Position Paper 1.4

Implementing Lighting Design Works on the Urban Fabric to Mark a City

As urban areas develop in large cities, there is a need to define a unique design for particular city places. One case, Atlanta, GA does not have a way of defining itself in terms of identity of spaces. The different areas of Atlanta can use lighting design to define particular spaces and allow wayfinding in the areas.

Program's Being Adaptive

For my thesis sketch, I wanted to express my idea of using the architecture to propose a lighting technique to define and unite a particular area of a city. The design intent begins at the human scale but ultimately moves to a urban scale to understand the implications of the design on the community as well as the individual.



I agree with the reading that the program is capable of limiting a building potential if an architect does not considered the potential of the building not only after the original intent for the project, but even during as to what it can be. The program given to the building and even each individual space should not prohibit the possible change in the space. Allowing the program to accommodate the user, help the success of the building within the client and community’s eyes.

One way of adaptive re-using the space is for the architect to put themselves in the users’ shoes and begins to think that you have a certain function; what else could the function be doubled as. In this idea, the form will not follow the function as many other post-modernist architect focus. Many post-modernist, for example Mies, allow the function to control the form to the point which the project only accompanies the function and does not have the ability to adjust to fit other specifications. Some simple ways of allowing myself from falling into the trap of having the program to control the project is to allow the project to gain additional programmatic elements. Also the client is the important part of the design process and therefore the architect should allow the client to engage or in my case the community needs to engage due to the scale of the project being the urban fabric.

Of course not, They're out of business

The idea of designers using “programism” to design is a phenomenon that I have recognized throughout my high school and college career. I see the students using what should be simple diagrammatic models to create a form for their project. This makes the form governed completely by locational logic rather than functional logic. This concept for the most part is encourage through schooling when a professor will see a diagram and the plan, then praise the student for the direct relationship. Another issue with “programism” is that the diagrams have the general form of previously seen spaces, making the idea of question the design not occur to the student as often (what worked for the past, may not be the best for the future).

“Thematization” as he calls it, does try to put a project to what seems to be out of context. The idea of trying to add the characteristics of one are project to another makes the architecture seems like it is trying to “trick” its user. The building at that point is out-of-context and therefore not as efficient as it could be. It is an attraction, and should only be treated as so, it should be within a place of actual architecture scope as it brings down the architectural intent of the surrounding space.

After the idea of “thematization” is blob work. An idea that blobs of work can be created just because I am the designer and I said so. Is this really the mentality we as architects with no regard to the client, to the culture, and to the site? Then there are students of Eisenman, for example Greg Lynn that believe design (and blobs) can be given from calculus-based equations for design. At that point, I believe if an equation can give a design, you have done yourself a disservice and pretty much are saying an idiot can be an architect all you need is a number. At this point the intent is outside of the architect’s hands, there is no point for the architect.

Overall Lighting Implementations on the Urban Scale (Postion v 1.1)

Generally, Lighting Design is focused on the human scale primarily focusing on building aspects. The building, meaning the architecture, certainly has an important role in the scheme of a community’s uniqueness and unity; however being that it is a part of a whole it has to address the community on a larger scale. The city development in terms of lighting can help areas to address difficulties both physically and psychologically within the community.

Lighting like many aspects of design is important and can be used for other purposes than just being able to view a space; may be how the space is viewed is even more important. The process for this project would begin with research to inform the project overall about the community characteristics, where the community sees itself in the future, and what the community’s next step is. Within the process, comparisons of lighting on both a human scale and an urban scale would be evaluated to find the outcomes. Comparisons of each condition would come from poorly-lit and well-lit areas over a time span which shows the change of community involvement and perspectives. This would lead into how lighting on both scales affects certain aspects and features of a community; including crime rate, job opportunities, and child development. This also allows the project to be informed of the characteristics of the community and hopefully helps the community to develop in a way it sees fit. Comparisons will be of precedent studies of how architects not only design for the individual person (one building), but the overall urban fabric for the community. After researching the overall characteristics of lighting and their effects on the human mind, the project would focus on the implementation of lighting design on the scale in which research sees fit. Therefore, the project may be small or large scale depending on what the community needs to change, verify, and/or highlight.

But Mine Always is a Scribble (Response to "How to Draw Up a Project" )

Jose Luis Mateo's article, "How to Draw Up a Project", describes the general process in which architects use at the start of the design. This is a tool which at many schools, students learn early on to get a handle on the design intent of their project. The process takes the designer through a series of steps starting with the amorphous shapes to attain the greatest potential in the connection to the site, people, and concept. Next a structure begins to inform the shape as it is being applied to the shape. This begins to make a second option to the form of the mass as it morphs to accommodate the structural capabilities. The last step draws in the material of the project to add the components of how a visitor engages the space within the form (Lighting, Acoutics, Scale, etc.). As said earlier this is a simple design tool generally used by designers beginning their career in the field, as it has certain flaws in the overall creation of the project. I believe that this general process without one's own addition to the process is what puts the designer into what he calls a "straitjacket".

This tool is a general beginning step for all designers as it does not cause room for design issues. The process moves the designer forward constantly; yes this is where you want to go ultimately, however design is informed by the program and vice versa. As the designer learns more about the relationship of the people and site, the concept and design changes to accompany it. The form after structure is another hiccup in the design intent of the project. The first form created, if trying to its full extent, will take a different shape when the structure is applied; which is why earlier I said that 'the mass accommodates the structure', when it should be the other way around. At this point the designer must go back to the shape to create hierarchy as he said, however the structure does not give the hierarchy, the design does.

The last step of the design process being the materials, is probably the biggest limiting factor when designing. Many projects loose a great amount of intent when entering two stages, Modeling and Indexing. The first being modeling halts the process due to the format, Digital or Physical. Digital Modeling is known for setting parameters based on the capabilities of the program. In some cases the project begins to loose the intent and sometimes add more based on the functions of the program, as if the computer said what should be actually created. This is where physical models have a better edge; they can be held, have texture, and more accurate to the designers ideas. The drawback to physical models are the time and detail they need to explain an idea, representation of materials must be accurate, and cost of the models.

In all cases the design process is a basic tool allowing the designer to move forward with a project, however each separate case will create its own path for getting to the point of completion.