Welcome to the world of Parametrics.

Parametrics. A new era for architecture has begun. With the aid of computer technology, we are now able to explore a new world of fluid structure. I furthur explored the Reebox flagship store, designed by Rahim and found out many new and interesting concepts he has introduce.

According to Rahim, the digital parametic design is "simply a pursuit of greater efficiency but also the coaxing of an emerging set of techniques and aesthetics."

What I find interesting with his design is the stairway. If his design were just an ordinary staircase, then it would have completely blocked the view of the first floor. So instead, he designed the stairs in a way that when walking up, you can have a view of the first floor. With these little gaps and opening, it also challenges the threshold. In this design, the threshold is not clearly seen since the roof merges with the walls and flows into the floor. Also the idea of repetition is seen within the design, have many components that are similar in shape but plays with the size of each component. His color scheme of white and blue also gives the store its futuristic look. In conclusion, there is alot to learn about parametrics and still alot to explore within this area. If used wisely, parametrics may help shape how we view a space.

Expressionism

In this week's history class, we went rocket fast through postmodernism. In my opinion, i thought we kind of went too fast but i understand that our classes were cut short. Today, i will be giving my opinion on Expressionism. Firstly, I think that Expressionism is too..debatable. I can't find the exact words to describe the era but i find that its too plain. I understand that they took "form follows function" literally, and made buildings in shapes of ducks and fish, while the inside of the building sells...duck- which is understandable, since ordinary people who have no basics in architecture would completely understand. But in my opinion, i think that it's too literal. There should be more function to a duck building than looking like a duck. Otherwise, if all the buildings look like their literal function, then there would be no point of an architect or a designer. Although, i do admit that these buildings are more photogenic than other buildings, i still think it's a little bit leaning towards the shallow end of solving things.

Complexity and Contradiction in Architecture

In this week's blog, i'm going to discuss about "Complexity and Contradiction in Architecture" by Robert Venturi. We had to read this in class a few weeks back and i made myself a mindmap (again) so i could understand the connections better. Basically, from the text we read, we discussed the difference between complex and complicated. We distinguish that complicated does not mean complex. However, something pure and simple can also be complex. In the text, complex is something that Orthodox Modern architects do not want. In my opinion, they were so focuses on starting new and fresh that they wanted something completely radical so they don't focus their works on complexity. So here it is!

Playtime by Jacques Tati

In class this week, we look at a film by Jacques Tati, Playtime. As this is a history of architecture class, i shall attempt to analyze the film through an architect's eye. Although we did not get a chance to see the whole film, the beginning parts of the movie already gave us an overview idea of what Tati was trying to express. The film starts out in the airport. Already, the first shot was a big glass building (1). This building, although seemed futuristic at that time, would soon become an ordinary office-building nowadays. High rise buildings with pure glass facades and metal framing is quite ordinary in Bangkok. As you can see, there is not unique or distinguishing features in this building that could possible set apart with other buildings. While in the airport, we are introduced with a tour group of American ladies arriving in Paris (2). Already, one can see how everyone looks similar and is very conformed. We are then introduced to a character, Barbara, who is part of the tour group but views things differently than the others. Instead of taking noticing attractions, she notices little things that are ordinary or out of place. The tour guide then showed the ladies to a shopping complex-like places where new gadgets are being sold. Here we see that the buildings all look similar, very modernistic (3). We are also introduced to monsieur Hulot at the office building. He is then led to an all-sided glass room with this barcelona chair-like quality (4). What is amusing with this chair, is once seated the chair is foam-like and will take its original shape. Here i can really see that Tati is making fun of the modernist. Then the scenes of the cubical is displayed where everyone has their own little cubical (5). They all look the same and again, shows the idea of conformity within modernism. Ironically, it looks like how cubicles are today in offices. The final scene we saw was the shopping complex (6). In it, Tati really makes fun of modernism by showing a door that slams "in golden silence". I find this very entertaining and Tati really points out the obvious to people. Another amusing footage i find in this film is when Barbara sees posters of places around the world with the same building in it (7). Tati had went over and beyond what is necessary to point out that Modernism is universal and that it should (or shouldn't) be the main attraction of a place.

Furniture for workers? For real?

In this week's lecture, still referring to "From Bauhaus To Our House", we discussed about Mies van der Rohe. He was the avant-garde modernist architect who had visions of high rise buildings erected up with a pure glass facade. This was considered radical at that time. Mies was also responsible for designing the world renown barcelona chair which I find quite ironic. This was one of the architects from Bauhaus who believed in designing for the non bourgeois. Up to this point, a "Knolls" barcelona chair is worth from 150,000 - 200,000 ish Thai Baht! How could the non bourgeois afford this? Anyone who can bear the expense of this chair would definitely be in the bourgeois class. A barcelona chair is expensive and also difficult to mass produce which contradicts his goal of creating for the non bourgeois. Owning a barcelona chair is like you're not buying a 'chair' but buying a piece of history -an icon of modern living.

The barcelona chair was actually designed for the king and queen of Spain who visited the Barcelona Pavillion. From the articles i've read, the barcelona chair is considered quite uncomfortable - not the type of chair one would sit and watch TV for hours with.

Although I disapprove of Mies designing their chair with an aim to mass produce and sell to the non bourgeois class, I do give him credit for his design. The chair, in my opinion, is like a Mac product. The chair is designed to be exactly what it is - its function is displayed. There is no ornament or fancy decorations within the design. Chairs now-a-days is in all sorts of shape and forms with miscellaneous things hanging out of it. Most would not only function as a seating place but also have extra functions such as arm rests, cup holders, or foot rests. In my opinion, I think in today's world, we lack this kind of simplicity. Maybe if we are able to balance Mies' view and what we need to accommodate a chair today, we might come up with a good design concept.

Villa Savoye's Analysis :D

From last week's history of architecture class, we discussed mainly about Le

Corbusier. Lucky for me, i'm already doing Villa Savoye by Le Corbusier for my

design studio class. So in today's blog, i will be posting my analysis of Villa Savoye,

touching on the key points about:

- circulation

- main axis

- symmetry

- public and private areas

- served and service areas

- solid and void

- geometry

- rhythm

- movement

- material

An Architectural Standpoint of Metropolis

In this week History of Architecture class, we continued our study on 'from Bauhaus to Our House' along with watching the first part of Metropolis. This silent film by Fritz Lang conveys an allegory between man and machine. One interesting way to approach this movie is through analyzing it in an architectural perspective. From here on, i will be looking into different scenes and attempting to analyze its space based on mainly my own interpretation and my previous knowledge of architectural history.

Metropolis starts off with images of machine-like structure operating. Engines and steam engines, along with a clock is portrayed repetitively. One of my first reaction to these images reminded me of factories and mass production. From then, it takes us into a subway-like tunnel where we see workers changing shifts. (1) Obviously, the film is representing the industrial age. Workers in the film are organized and walking like they are in jail. They all wear the same outfits, very non bourgeois, have similar haircuts, and are not very happy with what they are doing :( (2) This could be related to the theme of an 'average man' where things would be design for one universal man. For example, one might design a free-size shirt that would fit everyone rather than having design xs, s, m ,l and xl sizes. (3) The next shot shows the worker's house which is still underground. All the houses are the same, having only the necessary windows and doors. No decoration or any type of ornamentation is seen on the building facade at all. (4) While the workers are changing shifts, the shot is redirected to ground level, where a complex called "Club of the Sons" is holding a running race. With this, we see that they are wealthy and educated. The walls in the background shot is massive and unrealistically portrayed. On top are statues of humans in motion which can relate back to Greek statues. Next to the oversize wall is a coliseum-like building where it has influences mainly from Greece Architectural Style. Buildings such as the Parthenon and this complex, for me, represents wealth, order, and power. The two shots of the worker's housing and the complex contrasts dramatically. In my opinion, Lang place the two scenarios together to differentiate between classes. The bourgeois and the non bourgeois.

The next scene cuts of to introduce the main character, Freder in the 'Eternal Garden' (5). His father owned the city and he lives in his own little bubble where he has never worked a day in his life. The garden is very organic, filled with trees and exotic looking plants. Although no buildings were shown, one can see that people who are allowed in are only the wealthy. While Freder is enjoying his party time, he is confronted with an anonymous girl whom he lusts over. She appeared from these two tall doors which contradicts with the garden completely. (6) The mysterious girl is then pulled back into the room and Freder barges in to find her. (7) It horrified him to see the factory that his father has built underground. In the factory, images of scary looking machines and workers distressing is shown (8) (9). Then one worker failed to handle the machine and it exploded. Freder then saw what looked like a gateway to hell. A huge staircase was erected up to a aztec looking opening. (11). The high-rise staircase makes the entrance very intimidating and the two steam engines makes the scene even more dramatic. The terrified Freder then took off to report what he saw to his father, Jon Fredersen. (12) The scene now changes to the outer world, where we see the top part of metropolis. Under all the factories and machines, there lies a 'modern' world on top. High rise buildings is seen everywhere along with mass produced cars and airplanes. (13). And in the middle of the city lies Jon Fredersen's building, the new Tower of Babel (14). Freder then intruded his father's work to inform him of the explosion inside the factory. His father was very calm, strict, and up tight. While he was listening to his son's story, he looked out towards his glass window and from then we see part of Lang's vision of the modern world. (15). After firing his assistant, Jon Fredersen ordered a spy to tail his son. He then also sets off to a small, mysterious looking house in the middle of the city. (16). Inside, Rotwang the scientist was creating a robot. (17) His house was filled with unique designs such as a spiraling staircase and weird looking telescopes (18)

The scene cuts back to Freder, where he traded places with a worker and worked a 10 hour shift. He was in charge of the time and was struggling to keep the machine working properly. (19) After the shift ended, the workers all followed a map deep underground into the catacomb where he meets the mysterious lady he was searching. The underground secretive room appears as a cave. (20) The mysterious woman was dressed in all white, symbolizing purity, while standing on a stage with crosses in the background. It could have been a graveyard.

We stopped around this part of the movie so i am going to finish my analysis here. In summary, what i found to be themes in this movie is the relationship between man and machine. How Rotwang decided to create a robot to be human like and how Jon Fredersen controls his human workers like machines. Also the there is a very strong theme of class between the bourgeois and the non bourgeois as well.