Friday 23 January 2009
south american landscapes: part II
Before i move on from South America i wanted to do a second post on the landscapes that i have encountered on my travels so far. For a good lot of the third day on the Inca trail the mountains were shrouded in low lying cloud which concealed the landscape behind however when it cleared in the afternoon i was amazed and humbled by the greatness of the valleys that stretched out before me. This happened all the time in South America and as i said before, i was blown away by the continent!
Below: the mountainous landscape on route from Puno-Cusco, Peru
Below: The Inca Trail, Peru
Below: By virtue of its altitude (3,841m) Copacabana on Lake Titicaca, Bolivia is blessed with the most stunning sunsets
Below: Ok, this one is a cheat because these floating Islands in Peru are man-made, but i had to put them in because they are beautiful!
Below: La Paz in Bolivia is nestled into the Andes
Below: A lake in rural Bolivia.... there are blue ones, bright green ones, red ones- just too many to include!
Below: Flamingos on a lake in rural Bolivia
Below: The salt flats, Bolivia
Below: the vast and impressive moon valley, Chile
Below: Again, the moon valley, Chile.... and a volcano in the distance
Below: Spitting geysers, Chile
Below: Dry and deserted landscapes in the Atacama, Chile
highland housing fair
Its great to see that the Highland Housing Fair is definitely going ahead- the fair was originally to be held this year but was then pushed back to 2010 due to the current economic crisis. The designs are all great and the fair will be something of which Scotland can be proud. All of the designs and info on the fair (the first of its kind in the UK!) can be viewed by clicking here.
Wednesday 21 January 2009
arriving in australia
I think I'm going to have to go on a bit of an architecture hunt.... there are lots of gems to be found here in Australia and they are not bound by the tradition and history that we constantly battle with in Scotland. Here in Australia we are free to practice modernism, and I'm going to go and see some! Here's a taster........
Above: Bronte House by Chenchow Little Architects
Above: Bombala Farmhouse by Collins and Turner
Above: Box House by Nick Murcutt
iconic architecture
I have arrived in Sydney, Australia to surely the most iconic building of them all...... the Sydney Opera House!
When walking around the building i ask myself 'was the opera house built originally to be 'iconic' or was it built because it was the correct solution for the site and for the city?' Well perhaps it was a bit of both, but can the same be said for more modern 'iconic' buildings?
We can look at the buildings of architects such as Frank Gehry and the 'Bilbao effect' which is the term given to the regeneration of the City of Bilbao, a traditional ship building city in the Basque region of Spain, after the construction of the Guggenheim Museum. The Building itself has become a major tourist attraction and so has triggered the regeneration of the city- so much so that when Bilbao is mentioned the museum is really the first thing you think of. In the case of this building it has done fantastic things for this city. The same can be said for the buildings of Zaha Hadid.
Below: The Guggenheim Museum, Bilbao
But when i visit these buildings i think it is important to try to understand them- are they sculptural works of art? are they designed just to be wacky? just to shock? If this is the case then are they responding to the actual place and the surrounding buildings? I listened to a really interesting debate last year at the RIAS conference between Peter Eisenman, Charles Jenks and Alain de Botton. It was about iconic architecture and just how appropriate and responsive these buildings are; Eisenman was expressing concern over students sitting at their computers and drawing things that they don't understand- when the relationship between the pen and the paper is lost the buildings start to lose their meaning.
Historically, there have been a series of successful buildings which would have to be described as iconic- the Eiffel Tower in Paris and The Sydney Opera House are the two that immediately come to mind. People travel across the world to marvel at these structures so in that way they make a positive contribution to their respective cities. Perhaps there is room for these buildings, these special unique gems.
Below: the construction of the Eiffel Tower, Paris
These ideas can be translated badly however, one example that comes to mind is the proposed redevelopment of the waterfront in Inverness, Scotland- the design of this doesn't look like it has been given much consideration other than to say the scheme centres around an 'iconic' tower. Does the scheme now have merit because they have an iconic building? In August last year i did a post on this and compared the proposed scheme to a development in Stavanger. The development in Norway was not about creating iconic architecture, it was architecture about the people, the place and so the scheme had integrity and will be successful. Look at the success of The Pier Arts Centre in Orkney - this building is not iconic - it is modest and it is humble and to me it is wholly about the building and the place.
Below: The Pier Arts Centre, Orkney, Scotland
Iconic architecture is about something different; its about making a statement. Ultimately i believe architecture should be about the people and the place and should improve peoples lives.
I do think there is probably room for iconic architecture but lets just hope that its left to the good guys.
When walking around the building i ask myself 'was the opera house built originally to be 'iconic' or was it built because it was the correct solution for the site and for the city?' Well perhaps it was a bit of both, but can the same be said for more modern 'iconic' buildings?
We can look at the buildings of architects such as Frank Gehry and the 'Bilbao effect' which is the term given to the regeneration of the City of Bilbao, a traditional ship building city in the Basque region of Spain, after the construction of the Guggenheim Museum. The Building itself has become a major tourist attraction and so has triggered the regeneration of the city- so much so that when Bilbao is mentioned the museum is really the first thing you think of. In the case of this building it has done fantastic things for this city. The same can be said for the buildings of Zaha Hadid.
Below: The Guggenheim Museum, Bilbao
But when i visit these buildings i think it is important to try to understand them- are they sculptural works of art? are they designed just to be wacky? just to shock? If this is the case then are they responding to the actual place and the surrounding buildings? I listened to a really interesting debate last year at the RIAS conference between Peter Eisenman, Charles Jenks and Alain de Botton. It was about iconic architecture and just how appropriate and responsive these buildings are; Eisenman was expressing concern over students sitting at their computers and drawing things that they don't understand- when the relationship between the pen and the paper is lost the buildings start to lose their meaning.
Historically, there have been a series of successful buildings which would have to be described as iconic- the Eiffel Tower in Paris and The Sydney Opera House are the two that immediately come to mind. People travel across the world to marvel at these structures so in that way they make a positive contribution to their respective cities. Perhaps there is room for these buildings, these special unique gems.
Below: the construction of the Eiffel Tower, Paris
These ideas can be translated badly however, one example that comes to mind is the proposed redevelopment of the waterfront in Inverness, Scotland- the design of this doesn't look like it has been given much consideration other than to say the scheme centres around an 'iconic' tower. Does the scheme now have merit because they have an iconic building? In August last year i did a post on this and compared the proposed scheme to a development in Stavanger. The development in Norway was not about creating iconic architecture, it was architecture about the people, the place and so the scheme had integrity and will be successful. Look at the success of The Pier Arts Centre in Orkney - this building is not iconic - it is modest and it is humble and to me it is wholly about the building and the place.
Below: The Pier Arts Centre, Orkney, Scotland
Iconic architecture is about something different; its about making a statement. Ultimately i believe architecture should be about the people and the place and should improve peoples lives.
I do think there is probably room for iconic architecture but lets just hope that its left to the good guys.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)