Sunday, January 27, 2013
Reading 5_ProgrammingTheUrbanSurface_Due Feb 21
Alex Wall, in "Programming Urban Space" provides excellent subject for reconsideration of context, the city and urban space. There are two particular areas that will be the focus on this topic. On the 2nd page of the pdf reading (located in your Blackboard course under the Readings icon on the home page (or course content page)), you will find the following noted by Wall of Victor Gruen back at a 1955 conference:"Architecture today cannot concern itself only with that one set of structures that happen to stand upright and be hollow "buildings" in the conventional sense. It must concern itself with all man-made elements that form our environments: with roads and highways, with signs and posters, with outdoor spaces as created by structures, and with cityscape and landscape." Re-examine the reading and look up some of the work listed on pages 4-6 to get a better understanding of Wall's observations. Then reread the "Surface Strategies" noted by Wall on pages 7 and 8 of the pdf reading. From this, express your viewpoint about: these 'surface strategies' and what you believe at this point in your education is the most relevant consideration of design in the urban landscape - what do you think architects and community and urban designers should be considering? I believe we are at a juncture in this discussion. It is one that has more actively taken place in the last 15 years and calls on us to question what the future 'shape' of the city.
-Prof. Torres-MacDonald
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Reading 5
ReplyDeleteAlex Wall believes that a "primary design strategy [for urbanism] is to extend continuity while diversifying the range of service." He also states that design has changed from "forms to processes." I believe this is very clearly the case in today's urban environment. Not only are we interested in how a building looks, but the way it works within an extended network and/or grid within its context is also equally, if not more, crucial. Peripheral sites, mobility and dynamics are the main effects of urban planning today according to Wall. And these are not all physical situations, they can also be economic, social, political, etc. I believe the breakdown to be far more complicated than these three simple categories, however they do encompass a great deal.
As urban designers today, I believe it should be our goal to effectively integrate our designs not just onto the immediate site, but into the many networks of the city it lies within. This includes, but is not limited to, infrastructure, density, history, culture and society. Although I do not believe landscape designers will envelope urban design, but the other way around, it should still be the architect's goal to create a cohesive design to the best of their ability between form, landscape and urbanism.
There are countless factors that need to be taken into account when designing in an urban environment. Wall describes the processes of thinking that many of the most successful urban designers have accrued over the years. You can see through their projects the attempts to incorporate change and morphological properties into their designs. Many of their solutions are very extreme and fanciful, but the process of exploration has been important to the modern architect. Through advances in technology it has become easier to incorporate properties of ambiguity or change into a project to make it last longer and work efficiently throughout its lifetime. Our strategies seem more subtle than those of OMA or West 8, but they are present in some projects today. I think designing for the future is one of the hardest aspects of good urban design.
-Cynthia Helms
Alex Wall explains how the process of a building has shifted from the design of enclose objects to the design and manipulation of larger urban surfaces. This form of creativity relates to the traditional design of architecture, landscape architecture, urban planning, and engineering. A change in architecture is in progress as time moves on considering the context of a city and urban space. This change is complex due to the increase of mobility and access, the new kinds of urban sites, and by most importantly the change of the point of view of a city in a more dynamic way.
ReplyDeleteThe main reason for the new practice of landscape and urbanism today is in result of the changing nature of cities. Some examples of urbanism we know and we see today are for example the work and studies from OMA as the reading mentions. Another good example is West 8 with their landscaping within the city context. Wall states Surface Strategies as rebuilding, incorporating, connecting, and intensifying. The goal for this statement is not only the physical character, but also the programmatic function. several years ago, a building's thought was only considering the site, but now as an urban design it is much more. Today you also need to deal with infrastructure, density, economic, culture, society, history, physical, etc in order to create the ideal building or project for that specific site. This study of many networks of the city is a change from forms to process of design. I agree with how this new process of urban design is better in the way the designer has to incorporate all the surroundings and society in order to make things work with each other.
There is one thing I don't agree with Wall. He states the following "landscape architects may absorb urban design into a newly synthetic practice of landscape urbanism". From my understanding, Wall is saying that landscape architects are evolving and taking over the urban design work. In my opinion I think that both landscape and urban design are related, but at the same time very different areas in the field of design. I think that the rest of his beliefs are true especially taking in consideration the future of the city. The designer must think ahead and design something that will work in several years ahead from today. Elements such as population growth, technology, transportation and nature are things to take in consideration for future change.
Julen Arruti
Alex Wall, in "Programming Urban Space” brings up the idea of a paradigm shift from creating cities from multiple built objects to focusing on the surface that these objects tie to as a way to design a receptive urban environment. “These works signal a shift of emphasis from the design of enclosed objects to the design and manipulation of larger urban surfaces. They indicate a renewed interest in the instrumentality of design- its enabling function- as opposed to representation and stylization”. I was also captivated by Wall’s definition of “Landscape”, which he explains is a functioning matrix of connective tissue that organizes not only objects and spaces but also processes and events that move through them.
ReplyDeleteOne design proposal that stood out to me was implemented by Rem Koolhaas and OMA in 1987, for the new town of Melun-Senart, France. This project reversed the figure and ground map, designating the voids as building sites, thus reflecting Alex Wall’s idea of focusing on the surface as a primordial element of design. Logically it makes sense, for it is on the surface that much of the activity happens such as; pedestrian-multimodal transportation, tele-communications and other infrastructure elements. Rearranging these elements to fit a building program would be counterproductive; by designating the buildings as voids the designers leave the sites undetermined and adaptable to the changes in society and anything can take place as long as the Surface (Solid) framework is preserved.
I believe, like MaryAlice, that the drivers for the urban landscape should not be the economic gain but rather the needs of the local community. By addressing the needs of the community you build from the ground up as opposed to top down, thus creating a more viable environment in which other drivers, like economy, can fall into place.
Architects and Urban designers should consider what Alex Wall says in "Programming Urban Space." At least follow the methods of "surface strategies". A modernized city that incorporates thickening, folding, new materials, non programmed use, and impermanence would be better situated for the future. The incorporation of these items creates a feeling where people can interact with each other more because the urban space is built for it and not built with buildings right on top of each other. Giving some people the feeling that they are tiny when walking down a street in a business district.
ReplyDeleteIf a city incorporated thickening in one area of businesses similar or differently than Schouwburgplein, West 8. Then food stands that specifically placed around the urban space then people would have more of an interaction. When studying abroad in Paris, that is one thing that I thought Paris did well with the use of Placé. It does not have to be just thickening but a modernized mall that has folding and non programmed use incorporated on the roof. The area would be more sustainable due to the roof having the ability to be modified for events.
I think the biggest problem is that the US is so different from Europe. By us moving at are own speeds for work and having areas like Schouwburgplein, West 8 all over then people will not interact as much. I think a change should happen and that architects and urban designers need to focus on implementing ideas for people interaction and developing a stronger community.
Matthew Thoma
The "Surface Strategies" presented by Wall have all become integral aspects in today's urban context. The notions of rebuilding, incorporating, connecting and intensifying have a direct dominant influence in the way we should consider revitalizing and re-purposing areas where they need be. In regards to urbanism, we must look at these precedents that Wall exemplifies that have successfully made landscapes have a sense of continuity while still being able to adapt and absorb whatever the shifts cities may go through as time passes. Current architects as well as landscape architects and designers have already begun to switch over their attention to the overall context rather than just a particular site a building occupies. In other words, how a building will affect its surroundings in regards to nodes, paths, districts, edges and landmarks.
ReplyDeleteInfrastructure at the larger scale is also crucial to analyze when it comes to connectivity so that the urban fabric may be whole. A survey to show a cities dense population and the pattern in which they behave is important in determining how an urban area will develop and what it will have to potentially go through as the city changes. These can be clearly seen in OMA's design of the Parc de la Villette as Wall states: " The surface had to be equipped and staged in such a way as to both anticipate and accommodate any number of changing demands and programs".
The other examples presented in the text are only some of the possible strategic ways in which we could better refine the urban context (keeping in mind that these propositions took time to refine and effectively improve the notion of urbanism). It was by their analytical efforts and designs that we now have a basis as to how we must go about improving the urban surface. Architects, communities and urban designers must coherently work together to continue to produce other systems that can be applied in a given context. We should be considering "new techniques of practice, new modes of representation and new kinds discussion and conceptualization". The peak of interest, however, is developing designs that are able to make a difference during the current time of their completion and maintain the effect through the paradigm shifts a city may go through in the future because that's where the potential of a design really shows. It is most certainly a challenge to develop a surface that can withstand future predicaments but then what would be of urban design without a good challenge?
-Martin
In “Programming the Urban Surface” Alex Wall defines landscape as a functioning matrix of connective tissue that organizes the not only objects and spaces, but also the dynamic processes and events that move through them. This landscape or surface that Wall defines is the same surface that contain the elements of concern from victors’ point of view; all man-made elements that form our environment. As noted in the reading, Gruen points out that architecture cannot concern in itself only with the buildings, but give more attention to the design of the landscape that emerges as cities disperse across the region.
ReplyDeleteWall refers to Programming as the engine of a project. Important surface strategies need to be followed to successfully program the urban surface. Applicable considerations in the designing of landscapes today relate to Wall’s work. These considerations are being targeted to social cultural audiences rather than being only physical “form oriented’. One example is community design which involves the social, physical and economic issues to shape the physical environment. Wall’s observations are perfect examples that reinforce this strategy. Chemetoff’s design on the reading was a good example of how the infrastructure engaged the social issues. Another strategy relevant to today’s design is the use of materiality. In the van d’hebreon example the use of materials expresses and provokes activities. Today, we use materials to distinguish the program of the space, the type of surface and to specify activities within the design.
As future architects,( urban and community designers) we need to consider more the folding strategy. We need to analyze, cut, warp, and fold the surface to be able to create a smooth geology that joins interior and exterior spaces into one continuous surface, as Wall describes it. Also, we need to look ahead for the future, we need to design frameworks within the surfaces capable of absorbing the future demands; we need to allow for future development without compromising the integrity of the project at present.
Luis Velasco
Alex Wall concludes with this statement, “Perhaps the synthesis of landscape, architectural, and urbanistic skills into a hybrid form of practice may allow for the invention of newly supple and reflexive built fabrics, new landscapes. Such dynamic surface structurings may be the only hope of withstanding the excesses of popular culture… while absorbing and redirecting the alternating episodes of concentration and dispersal caused by the volatile movement of investment capital and power.”
ReplyDeleteLooking at his understanding of urbanism and the sources he provides, I can see the validity of his conclusion. Urbanism is always in a mess of sorts. Shifts in trends, culture, economy, all play a role in urban development and with such a high concentration of people the urban landscape, and urban designers, have to be ready to respond quickly and with ideas that have some elasticity to them. I like the example of Schouwburgplein were the space provides some ‘thickening’ to use Wall’s term. The site deals with the infrastructural issues but also creates opportunity for the public to manipulate the space. It gave it a multiplicity of uses, which results in greater public use and hopefully a longer life span of usefulness to the pedestrian environment.
I think overall it does not come down to one site or one community, that will determine the success or failure of a design. The life span and its continued usefulness to a population that grows changes and adapts is what will determine that. I think we have seen some great ideas in this article, but it will never be a proven formula of what constitutes good urban design. There are always the variables of what is valued by a group of people. I think we as designers should try are best to change the world and help people see how enriched their lives would be by implementing some of these designs, but how do you change peoples minds? I think that is an overarching topic that we have talked about in Houston many times. It is a challenge to us as designers to think critically and be persuasive about the ideas that are truthfully good for an environment, based on observations of people, site, culture, and global conditions.
Zachary Mitchell
I find Alex Wall's "programming the urban surface" essay very interesting. I like how the words "urban and landscape" go side by side, thus intertwined. And also how landscape is treated as an "urban surface".
ReplyDeleteTo me the major goal of surface strategies is to attract and improve in-habitation which is achieved by thickening, folding, new materials, non programmed use, impermanence and movement. These strategies explore various aspects of the urban surface but
I feel there is room for more exploration of the urban surfaces ( which I do not think as been achieved yet) of course having in mind that a thing can be achieved in different ways; but then we have to find the most effective way.
I am particularly drawn to the Archigram's work where there is inherent flexibility of the designed system. In this work parts can be added, removed or rearranged at will accommodating a range of uses at different times ( this what every architect and urban designer should have in mind when designing).
Finally I agree with the surface not merely been the venue for formal experiments but instead it is the agent for evolving new forms of social life.
Esther
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe surface strategies stated by Alex Wall are all important as urban design strategies. Folding the surface can make a surface continuous. Folding is how place or buildings become divided it is necessary programmatically. Introducing and developing new materials is a good surface strategy. I can see how this can help diversify a city by allowing different activities to take place. It is important to allow diverse activities in order to make a welcoming and active place. Changing materials can allow for a more active environment. People need to change materials in order to help promote an outdoor space. It is hard to say that a random open space of grass would promote very diverse activities. This goes along with non-programmed use. Wall states that, a space does not need to be defined it just needs to be equipped with a flexible range of uses. This is also an important aspect in urban design. Impermanence of a surface is important in order to provide for an easy change because cities are constantly adapting.
ReplyDeleteThickening is a multilayered surface that solves technical problems including the movement of people. I believe this layer is the most important in considering. It is important to think about how people move throughout the city. We have so many different forms of transportation that often conflict with one another, such as the pedestrian and automotive transportation. By thickening these layers we can start manipulating the interaction between the two. We need to think about how to promote a walkable city by dealing with the layers found on the surface. This is what urban designers and architects need to be considering. We need to stray away from the automobile and in doing so we can promote a healthier environment. I believe that the future city will have a more pedestrian friendly environment.
Danielle Smyth
After reading “Programming the Urban Surface” by Alex Wall I think designers should keep in mind the “Surface Strategies” he stated. The idea of thickening, folding, new materials, non-programmed use, impermanence, and movement might be the solution in creating successful cities and areas. Following the surface strategies, one will create a new experience for the user because now the attention is to the overall context rather than just the site the building is located on. This is the case today, we are not only interested in how a building looks, but the way it works within a larger context.
ReplyDeleteArchigrams work has always been really interesting to me. In their designs parts can be added, removed, or rearranged to accommodate changes. When thinking about Archigrams designs, the Metabolism group also comes to mind. The group designed cities that provided flexible and expandable structures that promoted growth and change. Their designs were really appealing and pushed to the extreme what the future cities should be like. As future architects we need to keep the word “Change” in our minds. It will be very difficult and complex, but one has to create designs that accommodates to the present needs, but also engages and looks ahead into what the future will hold.
Hector Zumalacarregui
Often when thinking about my experience as a freshmen architecture student I envision myself as an ostrich with its head in the sand. I feel like this parochial mindset really limited me, and now as I go through my past portfolio works I begin to envision what my works would have been like if I had a broader, more urban design approach to my works. Now that I have been exposed to urban design in more depth I feel like I am beginning to understand the importance of our designs regardless of its scale.
ReplyDeleteUrban design literally really makes you think outside the box and forces you to consider what happens outside, through, and around the box. It also forces you to conjure up creative ways to get people to the box and to examine why the box is there and how it relates to other boxes. Perhaps one of the greatest challenges about urban design is that it is multifaceted with various fields that include landscape architecture, civil engineering, and politics. Because shaping the city requires many fields, one can begin to understand Wall’s use of the word “strategy” for describing the organization and shaping of the city. Wall’s essay provides outstanding examples of how these surface strategies work together to create an interestingly dynamic and adaptive type of urban design.
One of the surface strategies that I personally like the most is the Non Programmed use, because of the adaptability and flexibility it provides. I completely agree with Adriaan Geuze in preferring “emptiness” to overprogramming because many buildings are already overprogrammed. It’s unnecessary to do the same to the “non-building” spaces because people are smart enough find something to do within that “emptiness.”
I also enjoy the use of folding in urban design projects. The International Port Terminal in Yokohama is a great example of folding and causes the convenient concurrence of private and secure with public and open. This example and surface strategy also happens to remind me of Raul Gerrero’s and Martin Medina’s study abroad urban studio project in Seville.
Movement as a surface strategy also stands out to me because of the challenge I have coping with it. Much of this difficulty is because I have not been exposed much to public transit. This part of the reading begins to explain to me the importance of movement through the city through various infrastructural modes. The examples of Barcelona’s Ronda de Dalt and the trolley line that goes through the Parisian suburbs were excellent examples of the significance of infrastructural mobility for programming the urban surface.
In the case of the Ronda de Dalt I found it fascinating to think of designing a highway for “highest capacity of collection and distribution…” which in turn led to new opportunities for programming the open spaces that emerged at the interchanges. Although I do not know much about highway transportation design, this makes me wonder how Houston’s freeways are designed and if they could benefit from this example.
When I was in Houston I saw how people would wait at the bus stops and metro stops and found it intriguing. Alexandre Chemetoff’s trolley design for St. Denis and Bobigny helped me comprehend the importance of public transit and how it is an opportunity for public space design. With the Metro under expansion in Houston I hope that designers will create a public space that people will like being in.
Out of all of these surface strategies noted as well as my educational experience I believe that the common denominator is twofold: integration and adaptability. These are what I consider to be the most relevant considerations of design in the urban landscape. Successful urban design integrates into the community that it is established in and is flexible enough to adapt to the uses of the present and future generation. This denominator should urge architects and urban designers to always consider how their designs will be 20 to 30 years from so that with this mentality the city can adapt to whatever happenstances may arise.
Emmanuel Castrellon
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe urban environment is a reactive one or as Wall states, "the (urban) surface literally unfolds events in time." In this regard, the urban environment must now be able to reflect and adapt to the changes that are applied to it. Wall states that this condition demands "designers and planners to revise their approaches toward the making of urban projects" by agreeing with Victor Gruen that architecture "must concern itself with all man-made elements that form our environments". By applying different "surface strategies" to modern day means of design, characteristics such as rebuilding, incorporating, connecting and intensifying can be given to future projects. This gradual shift in designing has led away from "monuments and master plans" as a focus to more of a "careful (set of) modifications and articulations in the modern surface". Possibly the most significant aspect, of the many, for this approach is the ability for the urban surface to accommodate for what exists in the present as well as prepare for future programs and changes.
ReplyDeleteAs a designer, I feel that the focus of architecture should shift from an isolated concentration on the vertical impressions that we make to a thought of how those impressions interact with the environment that it will change. It has been stated many times to look beyond the borders of the walls in a project at the site, but an additional step should be taken to include even more beyond that. Limits can be made to this inclusion as to the relevance that it poses but all aspects should be considered to the farthest extents. Take Lubbock for example. Does the new development that is spreading southwest toward Wolforth have any defining impact on how redevelopment of the downtown should be handled? Should the characteristics of that area be taken into consideration for what already exists? For either of these questions a definitive “no” cannot be given, but the effects at most would a tertiary impact.
Though all aspects of the "surface strategies" discussed hold great relevance to any design thought, the one that most relates to the context of the urban environment for our world at present is movement. The introduction of the automobile has caused a massive shift in the way that the urban context can now be viewed, but this should not have taken over as a way of thinking. It should have been absorbed into the current form of understanding. Pathway has been stated as the primary element within the urban context for the areas of spatial interaction. A revival of a traditional concept of pathway should come about that doesn't replace but instead integrates to our current understanding.
Nathan Pope
The idea of the surface being something more than just landscape intrigues me. As a designer today it is important to consider the Surface Strategies that Alex Wall suggest in the reading. The strategies of nonprogrammed use and impermanence should be something that designers think about when designing an urban space. Having a space that can be used for dinning one day and entertainment the next is something that the Spaniards do in their plazas. When it comes to urban design the Europeans got it right, this is something that us as Americans need to learn. Of course this being said the Europeans have had the ability to learn and adapt to the changing economy, the politics, and the social environment, something that Americans have not had to deal with. More and more now as I continue on with my higher education I hear my professors tell me to think about the future of my design and what the spaces will be used for. The strategy of using new materials is one that should always be considered, new materials typically are engineered to serve a purpose, to make something stronger or more cost effective. Overall I do not think that the Landscape designer is taking over the role of the urban designer, I believe more and more that the architect wants to control their design, and not have outside factors contributing to it.
ReplyDeleteBradley Rich
The ‘surface strategies’ described in this week’s reading, “Programming Urban Space” by Alex Wall, are strategies that are very helpful in urban and landscape design. His strategies of thickening, folding, new materials, non-programmed use, impermanence, and movement the strategy are all important things to incorporate into urban design. Thickening allows for the creation of more community space. A multilayered surface allows for pedestrian movement creates a new dynamic way of traveling through a city. The strategy of folding allows for a continuous transition from interior to exterior on a single plane. This promotes a new level of integration between people in a building and the people on a street of a city. Non-programmed use is one strategy that ensures a new urban project will remain timeless. Allowing the user to change and adapt the area to what is most beneficial to them creates a multifunctional social space.
ReplyDeleteNon programmed use has the ability to be one of the most dynamic of all the strategies. Architects have the tendency to get caught up on defining the program of every single space we create. Although a space might be designed for a particular purpose, it does not necessarily mean that that event will always happen there. For example, the few stairs outside of the Seagram’s Building in NYC have become a well known place for sitting, due to their size and positioning, rather than then the transition space that stairs are defined to be. A flexible and adaptable design is almost guaranteed to be much more successful than a static design.
In my opinion, the most relevant consideration of design in the urban landscape is adaptability, multifunctionality, and considering the public’s needs. A design that responds to the changing needs of a society is successful in creating long term value in a city as well as bringing a sense of community. It is important that architects and community and urban designers take notice of their surroundings when designing and incorporate many different aspects of what happens in the city.
Jessica Badoe
All of these projects seem to integrate into the city fabric in a seamless manner. Even though most of the projects are large in scale, they mediate different contextual properties to create a strong project that works well. The underlying aspect of each of the projects is the functionality that through thoughtful design has made them successful.
ReplyDeleteI view the surface strategy of folding to be one of the most important because it has a focus on this idea of a seamless fabric. These surface strategies are simply ways of categorizing each project. One could argue that most of these projects mentioned in this reading incorporate all of the surface strategies.
Alex Wall mentions the ideas of OMA in 1982 with the Parc de la Villette in that the site did not call for “a fixed design, the project offered the city a framework for developing flexible uses as needs and desires changed.” The idea that focuses on the voids because the voids offer a “greater effect on the subsequent built environment than does the design of particular building layouts” is one that designers should be considering because they are the spaces that the social, cultural, and community aspects of cities take place. They are places that people interact within, enjoy and create meaningful experiences that need to be celebrated and incorporated into the urban context in a thoughtful manner.
Matt Vaclavik
Alex Wall’s introduction into how to program Urban Surfaces conveyed a large amount of essential information. I believe his introduction can be summarized with the phrase: “the urban surface is dynamic and responsive”. As designers, I believe this to be the biggest challenge we face today. I feel like as students, we often seem to focus on one of these elements instead of blending the two. However, this is what makes our profession challenging. One of the elements of urban design that has always fascinated is the term ‘urban landscape’. This phrase, in a literal sense, comes across as a complete oxymoron. However, the ‘urban landscape acts as an active surface, structuring the conditions for new relationships and interactions among the things it supports’. The key words in this statement are ‘new relationships’. We are currently undergoing a vast transition in the urban layout of our cities. The reading describes how urban context is rapidly changing from an emphasis in suburbia to ‘a more polycentric and weblike sprawl’. I think this is going to prove to be a major challenge especially for cities in the United States. Cities in the United States were designed with the buildings as the focal point instead of the moments between these buildings. Granted much thought and analysis was given in creating streets and sidewalks, but not necessarily with the public in mind. Victor Gruen elaborates on this by saying that ‘his view was that it was less individual buildings that needed the attention of design and more the landscapes that were emerging as cities dispersed across the region’.
ReplyDeleteOne of the biggest challenges that is prevalent today in creating these urban landscapes is the intertwining of methods of transportation. We are living in a time were pedestrian and public transportation are on the rise, contrary to the fact that the typical American city is designed primarily for vehicular traffic. It is challenging to create a design that allows for a smooth transition between all methods of transportation. Eduard Bru talks about this very issue when it came to the design of public spaces. When it came to the design of a public park in Barcelona, Spain, ‘Bru describes a dynamic and changing landscape, one where the demands of changing programs lead to a different reading of the site’. He uses this statement to actually defend the use of automobiles. Public parks tend to be heavily associated with pedestrians, however Bru states that cars should never have to be excluded from a design but be incorporated in a way that is efficient.
Going along with Eduard Bru, I believe that urban designers should gear a lot of their attention to the movement element of surface strategies. As urban designers it is very difficult to alter the infrastructure of an entire city although we can greatly influence it. However, we can use this infrastructure to our benefit when it comes to making a project stronger. I definitely agree with Alex Wall when he stated that ‘one of the primary roles of urban designers in the 21st Century will be the reworking of movement corridors as new vessels of collective life’.
While reading Alex Wall’s article Programming the Urban Surface, I began to think a lot about Urban Surfaces that I have come in contact with over the last few years. I noticed that the new designs are a lot more flexible and allows for a variety of uses, while some of the older surfaces tend to be more restrictive.
ReplyDeleteVictor Gruen was correct when he said that Architecture “must concern itself with all man-made elements that form our environments.” There is a lot more to architecture than the building itself. The connections to the surrounding environment are just as important, if not at times, more important. The elements that Gruen described, “…roads and highways, with signs and posters, with outdoor spaces as created by structures, and with cityscape and landscape" are important. We must also realize that these elements are ever-changing within the environment due to new technologies and new trends in society.
With these changes, we as designers also have to adjust our “surface strategies” and design concept. We need to look at all of our options and explore materials, and programming of space (or the lack of programming). We need to address the public vs. private relationship in new ways. We need to find ways that allow our designs to be adapted for reuse in the future. As Mr. Wall states, “The function of design is not only to make cities attractive but also to make them more adaptive, more fluid, more capable of accommodating changing demands and unforeseen circumstances.” The more flexibility our designs have the more appealing they are to new trends in society. I think the urban design community has taken great steps to address many of the surface issues that Mr. Wall describes. We are on the right track, but we need to be open to change as new technologies come onto the market.
-Joshua Pape
Programming the Urban Surface: Alex Wall
ReplyDeleteThe Urban surface is the ground plane of the city referred to as the field. This is a dynamic, active surface that includes roads, buildings, green space, natural areas, neighborhoods; the conditions are endless and explained using different vocabulary depending on the place. The surface is responsive to those who use it and changes with time as the city grows. Urban expansion is trend that will likely continue as projected in new global economic environment. Responding to social needs increases potential for economic growth. As Gruen states, “ Architecture cannot concern its self with that one set of structures that happen to stand upright.” Architecture in the modern urban context typically requires complex and response programmatic solutions. Similarly community design should also take a similar approach, increasing the potential for success. By looking at different surface conditions, layers of information are typically overlaid. The goal is to a create a set of solutions that will accommodate for change over time.
OMA in 1987 formed a confetti grid for charting surface conditions while working on for the city of Melun-Segnart located in France. By looking at the voids characteristics as an opportunity to accommodate the uncertainties associated with use over time, OMA was able to develop valuable planning framework for the city. This urban framework is typically concrete as well as imaginative, allowing for social stimulation by considering new forms of public interaction. Mobility and access are essential to the urban surface, “and must be revived as a component of settlement by restoring the road to the architectural realm,” as stated by Gruen on page 4 of the reading. The road does not have to be interpreted as segregated system, rather it should be viewed as a component that may stimulate and support new forms of urban space.
Urbanites have an ability to make the city their own by using spaces and structures freely. The user ultimately decides the success of the urban landscape. By studying a set variables such as road, rail, traffic, and population volumes, one may find relations that maximize the site use over a twenty four hour period. Hours of down operation by be reused as a different architectural programmatic element.
Many surface strategies may be implemented such as cutting, warping and folding the urban surface to create more complex relations addressing public and private use. This may add specificity to a mixed-use development and allow the site to function more smoothly. Juxtaposed materials may add value to the public realm. Non programmed areas or voids ,may be used to provided a multifunction space that increases socaio-economic growth potential and further allows imaginative social engagement that changes with time. Movement through existing infrastructural corridors is another growing trend , such as the Highline Park in NYC. And lastly the idea of impermanence is critical when responding to the changing requirements set forth by the ever-expanding social fabric of the city.
In conclusion Alex wall gives us some great examples and valuable vocabulary for describing how the urban surface works. He also provides us with valuable insight into what drives economic growth and paints a picture of the imaginative social potential that occurs within urban environments. I think this is a valuable piece of literature that should be revisited often through out our practices as designers. It is our job to provide the best solution to the problem and that solution will never take place solely within the property lines of any given site. A building may be beautiful in form but remain unused. Ultimately society will deem a project successful depending on how it is embraced in the urban realm. If architects do not account for these different variables, then the project will likely fail.
Thanks,
SBA
I tend to agree with Wall, "Perhaps the synthesis of landscape, architectural, and urbanistic skills into a hybrid form of practice may allow for the invention of newly supple and reflexive built fabrics, new landscapes. Throughout Wall's paper he describes that the needs and characteristics of the urban fabric are constantly changing. I feel that the hybrid form of practice is going to be essential in developing a flexible and responsive urban design. This is even further supported by Gruen's statement that Architecture should concern itself with all manmade elements.
ReplyDeleteI like the way Wall described the surface strategies, that "they are instruments for unfolding new urban realities, designed not so much for appearances and aesthetics as for their instigative and structuring potential." It's important that our designs are functional and work to improve the urban fabric, but also incorporate an aesthetic appeal.
Impermanence and Movement are the two surface strategies that I feel are the most important design strategies for urban landscape. Movement is a serious design issue, streets and highways are constantly growing larger to accommodate more and more vehicles. A trend that isn't going to go away. Its up to us as Architects and Urban planners to rethink the way transportation moves through the city and create an urban fabric that guides this growth.
Billy Henly