1996.03.02
rethink my ICA design
Don't forget how the Heidi Weber House inspired me to rethink my ICA design, The main idea concerned a light-weight structure over the sunken galleries. I added to the idea of a sunken circular court.rotunda and thought of a dominant roof (a la H. Weber House) over that part of the design. Now I'm seeing a much more playful bridge suspended or on pilotis alas. In general the new idea is that I can play collage on the ground and in the air.
1996.04.22
project list
I will here list the projects mentioned throughout the Discus self portrait.
m. input 2-D data of buildings for future model construction
w. painting on 8" x 10" canvas panels of an aerial view of CC Philadelphia fron the computer model
1996.04.22
documentation of cad models
In terms of documentations, I also would like to see a better documentation of the architectural models that I already have, perhaps I should create a sort of clip file of HPG files that I can use in all kinds of printed work. The main problem is the PRF files. It would be ideal is all the images could use the same PRF, but I know that isn't the case, and I'm not sure what a solution might be either.
The real answer is that I should just look to document the 3-D (and 2-D) data that I have with respect to architectural designs, and this means graphic data as well as textual data. I'm not sure if it will work, but I can envision myself devoting a week, for example, to documenting one building. The documentation would encompass plans, elevations, axonometrics, and perspectives, and perhaps also some sort of analysis. The difficulty perhaps, will lie in the fact that very few of the models are as complete as I would like them to be, and, therefore, I will probably want to complete them before I pursue the documentation, meaning there would almost always be some additional work to be done, and, hence, the task becomes less desirable.
1996.06.02
Philadelphia model
I want to record the Philadelphia model data, and the following is how I would like to proceed.
a. I will first have to decide upon a common scale for the plans.
b. I would like to record the data section by section.
c. I want a plan of each section with the building footprints and if the section has 3D relief, I also want to record an axonometric of the site with footprints, however not with buildings.
d. There is also to be an axonometric of each section, and again I want each axon to be at the same relative scale. I also want each section axon to be within the context of the neighboring plan data (street and building footprints).
e. I will decide on the size/scale of all the data by figuring out how the largest section fits on an 8.5x11 page. I think I will view the axon from four cardinal vantage points.
| |
1996.06.02
paint-chip plan at usr/museum
There is a paint-chip plan in one of the quadrants of the incomplete third series that I want to input into the computer and also incorporate into the /usr/museum group.
Concerning the /usr/museum group, I want to finally establish a base model and a site plan in general. The base model will be its own database but it will be registered with all the house data. The site plan will also be part of the base model database.
1996.06.03
priorities/scheduling
Concerning architecture work, it will be a continuation of the same projects I have always been doing. Essentially it will be the generation of more and more data related to all kinds of different specific projects. Campo Marzio, Schinkel's Berlin, the "Houses" in use/museum, scale, promenade, models - they are all part of the ongoing process and I see now how it is going to remain that way from now on. I forgot to mention the Parkway project on the list. All this work will eventually amount to something more, but first I must always record the data as soon as possible. The architecture work, perhaps more than the art work, is directly tied to the record project.
1996.06.04
documentations/record project
The computer aided drawing catalogue is the first example of the documentation of my various projects that I want to produce on an ongoing basis. Besides creating a record of what work I do and have done, the documentation is also a means of experimenting with Corel Ventura, plus it is a means of generating notes and finished writing concerning my work.
Within architecture, however, there are many topics I want to document: the parkway project, the museum of architecture project, the architectural promenade, and just the documentation of each of the unbuilt buildings computer models. I'm not sure if any one of these projects is ready for me to work with, but the work I already did for Strasbourg is an example of the type of documentation I could produce, I just thought that what I could do is redo/redesign the Strasbourg plates into an 8.5x11 document format. (That would be an excellent project for me to start.)
1996.06.07
combined building documentation
For the last two days I have been generating perspectives of the Heidi Weber Pavilion (db.zurich). The drawings are fine but I still feel there is something lacking; they are nothing more than drawings that can be created over and over again. They are not analytical and they don't add much information concerning the building. (Of course, if this were an unbuilt building, the perspective, axonometrics, and elevations alone would be a greater contribution.) I have thought of a way to make the drawings and data more interesting and more informative. I will combine db.zurich with other building databases, picking those databases first that are at the same comparative scale.
I always wanted to compare the Heidi Weber Pavilion with Plecnik's Houses Under a Common Roof. I don't know if I am going to start with this conparison though (mostly because it will involve too much data manipulation and I want to go easy while I'm experimenting.) I could easily combine db.zurich with db.savoye or /usr/hejduk/db.bye or even /usr/kahn/db.hurva. In any case, whatever two buildings I combine, I think I will then orchestrate the buildings to produce the most provocative drawings.
Concerning a Savoye/Weber comparison, I imagined what it would be like to see the lower story of Savoye two stories high. The idea being that the elevated box will be like the independent roof of Weber. Immediately I see implications of how to elaborate on the architectural promenade formula.
In general, I see the record project as also being an ongoing investigation of comparitive architectural scale and also an investigation of different manipulative things that I can do with the computer and models.
| |
1996.06.08
building model combinations
Today was the first time I printed record pages using the laser printer and I am very happy with the results. I am especially happy with the group plans of domestic architecture. Seeing it gave me further ideas of how and what buildings models to combine to make interesting new perspectives. For example, after I am finished with the Savoye/Weber comparison, I will next do a combination of Bye and Absecon.
I also am wondering whether I should compose the domestic plans into some kind of made-up context. More on this in the next note.
1996.06.08
Savoye-Weber combination
I started to generate perspectives with the Villa Savoye and the Heidi Weber next to each other. I think the results so far are positive, but I already see things that can be inproved. The buildings will eventually be perpendicular to each other, rather than facing front to front. The perpendicular situation will present more interesting perspectives. I also am now thinking whether to add some other scaling elements, like a human figure, or a row of trees, or some kind of sculptural element like an obilisque or something. Of course, if I do add some kind of architectural element, it will be at actual size. Perhaps I just have to add some lines to the ground plane; at least such lines would add connection when the buildings are viewed from the air. Perhaps it is something as simple as a grid of a standard measure, something like 5' or 10' square.
1996.06.14
Savoye-Weber combination
I started a set of perspectives where db.zurich is collaged with db.savoye and the results, while they protray an unusual architecture, nonetheless clearly illustrate the comparable scale of each building. Right now zurich butts into savoye at an angle and I now wonder whether I do some perspectives where the back (long) elevation of zurich is parallel and overlapped with the terrace side of savoye. That way there will be a real overlap.
I just thought of a neat sequence of drawings where the vantage point will stay the same but one building will gradually move through the other. I'm trying to think of what sets of buildings I could do. To make it worthwhile, however, I should give each sequence some careful consideration so as to ensure thought provoking perspectives.
1996.06.14
Savoye-Weber combination -- contrast comparison
In seeing zurich and savoye side by side it is interesting to note the comparisons and contrasts of the two. It is almost as if zurich were like savoye inside out. That may not be the best description, but there does seem to be a series of reversals going from savoye to zurich.
1. The raised box of savoye is placed flattly on the ground at zurich.
2. The roof garden open to the sky at savoye is placed under a roof at zurich; also the terrace at savoye is moved to the roof at zurich.
3. The interior ramp at savoye is on the outside at zurich.
4. The pilotis at savoye that symbolically raise the entire building at savoye, only raise the roof at zurich.
I am wondering whether I couls also make some kind of comparison between the original 5 points and seek variations of them at zurich. Two ideas immediately come to mind:
1. Zurich seems to be a very interesting manifestation of the free facade.
2. The roof at zurich could be interpreted as introducing a new (sixth?) point, i.e., the free roof (like the free plan and the free facade.)
3. The building system at zurich seems to symbolically be a reverse of the free plan idea since the system of parts excludes freeness to a very tangible extent.
This is another example of a number of issues that are raised by the analysis of a single building, for example, the whole common roof issue could be raised at this juncture.
I will continue to do the perspective and just keep track of whatever other ideas I come upon in the process.
| |
1996.06.14
book on Le Corbusier architecture
Doing the thinking concerning zurich and savoye, I started to also wonder whether I eventually might have an entire architecture book centered on Le Corbusier. The number of buildings I already have done or substantially begun is already impressive.
1. stein-monzie
2. garches
3. savoye
4. strasbourg
5. tower of shadows
6. museum of knowledge
7. governor's palace
8. firminy
9. zurich
These buildings already form a unique document, and I am now more or less convinced that I will eventually construct models of olivetti, brasilia, and perhaps even the venice hospital. It might also be nice to do a full model of Chandigarh.
Like always this is a whole hell of a lot of work, but so much of it is already doene.
Perhaps the most important thing for me to do first is documant everything that I already have complete. For example, I should organize all the plan, elevations, and axonometric info I can generate right now. I will first make a record of all the corbu plan data that I have right now, and I will create a file where all the plans are composed on a single sheet. These plans will inturn become the definitive plan drawings. I can probably generate some roof plans and perhaps some interior plans from the models. I will compose the plans independent of their context.
The next task will be to compose the elevations, but first I actually have to generate a number of elevations from the models. The following is a list of the elevations that I don't yet have.
1. savoye
2. strasbourg
3. tower of shadows
4. governor's palace
5. museum of knowledge
6. monzie
7. firminy and zurich are already complete
The final task will be to generate a series of axonometrics all taken at the same angle and then represented at the same scale. Each axo will will have a scale laying on the ground in front of it and thus the drawings can matched up.
This is all an attempt to organize and record all the data that I already have.
1996.06.14
plan and elevation data of all models
I already could/should be doing the same for all my architectural models. Like the corbu project, I should collect (and finish generating) all the plan and straight on elevation data that I presently can. The projects to do are: Dusseldorf, Cologne, Plecnik, Krier(?), Bye, Berlin, Hurva, Media, Paki, Frankfurt, Absecon (is done), Wagner, Goldburger, Hedjuk museum. The point is to collect all the plan and elevational data possible, meaning all floor plans and roof plans, and different elevations, as well. For example, I can do a couple different level plans of Cologne--the hypostyl hall and the cloud balcony, and for dusseldorf and I can do two additional elevations with the entrance pavilion removed, and then with the glass skylight removed. I can also remove the glass canopy at cologne.
The following is a list of some of the drawings I could do:
1. elevations of the bye house with and without the wall
2. hurva increasingly striped in elevation
3. do hedjuk type axons of all the different models
4. do worm's eye axons of the different models, especially with the plans hatched underneath. This might be especially helpful for Media and very interesting for hurva and dusseldorf
5. elevations of savoye without the ground floor glass
6. strasbourg might be a real interesting worm's eye
| |
1996.06.14
perspectives of models
This note concerns perspectives. First of all I want to start collecting detail areas of perspectives I already have. This is more aimed at models that have sufficient details to begin with. I noticed an interesting view in one of the savoye/zurich collages and I think there are probably more details already in saved perspectives. It might also be true, however, that the interesting details are yet to come with other model collages.
I also noticed that close up of perspectives are very interesting when you can also look inside the model.
This brings me to my second point which is that I should use the full potential of interior perspectives and their cut away capability. I might just have to get used to doing these and then just crop away the extraneous data and concentrate on interesting interior shots. I'll just have to experiment.
1996.06.15
Seroux -- museum of architecture
After looking through Seroux's book, I think it would be beneficial and also possible to scan the plans and the elevations therein and then compose the data all at the same scale. I will do this project when the new computer is in the basement. The final document, so to speak, might even be a part of Scale and Architecture. I have to see the final product however, before I make any conclusions.
I read some of Vidler's The Writing of the Walls, the last chapter, and it is full of good information that I can use to reinforce the idea behind Scale and Architecture. The whole notion of a "museum" of architecture in the form of a book is exactly what I have been doing with the computer and CAD models. The historical background provided by Vidler brings the issue of "museum" to the fore, and the role of the computer in the whole process is greatly highlighted. In fact, the whole premise of Scale and Architecture is to demonstrate the new capability that CAD affords.
So I could say that there is a dual purpose behind Scale and Architecture. One purpose is to illustrate and learn about architecture and architecture design by a true comparative method. The second purpose is to illustrate and demonstrate the possibilities available because of CAD 3-D. (This is what I am going to talk about in the book proposal.)
With Vidler on my mind, I also now want to write him and ask if he would be interested in writing a forward for Scale and Architecture. (It certainly won't hurt for me to try, and if he is interested, it will make publishing the book that much easier.) Writing the Vidler query will work hand in hand with the book proposal writing.
1996.06.16
Weber-Governor's Palace comparison
I have continued to generate corbu plan and elevation data, and when I saw zurich next to the Governor's Palace (in elevation), I immediately saw an interesting relationship between the two buildings. The raised roof garden of the palace is very similar to the separate roof of zurich, and I wonder if the designs are of similar origin. Seeing the two designs together enforces the notion that the raised roof of each is like a sun shade, and in this regard, I wonder if one could view them as roof brise-soliel. Furthermore, the notion of a roof brise-soliel as a new element to add to the original five points.
|