Making the world a better place

I really enjoyed reading Jesse Scanlon’s article “Open Source Goes Hammer and Nail”. I thought it was extremely interesting to read about Cameron Sinclair and his Open Architecture Network (OAM). I found interesting because today’s internet offers so many different community websites such as Facebook, Myspace, aSmallworld, and many others. So it feels only right that a community website targeting architecture and architects was founded. More importantly, OAM is not a common community website, it is a cause related community website. It is well known that a very large amount of people live in poverty and I find very touching and amazing at the same time that Cameron Sinclair is so concerned about this problem.
Through his community website, he tries to gather as many architects or people interested in architecture as possible and informs them of the problem. What he tries to do is to get the members of the website to share different kinds of information in order to find different ways of solving housing problems that occur in different areas of the world. It was very interesting to read how he thought that giving away tents was a very way of solving shelter in third world countries. Instead, he did an experiment in Kosovo where he built housing at very low cost and got the villagers to work with them. This was a great solution as it was not that expensive and at the same time it educated the villagers on how to build, so they did not only get houses but they also learned how to rebuild their village.
The OAM is seen as a great thing as its goal is to create a better world, but many architects still remain skeptical about joining the network. The reason for that is that they are scared of sharing their own designs or intellectual property. They do not want anybody to steal their hard work. Also, architects are held liable for their designs. So if their building is build somewhere but the building was not made for that area and it collapses, then the architect can be held liable. Thankfully, Sinclair has been working with lawyers on arranging legal matters. Other problems that occur with the network are the different construction and building laws that other countries have.
To conclude I would say that the OAM is a great tool not only to make the world a better a place but also for architects to communicate in order to find new solutions.

Digital Models

The New York Times article “For New Buildings, Digital Models Offer an Advance Walk-Through” was a very interesting article that reminded me of the rendering article that was assigned two weeks ago. The article talks about AEI Digital, which is a company that develops digital models for buildings. Much more advanced than renderings, the digital models actually allow viewers to walk-through the building in a very realistic way. What the company did was actually to use gaming softwares and methods to create the most accurate and realistic models. As they explain it in the article, the digital model is a great tool for investors to see exactly how a building will look or how a material or fabric will look, basically “it’s really just a communications tool”.
Although it is a great communication tool, Mr. Schuldt also emphasizes on the fact that architecture as a whole has been very slow to adapt new technologies because sometimes those new technologies are not very practical and people working on construction sites tend to prefer to write on paper than walking around with laptops. Some architects are very conservative and do not work a lot with the new technologies but then others do, take Frank Gehry as an example. Gehry would never be able to work without new technologies as his buildings are so complex and could not be constructed without computers calculating even the smallest thing.
I believe that this new software is a great tool as it allows viewers to see the building in a more realistic way than renderings. Renderings are great too but if you can have digital models such as the AEI ones then why not. They are much more advanced and will allow viewers not only see one part or façade of the building, they will show everything in a 3 dimensional form rather than in 2 dimensional form.

Berlin – New York

First of all I would like to apologize for the pictures, I was not able to fit them to the screen.

After having attended several different events and galleries I have decided to write this assignment about the exhibit I found the most interesting, the ‘Berlin-New York Dialogues: Building in Context’ exhibit at the New York Center for Architecture. I also found this exhibit to be the most relevant with the course as it compares two different cities and their architecture in many different ways.
The Center for Architecture is located at 536 LaGuardia Place. The center has hosted many different architectural exhibits and also offers weekly lectures with a wide variety of speakers. The ‘Berlin-New York Dialogues: Building in Context’ exhibit opened on November 8th and will remain at the gallery till the 26th of January, 2008.
The exhibit is about Berlin and New York because as they refer to it, these two cities are “two of the world’s most dynamic urban centers” and they “are making radical transformations in their streets and skylines”.
Berlin is the capital of Germany and with a population of over 3.4 million, it is Germany’s largest city. Berlin is probably one of the most interesting cities in the world as it has undergone a series of historical and cultural turnovers in the last century. Probably the most interesting part of the city’s history is the drastic change that it has undergone since the Wall was demolished in 1989. Today, Berlin is seen as one of the capitals of Europe and more importantly as the European capital for modern art and creative minds. This is critical as I believe that it affects the city and its architecture.
New York is probably one of the most important cities in the world, seeing as how it is aptly named the ‘capital of the world’. Here in New York anything can happen, therefore it is not shocking that they picked this city as the subject for the exhibit. With over 8.2 million inhabitants, New York is one of the most rapidly changing cities and tries to always be one step ahead when it comes to innovation, especially when it comes to architecture.
The exhibit took place in the center’s lower floors, so once you entered the gallery you had to take the stairs down to enter the exhibit. The reason why I mention this is because I believe they did an extraordinary job with introducing the viewers to both cities. What they did was that they marked different relevant information on the walls in the staircase. This is of great importance to the show as it introduces the viewers to both cities through comparing data such as the population, area, density, number of museums, population growth, number of foreigners, number of schools, and many other relevant data. This was great as the viewers are introduced to both cities and their data from the start and it allows them to better understand them and the similarities and differences they share.
The exhibit was extremely interesting and I believe that did great in communicating their message to the crowd. I thought that the way they set it up was a great choice although sometimes there seemed to be almost an excess amount of information gathered on too small an area. What they did was that they fully covered the walls with texts and pictures of different architectural projects going on different parts of both cities. They divided the different projects with different colours, design, and markings on the floor. Because the wall space was probably not sufficient for the whole exhibit, they also created a certain amount of booths placed in the center of the rooms. It was interesting to see that they did not only use images and texts on those booths but they also added small screens displaying videos about different projects. Although those videos were a bit visually dull, I still believe that they made the exhibit more interactive.
The whole concept of the exhibit was to “investigate the changes in these two cities by looking at the contemporary built environment and mechanisms of urban regeneration – the social, political, economic, and cultural processes that affect the building”. I believe that the show was very successful to cover a large amount of important projects happening in both cities, what also made it more interesting was the fact that there was so much diversity in those different projects. They did not only focus on one neighborhood or one type of project but on three. Looking at New York as example, they show everything from current projects going on in Harlem or Brooklyn to bigger and more expensive projects that are going on in Chelsea. This was a great thing as it allowed the viewer to have a greater understanding of cities and the diversity that both cities have to offer through those different neighborhoods. It is important to show and explore differences and commonalities between distinctive international cities and cultures. The different projects also shown in the exhibit also shows how Berlin claims that it is the European cultural and intellectual center. New York, on the other hand, tries to maintain its creative and financial reputation through those new projects. The theme that was the most obvious was the cultural differences. The exhibit focused a lot on showing how these were two extremely diverse and full culture cities they were. The fact they introduce the viewers with so many different data that is culture related only strengthen my argument.
One part of the exposition that I found impressive and actually very important were the gigantic posters representing New York viewed above and Berlin viewed from above. The posters are actually place by the atrium that can be seen in the window. Both poster take up two floors in height, have a yellow tone, and have labels of the areas that are covered in the exhibit. I believe that these posters are of great importance because they attract passenger walking by to come in and take a look at the exhibit. They also allow the viewer to see the difference in size of the two cities and to see how Berlin is much more spread out than New York, which I believe plays an important role for viewers in understanding the exhibit.
To conclude, I would say that I found this exhibit highly successful in educating the viewers about the two cities. In many different ways, New York and Berlin are two capitals of the world, and it felt only right to do an exhibition about architectural projects going on the two cities. What makes it even better is that they not only show the architectural project but also how it affects a community and a whole city. I believe that this exhibit is a must see!

The rendered world

For me, it is clear that “architecture does not exist without drawing in the same way that architecture does not exist without texts”. Adrian Forty made it clear that the drawing part in architecture is so crucial.
As we may read it in David W. Dunlap’s article, architecture and drawing has changed. This change occurred because today, we live in a computerized world. What has happened is that architects use computers to create renderings. I personally believe that using computers to create renderings is a great tool in many different ways. First of all, like Dunlap says in the article, renderings are used to get city approval. This is great as it allows the city officials to see exactly how the building will look and if it will fit in that certain area. Renderings are also a great marketing tool in the real estate market. With today’s real estate market moving at such a fast pace, people have started buying apartments that are still in construction. They strictly look at the floorplans, amenities, and renderings. So a rendering is a great tool as it will allow the potential buyer to see what the final product will look like. Profesionnal renderers and marketing specialist have become extremely good at selling buildings only through renderings. They are able to create the renderings and make them look so real. Donald Trump actually says it perfectly, “I am trying to sell a vision of something that has not been built”. My only problem with renderings is that I believe they make too good a job and I tend to be disappointed when I see the building in real life.
I believe that the computerization and renderings have helped architecture to evolve. Renderings allow architects to take their imagination a step further while computers allow them to calculate and make turn their craziest imagination into reality. Just take a look at Frank Gehry. He is without a doubt one of the greatest architects but his works would have been possible without computers. His buildings are so complex, and computers allow him to make the smallest calculations so that the building could stand on its own feet.
So to conclude I would have to agree with Adrien Forty, “without drawing, there would be no architecture”.

A Picture is Worth a Thousand Words

Photography is an amazing tool that creates replicas of objects, spaces, people, etc… on paper. I really love photography and I am actually a ‘Sunday photographer’. Although I love photography, I also believe that photography is a lie. I believe that it is a lie because a photographer has the power to change the truth and portray it in a different way. Many times, I have seen pictures of spaces and it did not look anything like the real space. The photographers have the power to manipulate and remodel a space, making it their own ideal or how they perceive the world. By remodeling and modifying the space they create a lie but it is arguable that they also create their own architecture. The picture becomes an object of architecture not because it portrays a building but because it the structure of the picture is architectural. And as we may read it in Cervin Robinson’s ‘Architect Transformed’, “a photographer accomplishes this by the pointed way he places objects in his pictures, by the significant relationships he establishes between these objects, and by his evident craftsmanship”.
It is interesting to notice how people react to photographs. A photograph is actually only an image. Some photographs have been seen so many times by people that they actually start believing that it is the real thing, and when they actually see the building for real they find a great disappointment. This usually happens because photography and photographers have the power to lie to people. A photographer can make a building look a lot bigger by simply shooting it from a certain angle, he can also hide the imperfections of the building by not showing them. Photographers have the power to distort the truth and make people believe through their own photographs.

TV

It is funny how today’s architecture has killed privacy, and how people accept it. With more and more buildings being built with glass facades, it feels like New York itself is going to become a television. I read an article earlier this week that was about glass buildings and I found it very interesting how they were relating it to community websites, and more exactly Facebook and Myspace. They were comparing glass buildings with these two website arguing that today people are willingly exposing themselves to the world either through these websites or just by living glass buildings. It also feels that people take joy in looking at others lives, just take television as an example. Today’s television shows mainly consists of reality shows, or at least it is what it feels like. More and more reality shows are being aired, and some way I feel like it is a little perverted. People enjoy watching these shows as much as people love taking part of those shows. Somehow, these reality shows reminds me of glass buildings. By living in an apartment with large windows and where anybody can see in your apartment, you basically create your own reality show. It is like inviting people to watch you live in your apartment. I will conclude by saying that I find it funny how people are willing to give their privacy by through Facebook, Myspace, Reality TV, or even living in a glass building.

CinemAAA

Although architecture might not be the first thing that pops in someone’s mind when thinking of cinematography, it has a considerable impact on the world of cinema. In cinematography, architecture is everywhere. Architecture is of great importance as it creates a stage and gives a lot more meaning to a scene or the whole movie. There are a lot great movies where architecture can be seen and directly connected to the movie, but I remember one movie that struck me as very interesting, Dogville. Unlike most of the movies, Dogville does exactly the contrary. Instead of using architecture or stage design, it does not use anything. I found that movie very interesting as the only thing that could be seen was tape on the floors to indicate rooms or buildings. This created a great effect as it allowed viewers to imagine and create their stage/architecture for this specific movie.
Great set design and architecture also allows producers to create a mood or to pass a message to the audience. It is also very easy nowadays to recreate that mood or feeling that a viewer gets with something that is actually not the real thing. A producer does not have to go all the way to Paris to film only one scene. Because some places have these architectural characteristics associated with them, it becomes a lot easier to reproduce it and make the viewers believe that it was filmed there.
Architecture within movies is of great importance for cinematography although I believe that cinematography will never be able to portray what and how architecture really is in real life. For example, a viewer will not get the same feeling of seeing notre dame in a movie or documentary than if he saw it in person.

Marketing and Music

Music has always been a great and important media that can inform people about a mood or a person, but how does it relate to real estate? Well today, music has infiltrated the world of real estate. Developers think music will make buyers more relaxed and engaged at their website and therefore they “are forever adding bells and whistles to distinguish their properties from all the others on the market”. They believe that the music will be “able to convey the vibe of a particular building, especially when that building is yet to exist”.
Music is a great marketing tool for developers to put on their website. Music can attract buyers by simply making the building more appealing to them, and it “is also seen as effective way to announce a building’s intended demographic without ever saying a word”.
Although music is seen as a great marketing tool, developers have to be careful as “linking a building with any sort of music runs the risk of alienating some buyers, particularly if the music is loud or repetitive”. An older buyer, particularly if he is very conservative, is not likely to buy an apartment where the website promotes a hip lifestyle by playing electro music. The music does not only have to be associated with the demographic but also with the architecture. It is not likely to hear electro music on plaza’s website.
I really believe that music is a great marketing tool for a building, but I also believe that it will have a very small impact on the final decision of the buyer because ‘in the end, buyers generally choose homes based on cost, location, and architectural details, not whether the building is more Brahms than Bjork.

Libraries

Libraries have always been the academic heart of institutions. The only problem is that, “as developed for more than 200 years, academic libraries in the United States and abroad have generally been designed first and foremost as places to collect, access, and preserve print collections”. Today, libraries have changed considerably, and the main reason for this change is technology.
Many people have claimed that virtual libraries would replace physical libraries. Today’s technology has evolved so much and almost everything can be accessed from home, therefore it has had considerable impact on libraries. “While information technology has not replaced print media, and is not expected to do so in the foreseeable future, it has nonetheless had an astonishing and quite unanticipated impact on the role of the library”.
The reason why library has survived against technology and will survive in the future is that “the library is the only centralized location where new and emerging information technologies can be combined with traditional knowledge resources in a user-focused, service-rich environment that supports today’s social and educational patterns of learning, teaching, and research. Whereas the Internet has tended to isolate people, the library, as a physical place, has done just the opposite”. When people access libraries, it is not only to access textbooks but also to profit from everything that the Internet does not offer. One will never get the same feeling from reading a text online than from actually reading the from the book. Or one will never profit the social aspects that the library has to offer.
To conclude, I believe that libraries have changed and will need to change in the future in order to respond and compete against new technologies. But I also believe that nothing will ever replace the experience that one gets from a library.

Populist visions

Coming back to last week’s reading, print did not kill architecture. As we may read it in the Wright reading, print actually educated people about architecture. In the 19th century, many publications about architecture, and homes appeared. More interestingly, these publications were written by carpenters, physicians, ministers, novelists, and housewives, but not professional architects.
These publications were there to educate people about interior designs and were mostly “intended for a population still largely rural”. Mainly, there were three types of houses catalogued in most of these publications. “Villas for persons of competence, cottages for mechanics or working men, and farmhouses for farmers”.
The publications made the home a much more important place for families, and especially for women. “Women saw in their homes their greatest opportunity to raise the family’s status, inspire the children to future success, and demonstrate their own taste and talents”. Some elements of the house were very important. “Every residential design should emphasize certain architectural elements- prominent chimneys and fireplaces, wide overhanging roofs, and bay windows- which, according to Ruskin, evoked the revered domestic virtues of protection, security, trust, and traditional family bonds”. And although some elements of the house such as the fireplace were not necessary any longer as there stoves now that would heat up the house, they still remained of importance. The reason for that was that “the appeal, then, was not functional but evocative. The image of the family gathered around the hearth was the most common way to call up the idea of the home as a place of protection and communality”.
I believe that these publications were great in some way as they educated people about interior designs but I also believe that they created a norm and killed creativity. It kind of told people what to do with their homes, and people started believing that they had to follow these styles in order to be normal or to create the right atmosphere.