21 January 2011
visualizing information
Sometimes the visual representation of data can make all of the difference for understanding and comprehension.
Dwell meets The Onion
If you like design, and LOVE glossy design magazines and web pages, you will immediately fall head over heels for Unhappy Hipsters. The site is devoted to images captured from various media sources that depict contemporary modern design and the witty comments that come to mind. The image below and caption is plucked from their site. This one is definitely bookmark worthy (http://www.unhappyhipsters.com/)
 |
| Unbelievable: She’d been living in a windowless cell for six years without even an inkling about the movable panel. |
10 January 2011
preservationism
Whether it is nature or nurture that predominates, we are assured to be products of our environment. The stimuli, context and interactions that exist during our formative years and even through adulthood shape our prejudices, taste, and often our understanding. A boy who grows up on a farm in Nebraska may not understand how frustrating missing a rush hour train in downtown Chicago can be, while certainly a boy in Chicago cannot understand how to get motivated to spend days doing manual labor on a farm in Nebraska. Yes these are simplified analogies, but they illustrate the influence of environment on our day to day reality. If you cannot truly understand another person's reality, how can you determine their value structure?
Preservationism--the act of advocating preservation--relies on the ability to place value on the things that we encounter in our lives (e.g. buildings, historical sites, endangered species, etc.). Therefore, preservationists must posses the characteristic of deciphering that which has value from that which has none. Sound like any preservationist that you know? Unfortunately, most preservationists advocate preservation of almost everything and anything. Not to say that one or two bad apples spoil the bunch, but from my experience this is a black and white issue for most of them. Too many error on the side of, "there is value in everything."
I have perceived two schools of thought on architectural historical preservation. One feels strongly that preservation should be keeping, restoring, and maintaining something of value in its exact original state (as determined by historical records). The other feels strongly that the spirit in which it was created or made must be preserved and kept in strict alignment with the intention of its creator. One of these is black and white, and one has shades of gray.
If you are like me, then you subscribe to the theory that it can be both, and still be preservationism. I feel strongly that there are pieces of architecture and urban design that would stand little chance of being recreated due to logistical, financial, and regulatory constraints. Those things contribute to the fabric (social and physical) of our environment and need to be preserved. However, I believe that in the preservation, they may be reinvented, or adaptively reused to bring about a second life that builds upon is first life imbuing it with a rich heritage that becomes even more valuable.
The difficulty will always be tempering our sentimental feelings and cognitive associations of an object or thing. We must truly evaluate the source and meaning of something and be critical of value. Our culture can stand to eliminate some physical components to make room for improvements whether they are functional or social in nature. At the same time, when we find something of value, we must not compromise and preserve it for ourselves and for our future generations. Think about it, preservation is at the heart of sustainability.
As we embark on the great revitalization of downtown, we in Rochester are not without some buildings and civic spaces that are worth preserving. Below are examples of such pieces of our architectural heritage captured in a few historic archival photos that I grabbed from our local library (that is a complete lie as I used my handy iphone and 'hipstamatic' application to achieve the effect, how's that for preservationism).
Preservationism--the act of advocating preservation--relies on the ability to place value on the things that we encounter in our lives (e.g. buildings, historical sites, endangered species, etc.). Therefore, preservationists must posses the characteristic of deciphering that which has value from that which has none. Sound like any preservationist that you know? Unfortunately, most preservationists advocate preservation of almost everything and anything. Not to say that one or two bad apples spoil the bunch, but from my experience this is a black and white issue for most of them. Too many error on the side of, "there is value in everything."
I have perceived two schools of thought on architectural historical preservation. One feels strongly that preservation should be keeping, restoring, and maintaining something of value in its exact original state (as determined by historical records). The other feels strongly that the spirit in which it was created or made must be preserved and kept in strict alignment with the intention of its creator. One of these is black and white, and one has shades of gray.
If you are like me, then you subscribe to the theory that it can be both, and still be preservationism. I feel strongly that there are pieces of architecture and urban design that would stand little chance of being recreated due to logistical, financial, and regulatory constraints. Those things contribute to the fabric (social and physical) of our environment and need to be preserved. However, I believe that in the preservation, they may be reinvented, or adaptively reused to bring about a second life that builds upon is first life imbuing it with a rich heritage that becomes even more valuable.
The difficulty will always be tempering our sentimental feelings and cognitive associations of an object or thing. We must truly evaluate the source and meaning of something and be critical of value. Our culture can stand to eliminate some physical components to make room for improvements whether they are functional or social in nature. At the same time, when we find something of value, we must not compromise and preserve it for ourselves and for our future generations. Think about it, preservation is at the heart of sustainability.
As we embark on the great revitalization of downtown, we in Rochester are not without some buildings and civic spaces that are worth preserving. Below are examples of such pieces of our architectural heritage captured in a few historic archival photos that I grabbed from our local library (that is a complete lie as I used my handy iphone and 'hipstamatic' application to achieve the effect, how's that for preservationism).
04 January 2011
Chia City
CH-CH-CHIA! Chia City is all the rage! And as with all fads; hurry now or you will miss out!
The simple pleasures of urban living are easy to recognize but are often difficult to plan for. The corner coffee shop with a pleasant barista who knows your order by heart each morning. The shady spot around the corner from your office where you enjoy reading a book in the summer. The quiet street lined with boutique retail stores and places to eat where you spend a Saturday strolling your son. Each of these pleasures relies on circumstances well beyond our control...and therein lies the great disappointment of urban designers.
While I subscribe to the philosophy and thinking behind smart growth and new urbanism as much as the next turtleneck wearing architect, I have noticed an increasing trend to plan cities as instant built environments complete with mature trees, fully occupied housing units, and businesses thriving from their consistent local patrons. The problem with this Utopian fantasy, is that cities do not "appear" like Brigadoon and there is no special peat moss mix to add to a piece of farmland and turn it into a livable neighborhood. Cities evolve. That is not to imply that you cannot plan for growth or even use master planning principles to shape a city environment, but ultimately the design of a place will be a product of its evolution.
The best that you can hope for in a master plan or design is the include the infrastructure necessary for growth in and around the skeletal pieces. Especially with the volatility of economies and the rapid shift in how people "do business," the City dynamic as we once new it may be entering a new epoch, one without a clairvoyant image of how it may look.
In the end what is required of designers is critical thought as to the patterns of urban living that are tried and true and that provide an appropriate framework for diversity of uses, options, opportunities, and amenities. With each design, proper criticism should include: what happens if it does not all get built? what happens if it is widely successful and outgrows its constraints? How will it appear differently in 50 years?
I once heard a statistic that 98% of the urban built environment remains the same from year to year. That means that only 2% of a given city is brand new. So instead of envisioning broad brush solutions that anticipate instant rewards and instant success, how about designing an urban master plan to occur 2% at a time?
The simple pleasures of urban living are easy to recognize but are often difficult to plan for. The corner coffee shop with a pleasant barista who knows your order by heart each morning. The shady spot around the corner from your office where you enjoy reading a book in the summer. The quiet street lined with boutique retail stores and places to eat where you spend a Saturday strolling your son. Each of these pleasures relies on circumstances well beyond our control...and therein lies the great disappointment of urban designers.
While I subscribe to the philosophy and thinking behind smart growth and new urbanism as much as the next turtleneck wearing architect, I have noticed an increasing trend to plan cities as instant built environments complete with mature trees, fully occupied housing units, and businesses thriving from their consistent local patrons. The problem with this Utopian fantasy, is that cities do not "appear" like Brigadoon and there is no special peat moss mix to add to a piece of farmland and turn it into a livable neighborhood. Cities evolve. That is not to imply that you cannot plan for growth or even use master planning principles to shape a city environment, but ultimately the design of a place will be a product of its evolution.
 |
| Dubai Master Plan - Singular in Concept, Rigid in Execution |
 |
| Chicago Master Plan - Singular in Concept, Organic in Execution |
The best that you can hope for in a master plan or design is the include the infrastructure necessary for growth in and around the skeletal pieces. Especially with the volatility of economies and the rapid shift in how people "do business," the City dynamic as we once new it may be entering a new epoch, one without a clairvoyant image of how it may look.
In the end what is required of designers is critical thought as to the patterns of urban living that are tried and true and that provide an appropriate framework for diversity of uses, options, opportunities, and amenities. With each design, proper criticism should include: what happens if it does not all get built? what happens if it is widely successful and outgrows its constraints? How will it appear differently in 50 years?
I once heard a statistic that 98% of the urban built environment remains the same from year to year. That means that only 2% of a given city is brand new. So instead of envisioning broad brush solutions that anticipate instant rewards and instant success, how about designing an urban master plan to occur 2% at a time?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)