Park & Train Station: A Hybrid
Throughout my observations and years of Architecture school, I noticed that one of Architecture’s greatest qualities is to gather people, and bring them together, depending on the program. Two typologies of building have this quality: train/subway stations as well as parks/places. It is this quality of Architecture that I want to explore through the creation of new type of light rail station/park, resulting from a cross-program of those two typologies.
One of the reasons why I chose these two typologies is because there have different purposes. One, the train station, is a place where people don’t come to stay, but instead, is a place of transition where users are only there for a short period of time and are usually moving at a fast pace. They gather only to leave very shortly after. On a second hand, Parks are places where people come to stay and spend longer periods of time. It is a place of leisure, contrarily to the punctuality of a train or subway station. However, the other reason why I chose these two typologies is also because they are both public spaces, and they are vital to the good functioning and development of any city. Therefore, the goal of this project is to create a new type of architecture that will enable the mixing of different paces, and usually separated uses. In order to do that, there are a few precedent studies that I will be looking at in the United States and Europe in order to understand the site integration and program of each so as to see how cross-programming can be developed. I chose Downtown Pittsburgh for the investigation of the project, more specifically the Liberty and Penn Ave Gateway at the point where the last metro stop currently is. I chose this particular site because I think that it has great potential for creating this hybrid condition, considering that there already is a subway stop there and a park.
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Response 03
One sentence that caught my attention in the Notes on the Adaptive Re-use of Program by John McMorrough was when he writes that “what architecture has been least equipped to face [is] the inhabitation of the social after the realization of the schematic.”
I think that it speaks very well to the fact that one cannot design a building uniquely looking at program with thinking about all the social issues that is going to implicate. Whenever designing a building, I think that program is very important, however, it only tells us what has to be placed in that building. It is the role of the architect to understand it, and to figure out a way to arrange it in order to fit with the social aspect of the given site.
This reading also made me think a lot about my thesis and how the program should maybe start by looking at what are the social implications on my site, which will most likely be Pittsburgh, and start understanding what disconnects people in the city.
One thing that I have noticed is that the only way to get around in this city is either by car/bus or by bike. All these modes of transportation however are on the same level, meaning that whatever you use to get to a certain place, it will approximately take the same amount of time as the traffic is the same – especially for cars and buses. Another thing that I have also noticed, and which I love, about Pittsburgh, is the enormous amount of bridges creating connections between hills and neighborhoods.
Looking at these two aspects of the Pittsburgh traffic system made me ask myself: what if there was a way to create faster and bigger connections between neighborhoods of the city? Would an elevated subway system be a solution?
I think that it speaks very well to the fact that one cannot design a building uniquely looking at program with thinking about all the social issues that is going to implicate. Whenever designing a building, I think that program is very important, however, it only tells us what has to be placed in that building. It is the role of the architect to understand it, and to figure out a way to arrange it in order to fit with the social aspect of the given site.
This reading also made me think a lot about my thesis and how the program should maybe start by looking at what are the social implications on my site, which will most likely be Pittsburgh, and start understanding what disconnects people in the city.
One thing that I have noticed is that the only way to get around in this city is either by car/bus or by bike. All these modes of transportation however are on the same level, meaning that whatever you use to get to a certain place, it will approximately take the same amount of time as the traffic is the same – especially for cars and buses. Another thing that I have also noticed, and which I love, about Pittsburgh, is the enormous amount of bridges creating connections between hills and neighborhoods.
Looking at these two aspects of the Pittsburgh traffic system made me ask myself: what if there was a way to create faster and bigger connections between neighborhoods of the city? Would an elevated subway system be a solution?
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Response_02
In his paper, Jorge Silvetti gives us a clear and very straight forward of the 4 main different types of approaches in today’s making of an architectural project. I think that he has a great way of describing them and as I was reading it made a lot of sense and I could definitely think of buildings relating to each of these categories.
However what really caught my attention in this essay was when he writes that “perhaps it is time to accept that metaphor in architecture is useful as a sparkle, as a starter, as a guide, or as a shadow, […], but always treading on dangerous borderlines between the sublime and the ridiculous. “ It reminded me of Pablo’s presentation of last week and him saying that bullshit was the most common word he got as a response to the question “what is a thesis?”
Throughout my years in architecture shool, I have found that there are a lot of projects that I have seen a lot of project that rely on a “logical bullshit” in order to explain why the building is a certain way. I have myself also used bullshit concepts to start a project, however I think that the hardest part of it was to step away from that metaphor (or BS, however you want to call it) and really think about the building, or architecture, as a free standing thing that people need to use in every day life, and is making the form more organic or literal really going to change the way people need to use a building, does it make it easier to use? In my opinion, I think that a concept is a great way to start a project, however it has to quickly either “disappear”, or more specifically get translated into tectonic issues and architectural forms.
However what really caught my attention in this essay was when he writes that “perhaps it is time to accept that metaphor in architecture is useful as a sparkle, as a starter, as a guide, or as a shadow, […], but always treading on dangerous borderlines between the sublime and the ridiculous. “ It reminded me of Pablo’s presentation of last week and him saying that bullshit was the most common word he got as a response to the question “what is a thesis?”
Throughout my years in architecture shool, I have found that there are a lot of projects that I have seen a lot of project that rely on a “logical bullshit” in order to explain why the building is a certain way. I have myself also used bullshit concepts to start a project, however I think that the hardest part of it was to step away from that metaphor (or BS, however you want to call it) and really think about the building, or architecture, as a free standing thing that people need to use in every day life, and is making the form more organic or literal really going to change the way people need to use a building, does it make it easier to use? In my opinion, I think that a concept is a great way to start a project, however it has to quickly either “disappear”, or more specifically get translated into tectonic issues and architectural forms.
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
1+3+9
Can American culture relate to its architecture, and vice-versa?
The culture of a country has a very broad influence on the architecture found in it. It can be seen throughout many examples, and different countries and cultures. In addition, the architects have also had a big role on how the culture develops depending on the type of project, it is a continuous give and take process.
After living in the US for 8 years and spending past 4 years at college, one thing I have realized is that the American culture is very much based on appearance and façade. One thing that comes to mind is the fact that in a lot of suburban areas there are no barriers between houses. I first thought that it was great to see that people were really open about their property. However, after a while, you realize that it is just a front. For example, if you step in someone’s backyard without permission it could have repercussion on yourself. Furthermore, I have found that people have a tendency to not go out of their way, and I think that it is due to the excessive amount of rules and regulations there are towards everything. I am not saying that one should not follow them all. However, with too many restrictions, creativity starts to fade and living becomes more about following guidelines preset for oneself. Therefore, one question I am trying to answer is: should there be rules as to how a person decides to live his/her life, and can the space he or she lives in help make those decisions?
Monday, August 31, 2009
Response_01
In Jose Luis Mateo’s essay, he gives the reader an explanation as to what is the best way to start a project, and how to translate it from conceptual to physical. He makes a point that the best ideas come from being very vague at the conceptual stage of the project, and to be “imprecise”, meaning not having a defined shape or object but letting it be more of an idea as to what the project’s intent is. Afterwards, the next step of that project is to start forming a bone structure then a skin that are unique to that project and are a result of the original ideas.
Therefore, what I get from this essay is that the final product should be a resultant of the concept and that the concept should be readable when looking at the final product.
In that sense, I agree with Jose Luis Mateo. Throughout my years of studio, my favorite and projects, in my opinion were the ones that had a “gaseous” concept that came to be very obvious when looking at the final product. I think that this idea of process also is very relevant when he says: “if a project is a process, it is a process with a fixed direction”. My best projects where the ones that had this fixed direction.
Therefore, what I get from this essay is that the final product should be a resultant of the concept and that the concept should be readable when looking at the final product.
In that sense, I agree with Jose Luis Mateo. Throughout my years of studio, my favorite and projects, in my opinion were the ones that had a “gaseous” concept that came to be very obvious when looking at the final product. I think that this idea of process also is very relevant when he says: “if a project is a process, it is a process with a fixed direction”. My best projects where the ones that had this fixed direction.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)