In response to Cronon's "A Place for Stories..."
After reading about these two author's and there interpretations of the same event, I tried to relate it in some way to public space, or even architecture in general. Both the authors talked about in the reading wrote about the same occurrence, used the same knowledge and it was even said that, a lot of the material they researched from was similar. Some how though they came up with polar opposite conclusions. How this relates to architecture and public space is that even if given the same exact site for a project, two architects can come up with different solutions, or creations to fill that void. In relation to public space, one can imagine the same sort of thing. I p;ace that may be the perfect setting for a public space can be ruined or mis-used to create something that is a failure.
Monday, October 31, 2011
Sunday, October 23, 2011
Week 8 Readings: Public Space as Cosmopolitan: Sociability and Exchange
In response to Avermaete's "Making Things Public"
The privatization of public space hampers true public action in a sense that it literally takes the meaning of "public" out of a "public space." When a space becomes privatized it then turns into an area which may or may not be accessible to the general public. For an example, say a space is inside a parking garage complex, the public won't necessarily access this place unless of course they are parking in said garage. It takes away as previously stated, the sense of "public" in a public space. I found it interesting when Avermaete talked about how the modern technology we have today is turning public space from an architectural and landscape type of ordeal into an engineering and computer type of "space." Today thousands of people gather in this virtual public space and use such things as blogs and popular social networking sites i.e. Facebook and Twitter. So to say that an architect should begin to think about designing a public space with both these ideas in mind, than one might be able to create a working public space in today's age, while still maintaining the original ideas of a public space. One other interesting point made by Avermaete was the ideas around public space and sustainability and how the two can coincide and work effectively in modern public space design.
In response to "Everyday Urbanism"
Essentially what the authors of this reading define "public"as something they call a public sphere. In which everyone in the general public has the right to be there, what they call a "space of democracy." I found the connection to the ancient Greeks and their public space. WHile women and other people not technically considered a citizen weren't treated equally in most aspects of life, the public space was open to them. This developed into our knowledge of what the term public space is supposed to mean, and that is a place that is open to everyone in the public realm, from rich to poor and in todays context of every age, race, and nationality.
The privatization of public space hampers true public action in a sense that it literally takes the meaning of "public" out of a "public space." When a space becomes privatized it then turns into an area which may or may not be accessible to the general public. For an example, say a space is inside a parking garage complex, the public won't necessarily access this place unless of course they are parking in said garage. It takes away as previously stated, the sense of "public" in a public space. I found it interesting when Avermaete talked about how the modern technology we have today is turning public space from an architectural and landscape type of ordeal into an engineering and computer type of "space." Today thousands of people gather in this virtual public space and use such things as blogs and popular social networking sites i.e. Facebook and Twitter. So to say that an architect should begin to think about designing a public space with both these ideas in mind, than one might be able to create a working public space in today's age, while still maintaining the original ideas of a public space. One other interesting point made by Avermaete was the ideas around public space and sustainability and how the two can coincide and work effectively in modern public space design.
In response to "Everyday Urbanism"
Essentially what the authors of this reading define "public"as something they call a public sphere. In which everyone in the general public has the right to be there, what they call a "space of democracy." I found the connection to the ancient Greeks and their public space. WHile women and other people not technically considered a citizen weren't treated equally in most aspects of life, the public space was open to them. This developed into our knowledge of what the term public space is supposed to mean, and that is a place that is open to everyone in the public realm, from rich to poor and in todays context of every age, race, and nationality.
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
Project 4: Benches
Benches or should I say, places to sit and relax have been around for thousands of years. The purpose for them have essentially remained the same throughout history as well. The bench is often used for sitting, relaxing, spectating, reading, drawing, you name it. It's an all around versatile object, and it's no surprise why one will find benches in almost every public space or any place where people may gather. What I learned from taking all these pictures of different benches was that the materiality and sometimes even the structure of the bench itself were based upon the surrounding environment and its elements. For example the smooth grey metal bench was found on Northeastern's campus and has a more modern and "futuristic" look to it which is much like what Northeastern is going for with it's recent campus renovations and projects. Other benches such as the green painted wooden benches I saw in Cambridge have more of a historical feel with the old wood and rusting metal. Another thing I noticed was how all the benches I saw in parks were very similar, and often made from a combination of a darker metal and either stained or painted wood.
Sunday, October 16, 2011
Week 7 Readings: Megaform & Educator
In response to Frampton's "Megaform as Urban Landscape:
The difference between a megaform and a megastructure is the relative continuity in form. So basically saying a megastructure can reside within a megaform. Frampton begins to describe what exactly makes a megaform, a megaform. A major characteristic of a megaform is that it is a large for that extends horizontally rather than vertically. As well as a form that is orientated towards the densification of the urban form. What really makes megaforms directly related to creating great public spaces is how megaforms relate to the surrounding topography. This almost creates natural spaces in which people may gather. I found how the Baker Dormitory in Cambridge, designed by Aalto connects to the Charles River and has this continuation of form to be very intriguing. The almost direct form and "path" if you will, that the building creates with the topography is spectacular. The ideas of long term stability and creating a group form developed by Maki and Ohtaka create a new kind of look on the megaform.
In response to Borden's "Another Pavement, Another Beach: Skateboarding and the Performative Critique of Architecture":
I found this article to be one of the more interesting ones we have read through out the year. Primarily because skateboarding has always been an interest of mine, and I find it very fascinating. What may be surprising is that I don't skateboard all that well myself, however I still understood many of the relationships the author kept making between the modern city and skateboarding. The relationship between the skateboarders and their urban environment is starting to bring up new ideas on how architecture can not only create an environment in which the general public can enjoy but as well as the skateboarding community. Skateboarding could only happen in the modern city, as opposed to the renaissance or medieval city for many reasons. For one the architecture of those times did not provide applicable space for the moves and such that skateboarders often attempt. One obvious reason that i feel is the most important that the author seems to leave out is roads and street conditions. The roads of today are often paved with asphalt or concrete, and these materials are best for the skateboard. In the case of prior generation cities the roads were often dirt, cobblestone, or gravel. All of which are basically impossible to skateboard on.
The difference between a megaform and a megastructure is the relative continuity in form. So basically saying a megastructure can reside within a megaform. Frampton begins to describe what exactly makes a megaform, a megaform. A major characteristic of a megaform is that it is a large for that extends horizontally rather than vertically. As well as a form that is orientated towards the densification of the urban form. What really makes megaforms directly related to creating great public spaces is how megaforms relate to the surrounding topography. This almost creates natural spaces in which people may gather. I found how the Baker Dormitory in Cambridge, designed by Aalto connects to the Charles River and has this continuation of form to be very intriguing. The almost direct form and "path" if you will, that the building creates with the topography is spectacular. The ideas of long term stability and creating a group form developed by Maki and Ohtaka create a new kind of look on the megaform.
In response to Borden's "Another Pavement, Another Beach: Skateboarding and the Performative Critique of Architecture":
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
Interviews
The following are the 5 questions I asked to 5 different people at the protesting at Dewey Square. I changed the language of the required questions so that I’d get more natural responses rather than more formal ones.
1. Why did you choose to protest in the streets, rather than doing the same, but on the internet and blogs?
2. Does Dewey Square as a space benefit protesting? Or does it diminish it in anyway?
3. How have you coped with living here in the public?
4. The weather has been very nice lately. If it were pouring rain out, or maybe the middle of winter, would you still be here?
5. Do you plan on staying here as long as possible, or do you have other commitments, such as a job, or a family to attend to?
Stan, 42 years old:
-With the internet the public doesn’t see your face, or who you are. Out here we can reach out to more than just people who use the internet.
-It definitely helps us more than it hurts. Yeah we have to deal with police, but being in such a populated area really helps.
-It hasn’t been that bad actually. The others here are very friendly and this weather has been great.
-Of course. I stand by my rights and my opinion and weather doesn’t affect how I’m going to express myself.
-Until they kick us out, I’ll be here. My family understands my decision.
Matt, 27 years old:
-The internet? The streets and public is something we’ve always had, so I think it reaches out to more people.
-This place is vibrant with people of all ages and classes. But the actual physical space you mean? It’s small, but that doesn’t hurt us. SO I’ll say it benefits us as a group because we interact with each other.
-Just like camping, but with loud noises. (laughter). I’ve dealt with it pretty well I’d say.
-As hard as it may be, I just may stay here in either case. I feel very strong about my opinion so if that’s what it takes, than sure.
-I’m actually in grad school so my work is getting a bit behind, but I plan on staying for as long as I can.
Cara, 25 years old:
-I could do both if I wanted, with today’s technology. But out here, I feel more of a connection. Like I’m making a difference.
-Helps, for sure. The smaller space brings us protesters together and gives “one voice.” Plus with these large buildings surrounding us it kind of brings us out more to people.
-It’s been a little rough. I’m a light sleeper so the noise has been the most difficult when it comes to sleep. Other than that I don’t really mind it.
-It would make it much, much harder to stay as long as I have, but I still think I would be here that’s for sure.
-My family doesn’t want me to be out here, so rule them out. My job on the other hand might be in jeopardy pretty soon, which really sucks because I wish I could let people hear me out without possibly ruining my future.
Paul, 58 years old:
-I don’t even own a computer, so that’d be impossible young man. Even if I did, I have no intentions to do so. The public eye is more important to me than a computer screen.
-Helps, helps, helps. The way this space is set up, and its location is amazing. It brings focus to us.
-I’ve been doing this kind of living for years now. It’s second nature, so I wouldn’t say I’d need to “cope” with anything.
-Once again, I’ve lived in those conditions for quite some time now. So that wouldn’t change anything.
-My job is this. Speaking for the 99% of Americans that aren’t running this country into the ground. I’ll be here and elsewhere for as long as I live.
Kim, 33 years old:
-I’ve actually been involved with many blog sites and voiced my opinion there as well. Out here however I feel like I get more of our point across.
-Neither. It’s more about location than the space itself in my opinion. We’re near the Financial District, so that obviously plays a huge part in it all.
-Everything has been going great! Except for maybe the hygiene. I’ve found myself wandering off just to use the bathroom, which may be looked at negatively by other protesters but oh well.
-I’ll be honest. I would probably be blogging still. I’m all for getting out into the public and making a stand, but I think health comes first; At least to me.
-I took a week off from work, and plan on going back after Columbus Day. I still feel like I’ve done a lot just by being here though. The length of stay shouldn’t matter as long as you are prideful about your opinion.
Tuesday, October 4, 2011
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)