COMPLEXITY +

CONTRADICTORY + ???

CCCCCCCCCCOOOOOOOOOOOOMMMMMMMMMMMMMPPPPPPPPPPPPPPLLLLLLLLLLEEEEEEEEEEEXXXXXXXXXXIIIIIIIIIIIIITTTTTTTTTTTTYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY +++++++++++++++

CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDIIIIIICCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY ++++++++++++++ ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

6EXTROVERSION

1. REVIEW OF SAB VS. DESIGN HUB

2. POLITICAL ARCHITECTURE

3. DEVELOP LIBRARY BRIEF

4. EXTROVERSION

TH

E P

M’S

RE

AD

ING

RO

OM

_R

MIT

ST

UD

IO_S

EM

ES

TE

R 1

20

13

_E

MM

A W

ILS

ON

_L

EV

EL

9_S

30

51

43

2

WEEK 7

TASK 1:

AR. REVIEW

R E V I E W : S A B V S . D H

Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology (RMIT) has recently gained two architectural additions to their catalogue of star-architecture. Firstly Swanston Academic Building (SAB) by Lyons and also the Design Hub (DH) by Sean Godsell Architects.

Both buildings have begun with similar positions and motives to a new type of learn-ing, but arrived at different outcomes. Both aimed to provide collaborative, highly adaptive, social spaces in order to allow “cross pollination”, or collaboration. The output, or method, though, severely differs in the finished products.

The opposing materials and colour palette designed throughout exterior and interior spaces of each building give an insight to how each architect treated the brief. The DH uses a cold, grey, very raw palette throughout- appearing sterile, heartless, sombre, unfriendly from first views. This cold palette of materials provides a perfect backdrop for magazine photographs- where no people are seen to inhabit- but it does not provide a backdrop for collaborative design spaces. Perhaps this aesthetic is a critique on the design community and their goals? Or perhaps more a reflection on the own architects passions and interests?

The Lyon’s building on the other hand, provides spatial and visual stimulation through it’s use of colour and fractal intersecting elements throughout facade and interior. Whilst this is a messy aesthetic, and few would describe the building as beautiful, the building invites and inspires student collaboration- being messy, incidental, colourful, social, fun and informal.

The floor plan of each building alters greatly. The huge footprint of SAB sees that fragmented pattern, not restricted in any way by rectangles and 90 degrees corners. The plan is free to zig zag in and out, the students are free to collaborate freely and in an informal space where no meaning has been decided. The Design hub plan on the other hand is controlled and ordered- a Modernist plan- adhering to the rectangular limits of the site. Controlled and limiting, the plan’s long and narrow staircase slices through and divides the spaces (and people).

The Design Hub presents itself as a sustainable, green building using new technolo-gies- which, interestingly are so futuristic that they have not yet been invented or incorporated into the reality of the building. Again, this current fashion of marketable sustainability, but really without depth or a follow through of intent.

1. Design Hub Facade to Swanston Street2. Divisive corridor punctuating the spaces

of the Design Hub3. A bite out of Lyon’s SAB Facade, with

balconies looking out to the city. 4. Fragmented, colourful interiors of SAB

1. 3.

4. 2.

Both facades use a collective of small repetitive elements- perhaps representing collective mass of students, and the university as a whole, not as individuals. One uses triangular col-ours, whereas the other uses opaque glass disks. One is perfect in it’s repetition and purity, one appears messy and allows chunks to be bitten out. Whilst one facade takes it’s cues from the surroundings (albeit abstractedly), one hums to it’s own tune.

The balcony negatives, or bites, punctuating the SAB building facade, provide outdoor space to meet, study, collaborate- an extension from Corrigan’s building 8 street interaction. These street chunks also allow and encourage an interaction with the street below in a way which the Design Hub does not. The chunks aim their views at other university buildings and the street below, showing a collaboration with Corrigans’ building 8, ARM’s story hall and the street, and also give a send of depth to the facade.

Godesell’s Design Hub, reverts back to the days where university grounds were closed to the general public.- a condition to which RMIT has moved away from in recent years The build-ing’s facade doesn’t offer any insight to what is inside, it does not invite, it reflects. You may look out from within the building, (from the most interesting space in the project- the rooftop) but you can never see in if you are on outside. This presents design to be an exclusive indus-try, accessible to only those in the know.

Both buildings offer an example of an architecture of today. One showing a formal, cold and very fashionable approach, one showing an informal, warm, and very human approach. Which do you choose?

POLITICAL

ARCHTITECTURE

-AUSTRALIAN INSTITUTE OF ABORIGINAL AND

TORRES STRAIT ISLANDER STUDIES (AIATSIS),

ARM

-THE MELBOURNE SHRINE OF REMEMBRANCE, ARM

-UREMBURG RALLY, ALBERT SPEER

-2011 ARIRANG MASS GAMES (MASS CHOREOGRA-

PHY, NORTH KOREA)

-THE REICHSTAG, NORMAN FOSTER

-THE VIETNAM WAR MEMORIAL (WASHINGTON, DC),

MAYA LIN

AUSTRALIAN INSTITUTE OF ABORIGINAL AND

TORRES STRAIT ISLANDER STUDIES (AIAT-

SIS), ARM

WHITE ARCHITECTURE TURNED BLACK

CROSS/ SIGNATURE OF ILLITERATES

PARLIAMENT FOR ABORIGINALS- FACING TO

PARLIAMENT OF AUSTRALIA BUILDING

RED AND BLACK PARLIAMENT, NOT WHITE

COLOURS USED FOR POLITICAL MES-

SAGE.

REPETITION/COPYING OF EXISTING ICONIC BUILD-

INGS WITH SLIGHT ALTERATIONS (COLOUR) TO MAKE

POLITICAL STATEMENT.

NUREMBURG RALLY, ALBERT SPEER

Berthold Konrad Hermann Albert

Speer[1] (pronounced [ĐĐpeĐĐĐ] (

listen); March 19, 1905 – September

1, 1981) was a German architect who

was, for a part of World War II, Minis-

ter of Armaments and War Production

for the Third Reich.

They were large Nazi propaganda

events, especially after Hitler’s rise

to power in 1933. These events were

held at the Nazi party rally grounds in

Nuremberg from 1933 to 1938 and are

usually referred to in English as the

Nuremberg Rallies

The primary aspect of the Nuremberg

Rallies was to strengthen the person-

ality cult of Adolf Hitler, portraying

him as Germany’s saviour, chosen

by providence. The gathered masses

listened to the Führer’s speeches,

swore loyalty and marched before

him. Representing the Volksgemein-

schaft as a whole, the rallies served to

demonstrate the might of the German

people. The visitors of the rallies by

their own free will were subordinate to

the discipline and order in which they

should be reborn as a new people

authoritative

superpower

invincible, destructible

the collective

monumental

a new germany,

control

“cathedrals of light”

-2011 ARIRANG MASS GAMES

(MASS CHOREOGRAPHY, NORTH KOREA)

the collective, no individuals

superpower, big

invincible, destructible

control, fear

-THE REICHSTAG, NORMAN FOSTER

The current Reichstag dome is a glass dome constructed on top of the rebuilt Reichstag building in Berlin. It was designed by architect Norman Foster and built to symbol-ize the reunification of Germany. The distinctive appearance of the dome has made it a prominent landmark in Berlin.

The Reichstag dome is a large glass dome with a 360 degree view of the surrounding Berlin cityscape. The debating chamber of the Bundestag, the German parliament, can be seen down below. A mirrored cone in the center of the dome directs sunlight into the building, and so that visitors can see the working of the chamber.[1] The dome is open to the public and can be reached by climbing two steel, spiraling ramps that are reminiscent of a double-helix.[2] The Dome symbolizes that the people are above the government, as was not the case during National Social-ism.

The glass dome was also designed by Foster to be environmentally friendly. Energy efficient features involving the use of the daylight shining through the mirrored cone were applied, effectively decreasing the carbon emissions of the build-ing.[3]

The futuristic and transparent design of the Reichstag dome makes it a unique landmark, and symbol-izes Berlin’s attempt to move away from a past of Nazism and instead towards a future with a heavier emphasis on a united, democratic Germany

transparent government

a new era- different to the past

reflective (on past)

dome -political process in design

-THE VIETNAM WAR MEMORIAL (WASH-

INGTON, DC), MAYA LIN

The black cut-stone masonry wall, with the names of 58,272 fallen soldiers carved into its face,[10] was completed in late October 1982 and dedi-cated on November 13, 1982.[11] The wall is granite and V-shaped, with one side point-ing to the Lincoln Memorial and the other to the Washing-ton Monument

Lin’s conception was to create an opening or a wound in the earth to symbolize the gravity

sunken womb

asian vs. western art

a different kind of monunment

3 X M A S S I N G O P T I O N S

1 .2 .

3 .

MASSING DIAGRAM 1

POLITIC OF THE TIME???

“HOWARDS’S BATTLERS”

BLUE COLLAR WORKERS, (TRADITIONAL LABOUR

VOTERS) SWITCHING TO HOWARD FOR 2 TERMS

-LABOUR NOT RESPONDING TO NEEDS (89 INTER-

EST RATES)

-PROSPEROUS TIMES

-CONSERVATIVE ATTITUDES TO IMMIGRATION

“I NEED MORE”

(THE AUSSIE

BATTLER)

MONEY = STATUS = POWER MC-MANSIONSHOUSES GETTING BIGGER

BIGGER IS BETTER-

facade/

s tatus /

show of weal th

“GATED ISLAND”

FEAR OF HAVING TO SHARE NEW WEALTH

“I believe we are in danger of be-

ing swamped by Asians. Between

1984 and 1995, 40% of all mi-

grants coming into this country

were of Asian origin. They have

their own culture and religion, form

ghettos and do not assimilate.”

EXTROVERSION-

PROCESS

THE

FORTRESS

WALL

EXTROVERSION-

PROCESS

GROUND

FLOOR PLAN

800M2

FIRST GROUND

FLOOR PLAN

270M2