The Architect and the Artist

I've been giving a lot of thought lately to parametric design: that oh-so-fashionable method of design which turns architects into code-writers and computers into designers. I don’t mean to bear down on this method too much, because I do see many purposes for its implementation as a design tool. I can see how parametric design can numerically arrive at what could potentially be the most efficient layout of a space, or best use of a material, or efficient structure. I also see how parametric design can take raw data about wind velocity and temperature, humidity, orientation to the sun, average rainfall, etc, and optimize the layout of a structure such that it provides the maximum benefit of its environment with minimal impact. The utilitarian use of parametric design fascinates me.

What worries me more is using parametrics as a design driver. Putting my finger on just what makes me worry about it has been more difficult, but I think I’m on the right track: With parametric design an architect can, with a bit of computational magic, create a set of mathematics which results in a perfect sculpture. (Note: the use of “perfect” here does not necessarily signify any aesthetic or cultural exactitude, but instead a faithful application of some theoretical input) But while parametric designer applies mathematics to create sculpture, an artist will create sculpture that inherently uses mathematics. This inverse relationship is not equal. What gets lost in translation is not the ability to create a perfect sculpture – A computer can scan, digitize, and recreate Michelangelo’s “David” down to the slightest knick in the Carrara marble. What the computer cannot recreate is an ephemeral “warmth” or soul to the piece which can only be wrought with the hands of an artist.

[via ArchDaily]

In a similar way I’ve always preferred the drawn line to the plotted line. Something in the inconsistency, the variability, the flow and the changing pressure of graphite on vellum, always seemed to being more life to a drawing than the cold, unwavering plot line.

Parking V. Vaughn

[via millionbythirty]

Everyone likes movies and television. Everyone likes meeting celebrities. But having film or television shot on your block tends to taint the excitement. In urban neighborhoods parking is already a rarity (as it should be), so when a TV pilot is being shot in the neighborhood and film crews absorb half the streets' parking, it makes for a hectic time...

Take from the streets, for they cannot vote.

I was saddened to wake up to the news yesterday that in Colorado Springs, the city is removing trash cans and streetlights in the most ill-advised move I can imagine.

 

The rationale behind such a move is to save the city money. To be fair, CS laws require that all tax increases must be taken to the polls, and the townsfolk chose not to raise their own taxes. But given the many programs that could be reduced or eliminated, these are perhaps two of the worst. 

James Q. Wilson's book Thinking About Crime proved a correlation between the amount of litter in an area and an increase in its crime rate. His theory was that broken windows, litter and graffiti sent a message of instability in the neighborhood that only led to increased levels of broken windows, litter and graffiti. Couple this with the limited reach of street lighting, and you've got a perfect storm for even more vandalism, perhaps even violence. The only thing they could have done worse would be to cut down the trees.

As bad as that may seem, the problem will only compound when the values of the homes on these dark, dirty, littered, unsafe streets begin to plummet, taking their tax revenue with them. 

Soon the streets that used to be so clean and bright and wonderful to walk down in the evening may be so dangerous that increased police presence (and all associated costs) will be needed just to maintain civility. Even if you claim reductio ad absurdum on my last point, the littered streets will require additional manpower to keep them clean. And absent any good-willed denizens, that job falls to the government. 

Colorado Springs is an area with lower rates of crime, and I suppose there's a chance they may be spared the same fate as the cars used in John Q. Wilson's experiments. But by dismantling two of the three *virtually free* pillars of a safe community in order to save the city money in the short run makes the city still looks penny-wise and pound-foolish.

Planes, Trains, and Automobiles

 

[via wikipedia]

"Can you wait three minutes?"

This question was posed to me while ordering my dinner from a restaurant in Arlington, Virginia. It was near closing time, and the cooks had begun cleaning up, so my order of fries was going to take a few minutes before they would be ready. The restaurant was surprisingly busy for this late on a Monday night, but I reasoned that the massive accumulation of snow outside had not just canceled my train home, it had also shut down streets, grocery stores, and restaurants across the entire region.

I had prepared myself for a quick, three-day trip to Washington, DC to interview with a few firms. When one interviewer asked me if I would be able to meet with another person on Monday (the person I would be working more directly with) I reluctantly agreed. This was Super Bowl Weekend, and I was planning on hosting a party on Sunday night. But if the extra time would help me land the job, I was willing to stay. The Super Bowl was not my only reason for wanting to leave on time - the snow was just beginning to fall, and many business had already closed in anticipation of the snow. My lack of understanding just what was about to take place was underscored by the comment I made to the interviewer:

"You know what we call this in Chicago?"
"What's that?"
"June"

The snows began on Saturday. On Sunday the skies parted and cabin-fevered Washingtonians began to take to the street. The street scene was one I truly enjoyed seeing; the streets were hardly plowed, to say nothing of the sidewalks, and there were few vehicles out. In their stead, throngs of people could be seen walking up and down the newly pedestrianized streets amidst the winter wonderland. The collective need surpassed our selfishness, and people could be seen digging out sidewalks, removing snow from a neighbors' roof, or pushing a car out of a snow-fortified parking space. It was a stunning moment of humanity in which I saw the possibilities of a pedestrianized world and the potential of all the networks and relationships that could be forged when we no longer passed by each other at 40 miles an hour, but had time to wave, say "hi", and ask how a strangers' day has been going. I wish I would have had my camera.

After I found out I was going to be staying until Monday, I traded my Saturday train ticket for one on Tuesday morning. This was a simple process, and I applaud Amtrak for its ease. But neither train was to leave; both were canceled, logically, due to the heavy amounts of snow accumulation strung between DC and Chicago. If the trip is normally 17 hours, imagine that same trip plowing through 26 inches of snow. I rescheduled again, this time for Wednesday. It was also at this time that I booked a cheap flight out of Dulles. While I was glad to be arriving in Chicago 36 hours earlier than I would have on Amtrak, I was slightly disappointed that I couldn't complete my round-trip journey by train alone. 

Tuesday's blizzard only compounded the problems. In addition to the trains not running, the airports had closed indefinitely, and me without a car, was stuck there to wait it out. I knew beforehand that America had a love affair with cars, but I've always been biased toward mass transit, and so I could overlook its deficiencies. But stranded in DC with no way of leaving, no way to get around, I was given no choice but to come to grips with the fact that America NEEDS cars. Yes, we can build a national high-speed rail network, and it will increase usage over today's ridership, but America came into its own during the automobile revolution, and as a result we have larger, more spread out cities in varied locations with little option to connect it all with any type of mass transit. Short of dynamiting each American city and starting from scratch, America will require a lot of cars.

And the cars we need do not need to look like the cars we have. Smaller, more efficient cars, cars that stack or compact, cars made for one or two people, cars that include towing or carrying capacity. Wind-, Solar-, and Geothermal-generated Hydrogen or electric cars can replace the internal combustion engine. Carpooling, rideshare, rentals, all are potential avenues for the new automobile. As my 4 canceled trains and 3 flights indicate, cars will be necessary.

And like most Earth-saving technologies, the market, policies, financing, technologies, or innovations are preventing them from hitting the streets today. So we should work toward many solutions, generating them in myriad ways, the same way one of my myriad schemes to get home finally panned out. Because some technologies will sputter out and some will be canceled, but given enough time one will carry us home.

So can I wait 3 minutes? You bet.

High-Speed Rail in America

This week I will be taking a 17 hour journey by train from Chicago to our nations' capital. I'm quite excited, as this will be my very first cross-country trip via Amtrak. Moreover, I am very pleased that I will be able to go from my house to Union Station to Washington DC, to Silver Spring, MD, to Bethesda, MD, back to DC, then to Chicago, and back to my front door, all without setting foot in a single car. The trip will span 5 states, involve 3 mass transit systems, and will include an estimated 40 hours on one for of train or another. Needless to say, I'm taking a few books.

What I find amazing about all of this is that someone like myself - a confessed TrainGeek and mobility infrastructure wonk - has yet in my life embarked on such a journey. I've taken similar routes in Europe, where I traveled from the small village of Didcot in England, to within 200' of my apartment in Paris. Of course that trip utilised Europes' high-speed rail connections, and which saw me across four train systems and two countries, all in about 6 hours. But this trip on Amtrak is quite different. Amtrak is a notoriously slow and unreliable service. In its entire history it has failed to turn a single year of profit, and thus relies heavily on government subsidies. I nearly opted against this excursion on Amtrak, as the total travel time will nearly double, and the cost is slightly higher than would be the cost of gas for the trip. The only reason I'm willing to make these concessions is that I don't like driving, and I do like the free time granted by rail travel. Indeed if I weren't such a geek about trains, there is little chance I would not have driven my car all that way. Unfortunately for Amtrak, there are few people like myself that are willing to make such concessions.

And thus the great American High-Speed Rail Gamble: Obama is putting a great deal of money on the line that if given the choice between driving or flying, or having the option to travel on relatively inexpensive, reliable, safe, and convenient high-speed rail, that Americans will choose the latter. Even with my obvious biases toward rail (I would love to visit any medium-sized metropolitan city without setting foot in a car), I do feel that this is a realistic and as-of-yet unresolved issue. To provide high-speed rail in the quantity and quality required to turn a profit, costs may end up being prohibitive to flying. If you seek to provide cheap, reliable service you will end up sacrificing quality.
And so on.

Therefore I hold the belief that if you are to provide the type of service, quality, etc, required to convince people that rail is a viable option, AND you provide it at a cost similar to or less than driving, you must first revolutionize the way we think about "high-speed rail" I do not believe that the European or Asian models will work in America. This is what I think will:

Dedicated, elevated rail: Amtrak faces its sloth and inconsistency on two factors: 1)They share rail lines with freight trains, and often are the second-priority when it comes to sharing a single track. This results in increased stoppage time, and when they can run,  2) track quality, contextual issues, and imposed speed regulations prevent the trains from achieving a speed necessary to provide quick transit. By providing dedicated tracks the trains will be able to travel smoothly and consistently. By elevating the track, the risk of animals or debris on the tracks is reduced and speeds can be increased.

Electrified rail: The second advantage to elevated rail is that the system can be provided ample, secure electricity to power the trains. This can also lead to cleaner transit if the power is generated sustainably.

Solar Power: With over 87 million square feet of potential surface area along the rail between Chicago and DC, there's ample opportunity to install solar panels along many different lengths. The panels would have direct access to sunlight, and would be able to easily power the entire rail system, thus providing clean, cheap energy. There's potential for additional profit if Amtrak sells power back to the grid when not in use.


Computerized trains: Having studied the CTA budget, it's plain to see that the highest cost to any mass transit program is its manpower. While I would certainly never suggest fully automating a 200 MPH train with hundreds of live aboard, there's certainly an ability to automate many functions of rail travel, which reduces costs and reduces the risk of human error. One engineer aboard a bullet train could pilot the vehicle, while the computer monitors the engines, the passenger cars, and the track ahead. Automating certain aspects of the stations would further prohibit human error and improve safety. Maintenance of tracks and vehicles would be much more efficient if the tracks and vehicles were monitoring themselves and pointing mechanics to specific issues, instead of lengthy and costly maintenance overhauls on healthy trains.

Smart Ticketing: The ability exists today to implement a ticketing system that would provide any industry (airlines, hotels, sports venues, etc) with the right balance of occupancy and profit. Creating a program that analyzes trends in hourly, daily, monthly, yearly, and 5-year purchasing, companies could simply input their desired occupancy (75% full, 95% full, etc.) and the program would constantly adjust prices so that the cost rises when demand rises and lowers when demand lowers. As the scheduled departure approaches ticket prices would increase or decrease dramatically in order to fill the requisite seats. This system could be a boon to business class and other last-minute travelers, as they will be able to find inexpensive seats (as opposed to astronomical airline prices) and the train is able to make a bit more money by filling up the last remaining seats.

These are a few. I'm sure I'll add to this list upon my return.

The Land of the Rings

Artist Roy Prol take a look at Earth if it had the rings of Saturn.

Of Millenia and Mirrors

One simply does not study under the tutelage of one Professor Waldman without an appreciation for mirrors, specifically mirrors which reflect alternate realities, passageways, and other immaterial ephemera. So when Roosevelt University announces plans to construct a new building along South Michigan, I cannot but see the bi-colored and reflective glass as a large mirror, reflecting the city and heavens.

So what is the effect of such reflected glazing (referred to as "mirrors") on the city, and what does it say about the architecture it envelopes? In the mid-century, modernists were using glass in part for the purpose of mirroring the external world. Examples like Lever House and the Hancock Building used glass to immaterialize their buildings - by cladding the structure in mirrors, one could create the effect of transparency, the irony being they were so opaque one could not see 3/8" past the surface.

This implication is perhaps more revelatory than simply playing with reflections. Mirrors used to disguise the true shape of a building, or employed to visually trick the onlooker into believing the building is smaller implies an apologetic demeanor, as if to offer a feeble mea culpa to the surrounding urbanism for such an obviously intrusive and incongruous bit of fabric. If there is any merit to this argument (and a quick look at some of the early mirrored buildings finds a pattern of incongruity with their fabric), then one might argue that buildings (or their architects) are self-aware - and self-conscious. Look at high-rises and skyscrapers built in the last 15 years, and the self-conscious apologetics of mirrored glass disappear. In their wake are buildings that stand tall and proud, determined to make a statement of themselves amongst the milieu of other tall buildings (see aqua tower). However, one key element has changed - the height of the surrounding urbanism. No longer are these tall buildings the pioneers of their locations. Unless a building is going exceedingly tall, there is no longer an incongruity of urbanism, and tall buildings are allowed to flaunt thier style with reckless inhibition. Even amongst the tallest buildings, there are examples of a mixture of attitudes toward environments; Burj Dubai stands alone within its context. It's clad in mirrors yes, but its shape and the curvature of the glass minimizes the effects of mirroring, and the building is allowed to stand alone. Trump Tower in Chicago is a second example. This building (some have speculated its role as a precursor to the burj dubai, given a similar structural language and both designed by Adrian Smith at SOM) begins to mirror its surroundings and the sky, minimizing its impact on the landscape.Although located along the Chicago River just north of the loop, it breaks away from the other tall buildings of the city and stands alone, an effect exaggerated when approaching the city some 10-20 miles out. The Spire offers another example, as does the now-underway Freedom Tower in New York City, which perhaps does the best job of treading a fine line between apologetic mirroring and brazen statement.

No doubt there are other interpretations of mirrors and buildings. I would like to revisit the use of mirrors on many of the structures around Millenium park, from the Pritzker Pavilion to the Bean, to the mirrors found on the wet pavement at Crown Fountain. This picture begins to hint at the phenomenal possibilities of mirrors which provide a glimpse of another world beyond. Such an idea is not to be found in many of the mirrored buildings we see today, that try to hide themselves from view. Instead mirrors to the moon provide visual access to exciting alternatives, which can truly be experienced at eye-level.

[via rjseg1]