Showing posts with label Achitecture. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Achitecture. Show all posts

20120303

STAR WHEEL HORIZON





[Image: From Horizon Houses (2000) by Lebbeus Woods

(with additional design and modeling by Paul Anvar)].

STAR WHEEL HORIZON

After posting a project by Jimenez Lai back in January, Lebbeus Woods got in touch with an earlier project of his own, called Horizon Houses (2000).

In his own words, the Horizon Houses are "are spatial structures that turn, or are turned, either continuously (the Wheel House) or from/to fixed positions (the Star and Block Houses). 

They are structures experimenting with our perception of spatial transformations, accomplished without any material changes to the structures themselves. In these projects, my concern was the question of space. The engineering questions of how to turn the houses could be answered by conventional mechanical means—cranes and the like—but these seem clumsy and inelegant. The mechanical solution may lie in the idea of self-propelling structures, using hydraulics. But of more immediate concern: how would the changing spaces impact the ways we might inhabit them? These self-transforming, perpetually off-kilter structures would, in a sense, contain their future horizon lines within them, as they rotate through various, competing orientations, both always and never completely grounded.

[Image: From Horizon Houses (2000) by Lebbeus Woods

(with additional design and modeling by Paul Anvar)].

Each house in the series thus simultaneously explores the visual nature—and spatial effect—of the horizon line and the vertical force of gravity that makes that horizon possible. 




[Image: From Horizon Houses (2000) by Lebbeus Woods

(with additional design and modeling by Paul Anvar)].

As Woods phrases it, "Gravity is constantly at work on the materials of architecture, trying to pull them to the earth’s center of gravity. An important consequence is that this action establishes the horizon." However, he adds, "in the absence of gravity there is no horizon, for example, for astronauts in space. It is from this understanding that Ernst Mach developed his theory of inertia frames, which influenced Albert Einstein’s relativistic theory of gravity"—but, that, Woods says, "is another story."





[Image: From Horizon Houses (2000) by Lebbeus Woods

(with additional design and modeling by Paul Anvar)].
The Star House, seen immediately above and below, was what brought Woods to comment on the earlier post about Jimenez Lai; but the other "ensemble variations," as Woods describe them, while departing formally from the initial comparison with Lai's own project, deserve equal attention here.



[Image: From Horizon Houses (2000) by Lebbeus Woods].



It also compels the house always to be on the verge of moving again, unlike the jagged, semi-mountainous points of the Block and Star Houses.


The Block Houses appear to be in a state of barely stabilized wreckage following an otherwise unmentioned seismic event—which is fitting, as the rest of Woods's descriptive text (available on his website) offers seismicity as a key force and generative parameter for the project. If the earth itself moves, what sort of architecture might embrace and even thrive on that motion, rather than—unsuccessfully—attempt to resist a loss of foundation? 


[Image: From Horizon Houses (2000) by Lebbeus Woods]. 



To say that these buildings thus exist in a state of ongoing catastrophe would be to fixate on and over-emphasize their instability, whereas it would be more productive to recognize that each house rides out a subtle and unique negotiation of the planet—where "the planet" is treated less as a physical fact and more as a gravitational reference point, an abstract frame of influence within which certain architectural forms can take shape.

In other words, the urges and pulls of gravity might nudge each house this way and that—it might even pull them over into a radically new orientation—but the architecture remains both optically sensible against its new horizon line and, more importantly, inhabitable.


Taken together, this family of forms could thus roll, wander, and collapse indefinitely through the gravitational fields that command them.


For a bit more text related to the project, see Woods's own website.


From: bldgblog.blogspot.com

20120131

Kuwait Embassy and Chancellery | TheArchHive

1970 Kuwait Embassy and Chancellery, Tokyo -  Kenzo Tange

Architects Kenzo Tange
Location Shinagawa, Minato-Ku, Tokyo

20111007

CULTURE AND CONFERENCE CENTRE, GERMANYLundgaard & Tranberg






















" ....... The project draws inspiration from the site’s rolling terrain, close to both the village Künzelslau-Gaisbach and the Würth Company headquarters and factory.
The building manifests itself as a sculptural figure in an abstract, scale-less expression, referring to the precise and refined, yet complex form language of advanced industrial design.
To its surroundings, it presents a perfect circular form, while the interior is a more freely formed open space – the sculpture garden.
All of the centre’s programmatic functions are placed in solitary or grouped cylindrical volumes, creating three functional nodes along the circular promenade.
The extensive sculpture collection is integrated in the architecture, so that landscape, architecture, and art are united in a meaningful relationship. ...."

Site: Lundgaard & Tranberg Arkitekter - Denmark

20110831

YENDO’S NATURE « LEBBEUS WOODS


YENDO’S NATURE
by  LEBBEUS WOODS

There are several levels on which we lcan approach this small series of drawings by Masahiko Yendo. Made at the same time as his celebrated projects published in Ironic Diversion, these virtuoso pencil drawings are lyrical visions of a harmonious meeting of human and natural worlds. In them the natural landscapes seem as constructed as the buildings seem to have grown and evolved through geo-tectonic processes. While they remain distinctly different from one another, the buildings and landscapes interact creatively, somehow dependent on each other. The drawings’ lyricism—their exaltation of form and texture and meaning—differentiates them from actual situations where industrial architecture pollutes virgin landscapes. Something in the drawings convinces us that they belong together, even though our experience insists that they do not. Here we touch on Yendo’s sense of the ‘ironic’ or, perhaps the paradoxical nature of reality, which emerges from contradictions that can only be resolved through art and the heightened sensibilities it inspires.

Of the many pathways these drawings open for exploration is that of drawing. I have no interest or intention of reopening old discussions of the pros and cons of hand versus computer drawings—they simply go nowhere. I’m willing to grant, for the sake of exploration, that one day a computer will be able to draw exactly like Masahiko Yendo. I repeat, exactly, with all the infinitely varied tonality and all the nuance of texture, shading, and illusion of light and darkness. For that to happen, of course, the pixels of the computer drawing would have to be infinitely small, creating the actual spatial continuity of the hand drawing. Assuming that this technological feat could be achieved, what difference would there be between the hand and the computer drawing?

Absolutely none—if we consider only the drawing itself, as a product, as an object, which—in our present society—is our habitual way of perceiving not only drawings, but also the buildings they describe.

I repeat: absolutely none. IF, however, we think of drawings—even the most seductively product-like ones shown here—as evidence of a process of thinking and making, the difference is vast. Indeed, there is no way to close the gap between them. In the hand-drawn image, every mark is a decision made by the architect, an act of analysis followed by an act of synthesis, as the marks are built up, one by one. In the computer-drawn image, every mark is likewise a decision, but one made by the software, the computer program—it happens in the machine, the computer, and does not involve the architect directly. In short, in the latter case, the architect remains only a witness to the results of a process the computer controls, learning only in terms of results. In the former case, the architect learns not only the method of making, but also the intimate connections between making and results, a knowledge that is essential to the conscious development of both.

LW




20110426

Maunsell Sea Forts


















Maunsell Army Sea Forts,
The Thames Sea Defences, Red Sands Sea Fort And Shivering Sands Fort

The Thames Estuary Army Forts were constructed in 1942 to a design by Guy Maunsell, following the successful construction and deployment of the Naval Sea Forts. Their purpose was to provide anti-aircraft fire within the Thames Estuary area. Each fort consisted of a group of seven towers with a walkway connecting them all to the central control tower. The fort, when viewed as a whole, comprised one Bofors tower, a control tower, four gun towers and a searchlight tower. They were arranged in a very specific way, with the control tower at the centre, the Bofors and gun towers arranged in a semi-circular fashion around it and the searchlight tower positioned further away, but still linked directly to the control tower via a walkway. All the forts followed this plan and, in order of grounding, were called the Nore Army Fort, the Red Sands Army Fort and finally the Shivering Sands Army Fort. All three forts were in place by late 1943, but Nore is no longer standing. Construction of the towers was relatively quick, and they were easily floated out to sea and grounded in water no more than 30m (100ft) deep.

Maunsell Sea Forts: "Maunsell Army Sea Forts,
The Thames Sea Defences, Red Sands Sea Fort And Shivering Sands Fort"

20110306

Sketch - 201000902 - Michael Bech


Own Sketches 201000902
Photoshop collage of own sketches - digital imaging, layering.

All rights Michael Bech 2010