the why: skyscrapers = boring. they stand all alone. asocial + immobile. segregated from the rest of the city - tower design is an exercise in form making with serious limitations! To architects - this is what will put us out of business - or make our work sterile, repetitive - and yet there are possibilities, solutions, opportunities to clean up this mess we've actually created for ourselves over the years. in order for there to be efficient growth, transportation reduction etc...we need to build around these 'cores' or columns - just as columns in the past defined space so it should be that from these skyscrapers arises a new potential to promote connectivity, circulation, social activity and for these new architecture types to serve as a platform for future growth and development.
the how: i need to learn from other peoples theories/projects/mistakes and successes - Hyatt Regency, FLW + Le Corbusier's housing schemes. Though I believe I am doing something a little different than all of these - but they are the contexts within which skyscrapers have been built. I think my thesis actually follows on from the japanese 'metabolists' -namely tange, isozaki, kikutake. So rather than Corbu's "Streets in the Air" - its more on the scale of Cities or Clusters in the Air.
the why (again): because i can? (that was a joke ppl) skyscrapers = inevitable. but inevitable # doom/damnation. for land costs may soar but there is a way to do it right vs. not at all! Architecture or Revolution? I say both. there is a need for a new model - not a continuation of one that stagnates - but a new building type - building around not atop a type that envelops other building envelopes - feeds off of them whilst nurturing them - maintaining a balance - achieving symbiosis.
No comments:
Post a Comment