Project Reflectance: Part 2: Boxitexture

The next part is a problem I have with the broader picture of things regarding....

"boxitecture."

This portion has to do with design communication. Thomas, the architecture professor from UNCC, made a comment that I would like to address. Our group made an attempt at arguing the architecture of the building, for it to be something other than a box. His response was something along the lines of:

"Its not about whether or not I like the building, and I don't, its about you convincing me, making an argument for your ideas and decisions."

I agree with him (I don't like our building either). What I have a problem with is that a box doesn't have to explain its form because it exists as 99% of the buildings we come into contact with. You throw a column grid in there and the envelope is automatically assumed as resolved. It is an architectural standard for the human race. I know there are reasons for standards, but a standard is not perfect, nor is it the best possible response to anything. Modernism, to me, is about "simplified and efficient" boxes (a striking similarity to McMansion developments, no?).

This next part gets a little bit more personal but it still has relevance.

There was a comment that a peer made about our building design. She said it appeared as if we designed from the outside, in (this comment was particular to our group). It was puzzling to me that she said this to us and not anyone else. After some thought, her comment actually proves the point I'm making about people's perception about building forms and boxes. If you look at the other projects in the class, they are more or less boxes (one taller, wider, and fatter & one shorter, longer, and skinner). There is nothing wrong with that. It is what they chose to do for reasons unbeknownst to me. They didn't have to explain their choice of form, nor was there any question that they designed from the outside in, because it was assumed they designed from the inside out (which they didn't, as much as they might try to say they did if I were to have this conversation with them).

It bothers the hell out of me that my peer, bright and intelligent as she is, automatically assumed that since the building wasn't a box that it meant we created a shell without the interior spaces in mind. Unfortunately, she is then making the horrible and horrendous assumption that all interior space should also exist in some form of a box. One could take this even further and say that all products and furnishings are meant for box like rooms, in box like buildings. I felt insulted (after the fact). If anything, I must say that we are the only group that developed and designed the inside space and exterior envelope cohesively which is part of the reason why our project was as unresolved as it was. It was a challenge we wanted to take on because that is what you are supposed to do in an academic environment, regardless of whether or not it is successfully met. We didn't a create box and arrange program inside of it (like so many architecture firms and students have done before us). I'd also like to point out that our building was the only building that successfully engaged the automobile, train, and pedestrian. They were a success because of the investigation and response via the synergy of our program, form, and site. Did I mention I'm proud of a lot of things we did do as a group? If creating a box and arranging program inside of it is designing from the inside-out, then I must be psychotic in the way that I think about things.

On to another tangent!

Perhaps a lesson learned would be that we should have placed the emphasis on our individual projects in the presentation as opposed to generally talking about the process of the group project, which, honestly now that I think about it, served no real purpose of conveying an argument for the design or form, which is apparently what people wanted the most. I also feel we missed the opportunity for genuine feedback on our individual projects which fell to the way side and got lost in the walkaround aftermath.

The experience as a whole begs the question, how much of this has to do with boxitecture's influence over the minds of students, professionals, and the general public?

Lessons learned indeed.

Project Reflectance: Part1: 6th Body

The latter half of studio in March and the month of April were rough, not so much with work load but with group dynamic. There are probably a lot of reasons why the decline happened the way it did but I suppose I just need to take what I can from the experience and move forward. Needless to say, I'm relieved the presentation is over but now that it is, I've been having obsessive thoughts about the experience since then. Before I start, I'd like to say I'm proud of the work we did accomplish as a group. Everyone worked hard to get to the point we were at, there is no denying that. On to my thoughts....

Its a weird feeling, a bittersweet one, not resolving a project to a level of satisfaction one might be comfortable with but meeting a deadline nonetheless. I find this has happened to me to some extent in every studio project. Those unresolved parts always made me uneasy in presentations and crits because I knew they were easy targets for people to bring up. Knowing where I have fallen short has always helped because I've known what to expect, up until this experience. I feel like for the first time since my Flying Anvil project as a 1st semester 2nd year, my mind drew blanks on questions. Its not that I didn't have answers for the questions asked, I just didn't want to sound like I was making excuses, which in my mind, was all I could come up with standing there at the time of the presentation (at least they sounded like excuses in my head).

I knew where we fell short as a group and there was nothing we could do about it. I can't help but think that a 6th body would have filled in the areas that needed help. That is an excuse but it is a luxury our group did not have and there is no denying an extra 36 hours (9 class hours, 27 expected work hours outside of studio, at least) a week of work would have made a tremendous impact on the group portion of the project. See, this is an excuse. You just don't talk about stuff like this during a presentation nor do you use a group's declining dynamic as an excuse either. The internet is the perfect place to reflectively rant though, so I'll continue with that...on to my next point.

Again, before I start this, let me make it clear my opinion is not directly aimed at anyone in particular because that would be unprofessional (I learned something!). Professors always say that we need to work in groups so that we get that valuable experience before we enter the real world. Unfortunately, there is a huge difference between academia and the real world as far as group work is concerned. The difference lies in the model of how everything works in the two, very different environments. The projects we work on as students are not real and the boss, *cough* professor, is there to teach us, help us, hold our hands, and evaluate our performances through the producibles (presentations, drawings, models, etc). Whether or not someone shows up for meetings, holds their weight, or acts professionally in group situations usually doesn't have any bearing on the measure of the final product, their grade. To be short, students don't have any power over other students when it comes to group situations. How does a student handle a problem situation with another student when you've exhausted all professional avenues? It is unprofessional to call them out on the areas they are lacking in a public forum, a blog for example, but what if they aren't listening in the private 1 on 1 forum?

Ok, I'm done with the studio part.

These people are relentless

I just thought I would share with everyone this email that has been sent to me 6 times by 6 different people. It is a dire emergency that I know this information and that I am presented with it everyday I check my email until I graduate (even after the dates have passed). UNCG does a good job spamming its students, maybe the web advertisers should hire whoever's in charge of sending these emails out. Holy crap, seriously, its' annoying as hell. I'm pretty sure the admininstrative staff is tired of getting responses from me, usually along the lines of "you might actually kill the Earth if you send the same email again to every student on campus. Maybe you should test my hypothesis." These people have a serious communication problem.

"Just a reminder of the 3 events this week especially for those who will be graduating in 2009.
Smooth Transitions from College to Career:UNCG Recent Alumni PanelRecent alumni share true stories about life after UNCG and succeeding in the work worldTues., March 31, 2009, 4:00-6:00 pm, Alexander Room/EUC
Insurance: What You Need to KnowInsurance now that you're on your own - what is necessary and what to watch out forWed., April 1, 2009, 4:00-5:00 pm, Kirkland Room/EUC
Basics of $$$: Managing Your Personal FinancesHow to get ahead while avoiding financial pitfallsThurs., April 2, 2009, 4pm-5pm, Alexander Room/EUC
Refreshments provided
RSVP encouraged - respond through SpartanCareers at www.uncg.edu/cscQuestions? Call 334-5454"

Ugh. Please stop.

Response part 2: Zumthor, the hypocrite (and maybe a communist)

Zumthor sound's like a romantic and his tone is reinforced by his background as a cabinet maker, a craftsman with an affinity for the joinery of materials (unmatched according to himself one might conclude from reading). It was enjoyable to hear him talk about the importance of materials and how they come together in a building. Its certainly an area I would like to know more about as everyone knows I'm lacking severely in the reality department there. A building at peace with itself has no other message then what it is, its genuine truth, a synergy of materiality and human experience...

He speaks of architecture through human memories and perception via the senses. He also goes to great lengths to compare his favorite music and poetry to what his architecture represents through similes and metaphors. For all this talk about "signs and information", these artistic vehicles, this architectural rhetoric, it seems kind of odd he would criticize it and those who use this "medium" to talk about their own work considering thats about all he has been successful at in his book. Contradictory? Just a bit. Are not memories and the senses also "mediums" for experiencing architecture? Contradictions, Mr. Zumthor, indeed exist

What of man's monuments? Are they clouded in this useless information and signage as well? The Statue of Liberty, the Washington monument, the Great Wall of China (not the fast food), the Eiffel Tower, the Pyramids, the Berlin Wall? Architecture involves the human experience but it is by no means limited to that which the human body can experience in the physical presence of such great wonders. My god, the Twin Towers!!! The substance of their architecture, the details and human experience as put by Mr. Zumthor, was far outweighed by what it represented to the citizens of the United States and to the Western World. I find it rather ironic that I watched those monumental titans crumble to the ground live on television, a medium that was perhaps throwing up "smoke and mirrors."

I watched information in the form of a plane crash into information in the form of a building. I was a witness to information in the form of murder, pain, confusion, anger, and a million other things all happening at once. I felt them, we all felt them. That one singular experience evoked more in me then any architecture I've ever physically experienced in my entire life. Was that not all real?

(our most recent president to exit the oval office might suggest that Mr. Zumthor's statements put into question his patriotism to this country)

real:
a) being or occurring in fact or actuality; having verified existence; not illusory
b) being or reflecting the essential or genuine character of something
c) substantial: having substance or capable of being treated as fact; not imaginary
d) veridical (true, pertaining to experience, perception, or interpretation that accurately represents reality as opposed to unsubstantiated, illusory, or delusory

vehicle:
a) medium for the expression or achievement of something
b) specific channel or publication displaying the advertising message to a target audience
c) a conveyance that transports people or objects
d) medium for expression of talent or views

medium:
a) means or instrumentality for storing or communicating information
b) surrounding environment
c) an intervening substance through which signals can travel as a means for communication
d) (biology) a substance in which specimens are preserved or displayed

perceive:
a) to become aware of through the senses
b) become conscious of
c) In psychology, philosophy, and the cognitive sciences, perception is the process of attaining awareness or understanding of sensory information

awareness:
a) having or showing knowledge or understanding or realization or perception
b) In biological psychology, awareness comprises a human's or an animal's perception and cognitive reaction to a condition or event. Awareness does not necessarily imply understanding, just an ability to be conscious of, feel or perceive
c) state or level of consciousness where sense data can be confirmed by an observer

Zumthor Reading response among other thoughts

Excerpt (pg. 16-17):

"Everything merges into everything else, and mass communication creates an artificial world of signs. Arbitrariness prevails. Postmodern life could be described as a state in which everything beyond our own personal biography seems vague, blurred, and somehow unreal. The world is full of signs and information, which stand for things that no one fully understands because they, too, turn out to be mere signs for other things. The real thing remains hidden. No one ever gets to see it."

He goes on to say that the "real" things are earth, water, light, landscapes, vegetation and man made objects such as machines, tools, or musical instruments, existing as they are (not "vehicles for an artistic message"). These things are at peace with themselves, apparently.

I disagree with Zumthor's implied statement that the "signs and information" are unreal. If I'm not mistaken, we seem to be living in the Digital Age (Information Age). We are surrounded by, engulfed, bombarded, and absorb these "signs and information" almost every second of the day. Cell phones, email, blogs, texting, instant messaging, video phones, tv and radio (and their internet counterparts), wikipedia, advertisements, news from everywhere in the world you could possibly think of, social networking and online dating sites, pornography, higher education even!...the list goes on for quite a while. The access to an almost unlimited amount of information that the industrialized world has is unprecedented in the history of man. It would be impossible to absorb even a fraction of a percentage of this information in an entire human life time. And, it all seems very real to me. I could spend hours on the internet, checking my email, going from random site to random site, absorbing and learning things I'd never known before.

If architecture is inclusive of a greater idea, a contextual response to the day and age in which it is executed and performed, what would buildings be like if they responded to this? A multitaneous experience that could be different and the same, stimulating and anesthetizing, grotesque and beautiful...can architecture, through the built and unbuilt environment, do what the internet and information age has done? An architecture that expresses things beyond human experience and architectural detailing, a black hole perhaps?

The real things are percieved in the same exact manner as the signs and information (neurons and synapses firing in the brain). And honestly, there is nothing at peace in the world that we live in, whether it be humanity, nature, or the universe: it is all pure chaos. Nothing is at peace with itself, even Zumthor's preciously detailed, perfectly jointed boxes are always experiencing some level of chaos.

Random thoughts while running

These are images from the design firm Cooper Cary related to a competition for the Center of Civil and Human Rights. While I believe the diagrams are successful in conveying information I'm not really enthused about some of the perspectives shown.
As you can see in the above image, there are tons of people. The whole exterior gathering area is filled with people. It looks absolutely ridiculous. Am I going out on a limb when I say they didn't develop that exterior gathering space and instead of doing so, they filled it with "entourage"? Are they trying to visually convey that people are physically a part of the building's architecture? Honestly, I think it looks like a holding pen for livestock. It also seems odd that they chose that particular graphic to cover the facade of the building. I'm not sure of the mood the firm is trying to convey but it doesn't strike me as an empowering image which is what should be there.

Anyway, I've never been a big fan of the ghostly apparitions that pass for people in perspectives. If you're going to put people in a perspective make sure they look like they are really there. I mean holy crap, this is a big design firm. Is there no one who can do this properly?

On another note I'd like to get my thesis project published if it turns out the way I see it in my mind's eye. As a matter of fact, I think I have a secret passion for design related research and conveying that information through a medium (blog, design project, book, etc). After reading some of the publications of OMA/AMO, this has become yet another item of high interest. I was thinking about concentrations today while running: populations, household sizes, the density of cities. What about barrier architecture (U.S. border with Mexico, North/South Korea no man's land)? What about invisible architecture (metamaterial on a building's scale)?

Thesis Rant, open to the public

An excerpt from my letter to Anna:

"...I still, unfortunately, stand by what I said earlier. I feel the professors I have had stressed thinking and designing outside the "box" or the interior. After you left, I made a list of the major projects I've worked on since transferring in as a second year. Of about 10 projects I consider to be of medium or high importance (duration, detail), 4 of them were strictly interiors projects. The rest either were not related to interiors or an interior was only a portion of the project. I also feel like the projects that I have thoroughly enjoyed have included disciplinary areas besides interior design, where we have studied and designed on larger scales then zeroed in and focused on an interior involved in that scheme.

What I'm saying is I don't want to be limited to a shell or a box where I fill it with program and spec out materials and furniture. I would feel ill served as a student of design to be limited to this type of thesis project, a project where one should be allowed to focus on something they are interested in as a designer. Certainly the long list of design professions which the faculty seem to think we can work in once we graduate should apply here too (I'll attach the copy handed out to us in professional practices).

Another item I would like to point out is the mention of us not being architects or architectural students. Interesting questions came to mind after some thought.

1) Is it safe to assume that the faculty assumes the students have an insufficient amount of knowledge of structure, how buildings are built, or how the envelope of a building comes together?

2) What is the purpose of the two materials and methods courses?

3) What does this approach to thesis projects say about the potential lack of technical knowledge the Interior Architecture department is failing to impart on its graduates?

I did not take the above mentioned courses here at UNCG. I have an associates in applied sciences in Architectural Technology from GTCC. We had design projects but they lasted the entire semester and were heavily oriented towards the technical side of building. In my two years of study, I completed several houses and two commercial buildings. Part of the curriculum included studying types of construction and calculating/sizing structural members. Several of my peers went on to get jobs as CAD operators and designers for local architects and engineers (including myself).

The International Building Code with North Carolina amendments, which I became familiar with at my previous school, practically sizes members for you with charts and graphs for wood framed construction. I'd also like to mention that you don't have to be a licensed architect to build a house in North Carolina (under a certain price or size, I can't remember). With that said, if an unlicensed, informally educated North Carolinian can draw up plans for a house with the aid of International Building Code lawfully, we can do it too AND we can do it better.

The only reason I can see for thesis projects being restricted to a shell is that the faculty feel there isn't enough time to complete a project that includes the site, the building, and interior design (along with the programming and analysis).

Would it be too much to ask to let those who wish to pursue other areas, (besides interiors) do so and to create their own sites and shells to a greater extent (more then minor additions for example) then is currently allowed? I'm not talking a a full set of construction documents with the whole shebang (A,M,E,P,S,C) but perhaps at least as much attention to these areas as we've payed in previous studio projects. Does the pursuit of the other areas even have to require technical drawing? Can they be pure design, conceptual manifestations, places we use to catapult into "real" interiors? That situation would be no different then most of the studio projects we've completed thus far.

My final defense of my belief: we were not taught to design in a shell. We were taught to design everything cohesively. The thesis project restriction is at a paradoxical conflict with the pedagogy of the department. Considering this is our capstone experience as seniors, its rather ridiculous to start giving us rules now since we've been able to break and tear them asunder in every other opportunity we've been given.

I don't expect to change anyone's mind. I just wanted to share my perspective on the subject. I am only student among great thinkers and designers, faculty and peers alike. I don't feel as restricted as I did before because I've got ideas that I think can work with the current rules. I'd like to talk about them at some point after I gather my some more information...."

Revolution Mills Pictures...

Did I mention I like to take pictures? I probably could have spent an entire day and a few memory cards at that place. There was a ridiculous amount of content. I plan on going back when the weather is sunny, if they will allow me in. The clouds that day did not make for the best photo opportunity. I don't know how excited I am about what [they] are doing to renovate Revolution Mills but I will admit the place has character, as I hope it is portrayed in these photographs. Enjoy...

Lastly, it is unfortunate that the woman who was nice enough to give us the guided tour could not answer a seemingly easy question from Jami: "How are you preserving the history of the textile mill?" or something (good question). I suppose it was not safe for one to assume that this woman, a major player in Greensboro's relatively small historic preservation community representing Revolution Mills Studios and I'm sure whatever Greensboro's historic preservation society is, could simply inform us of how the textile mill's history was being preserved through the renovation (apparently with a wall of old photos). Huh? I must admit I was thrown off by the projectile vomited dry wall and tack-trad fixtures littering the premises. I believe she called it a "modern" look.

One word. Unbelievable.

Go figure.

Farnsworth, Smarnsworth...

(I don't support dumping Farnsworth in the trash. I'm merely making the point that this house's architectural value has more to do with its surroundings then the building itself.)

I'm not familiar with Illinois state laws but I'm going out on a limb to say that if Farnsworth wasn't a historic landmark in architecture then it wouldn't have been allowed restoration after the first time it flooded (flooded 6 times in 60 years).

Side note:
I have a problem in general with those who build in places where they know there is a high probability of their property being destroyed and there is a severe compromise in life safety. The residents/victims of California's wildfires and Florida's hurricanes come to mind. You can also add the city of New Orleans to the list too. People, the Dutch have been living below sea level since the beginning of time. How come we never hear about problems over there? Maybe its time to look for answers somewhere else besides the United States.

Back to Farnsworth:
Apparently, it falls in a 100 year flood plain. "Using historic weather and hydrograph data, experts derive the estimated rate of flow or discharge of a river or creek. The floodplain map affects building permits, environmental regulations, and flood insurance."

I know Mies put it on stilts in the first place to avoid flood waters but I don't think he anticipated the water rising 2 feet above the finished floor. Perhaps its time for the area to be reevaluated by the civil engineers and hydrology experts.

The question also remains whether or not Farnsworth should be an architecturally historic landmark in the first place. Many argue that the original client didn't even like the house and that there are so many design related problems (mid-century modernism as a whole, really) that it should be shown as an example in architecture schools of how not to design a building.

My opinion: I've never been to Farnsworth. It looks nice in the pictures but you know what always caught my eye the most? The beautiful, natural surroundings. I wouldn't spend a dime fixing it up, putting it up on higher stilts, or moving it somewhere else. Salvage what you can and let nature take back the land that the "nice looking" godforsaken building has occupied all these years.

Some of my peers are aware of my view on some historic preservation projects. Farnsworth, some of Frank Lloyd Wright's houses, Biltmore, and Blandwood all have something in common that I absolutely hate. They are houses, not HOMES. People don't live in them. We live in a society that invests in preserving these places yet we don't do enough for the people who don't have a home to call their own. I'm done ranting.