Henri Lefebvre, diagram of nested scales

G = Global g=global
M= Transitional m=transitional
P = Private p=private

diagram video

I thought it would be good to post the video I made for our meeting yesterday.

For saturday let's all have something prepared for what we want on our boards. We all have an idea of what this thing is, so it's time for us to start thinking about how our ideas will be communicated to the jury. I think we should also make some sort of timeline for it to get done. We have 24 days.

Bring the Noise! barrier

Noise Barrier

by the same guy as Pamphlet #26: 13 projects for the sheridan expressway.
nice simple graphics, and clear communication, indicating cross-functionalities and nascent capacities.

BIG TED talk

Bjarke Ingels did a TED talk recently. Two things came out of it with regards to the competition and our meeting tonight:

1. his talk about evolution - starting at 2:15 and climaxing at 2:50 where he shows video of how many models they stuck into the site model in initial design phases. It reminded me of our goals at this point and our meeting tomorrow (to reiterate Nico's sentiment at dinner tonight); no ideas are stupid right now. Throw them all out there.

2. Starting @ 11:32 - Showcasing the Mountain Dwelling project, Ingels explains and diagrams how the firm uses two separate forms, with totally different functions, and combines them in order to make both better spaces (or make one space way better using the other space). I think this competition is all about that theme and it is something we touched upon during dinner tonight.

Site Visit 1

Well, despite the hardships suffered on today's site visit we did manage to get some things done. Nico, we all hope you are feeling better by the time you read this. Will, Jon and I stopped by Tigard and spent some time under the viaduct on our way back from Portland, followed up by a long conversation on I-5 about the competition and our first thoughts as a group. This post should serve to fill you in as well as help Will and Jon match my words to some graphics.

I am posting the boards that were completed prior to the meeting so everyone can get a look at them. We talked about the basic ideas of the boards without ever looking at them, and came up with some great conclusions. I think it would be best if we all start a dialogue about the major themes revealed in this assignment. 

Will and Jon - take one theme and expand on it in the comments section of this post. Basically we are trying to catch Nico up on what he missed by adding our own words to these boards. 

Nico - The text is important to understanding the ideas, especially without our contributing voices. Please follow up with some questions, or thoughts you have on the boards as well. 

  

click on the images to see full size documents in my picasa album

Obviously these boards were meant to be seen side by side:

Further analysis of finalists

I think it is important to have a more formal analysis of the projects. I will absorb the information on these boards much better if I try to summarize and analyze it myself. Will posted his opinions, Nico did the same with his (reduced to an effective, two or three word description), but I think to gather some common themes, strengths and weaknesses, etc. will give us some guidelines as to what the judges are looking for in a good proposal. So after spending some time with all the boards, this is my analysis:

format: 

Title (abbreviated) - "New title based on primary goal"  - A. Primary Impact: Key phrases describing the primary impact or goal. This is the sales pitch in one sentence. B. Ancillary: supporting impacts or benefits  C. Impacted Area: Determined geographically  D. Strengths: of proposal and physical submission. This can be about the graphics, the layout, the concept, etc. This section basically tries to get a feel for what the judges like about the project  E. Weaknesses: dealing with the same themes as the strengths only searching for what might hold these proposals back, or what keys us into understanding what is not so important in our own work. 

1. Border Wall as Infrastructure - "Ecological, Social bang for the buck" - A. Primary impact: Improving upon a proposed border wall to get more beneficial results and efficiency for the dollar. Economic sensibility. B. Ancillary: energy generation, local ecology, water distribution, habitat restoration (30 different proposals, not all are listed on the website)  C. Impacted Area: border of US and Mexico (as well as any population in close proximity)  D.  Strengths: probably the most simply presented submission of the finalists. A wide range of possibilities narrowed to a specific geographic location. Renderings are clean and simple. E. Weaknesses: No major cities are effected by this proposal. Four other finalists focus on at least one major U.S. city. There isn't much room for this proposal to grow in the second round. Besides planning which of the 30 projects will go where along the border, I don't know how much more depth this project will show. Of all of the finalists, this project seems to have the least overall impact. 

2. Water Refugees - "Follow the Freshwater" - A. Primary Impact: Utilizing the rust belt's loss of population and its freshwater resources to relocate world populations threatened by future water scarcity. The primary goal of this project is to save people from drought. The emphasis is humanitarian. B. Ancillary: Repopulating major cities in the U.S. (a romantic benefit) as well as some detail given to the ecological fabric provided in the restructuring of these cities. C. Impacted Area: Detroit, Milwaukee, Buffalo, Chicago, Cleveland and potentially any area threatened by water scarcity. D. Strengths: Again, simplicity in diagrams and aerial renderings. There is a lot of room for this project to develop in the "redensification of under-utilized post-industrial landscapes" E. Weaknesses: I don't see much practicality in relocating populations from around the world to the rust belt of the U.S. Yes, there is room to fit the billion people, but it might be underestimating the desire/ability of these populations to relocate. 

This image came from a blog about the competition but was left off the WPA site. 

3. Coupling Infrastructures - "Water Economies" A. Primary Goal: Converting the sea back to its recreational use B. Ancillary: Allowing multiple economic opportunities for the production of salt, water, and more efficient greenhouses. C. Impacted area: Southeast (as a model for possible global impact) D. Strengths: Probably the best boards for their balance of great diagrams and renderings, depth, detail. E. Weaknesses: As Will pointed out, the idea of infrastructure as an extension of nature is hard to buy. Floating economic pods don't seem all that natural either. 

4. Hydro-Genic City 2020 - "The Power of Water"  A. Primary Goal: Community building by using the mechanistic waterworks of LA B. Ancillary: Light rail stops, water cleaning, accessible spaces in the city.  C. Impacted area: Limited to Los Angeles D. Strengths: Renderings are beautiful, detail, specificity (the section of the proposed water tanks is especially impressive). E. Weaknesses: This only effects LA, and is not all that ecological. The emphasis is on creating gathering spaces, not the ecological fabric. 

nice section of the tank (this team has some sexy boards)

5. Local Code: Interstitial Landscape - "Leftovers" A. Primary Goal: Converting leftover streets for communities. The epitome of the Pruned: Under Spaces series. B. Ancillary: no emphasis on any ancillary goals (besides maybe the ecological benefit of increased park-like spaces using native plants) C. Impacted Area: San Francisco, New Orleans, Seattle, New York City D. Strengths: Concrete, unambiguous, mathematical, very clear diagrams, beautiful as a whole, poetic prose E. Weaknesses: Obviously I like this project a lot, but I am uncertain about the long term impact. These spaces are left over for a reason. Local code has deemed them "unaccepted" based on some kind of organic population growth. I think the process and the motivation is solid, and you could very well make these spaces inviting, i'm just not sure such small spaces can change the dynamic of the surrounding neighborhood enough to make the impact last. Further analysis and development will be really interesting.  

6. Urban Algae: Speculation and Optimization - "Nascent Capacities (Nico's title)" A. Primary Goal: Dealing with carbon dioxide emissions B. Ancillary: Community spaces, direct access from Brooklyn to the Battery, ecological fabric. C. Impacted area: Specific to NYC but they speak of wide-scale applications. I'm not sure how this project deals with toll booths and power plants, but it says it does. If that is the case this could be implemented across the country. D. Strengths: Specific proposal, draws on previously planned bridge (historical connection), the first board with the sections and the plan is very strong, one of the best boards of the finalists. Weaknesses: I'm not a fan of the renderings. However I am interested to see where this one goes in the next round (dealing with the toll booths and power plants). 

one of my favorite boards (not the sexiest but great info)

That's it for now. I suggest people comment on this post to discuss common themes and things we feel are important for our own work (or disagreements to my opinions). I don't think we should spend much more time analyzing the finalists because we have enough of our own shit to do, but this was a good exercise for me. 

Countdown: 7 weeks (49 days) until our boards are due!

If anyone is going to be around tonight, my brother is in town for a few days. I'll be headed to bingo tonight and Girltalk on Wednesday. All are encouraged to come!

Junkspace

"Junkspace is a Bermuda triangle of concepts, a petri dish abandoned: it cancels distinctions, undermines resolve, confuses intention with realization. It replaces hierarchy with accumulation, composition with addition"

"More and more, more is more."

Junkspace: what remains after modernization has run its course, more precisely, what coagulates while modernization is in progress, its fallout.

In addition to this term conjuring up images of peripheral spaces like freeway embankments, shopping mall parking lots, Junkspace makes me think of the very architecture we are dealing with, one that makes up an economically driven consumer shopping park. One that prefers efficiency above all else. We are dealing with strip malls, parking lots, highways bypassing main street, the typical answer to 'more for cheaper.' With the vehicle driving us (no irony intended) to create an inhumanely scaled infrastructure, residual space is inevitable. Junkspace creates junk space.

It seems that our political enactors of our current infrastructure are subordinate to the Dillards and the JC Pennys. Or maybe they shout in unison "GROW GROW GROW, MORE MORE MORE," in which a resounding response is "PLACE PLACE PLACE."

But these macro economies also leave residual space for the micro economies. Acting informally, they make use of junkspace.






Could we build in an open source infrastructure to support this economic activity? The beauty of open source is its loose frame work which is adaptable and malleable. The experience is user generated.

Its obvious that our built environment has created this residual left over space. I thought Nico sharing Prune's post on "under spaces" was appropriate, which there is a follow up that is equally interesting. The professional competitions addressed this issue in part with the '1B Global Water Refugees', 'Hydrogenic City', and most directly, 'Local Code.' The impending water crisis seems to be a popular subject as well... only one addressed renewable energy, and it is my least favorite of them all, Solar PV panels. In my opinion the most interesting ones where the 'Urban Algae', 'Water Refugees', and 'Local Code'. 'Urban Algae' was a unique way to think about byproducts as a catalyst for public space. Its fun to have a visual on the surface of the water for the tunnel. It's a infrastructural diagram for how our trash be used as fuel for something desirable. 'Coupling Infrastructures' did a similar thing but was less believable, or maybe I disagree with the premise of the salton sea in general (pre-disposition). They claimed that "infrastructure [becomes] an extension of nature" when the whole place is contrived and unnatural to begin with. Though they had some great boards. This one is especially beautiful. 'Hydrogenic City' tried to pull way to much into one project, and I thought it was probably total speculation that all those activities were compatible.

In another area... I was looking at MIT: Technology Review and noticed some really great maps, and luckily the article was online. This is not quite the scale we are looking at but it thought it was interesting that different regions are strong in there specific areas of renewable energy. Could we pull anything significant about our site from these?









The article on intelligent electricity might be useful as well.

Blah... that exhausts my thoughts on the project lately... now I'm ready to dive into Nico's assignment. :D Anybody have additional thoughts on the schedule... the due dates are coming up.