate in this thesis. Though the intentions are relatively clear, the use of authenticity is going to be a bit difficult for your moving forward as it implies a connection to something that exists beforehand. For example, designing a house atop a former brownfield gas station site may have some design connections to the original gas station which makes sense to a certain degree. That said, if one were to build a house in the forest, the discussion becomes a bit less convincing as there was very little to draw upon prior to being there.
ReplyDeleteI would also suggest trying to steer a bit more away from explicitly housing and urbanism as a strong architectural thesis will NOT be inherently tied to typology or specific site(s). That you start talking about communities and houses is dangerous as you can imagine if the final project typology were presented as a movie theatre, you might have a great deal of difficulty negotiating what you have here with such a typological discussion. You are not the only one, as many other o your classmates are struggling with the issues of generating statements tied to sites, typologies, and even processes.
I understand what you are saying. It is harder to draw on history when there is not much urban history present, but I think that's when existing natural features, and the natural history of a place comes in to play. Every place has significant qualities, urban or not.
ReplyDeleteI don't consider my purpose to be specific to a specific typology and context...
I'm saying that the character of all buildings should be authentic. Why couldn't I do a movie theatre in that way?
But I'm struggling with how to make the problem vague enough. Because the description in the project outline says "One sentence explaining an issue that has precipitated a specific condition"
How do I identify a problem for a specific condition without specifying a certain context?
I suppose I could just chop off the first part and leave it at:
Current strategies for the creation of architectural character are generally in two camps; one where the architecture attempts to create a faux-historic character, and one based on current contemporary trends of architecture which are potentially just as generic. The question of how to generate authentic architectural character is noticeably missing in the discussion.
So then it can apply to any typology or context.
You're getting better but just keep in mind that this is an evolving process so it will likely take a few more stabs before there is a greater clarity. The truncation of text material makes it easier to refine your argument (and detach from specific sites or typologies) but at the same time allows you to focus on a particular stream/direction.
ReplyDelete