I need some insane architectural ideas.
-
@bmike said:
But yes, if you must, advocate for more ego vomit all over the landscape.
Erm, bit confused here..... why are you on a forum that's very nature is about designing and building? It seems rather odd that you are here and not hanging out with all the doom Malthusians on other forums....
-
@tfdesign said:
@bmike said:
But yes, if you must, advocate for more ego vomit all over the landscape.
Erm, bit confused here..... why are you on a forum that's very nature is about designing and building? It seems rather odd that you are here and not hanging out with all the doom Malthusians on other forums....
I was offering up 'insane' ideas.
Note that nowhere in the first post did the OP mention program, use, budget, typical resident profile (families, empty nesters, rich hipsters, etc.), history of the parcel, connections to transit, cars, roads, ... (s)he jumped right to wanting to make this 'wow look at the shiny crazy insane thing over there'. No concern for the people who will live with it, live in it, drive by it, walk through it, have to interface with it every day. Architectural Tyranny.
Here's an insane idea - lets find out what the hell the needs are of the site, people expected to live / work / play here, client, and interconnected local community might be. Then lets talk about how those parts inter-relate with the existing site - the ecology, the river, the existing infrastructure. Then lets work up some program for how / what the best uses of the site may be - so we aren't building in the flood plain, or having to design expensive foundations in a seismic zone, or maybe so we respect the natural flow of water on the site. Then lets overlay how people might use whats left over of the site taking those parameters into consideration. Then we can map out potential use areas. Then we can start talking about individual buildings, and what they might look like, how they relate to each other, and how they connect to the greater context of the larger surrounding community(ies).
Otherwise, we'll end up with a tribute to someone's 'insane architectural vision' - with little regards for the people who will spend parts of their lives living in the OPs asylum.
-
@bmike said:
Here's an insane idea - lets find out what the hell the needs are of the site, people expected to live / work / play here, client, and interconnected local community might be. Then lets talk about how those parts inter-relate with the existing site - the ecology, the river, the existing infrastructure. Then lets work up some program for how / what the best uses of the site may be - so we aren't building in the flood plain, or having to design expensive foundations in a seismic zone, or maybe so we respect the natural flow of water on the site. Then lets overlay how people might use whats left over of the site taking those parameters into consideration. Then we can map out potential use areas. Then we can start talking about individual buildings, and what they might look like, how they relate to each other, and how they connect to the greater context of the larger surrounding community(ies).
I wouldn't call those "insane". I would have thought that those are rather valid points?
The river is an interesting point. It would be difficult to change the route of the river- but not impossible. Many towns and cities have rivers re-routed. Ecology? Well it's an interesting point, but you could always rip any eco-system out, and let it replenish itself elsewhere- after all most 'natural' eco-systems occurred that way in the first instance.
Earthquake proofing? The Japanese are very good at that. 'Insane' building is one thing, but good engineering practice should go hand in hand. A good trained architect would have taken that into consideration.
Have you considered more obvious things like wind and the weather? What about the soil and therefore foundations? There's a whole lesson on structural engineering learnt over the years to stop the tower in Pisa, Italy from falling over!
Building for flood defences is a really interesting idea too. I think buildings should be built on flood plains (in the interest of human demand and humanitarian need). Houses (like some already in the Netherlands) should be engineered to float, or to stand, perhaps on stilts? When the tide comes in, water doesn't quite reach the house. A car port could be engineered to float as well.
Lots of possibilities!
-
@tfdesign said:
I wouldn't call those "insane". I would have thought that those are rather valid points?
Yeah, I was just amazed that folks jumped in with all sorts of 'building' ideas, images, etc. before any of this was discussed. These things that I've mentioned (and many many more) - should inform the building, the materials, the siting, etc.
I'm not suggesting any one of those things I mentioned - just using them as examples as starting places. Context should drive design. Not some 'insane' idea for a form being plopped down on the site.
-
@bmike said:
@tfdesign said:
I wouldn't call those "insane". I would have thought that those are rather valid points?
Yeah, I was just amazed that folks jumped in with all sorts of 'building' ideas, images, etc. before any of this was discussed. These things that I've mentioned (and many many more) - should inform the building, the materials, the siting, etc.
I'm not suggesting any one of those things I mentioned - just using them as examples as starting places. Context should drive design. Not some 'insane' idea for a form being plopped down on the site.
But you've got to give a designer credit. If you're given a large empty canvas, the first reaction is to come up with some great design ideas and possibilities. The list of things you provided, although probably most important, will always come second. It's the nature of the game
-
@tfdesign said:
@bmike said:
@tfdesign said:
I wouldn't call those "insane". I would have thought that those are rather valid points?
Yeah, I was just amazed that folks jumped in with all sorts of 'building' ideas, images, etc. before any of this was discussed. These things that I've mentioned (and many many more) - should inform the building, the materials, the siting, etc.
I'm not suggesting any one of those things I mentioned - just using them as examples as starting places. Context should drive design. Not some 'insane' idea for a form being plopped down on the site.
But you've got to give a designer credit. If you're given a large empty canvas, the first reaction is to come up with some great design ideas and possibilities. The list of things you provided, although probably most important, will always come second. It's the nature of the game
And thats why I mentioned ego vomit.
What are great design ideas and opportunities without context and use? Empty shells... buildings unrelated to culture, history, environment, use patterns, etc.Architects aren't (or shouldn't be) mad scientist sculptors working in complete isolation from the realities where their 'creations' sit.
-
@bmike said:
And thats why I mentioned ego vomit.
What are great design ideas and opportunities without context and use? Empty shells... buildings unrelated to culture, history, environment, use patterns, etc.Architects aren't (or shouldn't be) mad scientist sculptors working in complete isolation from the realities where their 'creations' sit.
"Ego vomit"?
That's a bit extreme isn't it? Ants and termites build constructions. They are being 'close to their nature'. Why not humans? Do termites have councils to discuss whether or not they should demolish someones house by eating through it? Of course not! 
On the contrary, I think architects should exactly be allowed to behave like "Mad Scientists"! How are we suppose to learn if we are unable to make mistakes? And its a mad scientist like attitude that can unveil quite wonderful discoveries, which can only be a good thing can it not?
-
I think there is no such thing as insane architecture. Ants doesn't build insane constructions! Architect could and must have insane ideas on his way to the
architecture, which is never insane. And the magic lies between. -
The 'built-form' springs from 'needs'.
The needs of the site, client, users, society, budget, buildability, safety, regulations etc etc.
Other forms of art, like painting and sculpture, might also have some [if not all] of these needs, BUT they also allow the 'needs' of the artist to be at the forefront - the 'creative' need.
I won't deny that architects are a kind of artist [I'm a BA/BArch/RIBA after all !] but the balance is quite different, as there are many needs including technical ones that they must address in addition to the 'art' [magic]. So a 'good' architect shouldn't impose some 'way-out' [insane?] idea on the rest of us, unless it springs from the addressing of the needs I have outlined. Conversely a painter wouldn't be constrained so much as the 'artistry' [magic] is at the center of his work - and not just one part of it.
I'm a big believer in lateral-thinking and design ideas that come out of left-field... but they must address 'need' - they cannot stand on their own.
Another point is that in both architecture and art itself the emperor's new clothes enigma means that critics now mistake the 'way-out' and 'weird' for 'art' itself, while 'the-man-in-the-street' will often have a diametrically opposed view... -
@unknownuser said:
Another point is that in both architecture and art itself the emperor's new clothes enigma means that critics now mistake the 'way-out' and 'weird' for 'art' itself, while 'the-man-in-the-street' will often have a diametrically opposed view...
well stated.
-
How much answers! I'll update first post and answer to questions later. I'll try to give you maximum information about subject.
btw river is not a part of our land.So far you can explore site of housing estates. Its only in Russian, but here is links for parts:
"moscow river 1" - main page for subject land
interactive map
master plan with the cost of marking sites
photos
"photonews"
Advertisement