Sunday, January 27, 2013
Reading 4_ FromObjectToField_Due Feb 14
Complete the reading and submit to the course blog and assignment link in response to the following:
This reading is more difficult and takes more time to complete. Read carefully, Allen’s definition of the ‘field’ and make sure you understand how he dissects this through exploring works. Note the discussion of the Mosque in Cordoba, Spain. Note his dissection of Renzo Piano’s articulation of the joint as ‘design energy’ that “proceeds outward to condition the form of the whole”; and Kenneth Frampton’s observation towards the ‘ontological construct’ as he notes the move “towards a refusal of representation” that he shares with Frampton. And, what I consider perhaps as most relevant – he points out the following: “By remaining attentive to detailed conditions that determine the connection of one part to another, by understanding construction as a ‘sequence of events’, it becomes possible to imagine an architecture that fluidly and sensitively to local difference while maintaining overall stability. Later he goes on to explore the work of Craig Reynolds, artificial life theorist, in creating a program to simulate the flocking pattern of birds. In Waldrop’s observation of this, as well, he notes, “What is striking about these rules is that none of them said “Form a flock”…the rules were entirely local, referring only to what an individual boid could do and see in its own vicinity. If a flock was going to form at all, it would have to do (so) from the bottom up, as an emergent phenomenon. And yet, flocks did form, every time.” In this case, the flock is defined as a field phenomenon that comes from precise and simple local conditions.
It is this local condition that I want you to strongly consider. Allen later notes that “above all, it is necessary to recognize the complex interplay of indeterminacy and order at work in the city " – What do you think about the Stan Allen's working concepts of field conditions as it applies to cities? (which in part also stems from Jeff Kipnis and Stanford Kwinter) Do you agree or disagree with these observations and why? Can you support your viewpoint with an example? How do you see the change in the city to be most relevant to you as a designer?
-Prof. Torres-MacDonald
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Assignment 4
ReplyDeleteAllen breaks "the field" into different categories based on scale. In a smaller scale, the field is created and studied with mathematics. elements are added or subtracted based on the pattern created by the original designer. in larger scales, Allen begins to describe the field as "infrastructural elements in the modern city...linked together in open-ended networks." These networks, or fields "reflect the complex and dynamic behaviors of architecture's users and speculate on new methodologies to model program and space." Architects have new technologies to aid in identifying and programming the filds in which their projects are located, on every scale. The elements of a field are described as "loosely bounded aggregates characterized by porosity and local interconnectivity." The smaller the pieces, the more intricate the detail, the more rigid a field has become.
As far as Allen's idea of separating the micro-elements and building forms into distinct geometric versus algebraic groups, I believe he is mistaking mathematics. Or maybe I just see it a different way. Whether someone is using "ideal proportions" or not, a pattern can (and should) emerge from a piece of architecture. "Morphological transformations" versus "repeated parts" seem irrelevant to me. As long as the design of a former building is either adhered to or greatly contrasted in an addition, the building will probably work, as long as the original building was designed well.
The ROM (Royal Ontario Museum) by Darling and Pearson (March 19, 1914), and the modern Lee-Chin Crystal Expansion (June 3, 2007) designed by Daniel Libeskind is a mix of old and new. I believe this building defies all of what Allen was talking about. In no way does one half of the museum reflect the other. Yet there it sits. Does it work? Is it beautiful? That is for each individual to decide for his or her self.
As far as how Allen describes the field as "individuals to collections" i believe that is a appropriate analogy. And not only to describe flocks of birds. The impacts of individuals and groups on the ultimate appropriate design approach and programming requirements for an environment or space are just now technologically capable of being studied. As software has developed to analyze the theories of "herd instinct" which exist in man just as much as in any other species, the programming requirements and understanding of space have changed. How does a group 10 people respond to a fire when on the 5th floor of a building with only 2 exists? What if there are 50 people? What if it's not the 5th floor but the 50th? These sequences of events or possible scenarios can now be tested in the field. They help shape the field.
Allen's next set of conditions for discussion are the process by which fields are created. Do you start with an energy source as Renzo Piano did with his jointure, and do individual elements play a more crucial role in the overall development of a field as they did for the Cordoba Mosque? As a designer on a larger scale, I believe that both small scale details and large urban planning both need to fit into a field. What that field might be is subjective to the designer and the user of the designed work. In a city it is more important to follow the transportation networks and grids that already exists. Located and analyze the patterns that exist within the determined field of influence. Once that is done correctly to ensure proper placement and use in a project, I don't believe the details are quite as important as far as sticking to a pattern language. This is especially true if the surrounding architecture is lacking in any way. Why continue a pattern of bad architectural design?
-Cynthia
Stan Allen describes Field Conditions as having a double meaning—looking from the individual to the collective. Field conditions see boundaries as opportunities and work with, not against the site. Allen explains that ‘’internal regulations of the parts are decisive; overall shape and extent are highly fluid. Field conditions are bottom-up phenomena: defined not by overarching geometrical schemas but by intricate local connections. In my opinion, this means that Stan Allen’s concept of field conditions as it applies to the city considers the individual parts of a city to be the most important pieces in creating the city as a whole. An overall master plan or grand idea is not what he considers to be the most effective way to go about designing. Each individual part does its job. Eventually, all the parts come together as a cohesive unit.
ReplyDeleteUnderstanding Stan Allen’s observations of field conditions, detail, and repeated parts can lead to some very successful and inspirational architecture. Examples in the reading, such as the Mosque at Cordoba Spain and Corbusier’s Venice Hospital have the ability to be modified for several years on end while maintaining their original charm and flexibility. Projects by Carlos Scarpa and Renzo Piano maintain an intricate amount of detail that could not be reached by any means other than focusing on the individual part. Although this all can make for great architecture I personally do not agree that it is a standard that all designers can or should hold true to. I believe that every design is situational dependent on the time and place.
Grand master plans can be successful in creating a cohesive environment. Many of Zaha Hadid’s projects successfully incorporate a master plan, for example, the Dongdaemun Park and Plaza, that was completed this year in Seoul, Korea. While having an addition or remodel to a historical structure that can maintain its same appearance may be convenient at times, I believe designers can take these opportunities to be innovative with design. An example of this is the firm Coop Himmelblau’s rooftop remodel to a historical law firm in Austria. While it was initially protested, the futuristic ‘falcon’ like addition was added to the top of a historical building in the historical district of Vienna. This actually improved the status of the area as people now travel far distances just to see the new landmark among the old. In my opinion, change in the city can happen on both a large and a small scale, dependent on the designer’s preference. The main focus should be on the cultural implications of the time and place.
Jessica Badoe
The concepts presented by Allen are comprehensive and make sense when trying to understand how a city develops in regards to looking at it as a long-term refinement. He stresses that though a "field" may go through many iterations of construction it still manages to keep its identity through time. This is especially seen in all his variations of fields due to scale. But its only achievable and manageable if independent segments or parts complement one another and unify to complete a whole no matter the scale (common idea present in the categories). Just as the mosque went through many years of construction without losing its entity so should a city so that it may keep "its own integrity" in the end.
ReplyDeleteAn abstract example could simply be the reference to Jean Nouvel's extension of the Renia Sofia Art Museum where Allen ideas of fields are present. The concept revolves around creating space for the city and a public square which is manifested through the new buildings and current facade of the Southwest museum. The conversation of the modern addition to the existing condition works because the field of construction was already present and formally organized. When one goes to witness the addition the scale is immediately noticed but the fact that the parts are still coherent with one another and complete the whole is not questionable.
As Le Va demonstrated through his planned and unplanned "random" pieces in his work which directly can be applicable to how a city develops - sometimes planned and other times randomly planned. The distribution must also be present within a city as he defines "relationships of points and configuration to each other". The sequence of events must be able to predict and lay out, in a sense, an organized fashion so as to show how a city will develop in time. Because of this, "local conditions" are imperative to understand because the local relationships will in the end create an overall fixated form.
These concepts of "Fields" are imperative to comprehend as Allen suggests because as a designer this is how I would imagine a city would develop. We must pay close attention to detail and how relationships are present and manifested through construction so as time passes and these fields are managed with, architecture is able to respond gracefully and integrate itself within the larger context and maintain its "overall stability". It must always want to imply a sense of formal organization while still respecting the existing and past conditions. This is what we as architects must achieve and follow and this is what we must intricately bring back and place for a city to properly grow while still being stable.
-Martin
Stan Allen’s concept of field conditions in the urban context is a unique way of looking at a city that makes since. I agree with Stan Allen in that cities are complex and we need to learn from these cities that already have complex orders and rules embedded within them. It is impossible to try and control cities when they have such a complex order. We need to figure out how these orders or rules that are already set in place in order to promote change that does not disrupt the natural order. Analyzing field conditions within a city could help us have an understanding of some of the complex relationships that it has. I can see how analyzing repeated parts in a city could help form relationships that are not normally apparent.
ReplyDeleteFor example, in a city you could map the stop signs, traffic lights, city grid, and see what relationships that can be found. A complex field condition would be to map the behaviors of humans in a certain situations. For example in Lubbock, you could map how people walk about Texas Tech Campus. Do people really use sidewalks? Why are sidewalks sometimes used and sometimes disregarded? This is some information that you could get from mapping students paths around campus. I feel that field conditions could help us understand situations in cities that deal with human behavior. Just like the example, from Craig Reynolds and how he was able to figure out relationships of the behavior of birds by using a computer simulation of three simple rules of behavior. Understanding field conditions in a city is a concept that needs to be fully explored to see what relationships that can be found.
As a designer, change in a city is very important to our profession. Cities are constantly changing and evolving. We must understand why cities are changing and what factors are causing it to change. We need to be aware of these things in order to help a city change for the good and to do that we must first learn about the complex relationships in a city. As an architect, it is our responsibility to understand the built environment and the relationship it creates. When we are designing we must consider the connections within that city and that area in order to create something that is coherent with the flow of its environment. The city and its complex relationships are crucial to the profession of architecture. I believe that Stan Allen’s field conditions can help us begin to understand some of the complex relationships that are prevalent within our cities.
Danielle Smyth
The way that Stan Allen describes object to field is very deep in detail and explained in different meanings. His concept behind the field conditions as it applies to the city is explored through individual elements of different objects which are connected to create a whole. Every line, every plane and every solid organized as an overall master plan in a site forms the larger wholes to form the city itself. Allen states "Field conditions is not a claim for novelty, but rather an argument for the recuperation of an existing territory". From my understandings he states that every single object must be well thought before its creation where it will contain a function and is worth the labor for future references.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the different examples of Allen of the field and how they apply to the city. There's this quote that really made me think that says "All grids are fields, but not all fields are grids." When you think of a city it is composed of grid lines for modes of transportation and boundaries. These lines make the field, but a field may not have a grid. A field may be composed out of objects and organization of functionality that it is not necessarily a grid. The field is explained as a horizontal phenomenon that expands from one point outward as its needed by nature. As it expands this brings the subject of the future growth of a city. I think that any object such as a building, park, street, etc will never be completed as it is finished from its original plan. That object will always have future possibilities of growth, remodeling, or improvement. For example we can look at the Hearst Magazine Building in New York city where it's clearly define with two different styles of architecture from two different periods of time. The building was built in the early 1900's and as the city grew, the building was planned for vertical expansion by creating the late-modern tower in 2004. My point of view from the existing field is that there is always a chance for growth and improvement. In terms of a digital field, it's a little different, but it still applies. Allen mentions how the digital image have blank spaces and it is not empty because it's digital. In the real world, a field is full of empty space for future conditions.
A quote from the reading that helps support my point of view states "Field conditions and logistics of context reassert the potential of the whole, not bounded and complete, but capable of permutation". In example, technology is always changing over time for improvement and comfort for the people, and that is how I see a city should be as well. Opportunities of any kind are endless in a field with a future vision to the ideal geometric unity. By exploring the aspects of a field, I see a change in a city to be most relevant in growth in population transforming the existing to a bigger environment for functional living.
Julen Arruti
Stan Allen uses a very detailed way to describes object to field. He uses several examples of field, for a smaller level such as the Mosque in Cordoba, and on a larger scale as the streets of a city. I understand where he is coming from on the mosque, I have seen the changes that have taken place inside the building but it still has not lost its relationship to the field that it is in. I can agree with Allen in the quote " By remaining attentive to detailed conditions that determine the connections of one part to another, by understanding construction as a 'sequence of events', it becomes possible to imagine an architecture that fluidly and sensitively to local difference while maintaining overall stability." As an architect one would want to keep a similar connection to the surrounding field, but also one should not just copy the conditions of the field, you are in a design profession, you should have you own style that influences the field, makes it change towards something that is similar but different.
ReplyDelete"All grids are fields, but not all fields are grids." This quote struck me the most and made me think about what a field could be. My mind when to the GIS systems which give tones of information that could be used to base a design off of. Between the flood plains, plot boundaries, and the street system to name a few items available in GIS systems a designer can learn a plethora of things about their site.
Although I like what Allen has to say about fields I do not believe that one should have to be constrained to the patterns that emerged from the fields. For example Peter Eisenman's Wexner Center was derived off of two fields. The field of the campus that it is on and the field of the city that it is in. instead of orienting the center with the traditional east west of the campus, Eisenman disregarded the field and oriented his building in a north south. Let the fields give you information about your site, find out how people use the site, what the traffic patterns are, but let that only influence your design to a minimal point. As with any design it needs to change over time, expand to different generations of users, ten years from now how will it be used? If you keep the future field in consideration now, it will make it easier for the field to be altered to needs.
Bradley Rich
I found Mr. Allen’s views on fields and field conditions rather interesting, I had not considered the levels and complexities of grids and patterns can be used to make ‘fields’. I think that his observations are beneficial for studying and implementation within urban design projects. I appreciate his connections with nature and comparing nature to cities and human interaction.
ReplyDeleteThe section of the article on Flacks, Schools, Swarms, Crowds was very interesting. After reading this article the first time, I was driving south of Lubbock and observed the geese flying in flocks, landing in a field. There seemed to be some order while they were flying, they were strung out in these long ‘v’ shape formations. It was just as Allen said, “The birds were programmed to follow three simple rules of behavior: first, to maintain a minimal distance from other objects in the environment… second, to match velocities with other birds in the neighborhood; third, to move towards the perceived center of mass of birds in its own neighborhood.” When they went to land, they crowded up and dropped to the ground in a tight group near where other birds had landed. I didn’t think too much of it until later that day. I was picking up my little cousin from school, and I found an interesting similarity. As parents would drive to the school, they were in straight lines, they maintained velocity and minimal distance from each other, and they were all headed in the same general direction. As they approached the school where their kids were, things began to take an interesting turn. The parents lost all sense of order, some slowed down, others sped up, and some parked in fire lanes, on curbs middle of the road… It was chaotic to say the least.
It is entirely possible that the design of the school and the parking area could have been designed better to prevent this chaos, but I found the comparison interesting, and applicable to what Mr. Allen was saying. We need to look at these behaviors in fields, and learn from them to see how to better design for them.
Mr. Allen’s views on field conditions are accurate, and unique. I agree with him that the conditions are ever changing, and so too is the city. As we look at how the city has changed over time, we see all kinds of different styles and layouts. We see how people and human nature affect the city and drive the transitions that have taken place. As designers we need to be aware of these changes and why they take place. We have an opportunity to engage the city through our designs.
-Joshua Pape
Stan Allen has an unique way of describing field conditions and it correlates to modern day cities in the United States and older cites in Europe. The quote that really fits is, "Working with and not against the site, something new is produced by registering the complexity of the given." What I see as "working with and not against the site," are architects that incorporate the site and develops the city to the sites advantage. An example of this would be Denver, Colorado because they use the Rockies as an edge that divides them from others. With the Rockies so close the architects of the city designed the city with the field conditions in mind.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Stan Allen on field conditions and how it does correlate to a city. From history classes and research of modern day the concept from Stan Allen was more of an effect on older cities. My reasoning behind this is that cities like Paris, France, Rome, Italy, and Athens, Greece were more developed around the site. Technology might have been the difference but the cities still functioned off grids. Another thing about the older cites have and the newer cites it is not as noticeable is the, "Variation and repetition - individual and collective - are held in delicate balance." While in Paris, it has balance and rhythm with the use of bays and classical work.
The change of the city to us as a designer is important because it sets the building block for what we should work with. For designers now and us in the future it will be more about the technology available. To me technology has changed how architects think because with the use of technology it has decreased the amount of time it takes for a project. I do not think some modern day architects take the time to look at what is established in the city and go with a similar idea that is already in place.
Matthew Thoma
I found this reading to be exceptional and it was nice to think of the architectural making process in terms as an “algebraic” process that can be added onto without completely altering the overall existing conditions. This concept is what architectural and urban designers should seek whenever they design.
ReplyDeleteAt the beginning of the reading Allen starts off by describing the term field conditions and its double meaning. Understanding field’s verb form could mean “to deal with or respond to” made me understand both meanings better. These then becomes a sort of cyclical and paradoxical term that suggests that designers should constantly be aware of the conditions in the field as well as responds to and deal with the conditions.
Allen’s further clarification of field conditions also sets the tone for the rest of the reading such as when he stated that “field conditions are bottom-up phenomena: defined not by overarching geometrical schemas but by intricate local connections.” This definition of the term field conditions is one that I have seen architects and planners use for successful public spaces. In Houston, for example there is Discovery Green in which PPS met with stakeholders, downtown workers, and nearby residents, which resulted in one of Houston’s most successful urban spaces. But the point that I’m trying to get across here is that most successful designs, whether they be at the macro or micro level, require some sort of bottom-up, or even grass-roots, input so that it can become a phenomena. This is reinforced by the example of the boids and the locally established rules within them and their own vicinity. The flock can be seen as an indicator to successful urban space usage, and whenever the input of the local users is implemented it can lead to an even more successful space, which can then lead to the phenomenon of creating place. Thus the more localized the rules are the more sense of place begins to occur and this begins to delve into Frampton’s phenomenological concept of the ontological concept. How the space was created locally led to the emergent phenomenon of place because the space constructed with ontological concepts in mind.
Creating a successful space is one thing, but linking them is another. This is where the example shown of Renzo Piano’s joint articulations as “design energy” was a great example. At an urban scale such as Houston’s this seems hard to do. However, one great example that is occurring in Houston is connecting East Downtown (EaDo) to downtown by using important nodes/landmarks such as the BBVACompass Stadium. From there the Bastrop Promenade will follow, which could potentially link the Third Ward in Houston to EaDo and thus reinforcing the urban fabric in Houston. This is a great example of “remaining attentive to detailed conditions that determine the connection of one part to another, by understanding construction as a ‘sequence of events’, it becomes possible to imagine an architecture that fluidly and sensitively to local difference while maintaining overall stability.”
The aforementioned paragraphs establish my accord with Allen. Although it is a lot to take in, the concepts that I take from this reading in regards to the city is that much successful urban design happens when you establish local rules. Usually the local users of the space best establish these rules. If done correctly these locally established and implemented rules can result in the emergent phenomenon of place, usually indicated by crowds within the space. However, since field conditions alone may not be enough, I really like how Allen’s flexibility described in logistics of context account for what field conditions alone may have lacked. This way logistics of context “suggests a network of relations capable of accommodating difference, yet robust enough to incorporate change without destroying its internal coherence” thus keeping the common terms noted throughout the reading such as porosity, permeability, and interconnectivity as elements of successful urban design.
Emmanuel Castrellon
I tend to agree with Allen's description of field conditions. If you apply a set of local conditions and then begin to guide the flow of a growing city, it will then grow into a comprehensive whole. The local conditions set will create local connections, and its these connections that begin to relate and unify the city. Now I don't believe that the built environment needs to mimic itself or everything be directly related, it can be unique but must follow the initial conditions in order to allow for the desired growth.
ReplyDeleteLe Va's distributions are examples that the relationships are more important than the whole. Materials that Saret, Benglis, and Le Va use are very hard to control and it's the initial conditions and guidance of the direction of flow that creates the piece. As I said before about the setting the initial conditions, by doing this it will allow Architects to create a master plan that is living and breathing so that it can adapt to the ever changing environment.
As Architects the hard part is define these local conditions in such a way that they begin to guide growth like Craig Reynolds Flocks of Boids and still have the algebraic combination for continued growth. Its like Allen said it is important for Architecture to respond fluidly and still maintain its overall stability.
Billy Henly
I thought that the points and work that Stan Allen brought up are valid and do hold a rather important tone when considering the development of the city. The “field conditions” as defined by the reality of what is on and near a site, Then in the way in which we address those conditions. As a city develops, the patterns of form, crowd, node, and field all intermingle with one another. I think one of the inferences that can be made is that all these separate objects become fields through the phenomenon of bottom-up. They are defined by a local condition, a rule, as was noticed in Craig Reynolds work. He defined a set of rules that would create a flock but not one of the rules said “form a flock” It was all in the characteristics of the boids from their relationship to one another down to the simple fact of attraction. The flock formed every time. If we look at urban design I think that there are several local conditions that apply when we consider site, or object and its relationship to the physical surrounding. Transportation, orientation, built environment surrounding it, use of the site by pedestrian or vehicles. I think also it is noteworthy to consider the non- physical, zoning, deed restriction, and other modes of controlled development which contain a set of priorities that must be met by the site in order for the object to meet a field standard. In the same way that the boid had certain conditions attached to it as a component of its creation, which in turn led it to become part of the field.
ReplyDeleteI connected a lot with Stan Allen and much of the work that he referenced. I do agree that the object and Field do stem from local condition and the ways in which we design in adaptation to the conditions of a site, or the stipulations of deed restrictions, and the like. All of the conditions help us as designers develop ideas and understandings of our design that can drastically affect its success, as to the purpose it was created for. I like one of the last things that was talked about, “above all, it is necessary to recognize the complex interplay of indeterminacy and order at work in the city " …” Field conditions and logistics of context reassert the potential of the whole, not bounded and complete(hierarchically ordered and closed), but capable of permutation: open to time and only provisionally stable.” I agree deeply with this thought. While I did mention physical conditions and the laws behind a site, there is always a provisional mentality behind the formation of cities, because they are not ever complete. We can understand their construction and the subtle conditions that form the whole but it is complex and our duty as a designer is to study the pattern and connections of the city. See how we can build upon the strengths of the patterns that emerge, or help foster subtle changes that we see in the city. In this way the city can grow in manners that are natural and formed not exclusively from theoretical process but through fact and context.
Zachary Mitchell
From Object to Field by: Stan Allen
ReplyDeleteThe field is the acceptance of the real in all its massiveness and unpredictability. Understanding, testing and reducing the fundamental data that drives the object within the field is critical. Field conditions mix high theory with low practices. The first example of the Mosque in Cordoba, represents a part to part object relation therefor these parts are not fragments to the whole. The structural part-to-part relations create the field. As the mosque expands and changes form, over eighty years of construction the local relationships are maintained therefor the field subsequently expands at the same rate. The overall syntax remains because of the object relations have no geometrical hierarchy. This is a fundamental concept for understanding object to field relations, suggesting field conditions are inherently expandable as reinforced by Waldrop’s social experiments. The classical idea of closed unity is not applicable to the overall field as these theoretical observations are more focused on the data that drives the figures and the relationships between the figures.
When looking at Renzo Piano’s work the author interprets the overall form as a process that may be dissected from the construction joint outward. These high-energy nodes are multi-directional creating the process and data subsequently forming the whole. These repeatable operations found in building construction relate to form through a complex object to field relationship. Although this interpretation is poetic in nature, this is a good example as Kenneth Frampton pointed out. Attention to the detailed conditions and understanding construction as a sequence of events can create a field that responds fluidly in different environments while maintaining its global structure. The condition acting outwardly and the construction process can be considered two different object relations, when you have two different object sets driven by reduced data the results are often unpredictable. This result sometimes can be charted graphically using Moiré Patterns.
Moiré patterns create a repeating figural effect produced by the superposition of two regular fields. I find it very interesting that simple data sets when overlaid creates an expanding field governed by complex algorithmic functions. Unexpected results exhibit irregular behavior from very regular and repetitive data; these algorithmic shifts become a function of the geometries. I find this incredibly important to our work when studying urban design. This is an important technique to use in urban design because of the data driven graphic possibilities. As an urban designer we want to study the unpredictable complexities of the whole and create a firm basis for figure data as it relates to the whole. A good experiment would be to research an urban plaza that that incorporates movable chairs but remains unused. I think the most interesting, figure to field relations are the unpredictable ones, therefore coming with new variables for low practice methods for analyzing the parts becomes fundamental to predicting urban reactions.
In conclusion as Waldorf mentioned the birds did not create a flock when given individual data because the data was not an accurate representation of how the birds interacted with the other birds. In urban design the understanding why people act in certain ways under certain conditions is often a very simple solution that is right under our eyes. SOM was paid a large sum of money in the eighties or early nineties to do a study on what makes a successful urban plaza, they came back with there findings and stated, places to sit create a successful plaza. I think we as architects inherently know what makes architecture successful but sometimes the hardest thing to do is create a low practice conclusion that simply makes sense in all circumstances.
SBA
Stan Allen suggests that a field condition would be any formal or spatial matrix capable of unifying diverse elements while respecting the identity of each. He compares this idea to the infrastructural elements of the modern city, in which by nature are linked together in open-ended networks in the urban context. Field conditions as he discusses move from the individual to the collective. His examples and concepts reinforce the idea that field conditions are a bottom-up phenomena defined by local connections. It is important to also understand the contrasting principles of combination; algebraic and geometrical. In his example of the mosque in Córdoba, Allen denotes the existence of the typological structure that is reiterated on a larger scale (while the local relationships remained intact) to condition the form of the whole; elements are combined additively in an algebraic manner to form an indeterminate whole. In contrast with the mosque at Córdoba, St. Peters in Rome was rebuilt over time using morphological transformations that extended a basic geometric schema. Both of these examples had established local conditions, but the use of the algebraic or geometric combination reacted on the fabric changing or maintaining their original forms. In relationship to the city, this implies the creation of local rules to its infrastructure in order to create an indeterminate whole.
ReplyDeleteI personally agree with Allen’s observations about the modern architecture’s inability to address adequately the complexities of urban context. Cities of today are growing on a chaotic environment. The question of “How to engage the complexity of the city through the methodologies of a discipline so committed to control?” is the problem that architecture encounters today. Architecture needs to look back to see the local rules in which cities were designed and take what was useful and implement it in the present.
Some examples of good and bad city organization are New York, NY in comparison to Atlanta, GA. If we take a close look to the both of these city’s grid plan we could easily see that New York’s grid is better defined and more organized. On the other hand, Atlanta’s grid is more chaotic and for that reason gives the appearance of a “collage of surfaces” and no organization whatsoever. This may be due to the fact that New York is an older city and for that reason it was better designed or had established local conditions.
As future designers; urban designers to be more specific, we have to set local rules to follow. As cities change over time, these rules are going to allow the city to grow naturally. As stated before, in order for the city to be successful the rules for a good infrastructure need to be defined locally. If rules are defined locally, we can prevent mistakes such as the problem with the central artery in Boston as explained in lecture 4. In this case, if rules had been stated locally at the beginning for the design of this infrastructure they could of had prevented the re-designing of the city’s infrastructure and could have save them the trouble and the money.
Luis M. Velasco
It could be argued that these field conditions, as described by Stan Allen, have been the subconscious goals of many within the architectural profession. As a generalization Allen states “that a field condition would be any formal or spatial matrix capable of unifying diverse elements while respecting the identity of each.” This generalization, when applied to the afore mentioned argument, indemnifies an architect’s need to stand out but doing so without falling into the clique of ‘sticking out like a sore thumb’. So the question has been, how do architects and urban designers find unifying connections without losing the individual identity that they have made? On a localized scale, take Frank Lloyd Wright’s home and study in Chicago as an example. Much of the house is very intricate and detailed to the point that when experiencing the spaces within, a feel for the entirety of the space happens before the details begin to stand out. As though it was meant for no other purpose, each object holds their identity up proudly but in turn serves to emphasize those around it as well. This relationship begins before one even enters the house. When viewing the front façade the overall elegance of the entirety captures you before the artful column capitals of the entry way even become apparent.
ReplyDeleteAllen’s explanation of the city in terms of the open field, and the relevance of the moiré effects to the urban context, drew closer consideration to the grid and the plan dimension of the city. In this context the city is viewed as horizontal extensions, and Allen addresses that the overlapping of these horizontal extensions alters the surface of the city to fit the characteristics of a moiré. From this alteration the “thickening and intensification of experience at specified moments within the extended field of the city” occur. One such instance is the Jüdische Friedhof (Jewish Cemetery) of Berlin, Germany. In plan this place is a filled part of the grid, sitting within a city block while also surrounded on three of its four sides by the local architecture of the area. This place is one of the experiences described by Allen that also follow his theory of field conditions. Easily confused for a garden or park, the cemetery is vastly populated by many trees and other vegetation, so much so that from an aerial view one could not distinguish it as such. As the city expanded along its horizontal extension this cemetery became an aspect of the moiré that was taken into account, and was absorbed into the city while maintaining its identity and historical prevalence.
The concept of flocking as it is addressed by Allen can easily include the human condition. From the beginning of time people have congregated together naturally as a result of many different reasons. Because of this flocking the modern city had become what it is today with millions of individuals living in close proximity. So by this classification the city can be deemed a flock, or an organized flow of the social aspects of the human condition. However, crowds and swarms, by Allen’s definition, “operate at the edge of control” in many different characteristics of this condition: traffic, communication and even such concepts as sprawl. The goal of this understanding would be to direct this operation into better possibilities of growth for the future.
From this I take away new insights into the architectural world as well as the urban environment. This theory of field conditions as it relates to my own thoughts is something that I can follow and agree with on many of its points. I think that for future consideration, the design community could take many of these aspects of field conditioning and use them for the betterment of our cities. The change of the city is constant and by including into practice the unification of separate identities I feel I can help that change in a more positive direction.
Nathan Pope
Field conditions are constant variables that architects face with any project. Stan Allen’s break down of different examples of field conditions shows how different one can approach and individual condition, and it is apparent that every condition will be different. Allen argues that the only way to avoid “lost orders or fragments of never-realized totalities” in cities, is by a logistical approach to context. I would have to agree that if a logical approach to context were taken at a local level in every project then it would create an urban fabric that was continuous and homogenous; creating links and connections as a whole. However, this will never be the case and the reality is fragmenting in cities will continue.
ReplyDeleteMatt Vaclavik
Stan Allen's essay "from object to field" is a very interesting and intelligent way of forming Architecture. It deals with the field to site relationship distinctly; It compares and contrasts different examples.
ReplyDeleteHis concept of field conditions is well defined and this includes how field conditions treat constraints as opportunity and moves away from a Modernist ethic which works with and not against site. Field conditions are bottom-up phenomena defined not by overarching geometrical schemas but by intricate local connections. In this scenario form matters but not so much the forms of things as the forms between things.
I am delighted by how he treats field conditions as infrastructural elements of the modern city; It seems to me more like a machine(digital). And also like the fact that he emphasizes on "locality and relationship".
I agree with his observation that the flock is clearly a field phenomenon because it is emergent.
Being emergent means coming into view, existence, or notice. In this observation locality and relationship come into play again. It is noted in the essay that a small flock and a large flock display fundamentally the same structure which means the configuration remains the same regardless of external factors like size.
The change in the city will be most relevant to me as a designer because it is going to address different challenges in Architecture especially the challenges related to the creation of Architecture. Now as a designer, I begin to think of strategies that help and benefit communities, individuals and the city as a whole; sometimes making only making the rudimentary aspects of forming architecture most important.
Stan Allen addresses what ‘fields’ are in regards to many different elements, primarily focusing on urban context. Allen explains that ‘fields’ can affect individuals as well as entire urban populations. Even though urban context tends to be looked at in a larger scale, I tend to side with the fact that successful urban planning happens at the ground level. This reasoning tends to side with the more Classical approach of ‘parts forming ensembles which in turn from larger wholes’. However, these parts need to be arranged in a particular fashion in order for them to be successful. This concept relates back to the fact that very much like architecture, urban planning is a living and breathing organism. An example of this concept playing out in an actual project is the mosque at Cordoba. The mosque was in construction for eight centuries. Throughout these 800 years, the plans and layout of the mosque adapted and evolved in order to fit the needs of the people as well as the aesthetic taste of the architect responsible for constructing the mosque. This goes to show that when planning and designing, one must take growth and expansion into account. The question then becomes, what makes a successful blend of historical architecture and modern architecture? Is there an efficient way for these two different organisms to co-exist? Though this is a more subjective question, I believe the answer is yes. An example of this is Renzo Piano’s Spazio Vedova. Renzo Piano converted an old storage warehouse into a modern museum with dynamic exhibits that parade throughout the warehouse. I also was fascinated and agree with Piano’s method of construction and design where he explores architecture from a single joint to the entire infrastructure of the building. The idea that many bodies creates one part is an idea that speaks for itself when it comes to the creation of beautiful architecture.
ReplyDeleteOne of the things that was fascinating to me is how Allen describes that cities are going to be arranged less horizontally and more along a 3-dimensional arrangement. I can definitely see how this is the way cities are becoming arranged due to the increase in high rise buildings and paths being built in modern cities. Another element that Allen describes is how ‘populations thrive in cities precisely because they are places of the unexpected, products of a complex order emerging over time’. This changes my perspective of city planning and urban context. As an architect, I want to have full control of my projects and be the decider of the fate of all that happens. However, It is an interesting concept to see that sometimes chaos can often times lead to something quite nice down at the ground level.