On Parametricism – Thesis intro

My master’s thesis is done, at last.

This means that i can now dwelve into other topics that match my interests in architecture.

In the meantime, I thought I share some hints of my study regarding a new style for architecture – Parametricism. In the future, the small series of issues herein exposed will only feature pieces that I feel appropriate, and others that might raise points that are not suitably clear or even startlingly addressed. Before moving on, it is essential to state that this work was developed of an analysis of many theoretical claims that are still formally unsettled as well as practically essayed to a certain extent. This means too that the thesis tries to develop into and along the edifice of a close net of thinkers, specially that of Patrik Schumacher, and does not focus on the matter of the “paradigm”, trend, or style in contemporary architecture, either etymologically or formally. Obviously, I won’t have any aims to describe or identify the guidelines that make up the new agenda. Also, it is asserted that this style is an integral part of a broader theoretical build by Patrik Schumacher in The Autopoiesis of Architecture.

The opening post is a translated and revised version of the introduction, which is bellow:

Intro

In the last few decades, some of the most prominent architectural practices began to testify profound mutations.These mutations encompass various means of consubstantiation from diverse utopias foreshadowed by many individuals, from the entire chronological spectrum in which the History of architecture has performed. Discharging the systemization of the classical orders in De Architectura, one can prematurely regard imprudent but valuable understandings of mechanization rituals, held by present intellectuals (CACHE, Bernard). Beyond these means, it is essential to observe the unmistakable cyclical clash on the plane of human expression, which manifests in all vertices of its development and is summarized by the bipolarity between rational and irrational, and objective and subjective visions (DALÍ, Salvador; Le Corbusier).

The means comprise technological potentials, socio-political conditions, aesthetic expressions and trends, and the imperative survival of the global ecosystem. In that order: the steady flow and availability of software in architecture studios and the following emergence of new morphological and compositional dialogues, also sustained by new methods of production, which is backed by a renewed material culture (DELANDA, Manuel); the industrial and social paradigmatic fluctuations that took place after the Second World War, coupled by globalization and a world market economy; to the artistic and cultural echoes of global consciousness; and the crisis of natural resources entangled by an awareness of the environmental harms inflicted by an anthropological civilization.    

In this sense, multiple efforts are gathered in a new way, which produce outcomes in all aspects of life – ensued by the congregation of the discussed means – with ramifications in architectonic, artistic and cultural thinking. Clearly, not lacking in several impetus, there have been multiple intellectuals in architecture that seek to sponsor a rebirth of the discourse which can stand before History of architecture; therefore asserting a balance between the architectural environment and a new man now conscious of his symbiotic relationship with our planet, a kind of amalgamation existent in pre-historic periods, and now compulsively present in a socio-cultural atmosphere with an array of formally and etymologically mystification of dialogues focussed in an ecothematic sustainability.

Thus, we can assist several resurgences of utopias incorporated as tangible meta-realities in humanistic agendas, reversing the polarity – rational/emotional, objective/subjective – simultaneously redefining these last world views, towards remerging orders of adaptation, evolution, mutability, performativity, and visionary and concrete autonomy, dismantling mechanistic notions to introduce biologic visions.

For a geomagnetic inversion of mankind these must be the essential constituents: the symbiotic reform of the rational and the emotional – taken from the Cartesian to the Leibnizian views, and from an anthropocentric mankind to a geocentric ecocivilization – which will then culminate in the post-human era (CHU. Karl).

The contemporary architectural avant-garde, scientifically open and technologically minded, relentlessly probing cultural and economic events and social indicators, bifurcates in two distinctive currents – one committed to representation and metaphor, with Dutch origins and the other, with American and English support, which conveys material and organizational discourses, from which this study ensues: beginning in the post-modernistic (JENCKS, Charles; LYOTARD, Jean-François) remnants of collage of the 1980’s, to the increasingly statement of the digital domain built of intense differentiation, which acknowledges the Deconstructivistic and Post-Structuralistic moments of Jacques Derrida (1930-2004) and Peter Eisenman (n.1932), to the Folding trend of the 1990’s of Gilles Deleuze (1925-1995), with the phenomenological reconstruction of the Baroque and the reallocation of the universe from Cartesian to Leibnizian point of views, till the total incorporation of digital geometries coined by Greg Lynn (n.1964), with Blobs, NURBs and Splines.

Patrik Schumacher (n.1961), German architect, is the most important partner at Zaha Hadid Architects (ZHA), having previously contributed as design director in many projects in a partnership that endures for more than twenty years. His work is, therefore, a vital constituent in a study focussed in an architecture paradigm, still in development, which in many cases is supported by his practise at Zaha Hadid and mostly because, Schumacher undertakes the theoretical and critical discourse developed within ZHA’s repertoire. Patrik Schumacher clearly seeks the aforementioned geomagnetic inversion in the architecture domain, by fostering an already established avant-garde program, that succeeds the structurally homologous, but substantially dichotomist strategies and axioms that steered the Modern movement: the Parametricism.

Zero Zero Diagonal Tower by EMBA [Barcelona]

Long time, no post!
The truth is that i’ve been laying back for quite some time :-s. This job routine is killing me.
Anyway I’m putting a quick post:
Skin  is the obvious paradigm of this new mixed use/office building by Estudi Massip-Bosch Arquitectes, a catalan based studio in Barcelona.
Sitting right next to the Barcelona’s Forum, by Herzog & De Meuron , it will house the new headquarters for a spanish communications corporation – Telefonica. It just happened I was there around the phase of finishings, so I’m only posting my pics.

For a more detailed info check Archdaily’s report:
http://www.archdaily.com/148680/torre-diagonal-zero-zero-emba/

The Studio:
http://www.emba.cat/

PS: I need holidays!

On Mies’s Pavilion

My reflexive remarks upon the essence of Mies’s Pavilion:

Apparently, theoretically opposite of today’s many architectural agendas and ambitions, the Modernist Movement of the 20^st century still provides, by some present thinkers, a great deal of unfinished opportunities who never made the essential leap towards materialization. Today’s architectural avant-garde practices and agendas still share the same enthusiastic moves and gestures, by extensively researching and empirically exploring unveiled geometric forms that were virtually impossible a century ago.

Emergent techniques of modeling spaces and shapes may be the new face of Modernism. What Mies did with this pavilion, despite that his practice belongs and defines, at some extent, the minimalistic and functionalist character, was to break away from the traditional boundaries and the concept of the box: an archetype of classical eras. He made a crucial move, and in spite of being loyal to his intellectual influences and doctrines (the open floor plan) he took benefit from this new freedom and made design operations (of stretching and shortening) on the supporting walls of the building, and removed any corners that could reinforce the compression strength of these.

I might be indicted to establish such connection between two ever contrasting architectural agendas, with very distinct social and economical ambitions, but from what I see, and exclusively from the discipline’s own methods, tools, processes, operations, concepts, graphical images and formal ambitions there has been a kind of rebirth and regeneration of the experimentation, exploration and research posture towards shapes, geometric operations, dialectic of graphical and visual representations that were never put throughout in such a notable and knowledgeable way. Maybe this is a reiteration of the human’s artistic and creative cycle that were testified with the Renaissance, and the latter maturation of the Baroque style or the idiosyncratically feats of Mannerism. I’m not sure. I still need to stress that today’s most avant-garde architecture practices doesn’t use any of the Modernism referred formal articulation methods (methods, tools, processes, operations, concepts, graphical images and formal ambitions), but the attitude that relates to them might have the same stance guidelines (not the principles).

Computer aided possibilities and emergent scientific innovations in the field of materials engineering that provide new molecular combinations and thus new composite materials potentiates new unveiled branches of architecture that might rise in the future. Take for instance, the possibilities that arose with the advent of reinforced concrete a century ago and nowadays the innovative fabrics that are taking huge steps in textile engineering, like electro-conductive fabrics.

Technologies are here, and they are being revealed every day. To leave them unexplored to the field of architecture would lead the discipline to its own fetishism and enclosure. Many visions of post modern ambitions are based on the exploitation and advantages of technology.

I have to state another parallel here: like LeCorbusier, who conceived new society behavior schemes with his planned cities, Archigram also created the walking and the plug-in cities. They both failed in their expectations in respect to the metamorphosis of entire life patterns and social relations. But what Archigram taught us, on a wider sense, was the integration of rapid and emergent technologies into the field of architecture, even to a metropolis scale. Norman Foster, for instance, embraces digital tools in his processes that consequently enable engineering feats, like the Great Court roof in the British Museum. Doesn’t this particular image resembles a classical innovation like the classical round arches and the genius design of the arches that support hundreds of roman bridges? They all make use of the same principle: conduct and transfer horizontal thrust towards vertical foundations by only making use of compressive stresses and forces.

This is what Mies was seeking to achieve. He just used new available technology (reinforced concrete, steel and glass) a century ago to make something that was impossible and unavailable without the new building techniques. Namely placing larger spans of roof under minimal supports, and simultaneously taking advantage of the unrequired presence of a box frame structure to erect those same supports.

Do current avant-garde practices, as those who promote fluid shapes or any other unorthodox paradigms only pursue sensational, ostentatious and flamboyant images??? I’m sure it would be sad if we (architects) only have this in our minds and without ever taking account of the technical innovation issues and having the sense that these images could be part of a process of technological exploration of architecture. Design tools, building materials and processes: being part of our practice, they all required constant updates throughout human discoveries and scientific breakthroughs as in classical periods that swept Egyptian, Greek and Roman empires through Renaissance up to contemporary times.

The 1929 Barcelona Pavilion by Mies

My report of a modern classic:

The 1929 Barcelona Pavilion by Mies: “Less is More”

Text produced in 2006

Designed by Ludwig Mies van der Rohe for the Barcelona International Exhibition of 1929, as the German National Pavilion, this building is a unique design of the modern movement. Although the project didn’t have any requirements, it is designed solely to accommodate the function of receiving the King and Queen of Spain, which would then officially install the exhibition on signing the “Golden Book”. It would be subsequently a project where the designer would have the freedom to create the space at his own discretion and pleasure.

After the end of the exhibition, the pavilion was dismantled in 1930, but given the reputation of the building, a possible reconstruction was considered, so it was reopened in its original location in 1986.

Despite their appearance of simple rectangular plan, the building has an almost complete absence of corners or something that conveys the feeling of a big box. Quickly recognized by its thin walls that comprise their own continuity and the glazing that runs from floor to roof undermine the distinction between interior and exterior.

The doors, also glazed, are designed so that they revolve around a vertical axis allowing them to redefine the spaces in the building to be opened and closed.

The roof rests over the thin walls, asymmetrically arranged in parallel or perpendicular displacement giving the idea that they slide with each other preventing the visitor from enjoying his journey in a cubic form.

The eight cruciform columns that Mies had designed would be an attempt to visually lighten the weight of the volumes, but the joint action of the same with the double walls of marble had to be topped with extra columns inside the marble panels to help support the large and thin concrete roof.

“Yes is More” by “Yes Man”

One word: Exciting.

Every current architecture competition, site, magazine or essay as at least one word to say about this studio: Bjarke Ingels Group (BIG), founded by Bjarke himself.

Bjarke states that his practice is based on the promotion of a cooperative attitude towards people, investors, politicians and contractors rather than impose the designers own interests and intentions. I totally agree and this could mean a new fresh image of the architect regarding the global opinion of the society. However this also could translate into a narrower selection of fundamental criteria to be incorporated on project design guidelines and therefore absent these guidelines from the architecture’s and Urbanism’s own concepts, methods and agendas, specially from the design intent towards the exploitation of the site and the program’s own potential. In other words, narrowing the design to every possible actor could lead to a very little field of operation and space for debate  of the architecture, from the program, the typology and the urban condition point of views, since the formal element is mainly the result of the first criteria.

According to this statement I can say that BIG follows a very pragmatic method, and this defines other aspects of its practices. Physical models are clearly the main conceptual instrument of design, and according to Bjarke is part of a process of which is composed by various stages and/or families. In this case, these families are somewhat imported from the Darwinist theory, as the projects are matured into diverse possibilities associated into multiple programs and urban contexts. The models are, in fact, stored in the studio for a variety of opportunities, for different purposes and clients, so there really is a very winding “evolution” of each main project that couldn’t make the transition from the project to the built idea. And I say evolution because Bjarke insists on this term. I personally think it’s wiser to use “development” because evolution is inherently saying that the progress of the project is somewhat linear, when he admits that there are different species and different stages.

Graphical schemes and diagrams are also part of the equation in BIG practice, and are the leading tool to help in the design of the physical model. Almost like Koolhaas, Bjarke simply transfers these programmatic diagram into the model for a volumetric setting and constraint.

In almost every large project, BIG integrates, and even conceives the whole project around green solutions and ecologically sustainable technologies. This is a must nowadays and certainly is a plus, as the studio’s attitude towards the pleasing of every actor in the design, is its main agenda, including the neighboring population and the politicians. This means that BIG seeks the fulfillment of the community and the sociocultural context in one gesture.

Formally, BIG incorporates notions of landscape formations, like Zaha so extensively refers to. Meshes, patterns, textures are present essentially  on the elevations and all the building envelope. Once in a while, Bjarke invokes figurative aspects in his projects and when he does I think it’s too obvious. There are also various examples that the design is literally sculpted, warped and stretched around visual frames, sun exposure and the boundaries of urban law conditions in Denmark.

It is also evident that these designs are forged from the influences and ambitions of Post Modern architecture namely constructivist and fragment visions, as well as the formal freedom that defines Koolhaas’s repertoire besides some punctual operations of formal fluidity, usually common in Zaha Hadid.

For me this is an excellent book for new architecture students (if they share the same aesthetic taste) that can provide a very positive attitude regarding concept methodologies, process guidelines and project design tools. The graphical layout and typography is clear, simple and attractive, meaning also a good start point and example for every architectural presentation.

This book is a testimony of the studio processes along with every major design, and is very easy to understand as it is an “archicomic” on the adventures of the “Yes Man”. Rather than being a theoretic manifesto on Bjarke’s designs and intentions, the comic book approach is a very welcoming to architecture publishing. Maybe this is the graphical format culmination of S,M,L,XL and Content that Koolhaas has been promising? I personally think it is genius. Reading every page is almost like silk, by immediately integrating the matter with visual references that greatly help the reader to easily understand and provide him with images rather than with a thousand words.

THE post

The methods: WordPress, facebook, twitter, myspace, google, youtube, wikipedia, flickr, linkedIn…

The tools: paper & pencil along with color markers, opera browser (nice bookmarks management), autocad, sketchup and some render engine I don’t remember, corel draw (does the world still use this?), and some 3dsmax (in a rusty condition)again with some render engine I don’t remember, rhinoceros (my new addiction!)…

The resources: my school’s unorganized texts, projects and designs, some books, art & architecture videos and so on… (archdaily.com & many others)

The guy: myself, an avantgarde fan > More is More

Why?: Employment of brain abilities rather than every day & ordinary autocad torture on other people’s projects. Use of skills to improve writing (specially in english), architecture & design knowledge both in cultural and technology terms. An attempt to give meaning to a life connected to the right side of the brain.

What to expect: unconscious thoughts about architecture, hopping to make some sense in an ever-changing universe…

This is my formula. It’s not expected to be on par with any kind of philosophical standard like most blogs do. Just a place to share, organize and store my ideas.

P.S.: I have to go to bed now. This post may be unfinished…