顯示具有 Architecture 標籤的文章。 顯示所有文章
顯示具有 Architecture 標籤的文章。 顯示所有文章

2015年3月16日 星期一

City’s Next Steps- Intro

[Intro]

City, where the most dense innovation, creativity, variation, and remix take place, with tons of whys of its failures and succeeds, is always the greatest pleasure for urban planners and designers. I always find this profession particularly fascinating because of this huge excitement one can discover along the way of practice. It's indeed a long journey, and perhaps never come to a point where one can claims himself/ herself to be an expert even with entire life committed to the profession. That's how I see myself fitting in this field of practice as a human living in, exploring within, and happened to involve in the making of the city. However, when the exploration becomes repetition, discoveries become the standards, this profession starts to lose its magic.

Needless to say that the world now is rapidly changing, and our lives are continuously reshaped by both tangible and intangible inventions. Mobile devices changed our ways of communication and fetching information, electric cars revolutionized the power supply chain and streetscape,  the sharing economics right ahead of us is going to change entire merchant ecosystem, and there’s just too many to elaborate. As everyday city users, we definitely had noticed these changing of our urban lives, but do we consider ourselves capable enough to tackle with these changes, and incorporate them into our larger spectrum of practice? While all other creative professions are flooding into the cities trying to play around with the complex, urban designers and planners, however, seem remained conservative to, if not ignoring, the fact that the built cities are the great canvas waiting for more creativities.

2013年12月16日 星期一

短評西岸建築展&期待台灣

去看了上海的"西岸2013建築與當代藝術雙年展"。幾個建築圈的朋友都去看過了,好評負評都有,但大多都建議我去看看。在一個真的是鳥不生蛋的地方,一個舊廠區改造的展場。展場本身很酷,有大型機械的油泵房和四個儲油槽,的確是我的菜,但展覽本身不怎麼酷。首先,我不知道為什麼當代建築要跟藝術綁在一起展,是不是光展建築怕沒有人潮?(以中國模式來說,人潮是次要,活動激發的討論不重要,搞活動需要的資金贊助與廣告機會才是真顧慮) 台灣也喜歡這樣搞,建築+藝術,設計+藝術,有時候再加一些表演啦手工藝市集啦,然後冠上一個文創頭銜,大雜燴,讓看展的人懷疑策展的人到底知不知道他在策什麼東西。BTW,這個西岸雙年展的總策展人是張永和。

把設計與藝術放在一起,可以,因為在天差地別中間的確有個交集,那就是社會觀察,了解,&再現,而藝術的社會觀察/關懷,在這個場子中,無異於其他藝術展覽,感覺就是在緬懷,在鄉愁,在反芻一種已經算不上新的都市情緒;而建築設計的部分,很抱歉,完全沒有社會觀點,這讓建築展品更顯得格格不入。對於大眾來說,看完一旁不知所以然的藝術品後,回過頭來看的,到底是要看看這模型多精美呢?還是要看這圖畫的多有藝術感?反正不會是想告訴我中國近年的都市到底怎麼回事。把藝術與設計放一起展,註定了媚俗的基調,可惜之一。

我其實並沒有期待看到什麼內容,反正就是抱著去看看他們怎麼辦展覽的心態去逛(說逛其實也沒那麼雅致,因為那天冷到爆)。以張永和這樣MIT前系主任和王樹這個普立茲建築獎中國第一人來說,號召力應該是全中國最強了,但即便我不抱任何期待,還是覺得滿失望的。只討論建築部分,因為藝術我不懂,如果這個展的內容是想呈現中國當代建築,而我也確實接收到了展覽所要傳達的意思的話,那我還真得搖搖頭,中國舞台之大,群聚力量之強,卻在這個展場裡顯得內容淺薄無比。把中國新銳建築師與外國明星建築師並列,用幾乎一樣大的空間,意思很明顯,是要把中國的新秀抬到世界舞台上,但為何不乾脆不邀請這些大師 僅僅呈現中國建築師就好呢?把大師放在旁邊,大師本就無須費力氣展示,而相較於在地建築師汲汲營營的布置與圖說,不更顯得這種位階與企圖心差異嗎?想抹去這種比較,反而真正助長了這種高低,可惜之二。

最大讓我不耐的地方,就是我看到的作品絕大部分都是西方來的影子,有的像Rogers,有的像Zaha, 有的像Piano, 有的像日本當代建築師..,要不是我還記得我人在上海,而展版上寫的還是簡體中文,我可能搞不清楚我在看哪個國家的建築展了。建築作品這種東西,我想我真的是越來越沒耐心看了,我對於Object與Eye-candy越來越沒耐性,我看不到這個所謂的中國當代建築,有任何一點對於當代建築或中國的理論或批判,有的都是西方教育訓練下的美感和精神,還有一直以來包裝這個行業的遺世獨立的孤傲感。當然啦,思想這東西急不來,不會是幾年,也不會是十幾年就會有的東西,這是一種文化,需要深耕,需要很長時間內化然後反省,只不過鋪張與虛榮-包括活動想搞大, 包山包海, 拉明星撐場面等等-我認為只會抑制掉成長的機會。成長需要時間,有時甚至需要關起門來好好檢視自己,就像日本因為時代背景的關係,很早就走出自己的風格和都市理論...。一個展,看不到背後的思想,或是背後的思想不過如此,可惜之三。

最後,如果我見到一個大陸觀光客到台灣看了一個什麼當代建築展之後發文感嘆,我可能也不以為然,因為我知道台灣的展很多都很鳥,你一個外地人想以井窺天,區區一個爛展就評斷當代設計,也為免太武斷。對,我可能就是太武斷了,但這個展就是令人失望的。

講回台灣也喜歡搞場面又想發發牢騷,說真的小小一個島,這麼一點點地方蓋那一點點東西,有什麼好展的?有什麼好年年頒建築獎?想學音樂影劇,把獎也頒到中國大陸,你有什麼魅力,人家稀罕嗎?為什麼不好好去挖掘已經在都市裡的文化和特色,去重新講這個全世界獨一無二的故事?去放大對設計的闡述,去把真正有活力有思想的族群撈出來,去實踐一點真正切實際的設計,培養負責任的設計心態?台北設計之都,我對妳還真是充滿了鄉愁式的期待,我真心期待這個花錢買來的帽子在三年的時間裡,繼續砸錢,漫天灑種的同時還真能冒出點新芽來。

當然如果有機會,我也絕不想只在無關緊要的地方發牢騷,而是真正貢獻點什麼。

2013年10月19日 星期六

跳出去,又跳回來?

簡單來說,就是跳回這個圈圈裡,把它的強項帶走

剛好這個大車廠裡,什麼樣的零件都有

拼拼湊湊,也許就搞出一台保時捷



這個行業看不見自己在新世界的價值

只好另起爐灶了




下一次離開,不會太久,也不會再回來了。

2013年9月6日 星期五

What I learned from the offices...

[OMA, Rotterdam]
- Documentation of works!
- Small studio-alike teams within big corporate.

[frogdesign, Shanghai]
- Human-centered design approach.
- Another design team (firm) culture, and work & life balance!

[Architerior, Taipei]
- Fundamentals of architecture practice.


So what do I expect from the next one? I do have an answer.

2013年7月26日 星期五

Wacky Tricks of Architects' -1: Fail to Adapt



Trying to integrate what supposed to be the "reaction" to urban system into architecture as an "action" may seems creative, if not stupid, at the time it's being proposed. But soon it becomes ridiculous not long after its realization. Simply because once it's being "locked" inside of a single piece of architecture, it no longer has the ability to adopt the systematic change, which is very likely to happen soon after any single building's completion. Base on what do we provide this amount of parking space? What if people no longer drive in the city? Can we reuse the parking space? Have you ever used the funny climbing elevator in between its parking levels? If the tower can be easily deconstruction and redone, I wouldn't care that much, yet it is definitely not the case. The wacky trick of architects' sometimes turns the building into an alien of the city. Keep that in mind, architects.

The urban is a dynamic organism, a ever-evolving system, while architecture is the frozen moment of an urban fragment. Architects always try to cross the line, sometimes we succeed, but more often we fail.





-- The vertical parking on the Marina Tower, Chicago

2013年3月25日 星期一

Portfolio(s) of mine




My Portfolio v4: Extreme & Reverse is perhaps the best description of the way in which the works were approached. Constantly reversing and stretching an idea to extreme is the way to construct an argument, which later on evolves into a project. 



My previous portfolio v3: If City Is Generic. The title and the very first few pages of it illustrated my understanding of generic cities. If City Is Generic, its because of its unpredictability and its rapid changes. Its because of its "bigness" and "fuck context" that architecture liberates itself from everything else. In order to correspond this genericity, architecture can not but to be thought inwardly. temporarily, and sometimes, in some people's eye, evilly. (This portfolio was to apply OMA internship in 2011)




My Portfolio v2, which didn't have a name, was my second portfolio for GSD application. There was little consistent idea underlying the projects, yet they were all holistically and somewhat proudly presented. I realized the layout of every page was very stupid and limiting while I finished almost half of it. I saw other people having similar layouts after me, I suppose they felt the same regret as I did on their half-ways...

I was too busy to put my first portfolio on ISSUU, but I'd really love to and I will upload it asap. As I was uploading all these, I thought the first one would be embarrassing to share. But as I read it again, I realized the fact that I was indeed a clever boy :-D, the only reason why it didn't help me get into GSD was probably that it was awfully organized, and the layout and style was boring. Some of the very great ideas and diagrams of those projects had been forgotten since then, what a pity~

Anyways, it's fun to lay them all on the table and flip through. Hope you all enjoying flipping them. I like this small embedded  ISSUU toy.  : )


2013年1月11日 星期五

The Two Sides (presentation slides)






GSD option studio: Common Framework
Instructor: Christopher Lee, Simon White(TA)
project name:
the Two Sides ( and One Common Frame Work)
Site: Xiamen, China

This project is perhaps the hardest one I've ever done. Instead of an academic school project, I considered it more of a self-dialogue that forced me bouncing between rationality, emotion, and personal political stand. As being a Taiwanese, the given topic of a "cross-strait financial district" is way too sophisticated than an architectural design. Given the fact that interactions between China and Taiwan are becoming more often, it is essential not to  let the economic interests over-shadowing the political stands, since economics is never free from politics. Under any circumstance, the sovereignty of the nation and the independence of government should be kept unharmed. Only based on this 'conditional harmony'can we then talk about the 'cooperation'.   

[Summary]
The project is situated in the CBD site of east Xiamen. Architecturally, it rethinks the space for mixing working, living, and cooperation through manipulating the urban dominant type- Qilou. From the social point of view, the project is also the manifestation of the political circumstance between Xiamen (China) and Kinmen (Taiwan).
The original park proposed by HOK cuts the site into two halves. As the interpretation of shop houses in macro scale, two rolls of residential bars, which situated in between HOK buildings from each side, stretched inward and divided existing fabric into different urban pockets, leaving a large void space on ground level. The circular shape of the void area creates a superficial symbol of unification. The office units are scattered in the circular void area. Each office unit consists of an exterior space, a transitional corridor space, an interior space, and a shared space in the back. This is another interpretation of the shop house.
Considering the issue of Cross-Strait cooperation, the project argues against the sameness of conventional CBD and the notion of unification. Though its architecture creates an absolute and trans-scaling generic common framework for the entire site, the use of different landscape and variations in accessibility creates a softness and  programmatic difference between the two sides. Within the common framework, the two sides interact. Yet through acknowledging and respecting the differences, the two sides gain benefits without decreasing their own values. That is the essence of cooperation.

















2012年2月4日 星期六

You Deserve A Garbage Skyscraper!


Monument of Civilization: Vertical Landfill for Metropolises

Thanks to Anne Schmidt for the inspiration...


Skyscraper is always considered more as an icon, a statue, a representation of wealth, a proof of advanced technology, anything but a reasonable form of space for mankind's living. Underlying our claim to purpose new urban typology, compact/mixed use of vertical space and so forth are our greediness and arrogance. Most of the cases, we build towers for towers' sake.

From super-tall to mega-tall, it's all about being spectacular. But we do have something spectacular already, something all cities shared; something could be even more magnificent if we put them in display. Our waste-an outcome of our daily consumptions- is produced in amazingly great amount every second everywhere and can be seen as the representation of our civilization. New York, for instance, if we put its annual garbage on a area of a typical tower footprint, we'll get a 1300 meters high landfill tower, which is about as three times tall as the Empire State Tower(450M). Isn't that spectacular? Furthermore, a large portion of our garbage is non-recyclable and will last for hundreds or even thousands of years, they are to be the greatest material for the monument, if the monument is to let our descendants to memorize (or to mourn) our own civilization.











But this Monument of Civilization isn’t all that ironic. It meets certain demands of a city. Firstly, our cities, specially the big ones, had suffered from shortage of landfill for the last decades. While the cities grew bigger, we had less land and farther “outskirt” for garbage dumping. Vertical landfill should solve this problem. Landfills should go vertical like buildings do, since they are both in direct proportion to population growth. Secondly, the accumulation of waste actually creates potential energy-recycle such as gas emission during erosion. When the gas is recollected from the vertical landfill, it can generate power and be reused in the city. Putting the Monument in the center of the city allows it to benefit the city directly and also save the cost from transporting garbage outside the city. Lastly, the Monument can be seen as the city’s Earth-Friendliness measure meter. The lower the tower is, or the slower it grows, the more earth-friendly the city is. The ever-growing Monument may evoke the citizens’ introspection and somewhat leads to the entire city’s waste-decreasing and better recycling. Perhaps all metropolitan cities would inverse the worldwide competition from competing being the “tallest” to being the “shortest”.

The architecture of the Monument is very simple. The underground parts are recycle processing, waste-water processing, gas and power stations, temporary dump, and wasted water tank. The upper part (tower) consists of garbage brick wall, recycled energy transmission layers, and vertical solid-waste tank enclosed by the garbage brick wall. The site is not specific, but is purposed to be put in the center of the city. Take New York for example, it is suggested to be put in the most popular spot: Times Square, for its purpose- as being a monument- of being most viewed.

Every city should has one garbage skyscraper to solve landfill shortage, to feed one's vanity of height, and to remark mankind's icronic civilization. Enjoy!

©2012 Roy Lin

2011年11月13日 星期日

2011設計跨界分享會 後記1



Tim Brown (CEO of IDEO) 在TED 09年 的演講上提到:


 "...eventually it occurred to me that maybe what passed for design wasn't all that important -- making things more attractive, making them a bit easier to use, making them more marketable. By focusing on a design, maybe just a single product, I was being incremental and not having much of an impact.
But I think this small view of design is a relatively recent phenomena, and in fact really emerged in the latter half of the Twentieth Century as design became a tool of consumerism. So when we talk about design today, and particularly when we read about it in the popular press, we're often talking about products like these. Amusing? Yes. Desirable? Maybe. Important? Not so very.
But this wasn't always the way ("But design used to be big"). And I'd like to suggest that if we take a different view of design, and focus less on the object and more on design thinking as an approach, that we actually might see the result in a bigger impact. "
 
" ...但最後我認為,也許以往設計的著眼點 並不真的那麼重要 -- 讓東西更吸引人, 讓它們更好用, 讓它們更好賣。 只聚焦在設計本身, 或只是單一產品, 我當時的循序漸進 並沒有太大的影響力。
但我認為這種小格局的設計是近年來的現象, 而事實上這種現象真正的發展是在 20 世紀後半時期,當設計變成消費主義的工具。 現在當我們談到設計, 特別是當我們在媒體上讀到的,常常指的像是這樣的產品:賞心悅目?是的。想要買嗎?可能吧。 很重要嗎?不見得。
但事情並不是一直都這樣 ("設計曾經是大的")。 所以我要建議用一種 不同的方式來看設計, 而不要太聚焦在物件本身 以更多的設計思考為途徑,我們就會看到影響更深遠的結果。..."


放眼設計相關行業,現代人眼中的設計確實僅成為商業行為的工具。在以前,設計=創造+改變,現在設計=美術工藝+創意(連創意一詞都小格局化)。並不是要去講究字面上的意義, 而是在越來越多"設計"被討論、越來越多人從設計學系畢業的今天,卻沒有更多真正宏觀的思考或深刻的洞見。展覽越辦越多,卻越來越像參加美術工藝品派對,既不如純粹藝術般陶冶性情,也鮮少讓你對生活有新的憧憬或期待 (主打"創意"卻總是看到拷貝別人的影子這種事就更不用提了)。


我是學建築的,聽到Tim Brown這樣對工業設計的反省,我卻感同身受。絕大多數建築設計不也是這樣嗎?漂亮嗎?還不錯。需要嗎?還好(多半是付不起)。重要嗎?我還真的看不出來。


建築設計在現代其實跟產品設計沒什麼兩樣,就是著眼在單一個物件上。雖然建築從古典時期就是在討論"美",但至少那時候各地有各地比較一致的討論基礎,精心講究的成果是具體的城市風情,百年後的現代每個建築師有自己的美學觀點,而城市卻沒有自己的樣貌,"美感"成了設計師各自表述的高調。話又說回來,美感美學什麼的,難道不是所有該被稱為"作品"的最低要求嗎?,偏偏很多建築設計就只是停留在這個基本層次。當工業設計開始反省設計格局的狹隘化,建築設計什麼時候會開始檢討?


那什麼叫大?我認為能夠宏觀且多角度的思考問題,提出洞見並確實發揮影響力的東西才叫"大",也應該是設計師自許的目標。我一直覺得,二十一世紀是設計師的世紀,而這種設計師是具備整合能力的人才而不是美術人員更不是藝術家(抱歉,不是對此二者有貶意,而是在社會角色上應該被分清楚)。現有的設計專業學門裡面,建築人應該有比別的專業更適合跨領域整合的條件優勢,因為我們的訓練讓我們習慣遊走於不同尺度之間、具象與抽象之間、涉獵文化、經濟、政治、環境、科技等面相,並且習慣承認自己對人性對社會對文明發展的無知以至於可以夠謙卑的面對問題。也許建築背景的設計人適合在已經發生的設計潮流裡扮演"接合劑"的角色,或甚至謙卑但宏觀的"領航人"。


先跳出你那狹小的框框吧,我親愛的建築人





















2011年8月4日 星期四

[GSD project] The New Real - The World of Augmented Reality

The New Real - The World of Augmented Reality

Harvard GSD 2011 : 3421 New Geographies: Imagining a City-World Beyond Cosmopolis
Instructor: A. Hashim Sarkis
Project members: Nicholas Croft, Aneesha Dharwadker, Mariusz Klemens, Yu-Ta Lin, Elizabeth MacWillie, William Quattlebaum, Trude Renwick, Mary Grace Verges, Clementina Vinals.
Thesis revised: Nicholas Croft

Architecture is either a background for augmented reality or a preserved, pre-augmentation, artifact; the current fabric of the built world exists, but within emergent regions driven by Collective Intelligence (CI), architecture transforms into a tectonically uniform version of itself.  It is in these regions that design acquires meaning through non-material imagery.

Augmented regions are fluid in nature—perpetually redefining themselves and their boundaries as a result of a complex collective-CI feedback loop—yet at any given moment, clearly defined boundaries demarcate the influence of the augmented world on the physical one.Collective Intelligence, as an advanced stage in the evolution of the Internet, controls the technologies of augmented reality, facilitates algorithmic forms of governance based on collective input, and aids in the increasingly efficient cycling of data.

Certain aspects of the world become virtual, while others remain physical. The transportation of people and goods occurs in real space, while events like voting, banking, shopping, and so forth, are anchored in the virtual realm. The processes through which humans go to acquire goods and services no longer require individual spatial displacement. The world undergoes physical spatial compression, but a virtual expansion occurs through user experiences. Through the digital augmentation of space, inhabitants can experience infinite depth.

The individual’s interaction with the world occurs through a personal interface, which allows the user to make choices about the visual composition of his or her environment. Connection to augmented reality is a choice, not an obligation – but it determines the ability of the user to access information and gain knowledge. As a result, physical proximity to CI centers allows for a faster exchange of information. Public spaces become “servers,” where individuals can collectively plug in to the increasing mass of data. The economy is thus run on memory – both the memory of the individual, and his or her ownership of digital space. Bytes become currency, and are incorporated into the public sphere, giving more power to classes without access to physical wealth. Corporations collaborate with the CI to govern the physical realm, providing generic hardware for servers, bandwidth, interfaces, and architecture. The differentiation of these objects occurs virtually, based solely on the choices of the user. 


Infrastructure
Interreigionality




New Geographies
Mega-Form
Main Images

2011年4月13日 星期三

2011年1月1日 星期六

HELL and HEAVEN


This is a theme shot of my design project of Urban Design Elements Studio. The argument was that, in order to bring life (here means the flow of people and capital) back to Queens's sunnyside yard neighborhood, we (me and my partner Wu Zhou) consolidated all the passive post-industrial programs(mainly warehouses) which previously occupied the neighbor lands into one centralized place above Sunnyside Yard- a giant train yard which served as a transportation node between east-coast and Long Island region, great importance to the large region but no direct benefits to its surroundings. By centralized all those dirty, passive, ugly, noisy yet must-exist stuffs into one place, we then release those occupied lands for better use. In other words, to create a consolidated HELL and leave the development of HEAVEN to the market. 
Where there is civilization, there is waste. Hell and Heaven should be considered as one. Whether or not they should be put together is debatable, but needless to say, we shall no longer try to disguise the bad but to reveal it, as part of the system. It's been too long we only focus on creating a heaven without acknowledging a GREAT HEAVEN comes along with a GREAT HELL.


把所有髒東西都收起來吧,設計一個很棒的收納櫃給他們,反正大家都爭破頭的要設計漂亮乾淨的東西,就讓他們去負責童話世界,我們來做地獄。還有,地獄就是地獄,不要想在地獄裡搞個清幽的小咖啡館,還想種些花花草草,地獄的美感不是這種媚俗的東西。地獄得不三不四,你的童話世界裡就會看到果皮垃圾還有躲在佈景後面腐爛的老鼠。還有,把髒東西丟到城市外圍是愚蠢的想法,因為城市永遠沒有外圍,總有天某人會在垃圾場旁邊蓋一連串豪華的新大樓,到時候你就真的是在地獄旁邊喝你的五味雜陳劣等咖啡。