Thursday, March 24, 2011

happy weekend



okay... Robert Redford has nothing to do with maps... but he is an environmentalist and more importantly, he is the sexiest man [possibly person] to have ever walked this earth and I thought it was completely essential to share this with everyone as we enter our first full spring weekend! Enjoy yourselves, melting season is upon us.

Saturday, March 19, 2011

reading about trains on a train

Atlas Shrugged

"you've borne too much, and there's a great deal that you have to learn to understand in order to lose every scar of the torture you never should have had to bear. all that matters now is that you're free to recover. we're free, both of us, we're free of the looters, we're out of their reach..... check your premises, Dagny. Contradictions don't exists.... we never demanded the one payment that the world owed us - and we let our best reward go to the worst men. the error was made by every man that fed the world and received no thanks in return. you don't know what is right any long? Dagny, this is not a battle over material goods. It's a moral crisis, the greatest the world has ever faced and the last. our age is the climate of centuries of evil. we must put an end to it, once and for all, or perish - we, the men of the mind. it was our own guilt. we produced the wealth of the world - but we let our enemies write its moral code." - Francisco d'Anconia,  pg. 618-619

"you - she thought - whoever you are, whom i have always loved and never found, you whom i expected to see at the end of the rails beyond the horizon, you whose presence i had always felt in the streets of the city and whose world i had wanted to build, it is my love for you that had kept me moving, my love and my hope reach you and my wish to be worthy of you on the day when i would stand before you face to face. now i know i shall never find you - that it is not to be reached or lived - but what is left of my life is still yours, and i will go on in your name, even though it is a name i'll never learn, i will go on serving you, even though i'm never to win, i will go on, to be worthy of you on that day when i would have met you, even though i won't....she never accepted hopelessness, but she stood at the window and, addressed the shape of a fogbound city, it was her self-dedication to unrequited love." [she: Dagny Taggart], pg. 634

Friday, March 4, 2011

where's the social concern?

"the french architect alain guilheux "from an architect supposedly giving to others [the modern architect], we have moved in a very short space of time to the 'artist' architect [the postmodern architect] who speaks of himself, of his own genius". and Huxtable exclaimed: "the most fundamental change in architecture today is one of attitude. scratch a postmodernist and you will find an apostle of architecture for art's sake, something that would have had any respectable and responsible architect drummed out of the profession not too long ago.... with the renunciation of traditional responsibilities as beyond his capacities or control, the architect has finally been freed to pursue style exclusively and openly... with apology". she bemoaned the current state of architecture, saying "there is more pettiness and pedantry than passion in architecture today... there are no heroes, and no architectural giants, because there is no cause"."  ::  nan ellin's themes of postmodern urbanism p.154-55

WHO ARE WE DESIGNING FOR? What is our largely responsibility outside of paying bills and fattening bank accounts? There MUST be a social cause for something as monumental as a building that is meant to be used by living bodies.. there must be social awareness in all we do, not as martyrs but as responsible individuals that grasps the fundamental fact: we are just guests on this planet, we must act accordingly... and when we can't [roads, buildings, etc] we must know things that last longer than a lifetime should show respect to those who have yet to arrive.

Thursday, March 3, 2011

google: bikini atoll

words cannot describe

half thoughts on the g train

continuing on with the months of thinking about post-modernism and the conditional reactions to the modernist shift at the turn of the 20th century. i stand on the side of modernism, believing the utopian ideals were manipulated and never expressed in fullness - which culminated in the defiance of the purposes hoped for in the manifestos declared during the modernist movement. breaking apart a whole for its parts does not create something greater.... nonetheless these are thoughts of the early morning while enjoying mass transit:

the modernist movement torn down the past because it failed to function or create a city/homestead that represented equality, health, + wealth - and no, not wealth the way post-modernists [and everyone else] defines it: income/consumption and lots of it, wealth was meant to be measured in happiness, which was not achieved by objects themselves, their mere existence/presence, but rather their utils, how they affected the order and the abilities to live effectively [modernists believed they were breaking with the past by starting fresh, but they didn't fully comprehend the intensity and radicalness that would be necessary in order to achieve such ideals in mass culture while working against the mass propaganda, or perhaps they were unaware of the propaganda rising and sneaky pieces of the ideals in order to create a quilt for the masses to sleep, unaware, under]. Modernist may have failed but Le Corbusier,  and even earlier modernist, FLR + E.Howard whom may have differed from the contemporary definition of a 'modernist', wanted a life that was beautiful by nature which meant effectively dispersing wealth to all - each in their own way: tower/broadacre/town+country but they tried/purposed/succeeded in putting ideals out there because what they had in front of them was not working - this is why people still look to this movement, for better or worse, because people are fascinated by individuals who have tried to do something in response to crisis, to try and deal. criticize if you must, but planning today [not necessarily city planning but authoritative planning, generally speaking] is segregating society, a polarization with the majority failing, and modernism is being faulted, despite nearly 50 years after the branch of post-modernism began to appear.  the ideals of modernism were not meant for us, they had concrete order and often were mere representations of how equal + healthy life could be if we all tried a bit hard to achieve something that was not being accommodated by the past. these ideals were not meant for us to pick apart. 


*an interesting note: Utopia=no place, so when people use the term they realize the limitations of never being able to achieve such a place but that does not, and should not, stop one from dreaming and trying to achieve a place of equality.

modern means living with, not against, nature. realizing the importance of nature and our ability to survive because of it. modern architecture, all architecture, should become apart of its landscape and adapt accordingly, giving back in any way possible. FLW falling water is an easy example.. and while i dislike the vast majority of skyscrapers [mainly because of the necessary use of the elevator which i firmly believe is the ultimate waste of energy] the design of these buildings are a response to the small amount of land in a given area, e.g. nyc, and the high demand for living quarters. architecture shouldn't live in a city, a city [i.e. people, because really what is a city without its inhabitants?] should live in its architecture and the building should be more than just a place to rest.

remix time.

i'm in love with your honor

Wednesday, March 2, 2011

yes.. more fake trees

fake trees just keep getting better! Power Genereating Trees designed by NL Architects, based in, where else, the Netherlands, are miniature wind turbines shaped like trees, with the turbines extending off the 'branches' it maximizes the amount of wind that can be captured and harvested into renewable energy on such a small scale. also aside from their white color the impact on the visual environment is minimal and the noise is reduced as well! the design also makes it possible for two homes [or one home on a large lot] to invest in one 'tree' and use the energy for their homes.. and who knows, if extra energy is produced the home owners can sell the remainder to the city, helping to curb the consumption of non-renewables and bring the architectural city alive!
for more on NL Architects ... http://www.nlarchitects.nl/

boston does trees, 2.0

another nifty way to use fake plastic trees, this time taking it one [two?] step further to collect stormwater [YES!] and produce electricity! - i could totally get down with this - the design could be improved a bit but hey, i'll take it, i'm just lovin the creativity and the desire to do something to curb the issue until we finally make the move to a radical new paradigm. 
urban field

so stunning

Stockholm's new Waterfront Centre is beautiful [-http://inhabitat.com/stockholms-undulating-waterfront-centre-is-a-transforming-low-energy-venue/] recently complete and designed by DANISH architect firm, White Arkitekter, it's a low-energy consuming, shape-shifter design. the whole of the inside can be molded time and time again in order to accommodate various activities and events along one of the most beautiful waterways, bordering the historic city center and the business district, which has helped Stockholm become one of the most technological cities, the building takes radical modernism to a whole other level. 'wa', similar to RAU and most other northern european Archs/designers/planners, took their time designing the building, beginning the process in 2005, carefully working with the city to accomplish the task of providing for the citizens and visitors. i'll be seeing this building, as well as many works [and spaces] by w.a. & other Scandinavian designers in t-minus 3.5 months!