Parafictional Doubt

      Please don't be alarmed by this title. I promise, I had no idea what parafictional doubt meant until just an hour ago. This was the subject of a lecture I attended this evening by Michael Young of Young & Ayata Architecture. I will attempt to convey the message of his lecture in far fewer words, and and in a much less elegant fashion.

      Mr. Young described parafiction as the "what if" in life. Parafiction is supposed to evoke a response in the viewer. It gets the viewer to take a stance on the content, and make them think about all the possible implications this content suggests on its context. Young & Aryata's content is of course architecture. They believe that architecture should conform to this parafiction. The firm wants the idiosyncrasies and intricacies of their work to force viewers to appreciate the context in a new light.

      I am conflicted with this idea of architecture. I think that Mr Young's ideas and designs are very gutsy, to be frank. This is by no means saying that I do not like them on either a functional or aesthetic scale. I think that most architecture adds value to its surroundings by being respectful of them. If one is to break the mold and make architecture as Young and Aryata do, they must create a building that has beauty and grandeur and utility in its own right. Otherwise, it will not fit in with its surroundings and not provide usefulness in function or beauty in form.

      Edit: Here is a link to Young & Aryata's web page. I hope that viewing their work will help to shed light on what I tried to explain above. http://www.young-ayata.com/

Making Boards

      Most of my studio time today was spent with a focus on our preliminary presentations on Friday. I started using Google Sheets to compile data from research of Ringer Library and our case studies of Evans and Utena Libraries into graphical forms that would be suitable for boards. I had not used Google Sheets as a tool for this kind of work before, and I have been pleased with the results so far. They are not incredibly customizable, but they offer enough options to effectively present our data. Here is sample of one type of graph Sheets can generate.

      This is just a sampling of something we may use for Friday afternoon, and is by no means a "final" product, but the results thus far are encouraging. I am looking forward to further developing these graphics and boards.

Ringer Public Library

      Apologies for my tardiness. I got a little sidetracked this evening, but here is the latest, nonetheless.

      Studio visited the Ringer Library today to take a tour of the site we will be designing additions for. I read the RFQ from the city this morning, and the lady who guided us around the building voiced her opinions that, unsurprisingly, were inline with the redesign goals listed in the RFQ. This was good, because we now have first hand info to support the claims in the RFQ and better insight as to what employees would want out of a renovated library.

      The chief complaints were poor acoustics and seating arrangements for patrons in the main library space, and cramped, inefficient work space for employees. There were of course many other issues raised, but these appear to be design problems that will be high on the "to do" list. The visit was helpful, and I'm sure our group and our class will come up with some great work.

      We wrapped up the afternoon at Village Cafe in Bryan. Good conversation was held and good food was eaten as we discussed where we are moving for later in the week with this project. I have a feeling I will be back at both Ringer Library and Village Cafe in the near future.

Writing Assignment 2: Should Architects Be Master Builders?

      The Master Builder is a dying breed, if not already dead. Buildings are exponentially more complex today than they ever have been. The advent of systems, combined with rapid growth in material availability, has lent to this complexity very much. Architects, like all people who deliver a service, should always try to deliver as high quality of a product as possible. However, we should not risk flying too close to the sun. Perhaps we can truly be masters of a certain style or type of building, with much practice, but asking somebody to truly grasp and control all the possible elements of building today is simply too much.

      Filippo Brunelleschi is the quintessential master builder. To create his iconic dome in Florence, he didn't just tweak existing construction methods; he created his own. He used methods that were revolutionary, and still impressive today. Even with modern construction capabilities, we are not sure if we could replicate a masonry dome of the same size as Brunelleschi's if we had to at this time. That is not only incredibly amazing, but also somewhat embarrassing.

      However, the reading from "Refabricating Architecture" even states that "the Renaissance afforded Filippo Brunelleschi the opportunity to be a master builder due to the relative simplicity of building technologies at the time." Given this, the dome still took sixteen years to be completed. Can you imagine if you told a client that their steeple would take sixteen years to build, much less the whole church? I do not wish to undermine Brunelleschi's achievement. I just want to point out that the times have changed.

      Furthermore, I believe that if we truly had master builders, they may undermine some of the potential gains in building quality and construction time that the readings refer to. "Refabricating Architecture" repeatedly speaks about the assembly process for ships, planes and automobiles. For the most part, they are assembled in blocks by separate facilities, and then pieced together more quickly for final assembly. I do not think that there is anybody who works for General Motors that knows how every part for the dashboard and the drive train of a Sierra truck goes together by heart. That is a good thing. What matters is that there are people who can reliably and efficiently assemble these pieces, and that we as consumers can trust them to do so. If we wish for the construction process to reach the same levels of efficiency and quality of other elaborate machines, then perhaps it is best if we leave the master builder out of the equation. 

      This is not to say that the architect should be some pawn who lies at the mercy of an original equipment manufacturer. People say that you either know a lot about a little, or a little about a lot. I say why not both? Architects must be masters of the spatial aspects of building. Somebody must be there to mold our ideas and materials into useful spaces. Architects can also know about the details that the reading speaks to. The fabrication of materials, means and methods for construction, research for new materials, the list goes on. Building is controlled chaos, now more than ever. It takes many people working together to run the proverbial show. One person cannot hope to be a master of every process that design and construction involves, but they can at least know enough, and try enough, to make a difference.

Library Case Studies

      Studio has shifted gears this Monday. We are beginning our next project, which consists of making additions to the Bryan Public Library. To start this, we are making some case studies of existing libraries. Each group will chose two libraries, one made between 1960 - 1995, and one after '95. This division was created on the basis of how the arrival of the internet changed library use and design drastically. Our class will follow some common guidelines for our case studies, which will allow us to easily compare and contrast our findings, and further our understanding of what makes a library function well.

I decided on a public Library in Utena, Lithuania. It provides an interesting study for a number of reasons. Libraries in Lithuania are much more central to daily life than they are in other parts of the world. They serve as meeting and social areas. This library, designed in 2008 by 4PLIUS Architects, houses an exhibition hall and a conference center, as well as amenities one would typically find in a library.

Photo by R. Urbakavicius

Di-gantic Success

      We were both very pleased with how the Dino turned out. The assembly went well. We only had one scare where we switched up two similar parts, but we caught ourselves shortly thereafter and no real damage was done to the final product. The paint looks good, in our opinion. It even gives him a little camouflage in the foliage, and the highlighting with the maroon and white was a nice touch. Some people have walked by on the path without noticing him, but I guess that isn't a surprise seeing has how every other person has their head buried in their cell phone. Seeing all the creatures scattered about Langford was a nice way to wrap up the week. They all look great. Check out Steve the Styracosaurus, in his (sort of) natural habitat, below.

Dino Update Pt 3

      The CNC run was a success. I picked up the pieces today from the ranch, and they were assembled with almost no hiccups whatsoever. We spent some time in the spray paint booth this afternoon putting on the first coats before we do final assembly. This made the painting process a little easier. We are going to add one more shade of green, and then some maroon and white highlights, just to satisfy Aggie obligations. The paint is looking very good so far, in my opinion. I like the style. Here is the dino in his jumbled glory.

Dino Update Pt. 2

      It's late, but it's still Monday, so we're good. Today Caitlin and I went out to the Fab Lab at Riverside Campus to get our CAD file ready to roll for the CNC tomorrow afternoon. Chris said it was looking good. We had to clean up a few technical things for a smooth cutting process, but all in all, there were no setbacks at this point. I just emailed Chris what should be the final CAD file, if everything goes to plan. You can see it below. Apologies for the low res screen capture. We are going to cut our pieces on two 4'x8'x23/32" plywood boards. Hopefully my next post will be about a successful CNC run and getting ready to spray paint!

Dino Updates

     
      The Styracosaurus is coming along nicely. Our model was surprisingly sturdy, even after having scaled it up in size. It looks like our group got lucky in selecting this model. It appears to present less stability issues than other variations when they are enlarged. I guess that means we better make it extra sturdy, then! I hope I hope didn't just jinx us.

      This weekend we will gather materials and think about how to best assemble the beast. We have also started putting thought in to the paint finish. The smallest version has a matte green with smatterings of a few blues and browns in it. I think it looks nice, and we may go with something similar for the final rendition.

 

With a capital A

      The following paragraphs are a discussion about chapters 4 and 5 from Kieran and Timberlake's "Refabricating Architecture". Chapter 4 was about how most of industry has moved towards off site modular pre assembly, but how the building industry has lagged behind. Chapter 5 speaks of Architecture, with a noted capital A. The authors refer to Architecture as delivering more for less, but I think it can be interpreted as something different.

      Most everything in the built world has architecture, in a sense. A pair of skis have architecture, and so does a computer processor. Skis can be made to float or to carve, and computer processors are made every day to run machines more powerfully and effectively. Buildings of course, have architecture. They are made to house people, move people, help people learn. They are made to do what we need them to. Even though some buildings may not serve these needs very well, they are built nonetheless. No building was ever built and deemed a success if it does not serve its purpose well, but great buildings do more than just provide an amenity. The difference between architecture and Architecture, in my opinion, is that architecture is built by us, but Architecture builds us.
   
      A work is just architecture when it was never made to be more than what its form dictates. Less impressive buildings are results of designing to fit needs alone. They satisfy a program and building code, but nothing more. When I think of a storage facility, I think of creepy hallways and lots of reflective glare. Given that storage facilities do not lend themselves to being architectural landmarks, it is still impressive to think that I have never seen one that is at least not ugly. They are no more than tools that take the form of available space. They are not designed to do anything more than fulfill a need. It is a given that needs must be met, but it is unfortunate that so many buildings in our world today have fallen victim to the issue of merely satisfying them. 

      "Refabricating Architecture" spoke of refining and streamlining the the design and construction process. It defines Architecture as providing more for less. Sure, we can improve assembly methods, reduce costs and reduce building times, but these things are almost a given in a competitive building marketplace. Truly great pieces of Architecture end up molding and shaping their inhabitants in more ways than we know. They become more than just containers for people and things. They create atmosphere and elicit emotions. A great church inspires awe and humility. A great hospital provides hope and comfort. A great place of learning provides drive and inspiration. Designers give more forethought to our work. We must think more holistically about our buildings, as well as the implications of good and bad design alike. Good Architecture is as much a part of our world and culture as literature and art is. We must strive to make our built environment as much as it can be, because ultimately, it will make us more.

"We shape our buildings, thereafter they shape us" - Winston Churchill

Images from:

dgselfstorage.com

fallingwater.org

First Day of Class

      Today our class received our first project of the semester, the beginnings of which can be seen above. This is a small model of a dinosaur skeleton that our project group will be eventually replicating at a much higher scale and quality.
      Working with this small model gave us a little insight as to what challenges may be presented while recreating this piece. For instance, some of the existing joints between the parts have not been cut very evenly, which caused some of the skeleton to line up imperfectly. One of the pieces for the skull is too wide to fit between two adjacent pieces, so that will have to be redrawn in CAD before we make the next iterations of this dinosaur.Some of the pieces also could stand to have their joining positions moved around a little bit, for the sake of sturdiness. Notice how I'm holding the model where the rear legs should be.
      Anyways, we will continue to tweak the model as necessary, and it should yield a pretty nice final result. The dinosaur will be much larger, having been milled out of at least one 4x8 sheet of plywood, and will be painted. With racing stripes. Maybe.