WEEK TWO READING: URBAN FORM AMD LOCALI

The reading aims to reorientation the strategic questions towards locality, and second, give due weight to non-transport issues.

Urban form is explored through a discussions of the character and location of neighbourhoods. A number of dimensions are discussed in relation to this:

Dimension One: The degree of dispersal or concentration

There are two extremes, the first is dispersal into hamlets and villages, and the other is concentration into dominant cities. Between these extremes are ‘dispersed concentration’

Dimension Two: The degree of segregation or intermixture of urban activities

The way which industry and commerce is situated within centers of the urban area as a whole. It is suggested that mixed use is desirable, but no definites exist as to what mixed-use means or how much is should occur within neighbourhoods.

Dimension Three: The settlement density… The question of low vs. high density

This focuses on the appropriate density of neighbourhoods, in regards to ‘net’ density (the housing area), and ‘gross’ density (housing and local facilities/ employment/ open space).

Dimension Four: Shape… The three basic types: stellar, grid and linear

There are nucleated and linear forms. Shape refers to whole towns and cities, and the neighbourhoods are the building blocks that create wider patterns.

WEEK ONE READING: BEYOND ARCHITECTURE

The reading communicated many intriguing concepts. It touches on architecture that is industrially designed, the process of technological transfer, expression of expendability/prefab/modular, and indeterminacy.

What I really liked and appreciated about this reading was the idea that architecture is like a still shot. It provides a momentary manifestation of contextual ideas that are presently relevant.

Modernism has been described as the nature of the modern world to be dynamism which is wrought by “mechanication, economic liberalization, social upheaval, and new insight into the physical world.”

The idea of adjoining spaces is explored with the addition of technology into the design process. This creates flow, multifunctionalism, and the introduction of prefabricated components. The design becomes a way to frame individual functions and maintain unity. A house becomes a tool, as is the motor of a car… and not just a solidly built objects that sets out to defy time.

I’m interested in the concept of space being transformable and flexible. I think the future needs architecture that can change as our needs do. 

WEEK ONE LECTURE: INVESTIGATIONS AND OBJECTIVES

The first lecture set the frame work and structure for the unit content. I am enthusiastic about the prospect of receiving more freedom to interpret and respond to the direction and methods given to us. The lecture implied that the guidance given to us by our tutors will be suggestive, based on our individual interpretations of the tasks.

I was interested in the suggestion that an architectural proposition should be a response to needs, and that needs should be identified by considering multiple contexts.

Climate
Cultural
Ecological
Economic
Geographical
Political
Social
Technological

I agree with the notion that solutions should be a response to yesterdays needs. It seems evident that we, as architects should be envisioning instead of responding to what we see today. The solutions and decisions we make should have the potential to be applicable for the future, and maintain thoughtful future vision and strategy.

Perhaps the process of envisioning our project site as a stage, our architectural entity as scenes, and our users as characters will expand creativity, and plan a well thought out solution that enable the output we want to achieve.