At 05:23 PM 1/1/98 -0800, Mark H. wrote:
>Well, of course, that's what you would like to think you do. And in some
>few cases it is not a delusion. But you are not creating space. You are
>only taking it from one realm and placing it in another.
All space remains public until it's boxed up for some private use! :-)
> In virtually
>every new construction, you are taking it out of a quasi-public realm and
>assigning it to the private.
Well, unless it's a public building! But more important is how the interface
between the two realms is handled, "how the building meets the street." I
read a very interesting (but overly dense) study of this issue last year.
The basic idea was that the early cities had highly permeable boundaries
between the various realms; public and private, inside-the-city and
outside-the-city. This permeability allowed for a more communal life that
was still connected to the outside world.
Over time, the rise of private interests, not always acting with an eye
toward the public good, caused the boundaries to become increasingly
impermeable. Families and neighborhoods grew insular, and the connection to
the outside world was lost.
Oftentimes, the physical boundary remains permeable yet the cultural
boundary is sharp and closed.
And here is where architecture meets urban design meets urban planning---how
to make all these boundaries permeable, and the interrelationships between
the various realms of life understood and usable and supportive, rather than...
>And frankly, the trend in recent years has
>been overwhelmingly in the direction of more space for the people who can
>afford to hire architects, and less for the rest. The architect is not
>directly responsible for that direction -- just an aider and abettor.
And a conspirator! The designer is more than a hired gun; he or she can
shape this dialogue. I doubt many owners would volantarily say, "I want this
building to chop down on the street like a knife---nothing gets past, you
can't see through it, can't walk through it, NOTHING!" But there are a lot
of designers, in the desire to make that "big statement" or "establish a
juxtaposition of forms suggestive of the fractured dichotomy inherent within
the established context" will quite purposely do just that. And the owner,
perhaps not aware of the implications (seduced by that pristine white
model?), or perhaps caught up in the designer's heat-but-no-light of a
presentation, goes along willingly as he or she cuts the check for the SD
phase...
>There are, of course, exceptions ...
What do you think they are, Mark?
Mark
>Well, of course, that's what you would like to think you do. And in some
>few cases it is not a delusion. But you are not creating space. You are
>only taking it from one realm and placing it in another.
All space remains public until it's boxed up for some private use! :-)
> In virtually
>every new construction, you are taking it out of a quasi-public realm and
>assigning it to the private.
Well, unless it's a public building! But more important is how the interface
between the two realms is handled, "how the building meets the street." I
read a very interesting (but overly dense) study of this issue last year.
The basic idea was that the early cities had highly permeable boundaries
between the various realms; public and private, inside-the-city and
outside-the-city. This permeability allowed for a more communal life that
was still connected to the outside world.
Over time, the rise of private interests, not always acting with an eye
toward the public good, caused the boundaries to become increasingly
impermeable. Families and neighborhoods grew insular, and the connection to
the outside world was lost.
Oftentimes, the physical boundary remains permeable yet the cultural
boundary is sharp and closed.
And here is where architecture meets urban design meets urban planning---how
to make all these boundaries permeable, and the interrelationships between
the various realms of life understood and usable and supportive, rather than...
>And frankly, the trend in recent years has
>been overwhelmingly in the direction of more space for the people who can
>afford to hire architects, and less for the rest. The architect is not
>directly responsible for that direction -- just an aider and abettor.
And a conspirator! The designer is more than a hired gun; he or she can
shape this dialogue. I doubt many owners would volantarily say, "I want this
building to chop down on the street like a knife---nothing gets past, you
can't see through it, can't walk through it, NOTHING!" But there are a lot
of designers, in the desire to make that "big statement" or "establish a
juxtaposition of forms suggestive of the fractured dichotomy inherent within
the established context" will quite purposely do just that. And the owner,
perhaps not aware of the implications (seduced by that pristine white
model?), or perhaps caught up in the designer's heat-but-no-light of a
presentation, goes along willingly as he or she cuts the check for the SD
phase...
>There are, of course, exceptions ...
What do you think they are, Mark?
Mark