Comments on: Toward an Architecture of Place: Moving Beyond Iconic to Extraordinary

By: Sari Grove

Sari Grove — Tue, 23 Apr 2013 18:59:00 +0000

Restoration & adding to existing popular active public spaces places that already work…Take a location where people are already happy to gather in-say a farmer’s market or flea market- make it much nicer while retaining the feel…Add on to it additional functional spaces-bathrooms, showers, bike racks, libraries with computer docking ability, food service, sleep nooks, rocks & garden…Art gallery showing areas…retail selling booths…People will still use the area because they already did…But they will be happier about it…Committees though need to be installed first when dealing with sensitive heritage site refurbishing though…

By: Hampton Inn Ft Lauderdale

Hampton Inn Ft Lauderdale — Tue, 23 Apr 2013 11:17:00 +0000

We have seen this both in the United States and in Europe. Some of the
most popular destinations in several cities in Europe are also some of
the most brutal and dehumanizing buildings and spaces for people who
encounter them. For example, the new Contemporary Art Museum in Vienna,
the Mozart Museum in Salzburg, the new in the center of Munich and the
Branly Museum in Paris are all touted as major destinations but at the
ground floor they are dead. The main question I have is why can’t we
build buildings and public spaces that are both “must see” buildings but
that also add to people’s experience of the ground floor of the cities
around them? We would like to develop a new agenda around “The
Architecture of Place”. And we need ideas about how this could happen.

By: Sari Grove

Sari Grove — Wed, 06 Mar 2013 18:27:00 +0000

(Note: I am reposting my comment, because I saw a typo in the first, went to edit & it got snared in some approval loop…I need to go & do something else now & I do want to make sure that my labours in writing were not in vain…So sorry for reposting…But I don’t feel like checking every 5 minutes for the rest of the day whether or not somebody bothered to approved my comment or not, depending on how long their lunch hour is…)
1)Height…How can a human feel empowered when the building behind is taller always? To feel empowered, build me a mountain that I can sit on top of…With the mountain beneath me, I no longer feel dwarfed… 2)Fashion…Watch a fashion show…Watch the ridiculously skinny women walk in more ridiculous high heels while wearing make-up & hair products & garments that are silly for anything but a runway photography shoot…How can architecture, which springs directly from our current society not also be ridiculous in its worship of form? Until we change the details of our influences, the nature of our philosophies on a small level, the big things cannot change either… 3)God…God creates…God is the best architect of all, especially when it comes to public spaces…I think when we forget that nature is the most beautiful of spaces we drown in our own hubris…What we have been given was already perfect, mostly we have just ruined it…Perhaps, when in doubt, we should just leave things alone…4)By the nature of it, building a building is encroaching upon public space…The very putting up of something that was not there before splices the space into have & have not…The have is for those who go inside…By this conversation, I am to assume that public space means outside? So by putting up anything, one is subtracting from public space…Which leads back to my last point perhaps, that nothing, not building, is better for public space in an elemental way based on just size of space allotted…5)Which brings me back to the question…Why must public space be only outside? or am I wrong & have missed the point? Can the parameters of public space include interiors? What makes a space public? 6) http://goo.gl/maps/OQAIO ( I don’t know how to make the link hot, sorry, copy & paste if you feel like it)…(I don’t want to use someone else’s photo without permission, sorry-hence the link…) *This is The Todmorden Mills Heritage Site…”Todmorden Mills Heritage Site is made up of the Papermill Theatre and Gallery, the Brewery Gallery, two historic houses and 9.2 hectare wildflower garden …” This site is very successful with the public…Across the street is Fantasy Farm where there is a barn with farm animals that one can interact with…The theatre has great plays…The Art gallery within the theatre is hugely active within the community…The size of the wildflower garden, is well, you know, really big…Is this a successful site from the parameters of this article? I think so…How much did it cost to build? How much did the architects get paid? To maintain? How much do people love it? (Alot actually)…I guess I am saying that old things are nice…Maybe architects should spend more time on fixing up stuff that is already there rather than making the next new thing…? Restoration…Heritage work…Stuff people care about & use alot…The content of what is inside the buildings there are key…The Arts…The people in the arts…I’m not going to show a picture of the animals in the barn across the street…But I love that place…

By: kevinklink

kevinklink — Wed, 27 Feb 2013 19:54:00 +0000

Well said, I’ve been working on a related series myself. Architects for far too long have been obsessed with the notion of zeitgeist (time) as opposed to place. They’ve constructed an intellectual space for design that makes it impossible to be a respected professional and invest seriously in local traditions. This is in great contrast to the locavore movement in food, which grows out of a deep respect for local ingredients and local food culture. It still gives room for experimentation, but grounds itself in a meaningful embrace of “place”. Architecture desperately needs its own similar locavore movement.
I recently saw Daniel Pink speak in Savannah, GA, and he opened the presentation by saying, “Savannah is one of the few places where if you roll out of the trunk of a car and step outside, you know where you are. It looks like it’s supposed to look like. That’s in great contrast to nearly everywhere else in America.” I think he’s right on with that analysis, and something for architects to deeply consider, instead of the useless notion of defining a time period.

By: Local SEO

Local SEO — Wed, 30 Jan 2013 13:20:00 +0000

What an architecture to see on this post “Toward an Architecture of Place: Moving Beyond Iconic to Extraordinary”
My mind is totally freak out of it .

By: D Beacham

D Beacham — Mon, 14 Jan 2013 11:45:00 +0000

For most indigenous peoples, regardless of where we are forced to live, “sense of place” has nothing to do with buildings or the built environment. It emanates from the land and the water, not from walls or design. Tune in to what the land is saying, to what the air needs, to what the water needs, and you will build or not build to suit living creatures as well.

By: Limgimhuang

Limgimhuang — Tue, 25 Dec 2012 10:23:00 +0000

obviously the writer tend to be bias against building with form different from its surrounding physical context and has no clue what art is about and how it has circumstances to people in spaces. Its funny that he commented the Cooper Union building as unfriendly as there is no people around it while CH in Melbourne has made a strong sense of place due to activities by people around the building, nothing to do with both buildings and architecture at all.

By: Luis Mauricio Huaco

Luis Mauricio Huaco — Mon, 12 Nov 2012 16:50:00 +0000

Are we expecting architectural design to do what urban design is really meant for? In most of my experience it seems that urban design and urban landscape design are mainly responsible for efective placemaking. Problem arises when architects perform as urban designers and/or landscape designers. Of course, architects with sound urban design skills can do better, but still, there are very few of them. Meanwhile, architectural monsters in the urban scene are becoming the rule as they are erroneusly considered as contemporary vestiges of modernity and progress.

By: fan

fan — Mon, 24 Sep 2012 11:08:00 +0000

I like the newish fairfax building on the corener of Spencer and Collins St in Melbourne.

By: Mark Scott Lavin

Mark Scott Lavin — Wed, 29 Aug 2012 23:52:00 +0000

Context is everything… I am a Masters graduate of Sci-Arc who “went rogue” in 2009 (and really this phrase is the only thing I like about Sarah Palin… ), anyhow, when in school we went to Seattle just to see the library and Morphosis was practically worshipped by some in our long building. That said, tantalized by all the futurism I also felt something was deeply missing from much of our high-minded discourse, something basic to preschool even though we were in a graduate program. “High design” can become a true celebration, an over the top exultation if placemaking principles are embraced. Just like the cathedrals of the Middle Ages became beloved icons of their cities and remain so 1,000 years later. The problem is that the principles are not embraced, sometimes willfully not. As a designer I hope to really bridge this gap… in seeking employment with a firm today and building my own enterprise (www.vertecology.com), I am looking closely for how others in my field embrace placemaking as part of their manifesto and practice.

By: Tamingo

Tamingo — Thu, 24 May 2012 12:23:00 +0000

Love the wooden building and the bridges between buildings..:D

By: Thorbjoern Mann

Thorbjoern Mann — Sat, 12 May 2012 16:36:00 +0000

Fred: Most of my writing on these issues is in the form of papers and EDRA conference articles; I have book manuscript some chapters of which might be appropriate for posting. They are in the form of conversations among some strange characters in an offshore tavern; I try to get away from the proper academic style. I’ll send you (and anybody interested) some as email attachments to pick from.
(Sorry for the delay in answering; I was in a place with iffy internet access…)

By: Is Your City Design-Centered or Place-Centered? « Project for Public Spaces - Placemaking for Communities

Tue, 01 May 2012 14:54:35 +0000

[...] move toward an Architecture of Place, we must all advocate for our cities to take a Place-Centered approach to creating new buildings [...]

By: Fredkent

Fredkent — Sat, 28 Apr 2012 22:40:00 +0000

What you are saying is so ridiculous. There has been a fifty year period where “design” has had a run in many cities. the results are dismal to absolutely absurd. So why not let the enormous creativity of people in communities get their chance. It is only up hill from where we are today.

By: Fredkent

Fredkent — Sat, 28 Apr 2012 22:36:00 +0000

Swanston Street is nowhere near what could be considered a “great street”. For Melbourne, the lane ways exemplify the best of the best. Urban design in Melbourne doesn’t seem to deliver the results that one would expect.
As to the Cooper Union Building it faces on to what could and should be a great square. The problem all the building fear the public space and turn their back on Astor Place delivering the worst of the worst.
Keep talking!

By: Fredkent

Fredkent — Sat, 28 Apr 2012 22:30:00 +0000

very insightful. Can we post any of your writing?

By: Raymondflaugher

Raymondflaugher — Fri, 27 Apr 2012 11:53:00 +0000

The continued pragmatic approach is cause for stagnation and repression towards creative visualization.I believe the future depends on those willing to push the envelope in sustainable environments, where form fits the need for function.

By: Raymondflaugher

Raymondflaugher — Fri, 27 Apr 2012 11:53:00 +0000

By: Thorbjoern Mann

Thorbjoern Mann — Thu, 26 Apr 2012 13:44:00 +0000

The disconnect between ‘high architecture’ and the life of places can be traced to several factors. One is the habit of making decisions about projects looking at scale models of the proposed buildings. The larger the building, the more the viewer’s attention is drawn to its overall shape, form, geometry, and away from what happens at the ground level where people interact with it. This is exacerbated by the language used to talk about it: for the developer, floor area ratio, return on investment, which in that world can be manipulated through marketing which uses visual features (‘image’) as tools; these are then embedded in esoteric architectural theory talk ranging from the old ‘function’ via ‘challenging viewers’ preconceptions’, symbolism and ‘deconstructionism’ to ‘emergence’. Even Alexander’s ‘patterns’ that come closest to counteracting these pernicious influences are still missing the essential aspect that makes patterns ‘work’: the o c c a s i o n s people can experience in and around the building. A place must not only provide physical opportunity for such occasions, but signal, invite potential users to engage in them, even invent and create new activities, ways of being and living. Then, just looking at the ground floor of a building, it becomes obvious what is missing. Looking at places that ‘work’ from this perspective, a few ‘rules’ can be drawn: the occasions are facilitated by small scale physical features — starting with relationship to the human body; there must be many potential occasions (‘a certain level of ‘occasion opportunity density’); the occasions must be connected, linked into a continuous chain that draws people without interruption (by blank walls or empty surfaces, garage entrances etc.) from one invitation to the next. The experience of an occasion is enhanced or diminished by the i m a g e of a place — not only the story it conveys about ‘what kind of place’ it is, but of the occasion:’what kind of occasion is this’ and of the participants: ‘who are we?’ — even ‘who could we be or become? – that the building might help us become? (I have written about this; but it seems hard to get through even to well-intentioned place-makers. Contact me for more at: abbeboulah@yahoo.com).

By: Fredkent

Fredkent — Sun, 01 Apr 2012 23:20:00 +0000

The big tragedy is that Astor Place could be a great square within a city with too few squares because of the lack of traffic and the potential length of it within a large community of different neighborhoods

By: Mauricio

Mauricio — Sun, 01 Apr 2012 10:14:00 +0000

I’m from Melbourne and I have so much to say on this matter…
CH2 is a terrible example of of a public place – It is a thoughtfully considered building with exemplary initiatives to minimise its impact on the environment (energy/water/materials) however the chess board on the ground level had nothing to do with the architectural project. The best that CH2 did was wave the ‘Café Wand’ at street level to ensure public custom. (Mind you CH2 is built on Melbourne busiest foot traffic street, Swanston Street.

I’ve been also been to many American cities including New York and wonder if the critic would be so indignant towards architects and specifically the Cooper Union building had it been built besides Times Square… Some places are public, others are not – to think that every building should generate ‘a place’ on every sidewalk is ridiculous.

Shouldn’t government buildings (representative of the public) be concerned with the public areas/spaces (including sidewalks)?

Let’s not forget that CH2 and it’s surrounding street scape are all Melbourne Council projects/funded; with an obvious vested interest in its public qualities.

By: Mark

Mark — Thu, 29 Mar 2012 01:07:00 +0000

interesting article but are we comparing apples to apples? aren’t we forgetting that the built form is an outcome from the clients brief and that the brief for CH2 would be totally different to that of the cooper union building. Being a landscape architect, I am more than happy to point the finger at bad architects but, I feel that there is a bigger issue, were the clients ambitions the same?

Also interesting to note that it’s getting hard to tell the difference between computer renderings and real buildings nowadays

By: Is Your City Design-Centered or Place-Centered? « Project for Public Spaces – Placemaking for Communities « :: edESTESdesign's eBlog ::

Wed, 28 Mar 2012 22:22:53 +0000

[...] move toward an Architecture of Place, we must all advocate for our cities to take a Place-Centered approach to creating new buildings [...]

By: Greg

Greg — Wed, 21 Mar 2012 14:10:00 +0000

I agree with you on this, but I don’t think the argument will be broadly persuasive until we find a way to take it out of the purely subjective. Because others can and will respond “but the building doesn’t make me feel that way” and then there is an impasse.