Re-Cycled Urbanism

Cycling:

The process of life itself recycles architecture. Architecture can never be truly original as it feeds of the existent. Nothing is new. It is all reinterpretation. Yet the notion of recycling introduces the need to respond to now obsolete urban complexes. It conceives of new logics for operations which affect the habitat. Traditionally, urban recycling is executed through the operations of restructuring and the redefinition of existing spaces in order to foster new relationships; in essence, it is an intervention in our environment. To recycle a city is to create a new social cycle within the city. This comes with the recognition that the existing has reached the end of its life cycle in relation to its value to the inhabitant. On a more intimate and singular scale an existing architecture could be subverted in meaning to be re-introduced it into the cycle.
On a global scale, urbanism in its entirety must be reinterpreted and reinvented. A new cultural, physical, social, and economic cycle must be constructed upon an existing conditional base. For a cycle to be successful, it must have a fundamental basis in the history and culture of the place. Urban recycling will affect the city physically, and socially. It must improve the quality of life and environmental development. It should help the city to grow inwards; to contract while maintaining a sense of preservation about its inherent nature. The ultimate goal of urban recycling is to innovate while increasing the heritage of its particular site.
The cities have expanded to include an urban-territorial space where the periphery can not be conceived. Here, various conditions coexist, side by side. All of these conditions of the contemporary city allude to an anomalous and decidedly unfinished definition of the territory. The existing architecture responds to the outlived systems subservient to the principles of profit and expansion. The time for change has reached us.
The value in architecture can no longer be judged by the creation of space, but by the relationships fostered within it. Architecture is principally for the user. Its value lies in its direct enhancement of the inhabitant’s social and environmental interaction; its positive affect on development and the stimulation of the senses. It must heighten our awareness and reactions to our environment. It should provide diversity to appeal to functional requirements, aesthetics, and the unique reflection of the users. In this sense, it should also be adaptable, never to inhibit the user’s development or inhabitation of the space. No longer are the standardized boxes of corporations. The less prescriptive the form, the more reactionary the space, the more open the possibilities, the more potentially interactive. Architecture as a strategy has oriented itself towards the restructuring of the existing city, the territory and networks it encompasses, and to infiltrate this fabric with new relational spaces. It calls for reflection upon the entity and its re-cycle through innovation. The productive and social structures must be enhanced with an appropriate spatial organization that will cater to the diverse reality of the multifaceted and hybridized needs. It must allow for mutations and layers of interpretation; the more uncertain and undefined the programmatic nature the more successful the project. This functionally ambiguous and effectively hybrid space, is univocal and multiplicative in manifestation. It favors plurality and intrigue. The layered meanings and overlapped interpretation give birth to levels of relationship and association.

Stitching:

The city existing city is made up of a seemingly incoherent collection of individual fragments, whose continuity relies upon the networks that articulate them and the open spaces that envelope them. The contemporary open urban space is that of an irregular open body. These spaces of omission can often take on a more prominent role than the built spaces. The most direct response is to utilize these spaces for an architecture that is definitively open to describe the current fractured urban territorial structural language. It should be open in the sense of incompetence and incompleteness, to link it to the fundamental territorial conditions of exiting construction, open space, and arterial connective support. In this way these spaces can be recycled as interweavings between the spaces of development and absences.
Any attempt to impose order upon the existing condition of disarray will inevitably result in the heightened sense of greater disorder. Areas of chaos can be viewed as the potential for future definitive quality as the fragmented complexity that defines the city shall not be fought, but embraced. Urban recycling looks to reinterpret the existing, not to alienate or eradicate it.

Towards a Reality:

The ultimate objective is to create a new equilibrium that will underscore the sought quality of an interconnected whole. Recycling, therefore, can not only operate within the parameters of anomalous architecture, but is also able to take the two opposing systems of existing and new and reorganize them into a new condition. Effective sequences and connections between developments can give rise to dynamics of social adhesion.
The most obvious manifestation lies within a downtown rehabilitation. The addition of a community center of an architecture free of predetermined program and free of restriction would result in its elevation to a prescriptive measure for the urban environment. The rehabilitation will become an architecture that stitches the old and the new, redefining how the inhabitants interpret the spaces; being forced to explore the details of program and its responsive capabilities. It should be an architecture where the use is unforeseeable and undetermined until the inhabitants create them.

Manifestation in Areas:

This will require a program of multiple levels, each devoid of set programmatic requirements. Only the most basic biological needs of the inhabitants will be met; being that of light, air, water, sense of place, and security, etc. Lavatories may be included in the program only for the reason that they are a basic functional service requirement. The rest will be subject to the changing functional requirements of the user and based upon the site specific requirements.

issues

Everyone, and I mean everyone, will have an opinion. That goes for anything and everything. Any topic you can conjure up. Anything that you experience, you interpret and therefore have a unique view on; the experience is all yours and different from anyone else. How loudly and/or often you choose to express it is up to you. It's like food. I LOVE dill pickles on my cheese pizza, but chances are you think it's revolting. Chances are you hate pickles, have never tried it, or just plain have thought a little too hard about how the tastes would mix and mingle on your tongue. It's all about what you know and how you apply that knowledge. Many of us may have similar basic ideas about architecture, because we all have the same basic training in it from good old Roger. But some of us interpret it differently and take it in different directions. I may like pickles and pizza....together.... and maybe Jane Doe likes both... separately. Same tastes in food- different outcomes.

When making your own stance about architecture, you may be wrong. You may be totally off from the norm and accepted values, but isn't that how we all learn best? Through failure? It's important to stand up and TRY. You can be theoretical all you want, but until you DO IT, how will you know. It's like Sam I Am with the green eggs and ham- you can proclaim, proclaim, proclaim, but until you nail down your idea into something solid and eat the damn eggs (or pickle pizza) how will ANYONE know, for that matter?

I think that all ideas are linked to our experience, meaning that all of our architectural ideas will be inexorably linked to what we have been exposed to. In this sense, when starting out, it may be best to place your physical realization in the space that helped develop its underlying theory. As far as every idea having to be new.... I don't believe there's such a thing. Look at all the inventions of Leonardo DaVinci we just recently realized. Yes, we are all geniuses for getting it to work, pat on the back, but the ideas were hundreds of years old. I am sure DaVinci wasn't the first to think of it either. He was probably just the first to write it down, make it known, and TRY IT. Note: all very important keys to being famous years from now.

Any idea you have should be a reflection of you, trying to do something for recognition, for the sake of argument, or for originality is futile. Be you, and be proud of it. Anything you do will be original because you and your ideas are unless you are just plain lazy and copy someone else outright. But even that will have a reflection of you in it, because it YOUR version, your interpretation. Good architecture, just like good theory, is timeless. I think there is too much effort put on things needing to be a reflection of the times. Too much of a push for originality. What if we deemed Leo's idea for a flying machine a thing of his time- and went off trying to invent something different. Where would we be without our jet planes and complimentary drinks on our first class trips to Toronto? I think everything we do is a sign of the times. ITS ALL ABOUT EXPERIENCE. What we know goes into it, we are part of the times, we are influenced by our times, so: so is our work. We benefit from looking back on forgotten things and referencing what worked and didn't. Everything is in a gradual process of reinvention. Like how we lost the formula for concrete and suddenly, it was the new face of modern. As if it had never been used before.... heard of that little empire a thousand or so years ago? Ya, they knew about that too.

Like I said, nothing is new. Its all about reinterpretation.

smithsons

interest:
The Smithsons argue that man must be reintroduced to the house, community, and the city. The city has become too spread out with the advent of suburbia and needs to be contracted for social well being. In order to solve the issue of density, multi-level housing is the dwelling of the future. The Smithsons see the historic value in the interrelations of family, street, district, and city. They focus on the street as the link that provides identification and enable social life.

intention
The proposed project is "Golden Lane", a high rise dwelling composed of three levels of above ground street decks, each with community spaces between and living quarters for ninety to each side. The apartments would be changeable as needed, each with their own 'yard-gardens' and ability to serve several functions. In this way, the facade would be a direct reflection of the living patterns of each of the individual units. (the units themselves are shown as standard arrangements that allow modular additions)The decks would serve the same as streets. The height would allow for neighborly interaction both vertically and horizontally.
They accept that this would be a solution limited to the city.

response

Now that I have completed the 1 3 9 experiment and started to think a little harder about what interests me, it was a bit of a shock to see what other people interpreted my ideas as. I never would have guessed a market/ exhibition space or a medical facility would have been possibilities for my project- yet they fit what I have in mind. I think the 1 3 9 helped to clarify my thoughts, yet the reinterpretation by others of what I had written read back to me seemed to nail down that "phantom idea", to make it something tangible and less confused. The medical facility does not tickle my fancy- yet the idea of a "putty" architecture that Rachel used to describe my idea and her suggestion of a marketplace/other is of great interest.That's something I might like to explore, though I may play around with it....

1-3-9

The Architecture of the future will need to combine the old and the new into a single anomylous organism of the new urban fabric to better suit the changing functional requirements of the city.

Architecture can be adaptable in that it designed to serve noparticular function,and therefore all functions at once. By utilizing the existing,and adding the new on or in between,we can create new spaces. This willcreate a new urban language for a new range of requirements.

Architecture must be adaptable. Anomylous architecture is the answer; with no set functional requirements. If it is not designed for any specific function it can be adapted for any more easily. The new can be creativley incorporated into the existing city. This willcreate new spaces that previously did not exist. The interweaving of the two parts will give a new face and vitality to the urban fabric. This willin turn produce a new urban language and identity. This language will be able to adapt as easily as the buildings to their changing functions. The city and its parts-both old and new- will now read as one single organism.

Inspiration

Issues:

Architecture is the natural human response to the biological need for shelter and security from the environment. Humans rely on one another for protection and survival, and therefore tended to gather. Once agriculture enabled a settled lifestyle, cities began to emerge. When the invention of the automobile allowed for greater mobility, the initial city settlements surrounded by the agricultural support fields gave way to a new type of habitat- suburbia. I am a firm believer in the need for the social structure, culture and economic support that the city provides. I am a fan of the city and the mass culture it produces. I am not a fan of the architecture within it. I think that people accept the prevailing conditions, whether they be conducive or prohibitive to daily function. The problem with modern architecture is the near obsession with function. The first thing we do as designers is label spaces and design for the normal functions to take place within. This has standardized architecture. In some ways this has been useful- as far as economy and ease of construction. It's been reduced to a kit of parts fit inside equally standardized facades that may have no relation to the organization within. Here we can see the basis of the skyscraper and the McMansion in this one foul move. All of this has been supported by the government imposed regulations and codes. Yet, some of the greatest spaces have been created spontaneously- with little or no consideration of specific function. The original city was filled with reason and charm without the superimposition of a set of rules dictating standardization and functionality. It was intuitive. It is the architect's job to actively question set spatial assumptions. Are these standardized forms the best we can do? What can be done differently and why would we do it? What benefit would it produce? Our intuition can be put to the test designing literally outside the box. I think it's our job to question everything from our social structure, living conditions, and cultural norms. Architecture can not solve everything, but it is one link in the chain towards a better way of life.

We discussed today in class that some of us hated the idea that every building might fill the visitor with emotion. Thinking about it later and in reading the other blogs, I believe that emotion is critical to the sensory experience and comprehension of the building, but conversely when overwhelmed, we tend to become numb to our environments. "We live through sensory experience," and I think that emotion is how our brains process that information as a memory tool- our understanding of our environments in relation to us. Most all buildings give us the mundane 'numb' reaction where the few unique buildings we get to visit will revive our emotion. I think in architecture heightens our awareness and reactions. I think all buildings should create some stirring of emotion within us, but degree and appropriateness is what we can use to gauge value.

Statement and Bibliography

Manifesto

Something that has come up when considering a Thesis topic and resulting project- brought out by the manifesto assignment- is HOW odd or how outlandish can this idea or theory be? In our first class we discussed how we will need to consult codes and such when designing our project, but what if our theory goes against many of the zoning bylaws and codes in place? What if... say we feel that some of these are impositions and are actually detrimental to architecture and design. What would happen if I were to argue that some of the greatest spaces were designed without regulations and pre-planning simply for the fact that the designers and builders were forced to rely entirely upon emotion and an inherent sense of space and function. What if I wanted to argue against these "progressions" for a more 'basic' and creative project.

Are we able to ignore the existing regulations and standards for a totally idealogical or fanciful view of what architecture could/ should be?

Issues

In response to the 'issues' questions this week :

The undergraduate program offers us the basics, a look at what others have accomplished or theorized- the trial and error of the past if you will- and our thesis project is all about the personal expression of our interpretations of all the information and compilation of facts our studies expose us to. In other words, Thesis is about taking what we have learned and translating it into our own definition or understanding of architecture, and then applying it to a project as a sort of material explanation. This is probably the first and only chance we will have to create something entirely without outside influence to exactly reflect our specific goals and theories. Once we enter the 'real world' we no longer have the total freedom of expression and face the requirements of codes, regulations, clients, budgets, and existing architectural problems. In thesis we are given both the chance to 'create' and solve the problem we feel necessary. This may not be the greatest work we will ever do as architects, certainly half our education comes after graduation, but it is the greatest opportunity we will get.

An architectural problem is any situation where architecture fulfills a specific need or requirement that may be posed by location, function, etc. A project is then designed to 'solve' the problem. I love architecture for this reason- that it is a problem/solution relationship. It is a kit of parts- a make your own sort of massively creative puzzle. I would love to emerse myself in the details and design aspect of the profession with small residential renovation/ addition commissions, where I could feel that I adequatley solved the problem and was able to look at every aspect of the building and process. In stark contrast, however, I think I'd be equally satisfied with public projects that most likley would not have the budget for the details, but served a greater good such as civic buildings that would help make a positive change in the community. Fame and fortune are not my goals. I've always been highly involved in my community and in giving back- and to be honest that's more important than big commissions or big ideas. Even in my work, it's more about the site, community, and function, than in the expression of a theory or style. My goal is to make myself feel like I'm making a difference and not every one else. Architecture is fun to me because it's a personal challenge- to see if I can solve the problem with my knowledge and a kit of parts.