Entri Populer

Jumat, 31 Desember 2010

MG Taylor Philosophy and Practice of Architecture

The Fourth Domain of the 7 Domains® Model is Environment. One of the MG Taylor maxims is, "structure wins." This applies in particular to the field of architecture and the work and living environments created through that art and science. Most organizational transformation is doomed from the outset because the culture represented by the built environment reinforces an old way of work and thought, and inhibits the expression of collaborative group genius and individual excellence as well. Or, the breadth and depth of the design is severely attenuated through misunderstanding the fact that architecture mirrors and creates the human condition. So if we design and inhabit corporate ghettos, palaces or fortresses, we can expect to reinforce behaviors that coincide with these forms. The Transition Manager must cultivate an incisive understanding of how the physical environment promotes or thwarts the goals and vision of the transformation--the organization's ability to continuously respond to and create change in a healthy way. He or she must add to that a strategic capacity to facilitate the recreation of the environment so that it aligns with and enables the vision.
Further comments by the editor are indicated in maroon italics.

Meaning and Attributes of Architecture
Architecture is the objectification of the values humans hold essential to living: these values are made concrete by building and using the structures that form our environment.
Architecture has three attributes. (An attribute is that which is essential to a system--without which the system either ceases to be or becomes something else.) It shelters a human's life; produces an efficient arrangement of space and utilities; and expresses the best of human life (the values that make life possible and worth while).
Architecture distinguishes between existence and living. The attributes of shelter and arrangement are primarily utilitarian. The attribute of expression is primarily aesthetic. All three must be harmoniously integrated, one with the other.
Architecture is created by transforming problems of shelter and arrangement into the expression of an explicit lifestyle, aesthetically practicing specific values. Utilitarian concerns--bricks, boards, aluminum, glass, steel--are the medium of the architectural art.
Architecture is the sound track to a person's life; expressing, leading, teaching, sometimes pushing--generally providing embellishment, highlight, focus, punctuation to that life and its meaning.
The three attributes must be in harmony, but they do exist in a natural hierarchy. The structure, or shelter, may allow a few feet one way or another and still properly shelter. Arrangement may allow a few inches (for most concerns) and still be efficient. Expression is usually a hairline concern: aesthetics is the fine tuning of the system.
The function of architecture is to create a proper environment for human beings according to their nature as a race, and as individuals. To function, architecture must be an expression of life, as well as a shelter for it. In a masterpiece work, one can find no element that does not reflect all three attributes of architecture as one.
The Way of Life
Lifestyle and use is the basis of all architectural theory and practice. In art, the artist eliminates the insignificant by focusing on what is important (to the artist). The art of architecture allows nothing to become unimportant by making every action within the environment an act of living art. This is done by expressing the essence of those values deemed important to life in concrete form, and by practicing those values through creative ritual and ceremony.
Architecture and the architect are not only expressing the values of a culture but creating the physical environment that alters, reinforces, expands or negates those values.
Architectural philosophy cannot start with design philosophy but must constantly address the focus: what is (can be) a human be-ing; what is (are) the proper life styles for human beings?
Great architecture is a self-aware process.
Scope of Architectural Concerns
An architect (master builder) "controls" all five areas [of the diagram shown below]. The traditional architectural practice deals primarily with 2 and 3 [design solution and contract documents], and has some minor involvement with 4 [construction and fabrication], and very rarely with 5 [lifestyle and use].

The design solution is usually controlled by the developer and/or the patron. It's also controlled directly by laws, rules, taxes, and social traditions. The typical architect is in fact an architectural designer.
For real architecture to be produced, a comprehensive synthesis must exist between these five areas, tying the specialties together to form a unique system, and close the whole cycle.

Kamis, 30 Desember 2010

Karya Pembaharu Arsitektur Perancis Dipamerkan di Surabaya

SURABAYA, SELASA - Mengakhiri agenda kegiatan sepanjang tahun 2008, Pusat Kebudayaan Perancis Surabaya mengusung karya seni arsitektur ciptaan Odile Decq, sang arsitek pembaharu asal Perancis. Semua itu terangkai dalam pameran seni arsitektur bertajuk Macro Micro, 9-19 Desember, di Ruang Galeri CCCL (Pusat Kebudayaan Perancis), Surabaya.

Karya arsitek perempuan kelahiran Perancis, 1955, itu dihadirkan dalam bentuk rekaman audio-visual, berupa hasil rancang bangun dalam sentuhan seni arsitektur yang bisa disaksikan dalam empat layar monitor televisi yang dipasang di ruang galeri CCCL.

Dari empat layar monitor televisi, itu apresian seni, khususnya penikmat dan pemerhati karya seni arsitektur, dapat mencermati serangkaian karya seni arsitektur modern- kontemporer yang cukup menarik sebagai sumber inspirasi dalam menghadirkan rancang bangun sebuah bangunan yang mempertimbangkan aspek estetik dan artistik bercitarasa seni.

Dari layar monitor yang berada di sisi kiri, pengunjung pameran dapat menikmati sekaligus mengapresiasi sebuah rekaman audio-visual bangunan super megah karya sang arsitekt perempuan asal negerinya sang aktor kenamaan, Alain Delon tersebut.

Museum Seni Kontemporer Roma, Italia (2001-2005), adalah salah satu karya sang arsitekt yang dinegerinya disebut-sebut sebagai pembaharu dalam rancang bangun seni arsitektur bergaya avant garde, dan menjadi inspirator kalangan arsitek generasi muda Perancis, itu tidak saja dikenal di negerinya, melainkan pula negara-negara lain.

Realitas itu tersirat dalam sejumlah karya seni arsitekturnya yang sekarang ini menghiasi beberapa negara, selain di kota Roma dengan wujud bangunan megah bernama Museum for Contemporary Art in Roma, Italy tersebut, terdapat pula bangunan Science Reasech Gallery, Wiena, Austria (2001), serta bangunan Ireland Nasional Gallery, Dublin, Irlandia (1996) hasil cipta karyanya.

Direktur CCCL Surabaya Christian Goujac, didampingi Pramenda Krishna, kepada wartawan menyatakan, bahwa Odile Decq sebagai arsitektur masa depan Perancis tidak saja membawa perubahan baru dalam seni arsitektur modern-kontemporer, melainkan pula sumber inspirasi generasi arsitek sekarang ini, khususnya di negara Perancis sendiri.

"Karya arsitektur Odile Decq ini berbeda dengan dengan yang lain, karena karyanya merupakan evolusi gaya arsitektur Perancis abad XII," katanya.

Dikatakan, sebagai perempuan pertama yang membawa trend baru, Odile Decq tidak sekadar mengedepankan fungsi, tapi juga tata artistiknya dalam sebuah bangunan, termasuk dalam rancang bangun rumah tahanan (Lembaga Pemasyarataan-red) maupun rumah sakit.

"Dia tidak hanya mempertimbangkan fungsinya, tapi juga artistiknya, sehingga rasa keindahannya bisa dinikmati," katanya.

Christian Goujac mengatakan, dalam penataan rancang bangunan stasiun kereta bawah tanah Station Metro Franklin D Roselvelt (1999) Paris, Perancis, tampak lorong-lorong bawah tanah yang dirancang sedemikian rupa dengan mempertimbangkan sentuhan artistik. Dengan demikian, pengguna kereta bisa menikmati keindahan yang terdapat pada sisi kiri maupun kanan lorong stasiun kereta bawah tanah tersebut. 

"Keindahan lorong-lorong bawah tanah stasiun Metro bisa dirasakan oleh pengguna kereta bawah tanah," kata Christian Goujac, sambil menunjuk layar monitor televisi yang menampilkan rekaman audio-visual seputar hasil rancang bangun arsitektur Station Metro, Paris, karya arsitek Odile Decq. (TIF)   

20 Buildings that are Architectural Masterpieces

Feb 25th, 2010Here’s 20 weird and wild buildings that will make you wonder, how did they build that and why. I can’t imagine the architecture that went into these, or the contractors that said you want to do what…

All images are real to our knowledge, none have been “photoshopped”.
buildings1
buildings2
buildings3
buildings4
buildings5
buildings6
buildings7
buildings8
buildings9
buildings10
buildings11
buildings12
buildings13
buildings14
buildings15
buildings16
buildings17
buildings18
buildings19
buildings20
The word Architecture may reference a process, a profession or documentation. For a process, architecture would be the activity of designing and constructing structures by a person or even a computer, largely to provide shelter. As a profession, architecture is the role of people or machines offering architectural services. As documentation, generally based on drawings, architecture defines the structure and/or behavior of the building or any kind of system that will be or has already been constructed.
In the late 20th century countless new concepts were included in the compass of both structure and purpose. Today, prior to performing any actions we look ahead and keep the future in mind. The same is applicable in Architecture as well.
For some to restrict the meaning of (architectural) formalism to art for art’s sake isn’t just reactionary; this may also be described as a purposeless pursuit of perfection or creativity which in turn degrades form into a mere instrumentality.
Some of the philosophies which have influenced modern day architects and their approach to building design tend to be rationalism, empiricism, structuralism, poststructuralism, and phenomenology.
On the difference between the ideals of “architecture” and simple “construction”, the famous 20th C. architect Le Corbusier wrote: “You employ stone, wood, and concrete, and with these materials you build houses and palaces: that is construction. Ingenuity is at work. But suddenly you touch my heart, you do me good. I am happy and I say: This is beautiful. That is Architecture”.
The buildings above were designed by architects with many years of experience, some at the request of a client, others just to see if they could. Most of the time architecture designing is at the desire of the client and very restrictive, however there are times where you get a client that lets you be free and then the world of ideas come flooding into your brain, out through your hands and into your design.

my aspiration: Good Architect

my aspiration: Good Architect: "Good architects ... make things simple. are outstanding communicators. are honest about what they know, humble about what they can do..."

Good Architect

Good architects ...
  • make things simple.
  • are outstanding communicators.
  • are honest about what they know, humble about what they can do.
  • are FearlessLeaders
  • can be recognised by asking them this question:
Can you change your architecture? If they are defensive about their models, spend a lot of time explaing how smart they are, and how their models are correct - they are a BadArchitect. A GoodArchitect smiles, and asks how would can we improve this?
  • don't get attached to their models.
  • know that architecture is about technology and people not just the system but the environment.
  • have not just knowledge but actual experience building systems. A lot of experience.
  • are generalists rather than specialists
  • imagine
  • embrace change
  • are agnostic about technology
  • are risk entrepreneurs

Building a masterpiece: the Sydney Opera House by Anne Watson



House
A new book from Powerhouse Publishing offers a unique account of the Sydney Opera House and is essential reading for anyone looking for a fresh insight into the complex history of this iconic building. The following excerpt is the introductory essay to the book, by Anne Watson (Ed.)
The project that generated this book was conceived as a 50th anniversary celebration of the competition for a 'national opera house' in Sydney — the start of it all! The year 2006 marks half a century since the NSW Government launched the competition early in 1956 to give Sydney a music and performance centre. It was during 1956 that the 38-year-old Jørn Utzon created the designs for his visionary building in his modest office in Hellebæk, Denmark. And it was at the end of 1956 that he packed up his 12 drawings and sent them off to Sydney. Allocated the sequential number 218, Utzon's entry was one of the last in before the competition closed on 3 December 1956. Less than two months later scheme number 218 was pronounced the winner, and the story of Australian architecture entered a new trajectory.

While Utzon and over 200 other architects were completing their competition schemes in 1956, Melbourne was hosting Australia's first-ever Olympic Games. Staged in November, the Melbourne Olympics drew world attention to a country not otherwise much in the news and contributed significantly to the nation's growing post-war confidence and its sense of place in the international community. On a local level it is tempting to speculate that, in the time-honoured spirit of rivalry between Melbourne and Sydney, part of NSW Premier J J Cahill's motivation in initiating the competition was to regain ground lost to Melbourne when it won the Olympic bid.

Whatever the repercussions of the Olympics, the mid 1950s were pivotal years for Australia's future. An expanding post-war economy was fuelled by unprecedented levels of immigration from Europe, an injection of 'New Australians' who were to change the face of the country's society and culture. Many were to get jobs as construction workers on the Opera House during the 1960s, for some a defining experience that helped secure their attachment to their adopted country.

While emigrant construction workers were helping to build Australian cities, emigrant architects and designers were beginning to make their presence felt on a more modest scale. Architects like Harry Seidler, Henry Epstein, George Molnar and Peter Kollar brought from Europe and America important modernist design concepts that reinvigorated Sydney architecture in particular. Significantly, a high proportion of these architects were sufficiently attracted by the challenges of the opera house competition to submit entries. Kollar (with fellow Hungarian Balthazar Korab) and Seidler’s schemes were among the 14 entries commended by the competition judges. Not surprisingly perhaps, it was these very same architects who vigorously and publicly championed Utzon in the bitter aftermath of his 'resignation' from the Opera House project early in 1966. At stake was not just the future of the great building, but the issue of creative integrity, traditionally respected in Europe, often abused and misunderstood in Australia.

Sydney's European émigré architects would also have been well aware of the crossroads that international architecture had reached by the mid 1950s. Glass-box modernism, dominant for the last 30 years, was under threat from a new, more humanist design language that embraced expressionism and challenged Mies van der Rohe’s axiomatic 'less is more'. Peter Kollar alluded to the debate in his review of the exhibition of the opera house competition entries early in 1957 and was one of the first local architectural writers to recognise Utzon's winning design as an important statement in the newly-liberated design language.

Much has been made of the 'unexpectedly' imaginative and daring choice of the four competition judges early in 1957. In the 1950s Sydney was barely on the architectural map — yet clearly international and locally-generated social and cultural changes were beginning to stir things up. If nothing else, Utzon's opera house was a precocious signal of the dawn of a new era for Australian society, a beginning we are still reaping the benefits of today. Perhaps our 'connectedness' with this beginning has contributed to our continuing regard for and attachment to this timeless building, an enduring admiration that also recognises it as a building far in advance of its time.

The competition of 1956 was the point of departure for this book, but it is only the first chapter in the long and dramatic story of the construction of the Sydney Opera House. Jørn Utzon's career, the unfolding architectural narrative of the building and its place in the history of architecture have been broadly documented in a range of publications. But any great feat of imagination and ingenuity generates sub-plots, and the Opera House, perhaps more than any other twentieth-century structure of its stature, has generated a lot. It is the many untold layers of this story that Building a masterpiece explores. These are the stories of the individuals whose careers were made or broken by the Opera House, the companies whose reputations were secured through their association with the building, and the innovative technologies and methodologies developed to meet the demands of its unprecedented design and challenging construction. Extending outwards, these narratives are closely intertwined with Sydney's social fabric; the workers who built the Opera House, the politicians, architects and members of the public who championed it and its often beleaguered architect — and those who found its design simply incomprehensible and its foreign architect just too unorthodox.

Even before construction started in 1959 the Opera House had directly or indirectly affected the lives and careers of a number of individual players. Utzon's life, of course, would be changed forever. It is unlikely H Ingham Ashworth would be remembered today for anything but his modest achievements as an academic if it were not for his role as chairman of the competition jury and, later, his long-term chairmanship of the Opera House Technical Advisory Panel. And Hungarian-born George Molnar, one of Sydney's most incisive and gifted cartoonists, literally cut his cartoonist teeth on the political and design issues surrounding the competition for an opera house in the mid 1950s. For Robert Geddes, one of the team of seven
American architects placed second in the competition — and a contributing author to this book — the opera house competition provided an early career opportunity to test collaborative working ideals he continues to advocate to this day.

In the late 1950s and early 1960s, as the curves of the Opera House shells were drawn and redrawn and as construction got underway, young engineers like Jack Zunz, John Nutt and Peter Rice of Ove Arup & Partners, and Corbet Gore of the building contractor M R Hornibrook, were inducted into new areas of intensive technical investigation and testing that subsequently shaped the direction of their careers. Hornibrook's David Evans, barely finished his engineering degree, virtually taught himself how to write computer programs on the Opera House job and went on to work in America with Doug Engelbart, inventor of the computer mouse. Arup's Michael Elphick and Hornibrook's Ron Bergin started on the surveying team, found their mathematical skills were indispensable, and went on to pursue highly successful careers in information technology and engineering.

Nick Karantzis, newly arrived from Greece, started as a rigger on the Opera House and ended up as deputy stage manager in the 1980s. For Hornibrook project superintendent Bob Wood, the Opera House building site was a family affair; he and four of his five children worked on the site in varying capacities during the 1960s. It was to Bob Wood that Utzon memorably inscribed a section of timber, promising not to conceal the concrete surfaces that he, Utzon, insisted be perfectly finished. And it was Bob Wood whose beloved Mini-Cooper was spectacularly hoisted by crane above the untiled Opera House shells in 1966 as a worker prank (see p 124).

Now legendary as a pioneering unionist and community activist, Jack Mundey began work on the Opera House in 1959 as a scaffolder for Civil & Civic, the contractor for Stage 1 of the building. In 1972, as New South Wales secretary of the Builders' Labourers Federation, he initiated the 'green bans' that prevented the destruction of trees in the Botanic Gardens for the excavation of the Opera House car park. The stories of those who laboured on site at Bennelong Point, set against the background of union activism that defined Australian labour history in the 1960s, is a compelling chapter in the Opera House narrative.

While association with the building of the Opera House was for many a memorable and life-defining experience, for some the negative impact of their association adversely affected the remainder of their careers. For architect Peter Hall, the controversy over his willingness to take the reins as design architect after Utzon's 'resignation' in 1966 dogged him for the rest of his life. And it is unlikely politician Davis Hughes will be remembered for much else other than his reprehensible activities, as State Liberal Party Minister for Public Works, to discredit Utzon in the mid 1960s. The friction that Utzon's departure created, particularly in the architectural community, is a stirring story, one that is closely intertwined with the radical social and political changes that were polarising Australian society, indeed most Western societies, at the time. For many involved in the protest to reinstate Utzon back in 1966 — Elias Duek-Cohen, Bill Wheatland, Ted Mack and many others — the passions the issue provoked are still very much alive today.

The ripple effect of the Opera House extended well beyond the lives and careers of individuals; involvement in the project also helped shape or consolidate the international reputations of a number of companies. The Danish engineer Ove Arup sought Utzon out within days of the announcement of the winning entry early in 1957. Subsequently appointed consulting structural engineers on the project, Ove Arup & Partners were major players throughout the three phases of construction from 1959 to opening in 1973. Operating initially from its London office, the company opened a Sydney branch in 1963 in response to the complex construction demands of the Opera House. The pioneering work on the Opera House with prefabricated concrete construction methods, with the application of computer technology to the solution of complex engineering problems, and the company 'modus operandi', set by Ove Arup himself, of collaborating creatively with architects, established the company as one of the world’s leading engineering firms. Today the firm is engaged on the Opera House upgrade project, once more working creatively with Utzon in Denmark and local architect Richard Johnson on refurbishment projects as well as a strategy for the building's long-term maintenance and use.

M R Hornibrook, the Queensland-based civil engineering company, won the contract to build Stages 2 and 3 of the Opera House from 1962. With a prior reputation for concrete bridge construction, the building technologies the company developed and the knowledge it acquired on the project laid the groundwork for Hornibrook to become one of Australia’s largest and most prominent construction companies in the 1970s and 1980s. Steensen & Varming, the mechanical services contractors for Stage 3, and Höganäs, the Swedish company that supplied the one million special tiles required to roof the building, have similar, although perhaps more modest, success stories to tell. To this day Höganäs continues to manufacture the tile, marketed affectionately as the 'Sydney' tile, for a range of public and domestic purposes.

On a different front, the association of the pioneering Sydney plywood company Ralph Symonds with the Opera House was one of thwarted potential rather than collaboration fulfilled. Realising the possibilities for the use of his unique giant sheets of plywood in the building early on, Ralph Symonds, the entrepreneurial head of the company, visited Utzon in Denmark. The potentially productive relationship thus initiated with the company — and the extraordinary interiors that its plywood could have made possible — were casualties of the political interference that led to Utzon's departure early in 1966.

Finally, the Opera House construction 'story', from beginning to end, is a story of pioneering technology, of finding creative new solutions to the many design, technical and construction problems that the building's unprecedented shape generated. Today, computer modelling inspires and facilitates the kind of non-linear, free-form architecture that Utzon could only have dreamt of. It is hard to believe that when Arup's engineers started devising computer programs to analyse Utzon's first free-form roof structure scheme in 1958 the electronic computer, as we know it today, was only 10 years old and so bulky that it occupied a whole room. Computers were again used when Utzon's final spherical geometry solution for the roof in 1961 facilitated the erection of the shells from precast concrete components. Cast in an on-site 'factory', the repetitive rib segments were then literally joined in the air, an unprecedented operation that required precise mathematical computer calculations and which initiated other technological innovations and 'firsts' — the ingenious telescoping erection arch devised to avoid the need for obstructive scaffolding, the first large-scale application in the construction industry of epoxy resin to bond the concrete rib segments together, and the use of the largest cranes in the world to manoeuvre the concrete segments into place. Many of the innovations introduced in the building of the Opera House have since passed into accepted engineering practice.

Building a masterpiece set itself the task of exploring previously little-documented aspects of the multi-layered history of the Sydney Opera House, but there are still many stories to tell — of the architects, like Richard Leplastrier, Peter Myers, Bill Wheatland and Yuzo Mikami, whose lives were changed after working with Utzon; of the photographers like Max Dupain, for whom the building became an obsession; of the filmmakers like Dahl and Geoffrey Collings and John Weiley, whose important documentaries of the late 1960s are barely known today. At the heart of all the narratives, however, is still the magnificent building on Bennelong Point, and its architect Jørn Utzon — now in his late eighties — who will never stand in the Sydney sunshine and marvel at the extraordinary presence of his completed Opera House. Fifty years ago in his quiet studio in wintry Denmark, Utzon could not have imagined the extraordinary journey on which his competition design would take not only him, but so many others. Nor could he have imagined the enduring impact of his creation on the heartbeat of a city — nor indeed, of a nation.

Anne Watson is Curator of Architecture and Design at the Powerhouse Museum.

Building a masterpiece: the Sydney Opera House is available from Powerhouse Publishing, Lund Humphries, and good bookstores.

my aspiration: Solomon Guggenheim Spiral Museum | Frank Lloyd Wri...

my aspiration: Solomon Guggenheim Spiral Museum | Frank Lloyd Wri...: "This project is a Masterpiece. It was designed by the Great Architect Frank Lloyd Wright in the early forties. Althought the design process..."

Solomon Guggenheim Spiral Museum | Frank Lloyd Wright’s Masterpiece

This project is a Masterpiece. It was designed by the Great Architect Frank Lloyd Wright in the early forties.
Althought the design process started in 1943, Wright’s inverted-ziggurat design was not built until 1959. There were a number of reasons for the delay. Architect Wright had to produce six separate sets of plans and 749 drawings before one was finalized.
Solomon Guggenheim Museum
Solomon Guggenheim Museum
The Solomon Guggenheim Museum was constructed to display the collected works of Guggenheim – his sculptures, paintings and pictures.

In order to give a completely original form for the building, Wright invented a radical new shape for it. The seven-storey building that he developed has a spiral form around an open well, with a huge skylight as a roof.
Wright’s purpose was to develop a new kind of museum in which each work of art did not merely form the part of the wall but stood out on a slightly curving surface. The unique feature of this design is that while looking at any one painting, all other paintings are always visible, since the whole exhibition can be seen at any point on the ramp. He gave special importance to lighting. By using both daylight and artificial light, a three dimensional effect was created.
Guggenheim Museum - roof skylight
Guggenheim Museum - roof skylight

The individual storeys project outwards at each level. The paintings are planned so that they hang on the external skin which follows the spiral.
The circulation pattern is very simple. Visitors are taken up to the top floor by lift directly upon entering the museum, then they walk down the gentle slope of the spiral ramp on the ground floor, viewing their exhibits on their descent, with changing colours and forms.  There is a library and a book shop on the ground floor. The circular form of the spiral adds to the sense of movement. The museum’s administrative office is in a separate building to the north, which is also spiral shaped.
The main construction material is concrete in a variety of forms such as reinforced and sprayed concrete, as the spiral ramp design depends on the character of the material. The circular, inverted, and truncated conical main space is lit by a dome and a ground floor is left as an open circular court. A single, self-supporting, reinforced concrete spiral beam forms the structural system. The flat beam acts like a continuous ramp. This ramp is the architectural space.
Guggenheim Museum - spiral ramp
Guggenheim Museum - spiral ramp
Wright’s concept is three-dimensional and links the visitor, the picture and the environment into a single unit such as structure, space and circulation come together to form a tremendous unity. The continuous seven-storey ramp is based on the principle of the unbroken wave.
This unique architectural masterpiece, Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum, is arguably the most important building of Wright’s late career. In the words of Paul Goldberger,
“Wright’s building made it socially and culturally acceptable for an architect to design a highly expressive, intensely personal museum. In this sense almost every museum of our time is a child of the Guggenheim.”
Truely, it is a Masterpiece…

this i see on the web "so beautiful"

"There in a beautiful forest was a solid, high rock ledge rising beside a waterfall, and the natural thing seemed to be to cantilever the house from that rock bank over the falling water..."
-- Frank Lloyd Wright in an interview with Hugh Downs, 1954 Fallingwater, the residential masterpiece of great American architect Frank Lloyd Wright, was designed in 1936 for the family of Pittsburgh department store owner Edgar J. Kaufmann. Considered by some as the most famous private house ever built, Fallingwater epitomizes man living in harmony with nature. The house, set amid 5000 acres of natural wilderness, is constructed of local sandstone, reinforced concrete, steel and glass. It juts out over a waterfall on Bear Run, appearing as naturally formed as the rocks, trees and rhododendrons which embrace it.
The interior of Fallingwater remains true to Frank Lloyd Wright's vision as well, including cantilevered desks, earth-toned built-in sofas, polished stone floors, and large casement windows which allow the outdoors to pour in. The hearth of the soaring stone fireplace is actually a boulder on the hill, supposedly Mr. Kaufmann's favorite sunning spot before Fallingwater was built - the house was literally built around it. From the Great Room a set of stairs enables you to walk down and stand on a tiny platform in the middle of the stream.
Fallingwater was the weekend home of the Kaufmann family from 1937 until 1963, when the property was donated to the Western Pennsylvania Conservancy by Edgar Kaufmann Jr. It still looks as it did when the family lived there - the only remaining great Wright house with its setting, original furnishings and art work intact. Designated as a National Historic Landmark, Fallingwater was also named by the American Institute of Architects in 2000 as the "Building of the Century."

What technology does the architec used?

An architect these days learn to draw (most of the time in AutoCad). These are technical drawings. This is not the kind you do as a kid in school. For visualisation of the future house/ office, 3D computer drawing is learned. Models are also made with balsa wood and kartboard.

In general they learn some Statica (physica) to understand the measures all elements need to have. Sometimes a finite element model is used to calculate the strength of the building. Allthough this is for the more exotic building which you and i probably dont live in. (Most of the time a building engineer calculates the architects design)

Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_technology_does_the_architec_used#ixzz19cF50E5O

what is architec do ?

Architects design all kinds of buildings. They design schools and skyscrapers. They design hospitals and hotels. They also design churches, train stations and plain old regular houses.
Any building that is used by people was probably designed by some architect.
Okay then, but what does the word "design" mean? A design is simply a plan. Before constructing a building, an architect needs to draw a plan of the building. Sometimes architects will make a cardboard or plastic model of the building.
The building is then built by a construction company which follows the directions of the plans for the building. The architect will closely supervise the construction company to make sure that the building is built according to the plans.
Okay then, but but what does an architect do when he or she draws up a plan?
Architects have to thnk of many things before they draw up the plans for a building. First they have to think about what the building will be used for. How many people are going to use the building at the same time? What types of activities will these people do in the building?
An office building will need lots of small rooms for offices. A school will need many medium-sized rooms for classrooms. And a train station will need one larger room for hundreds of people to pass thru at the same time.
All of these building must be built so that they can be used efficiently by everyone who walks through their doors. When architects discuss what the building will be used for, they talk abut the "function" of the building.
But the function of a building is just one of many things an architect has to think about when designing a building. Good architects also spend a lot of time making sure a building is safely designed, and making sure the building will last for many years.
A building that is not safely designed could catch on fire or fall down on itself.
Architects have to design building so that people can escape from the building in an emergency. Of course, some emergencies, such as earthquakes or tornadoes, destroy even the safest buildings.
A few years ago an architect had a real surprise when one of the buildings he designed collapsed under the weight of a foot of wet snow. The building was a sports arena with a large, curved roof. The heavy snow put so much pressure on the roof that the roof collapsed. Luckily nobody was in the sports arena at the time.
Besides thinking about the function and safety of a building, architecs also spend time creatively thinking about how they want the building to look. Just as a painter decides which paints to put where in a painting, an architect decides where to put the rooms, walls, and open spaces in a building.
Just as different painters have different styles of painting, different architects have different styles of designing. One architect might like to use a lot of circles and curves in his or her buildings. Another architect might like to design buildings that look sleek and flat.
So architects have to be good artists and good scientists when they design a building. The building must be pleasant to look at, pleasant to work in and strong enough to be safe from most natural disasters.
Trying to do all these things at the same time is part of the challenge and excitement of being an architect.

what is architec ?

  • architecture - an architectural product or work
  • architecture - the discipline dealing with the principles of design and construction and ornamentation of fine buildings; "architecture and eloquence are mixed arts whose end is sometimes beauty and sometimes use"
  • architecture - the profession of designing buildings and environments with consideration for their esthetic effect
  • computer architecture: (computer science) the structure and organization of a computer's hardware or system software; "the architecture of a computer's system software"
ini koleksi foto rumahrumah yang menginspirasi saya.





Rabu, 29 Desember 2010

untuk sementara saya masukkan koleksi foto-foto rumah yang menginspirasi saya untuk menjadi arsitek.






oh ya , mohon maaf bagi para blogger jika saya mengambil gambar-gambar anda , saya mengambil ini hanya sebagai mengambil inspirasi saja.

pengenalan

mohon maaf buat yang udah ngeliat blog saya , kalo desain-desainnya telat , saya lagi cari cara buat ngambil gambar buat di masukkin ke blognya.

pengenalan

dalam blog ini saya ingin menunjukkan beberapa rancangan rumah , walaupun saya bukan arsitek , tapi saya bercita-cita untuk menjadi arsitek , saya harap dengan saya memasukkan desain-desain ini bisa mendapat masukkan dari orang-orang yang melihat.