2014-01-11
2014-01-01
Final Text
Jessica Morris
Final Presentation Text
701 – The City as Aggregated Figure: Philadelphia
Prof. Peter Trummer – Fall 2013
The origin of our studio’s formal investigation was the
Willis Tower. Formerly known as the Sears Tower, the tower was initially conceptualized
as a structural system of bundled tubes. Within the context of the tower, we
have moved to implicate REM’s 20th century reading of individual
tower floors, or virgin sites, bearing grounds that are maintained via
perpetual discontinuity. While our site and consequential project is not within
the lineage of the tower, we are accepting the historical premise of ground
construction and are willingly appropriating these parts to whole ideals by
projecting them onto a sectional interrogation.
The tower establishes a ground whereby aggregation is the
politic, the epistemology. By delving into the set raised by these vocabularies
of architectural intervention, peering inside and exposing the constituents, I
ask, “Is it only that architecture, i.e. building, aggregates, or does not
politic also too aggregate? If politic does indeed aggregate, its productive
and consequent structure is a new urban form, capable perhaps of a new
architecture. This activation of ground can maintain or perhaps reconstitute a
position of autonomy. And while certainly not productive of a disciplinary
autonomy, as the result is a product of an aggregate politic, but rather of
advancement in the autonomy of architectural production. Within the urban
field, does architecture not continue to qualify as autonomous if it is
responsible for product, other than simulacra or replication?
To accept that there is effectively no ground, until
architecture produces it as such sets the stage to continue an investigation of
a regime of aggregate autonomy, as differentiated from architectural or
disciplinary autonomy. The question remains as to what figure has emerged
within the project. I have called the thing a DIA-CON, i.e. a diagrammatic icon,
representative of architectural politic, processes and practice. The emergent
figure differs from the figure of origination through the operation of
reconfiguration required by the project exercise.
The dissolution of the Sears Tower premise without clear
intention produces a non-resolution. Le Corbusier removed the ground as a means
of releasing the architecture from social and societal platforms. In doing so,
he relieved the part, the architecture, from its duty to the whole whereby
freeing it. It is not clear what beneficial consequences our relieving of the
Sears does have. Furthermore, in addressing the urban question, what is
required of the city to surpass the modernist positioning of the building on a
ground in a field?
The trace is gone. What is presented instead is a
homogeneous non-hierarchical set of lines which configure potentials of
heterogeneous space. In asking what the diagram of the whole is and what the
diagram of the parts are, one cannot help but consider how or rather if these
two diagrammatic resolutions should be reconciled.
The next perceptible transformation of the city may be a
matter of development from figural space to formal objectifiable space. The
proposed direction in regards to urban form may be towards either mimicry or
towards intervention. In the context we have produced, I ask to consider the
difference and differential functions of aggregate and agglomerate. We use the
word aggregation and understand it as something clean, orderly and
understandable, but the possibility of aggregates bearing the type of formal specificity
that we are loathe to produce is all but an impossibility.
If the function of aggregation and the goal of digital
production is to beget similar yet unlike parts, I still do not understand how
we have done that, and what, as aggregates, are the purpose of the parts. While
my project may not so successfully illustrate the following lines of question,
they are topics that are ripe within the discussion. Understanding how
aggregates function within the whole, as parts. As a means of clarifying this,
I have indexed the inter-aggregate and intra-aggregate relations that my method
of relieving the Sears has produced within my project. The inter-aggregate
relations consist of singular, compressive deformation, abutment which implies
perpendicularity, and adjacencies of impenetrable bonding. The intra-aggregate
relations are all classified as being “on” one another and not discrete. These
differ being either a configuration of balance, producing and active relation,
or a configuration of three point restive relation.
While it can be understood that the architecture of the
ground is not complete until it is animated by that which is built upon it, the
evolution of the diagram is animated only by and through its development. The
ground does not fully exist before the next building rests upon it. As regards
to figural relations, what I have intended to implicate herein has to do more
with the relationship produced between that which is above and that which is
below, or rather that what is below that which is below. Distances are sloped.
Because buildings are of short distances, they cannot necessarily be sloped.
7 minutes spoken
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
