Download presentation
Presentation is loading. Please wait.
Published byJean Blankenship Modified over 9 years ago
1
Methods and Analysis BK8040 2007/2008 ir.Marc Koehler ir. Erno Langenberg ir. Ali Guney Dr. Karina Moraes Zarzar, PhD
2
Objectives The objective of “Methods and Analysis” is that: 1. 1.Students are introduced to essential terminology, concepts and numerous aspects (such as context, program of requirements) of the architectural field.
3
Objectives The objective of “Methods and Analysis” is that: 2. Students develop programmatic and typological knowledge in architecture through the study of relevant cases.
4
Objectives The objective of “Methods and Analysis” is that: 3. Students learn how to use and adapt design precedents in the creation of innovative designs through the analysis of an architect’s oeuvre.
5
Some questions What means Analysis? What means Methods? Why should you analyze something? Does it help you during design? Does it help you in developing your position as architect?
6
How can you analyze a building/project? You can analyze it by: Visiting the building Studying visual material: –technical drawings –perspectives –Via photos, videos Reading about it
7
2 Approaches Approach 1: You don’t have written material about a particular building –You base your analysis on the physical aspects of the building –You study the drawings (maybe also visit the building) –You start your explorative (almost exhaustive) analysis according to the methods –You make the synthesis of all the parts
8
2 Approaches Approach 2: You know something from the architect’s position and want to know how some aspects are expressed in his designs –You study the drawings (maybe also visit the building) –You start a specific analysis on the physical aspects of the building to uncover the specific themes found in the architect position) –You present a partial synthesis in explaining the specific themes
9
2 Approaches Both ways: –You need METHODS to REPRESENT your findings To compare with other buildings To communicate with other people –You will understand how to “read” a project/building
10
Objectives By the end of the course, students should be able to: –Bring together an adequate documentation of projects –Understand basic architectural concepts –Understand basic principles of composition –Critically perform a descriptive analysis of a precedent through: numerous methods: Ching, Clark and Pause, Steadman and in particular the F(m).O.P) and diverse approaches: composition, function, context, construction - according to Leupen’s Ontwerp en Analyse –Make a comparison of projects –Analyze the oeuvre of architects in relation to their worldviews (themes), their use of precedents –Make a proper presentation of the analysis –Be able to transfer their knowledge from precedent analysis to design
11
Course Structure The course is subdivided into 7 seminars of 4 hours each and a series of 7 lectures on methods. Lectures = –general relevant terminology –methods –Study of the Oeuvre Seminars = –discussion about selected architectural aspects –discussion about lectures –exercises
12
The Assignment: 1.The students select (groups of 4 students): 1.The architect (from proposed list) 2.The themes (at least 2 themes) 3.Two representative projects of this architect 4.Apply Method(s) (to be learned during the lectures and seminars) to analyze, describe the findings, produce the parti, 5.Compare the two buildings 6.Analyze the oeuvre in relation to the selected themes: re-use, transformation and shifts 2.Result: Poster (format: A0) of the analysis 1.Introduction about the selected architect and his/her position(s) 2.Documentation of two projects of one architect: drawings, sketches, perspectives, pictures, texts 3.General description: primary and secondary elements, topological + functional representation and parti 4.Comparison of these projects referring to the selected themes. 5.Study of the oeuvre referring to the selected themes 6.Conclusion: reflection of the whole analysis 3.Attention: 1.results are always delivered in a CD as well as in a printing version. 2.Groups: max. 4 students.
13
Poster Lay-Out on the blackboard
14
List of Architects: James Stirling Tadao Ando Herman Hertzberger Louis Kahn Frank Llyod Wright Rem Koolhaas MVRDV Jorn Utzon Jo Coenen Hendrik Petrus Berlage Richard Meier Aldo Rossi Norman Foster Renzo Piano Toyo Ito Peter Zumthor Zaha Hadid Alvaro Siza
15
Seminar Course: Method and Analysis Seminar 1: Concepts Intro. FOP Ching Aspect: Theme Seminar 2: Concepts Ching Clark & Pause Aspect: Prog. Of Req. Seminar 3: Clark & Pause Steadman Aspect: Design concept Seminar 6: Aspect: Design Precedents and identity Seminar 5: Aspect: Typology; Design Precedents; Oeuvre Seminar 7: Presentation of the comparisson of two buildings + oeuvre Terminology Introduction to F.O.P. Ching: Sp. Relations Sp. Organiz. -Ching: Movement circulation -Program of Requirement -Clark and Pause: Geometry Light Fall Structural System -Clark and Pause: Hierarchy Massing PARTI -Steadman: Topological Relations Analysis F(M) – O- P Design Precedents and Innovations Precedents and Identity Lecture 1: ALI Lecture 4: Erno Lecture 2: ALI Lecture 3: ALI Lecture 6: KARINA Lecture 7: KARINA Lecture 5: ALI -Materials, Structures and Details Seminar 4: F.O.P. Seminar 4: Aspect: Materials: Sensorial, texture, esthetic System & Construction Architectural Details
16
Course structure per seminar SEMINARS Discussing Architectural Aspects: 30 minutes New Assignments 5 minutes Discussing lecture “n” 30 to 60 minutes Work in Sub-groups (exercises) 1:15 hr Round table 40 minutes Seminar Literature Analysis Critique Not all seminars
17
Literature REQUIRED LITERATURE: Leupen, Bernard et al. 1999. Ontwerp en Analyse. Rotterdam: Uitgeverij 010. Ching, F.D.K. (1979) Architecture: form, space and order Clark, R.H. and Pause, M. (1985) Precedents in Architecture Steadman, J P. 1989. Architectural Morphology-Topological (graph theoretical) representations of plans Tzonis. A. 1992. “Huts, ships and bottleracks: Design by analogy for architects and/or machines”. In: Research in Design Thinking. Edited by: N. Cross, K. Dorst; and N. Roozenburg. Delft: Delft University Press: pp 139-164. Tzonis, A. and L. Oorschot. 1987. Frames, Plans, Representation, Conceptdictaat inleiding programatische & functionele analyse. Delft: TU Delft, Faculty of Architecture, Art.nr. 236 Meiss, Pierre von. 1990. Elements of architecture; from form to place. New York: E & FN SPON, An Imprint of Routledge. (Oorspr. titel: De la forme au lieu, 1986) Moraes Zarzar, K. and A. Guney (Editors). 2008. Understanding Meaningful Environments. Research in Design Series, Volume 4. Amsterdam: IOS Press under the imprint Delft University Press Moraes Zarzar, K. 2003. “Breaking the Type”. Milan: GA2003 Moraes Zarzar, K. 2004. “Precedents and Identity”. Milan: GA2004 Christian Nobert-Schulz. 1976. “The Phenomenon of Place”. In: Kate Nesbitt (ed.). Theorizing a New Agenda for Architecture, an anthology of Architectural Theory 1965-1995. New York: Princeton Architectural Press. 1996, pp. 412-428 DVD series: Architectures. Art Video. Vol. 1/2/3/4/5 RECOMMENDED LITERATURE: Jong, T.M.d. and H. Engel. 2002. “Typological Research”. In: Ways to study and research urban, architectural and technical design. Edited by: T. M. d. Jong and D. J. M. v. d. Voordt. Delft: Delft University Press. Jong (2002) Mathematical models 24.14 Graph theory Moraes Zarzar, K. 2003. Use and Adaptation of Precedents in Architectural Design, toward an evolutionary design model. Delft: DUP Leupen, Bernard. 2002. Concept and type Leupen, Bernard et al. (1999) Design and Typology Meiss, Pierre von. 1998. Elements of architecture; from form to place. London, Spon (First Edition: De la forme au lieu, 1986) Rossi, A. 1966. The Architecture of the City. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press. Tzonis, A. and L.. Lefaivre. 1986. Classical Architecture, The Poetics of Order. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press
Similar presentations
© 2024 SlidePlayer.com Inc.
All rights reserved.