Studio Process: Future City_03_Interpreting the data

Houston

Over the past week we have been reading articles, collecting information and looking for interesting points we can base a project around. For myself, I started thinking about how we move, communicate, how technology will evolve and how all of these topics will come together. On the first day, I made about four different topics of interests. The topics included: how we build, how we move, how we interact and how we work.

How do we build?
The first topic dealt with Houston's history with flooding and a part of global warming. I think many of my peers remember how badly Houston kept flooding in the 90's. Or maybe it just seemed like a huge deal because I was so young, but looking back I just remember playing in my flooded backyard. I digress. Looking at maps that predicted where the flood line would be if our icecaps melted showed the Gulf of Mexico would be well into Texas and knocking at the door of our hill country. Texas being Texas, most of our coast is relatively flat. There wouldn't be much in the way to keep the gulf from coming inland. Anyway, I thought it would be cool if  there was a way for the city grid to float with the tide. As the water receded, the structures would stay in-place leaving room for more infrastructure. Next flood comes and lifts the city up, including the newer infrastructure, and the process would repeat itself. each city block would be independent from the rest of the grid as far as moving vertically. Well, that issue was quickly shot down after discussion. I realized that even if the block was independent from the rest of the blocks, they would all move at the same pace because.... Houston is flat.

How do we move?
I think most of us are aware that we're slowly moving towards having autonomous cars. We have the technology and we're executing on that technology. We can even go and purchase a car that can park itself with a press of a button. How do autonomous cars move? GPS. Last week I was driving home on an evening so rainy that I could barely see the lines on the road. I thought it would be cool if the 'dots' in the road could communicate with my car to keep me in my lane regardless of the weather conditions. I know there is a short stretch of highway that is completely filled with solar panels and other forms of technology. But, to do an entire highway or even a loop system would be insanely expensive. So, how about we shrink down from thinking about the entire road to thinking about those little 'traffic dots' that notify us when we're moving out of our lane. I figured the 'dots' could easily be integrating within the roadways, could communicate with each other, send data to the city, and can communicate with the vehicles. While this was really interesting and we are moving towards having 'smart' roads, this was shut down too because while very interesting perspective, these topics didn't create 'space' in the city.

I commute to school from quite a distance (30+ miles). I proposed an upgraded HOV lane that was able to have your autonomous car 'plug' into. Almost like a a hybrid of how we get onto a highway from the feeder and a train system. When you're commuting from a distance that takes more than twenty-minutes, you start to realize how much time you have wasted when you could have been working or doing something. I mean, how cool would it be to be able to write this blog from the comfort of my vehicle without having a worry? I'll continue with this topic later in this post.

How do we work?

Downtown Houston.

I think for anyone that has walked through downtown Houston, you might have noticed how many parking garages we have. About a third of downtown Houston is parking. What would happen to those parking garages if we no longer needed them? How would they change the city? Could we redesign those parking garages into livable or workable spaces? I think so! Why not? Then, I started integrating the 'ferry' system I mentioned above and what if I could design a system that takes the vehicles and was able to park or 'plug-in' into a spot in the work/living space. If you no longer need to drive your car, your car becomes an extension of your office. The car no longer becomes a vehicle, but a cell that takes on a completely different form. It would be able to enter the base of the structure and taken on a conveyor belt-like system that plugs into a small section of the workspace from x-amount of hours. Once you're finished you could unplug, ride the conveyor down and get on the rail to your next location. This would allow this 'parking space' to be used by another person for x-amount of hours. Meaning, that 'building' is continuously used. Normally, we all check out at 5-ish and the building stays empty from 5-8 the next day. Right now, just a thought.

How do we communicate?

Green: Parks, Pink: Parking garages (not showing parking lots), Red: Main St.

I think we all have dreams of a future city being highly dense. I listen to my classmates talk about high dense Singapore is or Hong Kong and how everyone is on their mobile device. Nobody pays attention to their world. They're more concerned with how many 'likes' they received or how a celebrity is living their life. I think with more of these technological opportunities, we become more and more unsocial. I mean, every time you step out of the door you see someone you have never seen before. And guess what? More likely than not is that you will never see that person again even if you live within a certain area. I proposed having an app that would silently collect data on each person you come within a certain amount of feet. You wouldn't get any notifications, but at the end of the day you could see how many people you have crossed paths with and if you have actually interacted with them before.

This app idea needed to manifest itself into a physical space to relate to the project. So, what if I proposed a certain area/s of downtown Houston to be free of technology. Like, once you enter this park, you are unable to use technology because you cannot get wifi or any other signals within this space. 


Conclusion
Out of these proposals; I have decided to integrate the physical park-like space without technology signals, the ferry-like transportation system that brings your 'cell' to the city and the redesign of the parking garage. The progress of the proposal consists of being able to ride this rail-like system to the city. Once downtown when you start approaching this 'technology free park space', you go underneath the park and are able to enter the parking building from the base of the building (Which is still underneath the park) and ride this conveyor system to your work/living space. Keep in mind the form of the 'car' will no longer resemble a car, but become a cell that once 'plugged-in' would become part of the aggregate that becomes the building. I hope that all made sense. It is still really early in concept and further development and decisions need to happen, but that's the beauty of the design. I want to keep main street as a tradition main street. I think that shouldn't change. Houston is desperately needing more of that traditional main street walkable environment. I am hopeful I can develop these parks that can aid to a more walkable main street.

I just wanted to show this is an image of a highway in Dallas that was sunk just so a park can be built above the highway. The Office of James Burnett

Studio Process: Future City_01_Architecture as the Infrastructure

Very dense morning fog. It was so eerie seeing people walking in the distance. They were like ghosts.

It is good to be back! There is always a certain energy in the building at the beginning of the semester, but just give it a week or two. As expected, It is the start of a new project and we're thrown right into the 'process'. Thankfully, it feels right on beat and very much of a smooth transition back into studio culture.

This semester the studio project has to deal with future cities. Future cities? Contemporary cities dealing with density and how these densely urban areas function, grow and impact our society. It is very much a visionary project with a goal being to re-think the city -- to imagine how the architecture of a bunch of individual structures begin to become so dense that their spatial overlaps begins to blur the line between being architecture and urban infrastructure.

Example:  Rome v. Las Vegas

Figure ground drawing of Rome

If we look at Rome, we notice how dense the city is and how the buildings are creating space. From the drawing you really cannot tell the front from the back. The pedestrians get more of an experience from the city because the city is literally having more to offer.

Figure ground drawing of Las Vegas

Now, look at Las Vegas. It doesn't take an architect (or an architecture major) to see Vegas is all about the strip. The infrastructure is making the city rather than the city making the infrastructure.

I think It will be beneficial for me to document my process. It allows me to recall and reinforce important topics discussed and It gives the you guys (the readers) my 'perspective' of a future city.  

"As the global population increases, out cities grow larger. This growth is accompanied by population and demographic changes, skyrocketing real-estate costs, sprawl, encroachment of green space, increased air and sound pollution, traffic standstills, and inadequate housing. Are our cities as efficient as they could be? There exists inefficiencies in spatial usage and spatial qualities within the urban fabric from abandoned buildings and lots to buildings that are empty for more than 12 hours a day. What if a city could adapt quickly to turn those inefficiencies into opportunities and find a new ideal state?"
-Winy Mas, The Why Factory

"Everything has been done before"

"Everything has been done before. You're not inventing anything new."

This was what was drilled into us the first two years of architecture school. Looking back, we were all so optimistic. We all thought we could come up with something different and revolutionary than what other students decades before us have done. We all had the same project, the same requirements, same materials. How the hell do I set myself apart from the 100 other students if we all have an equal start? Answer: craft and execution beat out the competition every time. You can't understand how beautiful a two-inch by two-inch cube of gray museum board can be while you're inches away and it looks like a perfect cube of clay. Hell, you couldn't even see shadows from the edges.

Once we were past the fundamentals, we began designing spaces for people to inhabit. We have complete freedom to create a concept and form an idea of what we would like the building to become. We begin rough sketches and begin researching projects. And that's the thing -- Why do we always research projects if we already have a general idea on what we want to design? On every project we research wall systems, structural systems, finished materials, shading devices and the list goes on and on. We look at built and unbuilt projects while documenting our precedents for reference. The oddest thing is when you have a clear concept of your building. You're sure there is nothing in the world like what you're thinking and you find the EXACT same idea during your precedent research. Oh, and it is built too... multiple times... by totally different firms... oooon totally different projects. But, why do we still do research? Because that's how we learn as individuals. We all learn by copying what someone else has already done and apply it to our own use. Doesn't matter if it is architecture or business or science. We copy because what we copy is a proof of concept. It has been successful before and, if applied correctly, should yield successful results.

If everyone is copying everyone else, wouldn't everyone end up with the same result? No! Unless there are very specific guideline and steps to follow. Like performing an experiment. Referring back to what I learned in first-year architecture -- It doesn't matter how equal our materials and projects are, the defining factors are craft and execution. It is funny how common similar concepts come-up in architecture. I remember one semester three people in the same studio had the exact same concept, program and site. Guess what! All three of them had very different outcomes.

So how does copying lead to something different? We all contribute to the development of a discipline. On my most recent project, I needed to design a shading system. I did a decent amount of precedent research and found dozens of examples for what I wanted to execute, but the finished materials were different and I had to tweak the form of the shading device. Also, I had to figure out how to connect the shading device to building while staying within the language of the architecture.

I used to think, "how could I ever create something new and different if all I"m doing is looking at precedents?" How could I have a different thought if I'm looking at other peoples ideas? If anything, you become a more well-rounded person the more you expose yourself to different methods, technologies and even culture. You're able to grab your 'bag of tricks' to help you distinguish your work and yourself from others. You have to be able to research, document and put your own spin on an idea. Otherwise, you're just plagiarizing.

Behind the Design: Name

If you guys haven't noticed, the name of this blog, Section Perspective, is taken from a drawing I learned about in architecture school. A section perspective is meant to give you a 3-d visual of an object with a cutaway section to show the space within the object. A section perspective is meant to give you a general understanding of whats going on within the object. In the case of this blog, I strive to give my readers an understanding of selected topics. 

Now would probably be a good a time as any you give you a little info about me, right? I am in the final year and a half of architecture school (5-year professional degree). Architecture school really beats you down the first couple of years. If you can't learn time management within the first year, It is going to suck the rest of the 4-years (if you decide to stay) and a very intense, performance-based education. During the semester, I usually wake-up around 3 or 3:30-ish (a.m.) to get to studio around 4-ish and I stay until 6pm. That's my routine twice a week which, and in all honesty, ain't half bad. I've seen my fair share of blood, sweat and of tears throughout the years along with the constant fear of not being able to make a deadline.

Sunrise from my studio desk

  The video above is a great little documentary about architecture school. I don't think the documentary was as good as I was hoping it would be, but it gives the viewers a glimpse of what architecture students go through during their academic career.