 |
José Rafael Moneo Professor Department of Architecture |
Studio Options
|
Exploring Methodologies During the sixties, methodology was a fundamental aspect of architectural education. Everything gravitated around method, which meant that architects were explicit about how their buildings were conceived. And, obviously, this attention to the "how to do" implied a clear attitude towards architectural theory. In a rather ingenious way, late functionalism reduced architecture to the construction of objects that developed solely from interpretations of program and constructive systems. Architects following this movement based their work on program building techniques, seeking to establish a "method" for their interpretation and application of these essential ingredients. They gave form to the architectural object with the use of a contemporary language, allowing them to proceed towards whatever specific design. Today, architects approach design without a loyalty towards, or even an awareness of a particular theoretical approach and, as a consequence, with no clear idea of design methodology. Every approach relies on a method and behind any design there are the traces of certain design principles. Students considered two different sites and, after selecting one, they proposed an alternate building to substitute the existing one. Both buildings were on the Harvard Campus, and the students designed the new buildings to serve the same program and provide a comparable program area. The two buildings were quite different, regardless of the fact that they were department buildings in relative proximity. One was the Music Department, a building that was the result of several additions, containing auditoriums, rehearsal rooms, classrooms, a library, and offices. The other was the Social Science Center tower—a Yamasaki work—built to serve a large department. The purpose of this studio option was to be a reflection—or better, an introspection—on each student’s approach, conscious or unconscious, to design. Three new skyscrapers in Boston or high-rise
buildings on the Boston skyline
The optimism the new economy has brought all over the world seems to have affected architecture in cities with the construction of many new skyscrapers. First, Asia began with new skyscrapers in many major cities, culminating with the construction of the Petronas in Kuala Lumpur; later came Europe and Australia. The downtowns of London and Sidney have been the settings for different attempts to add new high-rise buildings to their skyline. Finally, the trend reached the United States, most visibly with the competition last summer for The New York Times in Manhattan. This studio explored the newly-emerging trend. By considering three existing Boston skyscrapers and offering some alternatives to them, students discussed structure, massing, code limitations, technology, symbolic formal values, urban context, ecology and, last but certainly not least, the skin, which today is such a crucial aspect of a skyscraper. Each student built a 1/32” model of their selected skyscrapers. They developed the project up to a level of schematic drawings, providing all the requisite graphic information required to understand their proposal. Model ranges consisted of 1/32” for site documentation, and 1/16” or 1/20” for the plans and the volumetric aspects of the building. Each student also constructed a 1/32” model of the three skyscrapers together. By working on existing buildings, this studio incorporated a study of architectural trends of the last thirty years, and forced the class to anticipate some of the problems implicit in the architecture of the near future. A New Building for the Graduate Business
School of the University of Chicago
The design of the Graduate School of Business Administration for the University of Chicago provides the opportunity to reflect upon the limits that we impose on ourselves when working in a dense built atmosphere, in this case the campus of the University of Chicago, a site with such distinguished neighbors as the Robie House and the Rockefeller Chapel. The program is a complex one: a building for the Graduate Business School. A very large faculty lives in close proximity to the students and keeps contact with the alumni as well as with representatives of the corporations that are hiring recent graduates. The small scale of the private offices coexists with the larger scale of the lecture halls and other facilities. This large and complex program has to be placed on a beautiful piece of land after first tearing down an existing building to make room for the new Graduate School. In spite of the fact that architects today try to ignore context and build without feeling the pressure of the world around them, the fact is—and I experienced this when participating in a restricted competition for this site—people care more than they seem to think they do about a previously existing space, as is the case with this block at the University of Chicago campus. Why, when, and how do those architects who claim to be unconcerned with the surrounding architectural work consistently fail to pay attention to it when they consider a site like this one? To ignore the frame in which we work is more difficult than we think it is. Our work is almost inevitably framed. This was the important question posed by this interesting design problem. Single-Family House in the Suburbs of
Cambridge
A single-family house in the suburbs of Cambridge, providing for parents, three teenaged children, a small guest room, hobby room, garage, etc., was the subject of this studio. The design of a single-family house appears to be a simple architectural problem and, yet, to design a house is not as easy as it may first seem. The project required a continuous reflection about personal beliefs, both aesthetic and ideological. As a matter of fact, in order to decide which architectural language to utilize implied profound examination of our lives and established a serious commitment with our peers, by offering them the image of how we would like to live. To connect personal insight and feelings with a specific architectural expression is a daring subject for any architect and I see no better way than exploring the always alive subject of the single-family house. Furthermore, the single family-house provides the opportunity of fulfilling the design experience in a complete way by covering both the scale of the inhabitant and of the entire house. The single-family house asks for the design of the interior, something that is often neglected in school, regardless of the fact that it is one of the most challenging experiences of an architectural practice. Construction issues, as well as the need to address the idea of comfort, are also at stake with this particular subject, and it is my belief that to be aware of these issues is quite important to the architectural experience. Without forcing updated research of the subject, the single-family house conveys a wonderful focus for studying 20th-century architectural developments. This studio asked the student to select the houses of his or her choice from three time periods between the wars, from 1945 to the oil crisis, and from the early 1970s to the end of the century. Such a choice allowed us to jointly analyze a valuable group of 36 houses, with the aim of allowing the students to identify their own architectural affinities. To be aware of one’s location in the architectural culture is a condition that, in my view, is very important. The student played the role of client and the site was an area to be chosen in the suburbs of Cambridge. The End of the Building Design Process
This studio focused on the last steps of the design process. We are accustomed to working by proceeding from an architecturally abstract definition that directly suggests a structural solution. It seems this salient structure finally prevails and it becomes the dominant way of thinking about architecture after Modernism. And yet, with the perspective of a practicing professional, one realizes how much the finishing of buildings requires of an architect. In "dressing" the naked structure of the building, one confronts many problems, among them the very important issue of the definition of indoor and outdoor.
The studio took an undeveloped building: Louis Kahn's beautiful proposal for a Congress Hall for Venice, Italy. I hoped that the students would not be intimidated by assuming the work of such a gifted architect. The project could be understood as a valuable tool to help us advance the definitive aspects of a building. We were not looking for the missing Kahn building. Given the structure of his proposal, we proceeded to define the architecture of a final design for another building. We experienced precisely how much buildings lack definition until they are designed with respect to entrances, doors, walls, ceilings, lights, appliances, colors, etc. Precision in design is an essential characteristic of all architecture. Through this process we saw how open to definition architecture remains in spite of the structural strength of the existing proposal. The studio helped us understand which features of a building define its architecture. The different scale of these features had to be carefully understood in order to combine them in a final architectural proposal. This experience had remarkable results considering the value of the structure from which we started, and the requirements of the program. Studio Website An American Embassy
in Berlin
Addition versus Demolition:
American downtowns originally derived from previously existing urban patterns: they describe the pressure of urban forces and randomness as it becomes a structural factor. But not all the patterns receive the building fabric in the same way. American downtowns are quite different and the intention of this studio was to analyze them. Our focus was centered on downtown Boston. Downtown Boston reveals a peculiar condition. It isn't based on a grid pattern, instead, it follows the old Boston Street pattern which descends more from the medieval idea of a town than that of the Enlightenment. The result is a rather awkward downtown. The studio considered the logic behind downtown Boston and explored the means with which to transform it. I proposed that each student select an area large enough to be conspicuous in the downtown as a whole and to add a volume not less than 15,000,000 cubic feet and not greater than 30,000,000 cubic feet. The height of the building(s) should not exceed 600 feet. The studio raised issues about planning through volumetric considerations, randomness versus planning, the value of program, the influence of the grid pattern, the effectiveness of a single building versus an ensemble, etc. Students started analyzing downtown Boston as a whole, establishing a proposition with another city downtown and selecting a site. Afterwards, students wrote proposals of their project, established a program and ultimately developed it. Final presentations included a range of scales from 1:200 to 1:16. A New House for Harvard
College
This studio tried to examine the relationship between institutions and architecture by working on an institution well known to the students: this studio examined a house for students at Harvard University. Universities have been one of the most valuable social inventions in this country. They occupy the place of other institutions in the life of European society and indeed they are one of the most desired affiliations for an American in his or her entire life. How to lodge students was always crucial for defining the physical appearance of this kind of institution. Colleges were determinant in defining the face of old European universities and they have played a very important role in defining the face of Harvard. What is the end-of-the-century image of a new House at Harvard? What does a House mean today? What should be the agenda in the framework of the entire university? This studio looked for these answers. Students were asked to identify a place to locate his/her project. The choice of the site was crucial and allowed us to examine the entire set of the building of the campus as well as to advance our ideas on the agenda for a House today. The first two weeks were dedicated to this endeavor. Later the studio moved forward into developing the project as accurately as possible. For the intermediate review students submitted to the juries models and drawings showing answers to the problems of the urban setting. For the final review students were asked for a detailed set of drawings and models. Studio
In 1991, the architecture firm Hilmer & Sattler won a competition convoked by the Berlin civic authorities for the purpose of putting forth alternatives to the organization of the area surrounding Potsdamer Platz. The area planned by the firm was later subdivided by the city of Berlin. The subdivided zones were then granted to select private organizations which were entrusted with their development. One of these sectors was transferred to the Daimler Benz Corporation, and in the spring of 1992 this group invited fifteen architects to present proposals for the development and design of the zone for which they were responsible. The competition convened called for a program that—respecting the directives and volumes set out by Hilmer & Sattler—contained proposals for offices, commerce, tourist facilities, a theater, and housing.
An analysis of the fifteen proposals submitted to the competition, detailed information of which was provided to the student, formed the foundation of this studio option. The first task presented to the student was an examination of the participants' diverse responses to the competition requirements, with the aim of effecting an analysis of the theoretical postures grounding each of the fifteen project proposals. Based on their own individual criterion, each student selected one proposal which s/he employed as the substructure of the project that evolved in this studio, with an accompanying reasoned explanation as to the selection. The second task the studio set out for the student was the design and development of one of the elements contained in the required program: offices, commerce, a theater, hotel, or housing, within the project they selected. The student was at total liberty to elect whichever element s/he wanted to elaborate, with the essential requirement that s/he was ultimately asked to demonstrate how the proposal fit into the program outline and the project selected.
The objectives pursued in this studio were the following:
|
