Materiality

I was reading the article in one of the Architecture Magazine online.

The photo of beautiful roof line caught my eyes as it intended.

I was slightly disappointed that there are no architectural plans or elevations at all.

However it had beautiful photograph of the house.

So I then start to find the concept/idea of the design.

But the article talked about the materials.

Material is important part in architecture in my opinion.

And it can be emphasised in their design.

However, i am slightly differ from how the article talked about the material.

The article describes the material itself.

As if it came out from product guide or manual.

The history and how they applied.

It is useful information for the reader.

However, if it is architecture we are talking about, if they wrote them for the architect profession, if it intended to be read by architect in architecture magazine, and if it is written by a professor, I would expect different contents in that article.

If an architect describe the material of their design, I would be interested in why and how.

Why that material was the best for the job or worst and how interesting to work with such material.

Maybe you could add what was challenge or how important in the overall design concept.

In that sense, the building would reflect the considerations and materiality rather than assembled by the builder.

I don’t think the meaning of materiality in architecture is not just expensive and beautiful itself thing in the building, but how and why that material affect/change/influence the whole project. And I was looking that sentence in the article.

However, the article made me ask question what is the material in architecture.

And made wonder what should I ask to myself when I choose a material in the project.

It seems a nice house though in the article.

And I hope the architect whoever designed have the materiality I am thinking in its design.

Advertisements

Thin Line

Speculative vs Explicative
seems share many similar characteristics.

When one theory sits on speculative side and one isn’t?

Who draw the line between them?

Is it perhaps similar relationship between chicken and eggs?

Or is it not?

I am sure Einstein did not started his theory with explicative one.

It rather developed into explicative from rather speculative ones.

Or it was accepted as explicative one after it started.

Stereotypical

It is funny how people make concept of a person.

Not many people are interested in person but only its concept.

No, it is more close to a mask.

Because concept has a rational and predictable.

But people are not rational nor predictable all the time.

Animals are rational.

They do not act out of ordinary.

Only human do irrational act.

It seems that irrational quality makes human different from other animal.

Maybe that is why we cannot predict the human world.

No one exactly knows what is really going to happen. We only calculate based on rational and predictable human facts, which are missing irrational and unpredictable facts.

However, people scared of unpredictable things or people.

It is categorised under risk.

Risk is something we all should overcome.

Is it really?

Without risk, or risky behaviour or thinking, I could be like my cat.

A lovely cat.

Well fed.

Am I?

Jane Jacobs

@ ACMI in Melbourne, AU 2017

A documentary of Jane Jacobs was screened. And I went in one evening.

USA after the war.

She saw her city differently at her time.

While people focused on the city as an object like a human body or tree.

Jane understood what the city is made of, and try to understand how is the city constructed.

What moves city and what make city is a city, which we desire to live in, belong in and stay in.

It was people. And I cannot agree more.
Jane itself is a quite insightful thinker, writer and also a activist.

But I am not sure whether the documentary itself captured her mind and thought.

In my opinion, she saw the people rather than building forms or city plans.

She knew the urban planning and architecture should follow how people behaviour, not the other way around.

But also she saw the desire. And this is what the document was misunderstood.

Not only just people but also people with the desire to live in the place makes a wonderful city.

For example, in the picture, they made formular which is the council houses x highrise x people = failure city

And that could explain why highrise council houses were failed in USA.

But the actual formular what Jane seemed to understand is (people + desire ) + place =  existing city

And the example the docu mentioned such as Chinese new highrise apartment city will be fail soon is very incorrect.

The difference between two fumular which are the people  and people with desire make two city different.

As I concluded in my architectural studio C @ MSD, a place withou desire is just a space.

The town Anaminaby, which has been relocated into outside of the Lake area with most of their buildings is no longer the same city but failed one without any highrise buildings. People left although they kept their buildings, new roads and names.

The city failed without highrise or highway via city centre.

The place has the desire. The desire are coming from people. People belong to the place.

The architecture and buildings are exist because of the place and desire.

“Jane what do you think?’

AC