Common Side-Effects: The Influences of Context on Architectural Design

I have recently been focusing on the effects of cultural, social, and economic forces on our built environment. With this post I would like to rely more on the role that site-specific forces play on the design process of buildings. For each project, the architect is faced with inherent conditions in which he or she must respond to in their design. A few examples of these design considerations can include environmental orientation, adjacent property program, and building regulations from various agencies. These factors are unique to each project and can vary significantly based on the city in which the design occurs. Within the United States, there are a number of major metropolitan areas that have unique zoning codes, or lack thereof, that are indirectly responsible for the make-up of the urban fabric seen in our cities. In this post I will respond to the presentation of two projects from major cities in America, Los Angeles and New York. The first article, “Formosa 1140 by Lorcan O’Herlihy Architects”, was written by Megan Wilton of Dezeen Design Magazine and shows a new project by Lorcan O’Herlihy. The second building that will be examined is publicized in a story in Architectural Record, titled, “Tall Buildings Push Limits by Steeping Up, Not Back,” and focuses on another residential project at 23 East 22nd Street, designed by Rem Koolhaas’ OMA. In both of these jobs, the architects are challenging common building typologies indigenous to their regions in order to find innovative ways of enhancing the end product. My comments on the aforementioned posts can be found on their respective websites, but have also been copied below for convenience.

“Formosa 1140 by Lorcan O’Herlihy Architects”
Comment

I find this building to be particularly interesting in comparison to the vast pool of typical courtyard and “C” shaped housing blocks throughout Los Angeles. Not only are these buildings plentiful, but they usually yield underused public/private spaces creating a condition of wasted and often unsafe space. LOHA’s new type signifies a new housing typology, which if implemented and encouraged through zoning in specific areas of Los Angeles, could provide better, more usable, open space. The combination of these newly created spaces with adjacent properties would result in a holistic approach to urban planning where multiple buildings share a larger communal amenity that is more effective, programmatically, based on the many buildings that would activate the public space. Basically, the otherwise miniscule, gated-off “public” spaces of the typical L.A. apartment would become parts to a larger network of more usable space. LOHA’s proposition, however, is a bit idealistic without any form of city policies because without an enthusiastic developer, the economical impact of leaving half the site as landscape renders the gesture unrealistic.

Another positive issue that I would like to raise is the notion of defensible space, where safety of a region can be provided through the environments design. The traditional form of housing resulted in narrow residual spaces on all four sides of the building and a larger, unused open space in the middle. What concerns me is the narrow spaces between buildings that is created by zoning setbacks. The new typology proposed by LOHA, at the very least, eliminates one of these slender alleys and couples it with adjacent properties to create larger more visually defensible spaces. Ultimately, the move creates a safer, more usable park that benefits the building as well as the neighboring community. Although not an entirely new concept, the thought of ganging clusters of properties to create better shared spaces is an intriguing idea that, when applied in L.A., could yield a much more efficient use of land. In short, allocating smaller under-used spaces into larger activated parks should be a priority for our struggling city.

“Tall Buildings Push Limits by Stepping Up, Not Back”
Comment

After Rem’s studies of “the possibilities for skyscrapers following the landmark 1916 Zoning Law”, a building that challenges the legislation was inevitable and this example proves to be very engaging. Until now, high-rise and mid-rise buildings were typically extrusions with little to no interaction with the urban context. Aside from façade treatments or pulling the street into the lobby, bold urban gestures are not often seen in pinched sites with strict constraints such as this. Some might argue that the result is a posh move that is expected and made possible only because of “starchitect” Rem Koolhaas’ status, but once again, with further investigation, the moves actually generate some pretty sensitive contextual moves while also providing some major positives for the tenants and the community. The default ziggurat form provided by the zoning code provided outdoor terraces as you went up the building, but it also reduced the overall usable floor space as the building goes vertical. I enjoy the overall aesthetic of the shifting of floor plates in the building and can also appreciate the way it creates the same roof gardens as the ziggurat but also preserves the interior space. Granted these benefits of the design, I would imagine that the principle selling point for Rem to justify the large and hugely expensive cantilever is in order to preserve park views of the developers neighboring residential tower. While this is a sensitive move to this building, I wonder if it is impeding on another neighboring buildings view that a straight, vertically extruded building would not have. Even though the building’s main formal move is not an entirely new one, as seen in examples such as Herzog and de Meuron’s 56 Leonard Street project, OMA’s version seems to be the most contextual to date and is also the first to cantilever significantly over an adjacent property. I wonder whether the various contextual moves actually benefit the community or if they simply generate an awesomely sexy building that also provides the tenants with interesting spaces and amenities.

India: A Case Study For Living

In light of the recent global economic crisis, I find it necessary for the world to think innovatively on the way in which we live and build. As the scope of the world drastically changes, the cities we inhabit must follow. No stranger to this transformation is the developing country of India. Weaved into many of the major cities is a network of impoverished neighborhoods. These regions have often been labeled as “slums,” for lack of a better term. Their relevance to urban studies is apparent in that one-sixth of the world’s population occupies some form of slum and the billion people this includes is expected to double in the next few decades. These areas are the collective product of the societies who create them, making them the purest form of an organic urban condition. As a precedent, they are particularly interesting because the issues that surround them are so complex. These controversies are often seen from a cynical outside point of view, and rarely looked at as a possible catalyst which could produce applications of improvement for the modern society. In this post I consider an article by Matias Echanove and Rahul Srivastava, who are affiliated with the Partners for Urban Knowledge Action and Research. Titled, “Taking the ‘Slum’ out of Dharavi,” the argument clearly observes the positive aspects of the low-income societies depicted in the recent film Slumdog Millionaire. In addition, I further examine a post by Katia Savchuk, entitled, “Housing Post-Disasters,” which offers an insight into the effectiveness of the housing provided as a result of natural disasters. The aforementioned articles and their respective comments can be found on the links above, but have also been placed directly below.


“Taking the ‘Slum’ out of Dharavi”
Comment

While Slumdog Millionaire has provided a vast array of discussion on the internet, I am pleased to see an argument of such substance and open-mindedness. I have recently been lucky enough to travel to India, and although I was unable to visit Mumbai, I feel that cities such as Delhi and Varanasi were of significant comparison in regards to your thoughts. The cinematic collage of Mumbai, which ultimately culminates as the image of Dharavi in the film, struck an eerily familiar tone from my days in India (seen at right). People who have never experienced these pocket neighborhoods would find it easy to draw negative conclusions about them; however, I agree whole-heartedly that there is a definite lesson to be learned from the “sheer resourcefulness of its inhabitants” and the organic nature of these areas. What I enjoyed most about my visits, also shared by that “certain brand of photo-reporters and slum tourists,” is the urban palimpsest quality that has been laid over time. The locals drying clothes and selling food amongst the grazing cows all superimposed on centuries of architecture that has been broken, patched, rewired and adapted over time. This serendipitous charm and the sensory overload that you receive with every turn is what makes India worth seeing. But perhaps this is the attitude of the fortunate visitor and not the viewpoint of the end-user of these areas. I cannot help but wonder whether these people are truly benefitting from the landfills that they inhabit. Albeit, they provide a level of economic value in the way that they recycle, but there must certainly be a better, cleaner, more sustainable method to the madness that occurs in Dharavi. I believe the people here make do with what they are given and are incredibly resilient, which results in the photogenic nature of these regions, but is that reason enough to say that they are happy with their current situations? I also agree that spreading development of Mumbai over the area would be a negative, but do you think there could be some way the area could be developed to enhance the cleanliness, safety, and economic production of Dharavi without displacing the local residents?


“Housing Post-Disasters”
Comment

With the current increasing frequency in natural disasters, now is a more appropriate time than ever to discuss the issues of post-disaster housing. As a designer, I naturally feel that good design should always be the point of departure for a better solution. In the lower-income regions of India, their success comes with their ability to adapt their environment. Evidence of this overlap in infrastructure, technology, building, and lifestyle is apparent in the layering seen on any given alley in India (see picture at left). Perhaps this is the reason that the “cookie-cutter” homes were left vacant soon after they were provided. Do you think that a more suitable solution could have been a kit-of-parts where locals are supplied the resources to design a more personal dwelling? I feel that this could conceivably be a more sustainable approach in that the end user is more likely to use a home programmed to their uses. The makeup of the kit could simply be designed based on the region that it is being supplied to and custom tailored towards the indigenous population. For example, in the fishing village of Chandrabhaga, materials needed to store and process fish could be provided. Another consideration I have noticed in your post is the appearance of modern ideas in the relief structures. The home in Mundasahi that “can be expanded as resources become available” echoes the ideas instilled in the modern prototype by Le Corbusier, the Museum of Unlimited Growth. The use of the rooftops in these homes also mirrors Corb’s five points of architecture, where the ground plane taken by the buildings footprint is restored in the form of a roof garden. Could this use of modern architectural ideas or reverse precedent study be incorporated into the houses in order to improve their usability?

The New Multi-Purpose Room: Hardships Yield Inspired Solutions

I have recently written about the effects of development in Shanghai, China and argued for and against the various emerging forms of building that are occurring in the region. Local phenomena that spawn from urban developments can be seen across the globe in every city and in varying scales. These occurrences are informed by factors such as, local government policies, cultural norms, the economy, and social forces. Therefore, In order to form judgment on any one locale, it is not only essential to look at what is occurring in other parts of the world, but it is also important to distinguish the cause and effects of the solutions that are implemented. In this post I will be examining an article found in BLDGBLOG by, Geoff Manaugh, entitled “Mathscape”. Manaugh, aside from being the creator of BLDGBLOG, is also the senior editor of Dwell Magazine. In addition to the aforementioned post, I will also be commenting on the post, “Posh to Be Poor: Housing”, that focuses on the future effects of the economic downturn in America. This article, written by Marc Couillais, can be found on Where or by clicking on the corresponding link to either of the above articles (found below).

“Mathscape”
Comment

First and foremost, I would like to say what an interesting project this is and, as well, the ideas and discussions which it evokes. I think it is clear that Project H has an obvious goal in mind with the math playground and after seeing this, I believe that it is successful. Their manifesto states that they are here to “encourage the reorientation of the design industry towards a more socially-impactful and humanitarian entity”, and therefore the design of their projects must inherently serve dual-roles. The primary or realistic role (in this case the playground and place to study), and secondly, the role in which you call the “spatial pedagogy”. Your questions of a society in which our environments are geared towards education are interesting when applied to schools and even universities, but unfortunately, I would argue that when put in a situation such as your everyday commute to work they would prove as wasted design efforts. Nevertheless, the fact that we are discussing this is reason enough for Project H to inject such a project. In addition, to further the discussion, I recently read an article by acclaimed architect Lebbeus Woods, titled “Metastructure”. In this, he proposes a fantasy-driven idea towards a defense mechanism for the conflict in Bosnia. This is relevant in that the idea was basically a wall that would serve dual purposes. The fortification would be built as a spatial labyrinth that would separate and slow groups of soldiers to either their death or their eventual inhabitance of the wall. To further the fantasy, Woods goes on to say that the metastructure could eventually become a city in itself as the Bosnian farmers would move closer to supply food and water to the soldiers as a means of economy. Although both of these ideas have dramatically different trajectories, I see them as both being relevant in that no matter how effective they are in their primary roles, their secondary purposes are worth studying in order to achieve a greater design initiative. In this case, one in which conventional architectural elements, such as the wall or classroom, is pushed beyond the realm of typical uses and thus an entirely new entity is created.

“Posh to Be Poor: Housing”
Comment

It would seem that the issues regarding housing and the economic downturn in the United States will never become exhausted; however, it is refreshing to finally see an interesting take on the subject. You have thankfully laid out some intriguing ideas with respect to the current state of the nation and the way in which a designer looks at such issues. We are experiencing a unique era in which innovation is necessary in order to progress past the hardships. Being as bold as Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur suggests in stating that families should “stay put” in their foreclosed homes is a realistic approach to the situation in that she is simply advocating the use of existing resources to house displaced families. Why expend additional energy in relocating families and erecting temporary housing when perfectly good homes are left vacant and unsold? While this approach seems to be the sensible solution, it is the various designers’ ideas that interest me. The Homeless Chateaux, for example, is a fascinating idea that goes beyond the obvious use as a minimalist room. To me, the merit in the idea of this “chateaux” is less about how it works and more in how it is used contextually. As James Westwater proposes it to be a room within a room, perhaps there could be a series of these modular Homeless Chateauxs that could than start to inform a greater community. And further, could this begin to suggest a new system of modular living units that could be inserted into a realistic context of perhaps the aging warehouse loft? These units would have to be improved dramatically, but as an idea I find them to be quite interesting and perhaps even hip to the times. Your thought on the gradual migration to the aesthetics of the poor is proof that Westwater’s Chateaux is an idea worth developing. The investigation into the adaptive re-use of everyday items, such as the street sign and pallet used in this project is sure to yield a worthwhile product.