. But seriously... these things take quite a lot of time... and unless you'd want to end up smelling bad, looking bad and eating nothing but MSG-laden chinese food... you really have to get things done.The past semester has gone quite fast... I'm thoroughly enmeshed in work - 5 modules of work actually... including dissertation and an extra elective. I have to say that the academic experience has been extremely eye-opening. It has forced me to reassess how I see the practice of architecture and planning in the Philippine context and has made me realise just how badly behind we are from the perspective of thought, discourse and analysis. Notice... I mentioned defficiencies in thought process... not in talent, flair or style. (all of which I think we might have too much off... )
Past experiences has made me a lot more stoic about things I'm very idealistic about. I've learned to just take a lot of things as a fact of life and just as a course of normal business... especially in a small, subsistence economy like the Philippines... I'm better off biting my tongue and just focusing on the task at hand. But I digress... but let me talk about how I got into Urbanism and why I decided to take Urbanism.
When I was in 5th year Architecture, I underwent the same rite-of-passage like everyone else... the Thesis project. Among architecture students ... It is the perennial act of indulging your "designer" ego and finally getting to do forms and buildings you'll probably never be able to do. The usual theme for thesis projects included iconic high-rises, museums, performing arts centres, etc. So anyway... I really did not start from a fixed form or project programme - heck... in fact I didn't know exactly what I'll end up doing... What I was sure of however, was my intent to try solving a something innately close to my heart => parking in UST. Yes... wow pocs... kaganda naman ng thesis mo... parking building.
But then I realised... the lack of parking within UST was just a canary in the mine... it was an indicator of much bigger problems/issues that concerned both the campus and the city of Manila as well. So... to keep it short... I ended up doing a very aesthetically constricted building... because I had to stick to the aesthetic of UST... (which suppressed my pagkadesigner a great deal) and began to focus on the design of public spaces, open spaces and learning spaces... it became an exercise in identifying the problems of a site... and then recommending an urbanistic solution (a building) which also just so happened to have an architectural program or use (a college building). It was - dare I say... different because I did not come in with a megalomaniacal agenda to indulge my ego. I just wanted a parking space.
So anyway... during presentation... I was quite frustrated because I was surrounded by amazingly well rendered, iconic architecture... but then I took it with a grain of salt and just accepted it... in Architecture school... the professors never questioned the intent of the student to design the project... whatever it may be... an airport, a museum for dogs, a pile of dung for that matter... because it was just a fact... they never questioned intent... because professors probably look at students like little kids... "Give them something to play with..."
Thus thesis projects evolve to be exercises in aesthetics... as far as projects were concerned... everything is iconic... everything is grand... everything was an object building. This is the case now... from all the thesis projects I've see on multiply... no one tried to engage the city... no one tried to do something meaningful in terms of solving urban problems... it was status quo... look good=feel good.no one wanted to do a fabric building... (which incidentally... I did).
Ok... so hindi na ako magbubuhat ng sariling bangko... But now I realise... to not question intent is wrong itself. Unless students and architects learn that buildings are just part of the bigger picture - that of the city... we as architects will end up designing buildings that sit in the middle... iconic yes... but are anti-human... and anti-urban as well.
In a way... the thesis was my introduction into urbanism... except I didn't know what to call it back then. Now... I realise that we architects are both the culprits and the solution to the issues that plague Manila... we just need to reorient our education system to see things differently. We, at some point, have to overcome our preoccupation with form-making... and become problem solvers in the scale of the city. More than the wrapping of the building... we have to learn how to appreciate thoughts, strategies, and concepts to real pressing issues...
<ehem ehem> <end rant>
Enlightenment starts... with the search for a parking slot.
here's my thought about Urban design: it is a very complicated subject, by far from all the architecture courses. And though we had four of the courses under that architectural genre, i still thought it was a hardcore subject that a lone person could not engage on. urban design demands a complex study and requires the aid of other allied professional services (i.e. sociologists, engineers, urban designers, law makers...but you know, this one's the more professional part). my point is, urban design is on a different realm of architecture. a level higher.
ReplyDelete(in defense) that is why at the very least, theses in undergraduate studies are merely playthings of their designers, a major exercise of form-finding. and that is why also, based from observations, urban design is more prevalent in Masters theses.
that is not to say though that it is something bad. at the very least we are on the road of elevating standards of architectural schools nowadays. true, we still haven't established the mentality of approaching architecture the way the first worlds do. its hard, esp. when you are bombarded with fundamental questions of building design. we can't even design our buildings that well. but its not very far that we revolutionize the approach of our local schools' curriculums, even embed the idea of urbanism into our designs (which you are very hopeful of). it will happen, in time. i myself have seen the drastic change of competitive designs and approaches in our school. with that, i am very hopeful.
and yeah, kudos to you for that thesis idea. a parking slot is your trophy. =D
thank you for your insightful reply... true... urbanism is hard core... and in undergrads... we're forced to simplify things because at our level... oftentimes... undergrads are still grasping terribly at the basics of architecture such as programme... scale... materials... details... etc.
ReplyDeleteI'm not disregarding these... in fact... I agree with the need to master fundamentals... but such is the burden of the architect... we have to be capable across the scales... and oftentimes... at the macro scale... our work evolves to be extroverted expressions... because that is how we think macro... it ends at the boundaries of the property line...
Indeed... pang masters degree nga ang Urbanism... pero it shouldn't stop undergrads from thinking and approaching projects from an urban angle as well... the sheer integrativeness of the discipline is difficult to manage... let this be an invitation to guys like you to take it for your masters...
Don't get me wrong... Urban Design not only has macro implications... it is a great way to approach the design of actual buildings... you will realise that UD informs architecture tremendously... down to the level of the nuts and bolts. Think of it this way... if architects use walls and materials to solve a programme problem... urbanists use buildings and the landscape to help solve problems in the city.
I'm glad to hear about changes in UP... as always... we can count on our esteemed colleagues from Diliman to push discourse and analysis on these important topics.
As for my alma mater... well... hehe... maybe it will take a while... in the mean time... the world will never tire of iconic theses projects...
i think we both agree here: that Architecture and Urban Design are apples and oranges. while they intersect at some points, they come from different leagues. and it says a lot why most undergraduate theses do not touch the surface of urban design.
ReplyDeleteperhaps (and which might be a more probable case), your undergraduate thesis idea stemmed from your pre-destined architectural direction which is obviously urban design. as for many, myself included, the direction is geared towards something else. hence, the theses projects that were brought forth.
lean..same thing happens here..
ReplyDeleteso, ganbatte ne!
we can DO it!
"no one tried to do something meaningful in terms of solving urban problems..."
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, to say that "urban problems" are the only problems that Metro Manila faces, let alone the Philippines, is a very myopic thing to say.
Corollary, to think that architecture is only limited to solving "urban problems"? Well, that is just as ignorant.
Second, "engaging the city", as you would like to call it, is not exclusive to designing a "fabric building". The ideas of urbanism is applicable to any kind of building, it just takes a good architect to execute them properly. To say that there is only one approach to engaging the city, or more to the point, to say that by virtue of being an "object building" you cannot engage the city, that's just, well, refer to my statement above.
Regardless, just because you design something that is iconic doesn't necessarily mean that your project is any less meaningful. Nor does it mean that your project is any more anti-human. It's all in the approach, and a "fabric building" that pays too much attention to how it "engages with the city" can be just as anti-human as the next engineer-designed building in Manila.
Bottomline is, what your thesis is, be it a parking structure such as yours, a museum such as mine, or even a marital sex facility such as Jed's, it's ultimately irrelevant. There is no such thing as a "superior thesis idea" or a "more meaningful thesis idea". What really matters is HOW you execute whatever that idea is. Ultimately, the approach you choose to take will determine whether or not your thesis "engages the city", whether or not it is "anti-human" or "anti-urban", whether or not it's actually meaningful and worthwhile a design project.
To say otherwise is just, well, sheer arrogance.
Not to mention, having your thesis be "solving the urban problems of the city" and whether or not it successfully solves said problems still largely depends on your perspective. As an architect you chose to go about it by making a parking building, and as an architect it probably does solve the urban problems. Looking at it from an urban planner's point of view though, creating another parking structure that encourages more vehicles to enter the already congested streets of Manila? It just might raise a few eyebrows.
Ola Imelda! as we say back home... bakbakan na!
ReplyDeletenot really apples and oranges... more like fruit and branch... fyi... for arki students here in NUS... they spend the first sem intellectually digging the site from the urban scale... first sem in final year thesis is all about urban patterns, problems, strategies and concepts... when they hit the second sem... they have undergone a complete immersion in urbanistic discourse on their sites... in fact... they come in with a project site/problem site... not with a programme... then they spend second sem developing programme and design in parallel. Also... they're not asked to write a book about their project... because... really... the book is quite a silly, redundant, waste of time... the first sem book-writing is an exercise in investigations... which don't necessarily produce good design.
ReplyDeleteIts being done here... and i don't see any reason why it can't be done back home.
hey mr. carbonink... thank you for your comment... you're quite engaging whenever you post... based on your track record on previous topics about architecture... and for whatever its worth... its always good to have that rather than sheer silence...
ReplyDeletebefore you get defensive... and use my own words against me... like what a good logical thinker, debater and lawyer does... (i used to debate in british-parliament format) i'm not accusing you of not doing anything in your thesis that engages the city.
I don't want to sound condescending... but the reasons you call me arrogant and myopic... well are brought about by perspective... you're fresh out of your thesis... you're idealistic... you're all hoo-ha for architecture... so naturally you'll call me that... i don't know how deep you're knowledge about urbanism is... but I suspect it may not be as deep by virtue of how you speak in generalisms...
The issues that involve architects in urbanism include:
design and planning strategy
how you're program fits the context of both site and urban/suburban fabric
how well you're building engages the streetscape,
how you're scale, texture and grain engage pedestrians...
how you plan and design infrastructure such as road networks and train lines...
how land use integrates with this infrastructure and building typologies
how landscape evolves and integrates with built structures
how building type and urban form integrate with each other to form the urban/suburban fabric
to software and social engineering
what policies are needed to help initiate changes
what incentives are needed to invite investment
what real-estate factors and pressures influence development
what kind of public participation is needed to implement projects
and yes... even how you're building helps enrich the skyline of the city...
so true iconic buildings aren't necessarily anti-urban... but... you're not getting my point-of-view... and I don't blame you... because of how you see things...
(btw... before critiquing my thesis project's intent:
"Not to mention, having your thesis be "solving the urban problems of the city" and whether or not it successfully solves said problems still largely depends on your perspective. As an architect you chose to go about it by making a parking building, and as an architect it probably does solve the urban problems. Looking at it from an urban planner's point of view though, creating another parking structure that encourages more vehicles to enter the already congested streets of Manila? It just might raise a few eyebrows.")
You might want to properly learn about it first... you of all people should be aware that the products from creative processes seldom resemble the first intent... read about it muna... my project wasn't just about parking... it was about helping reorient the masterplan of UST... greening UST... replacing pavement with parkways... hiding unsightly parking... creating public plazas and spaces that engage students... and of course... architecture... which of course included a highly programmatic college building. So if you're gonna wave your finger at me and ask how can you respect an urban designer who's architectural thesis was a parking building? Well... just dont.
its an issue of point-of-view... ask anyone who graduates architecture... after 3-5 years... what they realise about their bachelor's thesis... and you'll usually end up with a flustered, embarrassed reaction... saying "what was i thinking?"
I have tried to respond properly... huwag ka lang below-the-belt tumira pre... you ought to learn respect and intellectual pluralism... baka hindi mo din narerealise that you also have to continue learning about things... and that you're knowledge about the topic isn't as deep yet so don't go bouncing from blog to blog calling people arrogant and myopic... oftentimes these are reflections of you're own identity...
i hope you don't mind a comment from a stranger :-)
ReplyDeleteyep. designing a building is a task of solving problems. among the problems to solve is the appropriate form for the building. some problems call for an iconic bldg solution some don't. part of the problem solving process is to consider the environmental context - which includes the neighborhood other than the climate. but undergrad students can only have an overview of the urban issues. normally, they are not taught the technical procedures in analysing these issues. but they can still use the basics in solving problems.
the undergraduate thesis is a way for the students to show their mentors that they are capable of solving problems even with only the basic knowledge given them. how comprehensive the solution is depends on what the students are taught. the process is more important.
if there is a real need for more parking space in ust but the site has various constraints, then there is a valid problem. since we're architects, we offer an architectural solution just as i.m.p. offered an architectural solution to the problem of more exhibit space for the louvre. to comment on lean's thesis requires a background on the processes he used.
as lean pointed out, an undergaduate thesis can also help the student decide where he wants to go next. if he finds interest in landscaping while working on a parking slot, then he can specialize on it. it depends on which questions interest him more. lighting or acoustic may catch his attention. he might even be curious in knowing how computers can affect form-making (ala frank gehry) while he's doing cad work, so he can end up taking a masters in digital architecture. (offered in australia)
i agree with jediandrei that urban design requires a collaboration with other professionals. actually, the practice of architecture in this era requires that we collaborate with other professionals even for designs of individual buildings. this attitude to collaborate should be moulded in the undergraduate students. in their level, they can collaborate with students of other courses to know more or analyze problems in specialized areas.
just a thought...
i think that "intellectually digging the site" happens here as well (i can say that for us here in UP). its just that we don't highlight it as much as we do in the design process alone. and since the professors don't really look into that part, what's the point of delving when there's a lot to be done.
ReplyDelete"urbanistic discourse on their sites", sounds like a glorified site analysis! hahahaha. wag ideny, ginagawa din natin yan. hahahahaha
"so true iconic buildings aren't necessarily anti-urban... but... you're not getting my point-of-view... and I don't blame you... because of how you see things..."
ReplyDeleteNo, I am getting your point of view, and I don't appreciate it. Not because of how I see things, but in the condescending manner in which you express what you say. Not to mention the fact that I don't agree with what you said.
Yes, I'm well aware of the various issues regarding architecture and urbanism. But that's neither here nor there. This isn't a measuring contest. Nobody here is asking you how LONG your knowledge on architectural and urban issues are. There's no need to overcompensate on your part. The issue at hand is your original statement,
"from all the thesis projects I've see on multiply... no one tried to engage the city... no one tried to do something meaningful in terms of solving urban problems... it was status quo... look good=feel good.no one wanted to do a fabric building... (which incidentally... I did)."
Which ranges from being pompous, shameless, and self-involved, to stroking one's ego simply to again, overcompensate certain... deficiencies.
In that regard, I guess you ARE an architect!
The point is, I don't appreciate you belittling people's theses here in Multiply, with you ending up with that "flustered, embarrassed reaction saying 'what were THEY thinking'", simply because "they didn't engage the urban fabric" the way YOU see it. Like I said earlier, and as YOU already conceded, there ARE a multitude of ways to do so, not to mention the various other means by which architecture can involve itself with the greater society.
You're talking about intellectual plurality? You don't know the meaning of the word. Which isn't at all that surprising. Most condescending, holier-than-thou, patronizing, ignorant people share the same quality.
It's laughable that you act as if you're the foremost expert on urbanism and architecture, when you're simply a lowly grad student. And I seriously doubt that what little experience you have over me makes you significantly more enlightened about the bigger issues regarding the practice as if you're the big fat Buddha of Architecture (and lest we forget, Urbanism!). This isn't high school. Just because you're a year or two older doesn't make you better.
Don't get me wrong, I respect your opinion. I just don't agree with it.
Good luck, PRE.
"yep. designing a building is a task of solving problems. among the problems to solve is the appropriate form for the building. some problems call for an iconic bldg solution some don't. part of the problem solving process is to consider the environmental context - which includes the neighborhood other than the climate. but undergrad students can only have an overview of the urban issues. normally, they are not taught the technical procedures in analysing these issues. but they can still use the basics in solving problems."
ReplyDeleteYes, exactly. Just because people don't approach their theses the way Leandro does doesn't mean that theirs are necessarily inferior, or his was necessarily superior. That's simply my point.
Hi troy... thank you for commenting... you're always welcome... leave it to the mentor to help sort the discussion :) indeed... i agree with all your points.
ReplyDeletehi jed... yes... sa totoo lang... pag architectural proj... dahil nga limited ang site area... "discourse" ends up being a site analysis... joketime siya... kasi usually panay amihan, habagat, solar path, ad-infinitum... but the moment the site gets bigger - like a couple of blocks... medyo hindi na joke-time yung site analysis... "discourse" na siya... so point taken... noted... and i appreciate the lighter comments... sport ka ;)
ReplyDeletehi david... noted lahat ng comments mo... ill hold my peace... what's been discussed is on record... you've taken this discussion way too personally... and all I can say is that i've made a few points... which may have validity... you've made you're points as well... and indeed it was arrogant on my part to declare my value system as valid... but in the marketplace of ideas... it truly is just another thought floating in the ether... for the sake of sanity... lets give it a rest... debater ka nga at hindi ka magpapatalo... (i know dahil xavierians din mga kaflat ko) so I'll rest my case. I'm sure you do well in what you do... and I wish nothing but that not just for you but for all your colleagues in this thesis batch. its not fair because hindi kita kilala... hindi mo ako kilala... so let's keep it civil ok? huwag ka ganyan... not everyone in this demon-haunted world has civility and restraint...
ReplyDeleteamen!
ReplyDeleteHuwow leandro! this is polemics gone wrong man... maybe it just shows that even an architect is not ready for a discourse bro. even discussions cannot be treated in an intellectual level wherein its never about ego, but discussions are about IDEAS... in which all of us will learn.
ReplyDeletei applaud your intentions of bringing up an idea and even questioning an architect's sensitivity from a micro to a macro scale. i thank you also for sharing your realizations when it comes to your thesis and what youre learning now in NUS.
i understand also your struggle bro when it comes to iconography. yes.. branding is a strategy now. but sometimes iconography is good, eg. "the bilbao effect" and sometimes negative connotation of iconography is just merely a by-product of an architect's sincere intent to react to the urban fabric eg. seattle public library (form as a resultant of a parametric model reacting to zoning laws). fyi bro, zaha & patrick does a lot of parametric models considering the urban fabric (singapore masterplan) ..... just that after considering all the parameters, its time for them to rock 'n roll!
i understand your concern that most of the thesis are not engaging. it doesnt matter to me, they wont be building it anyway. my concern are the "sensitivity" of the architects practicing and never the students. until now im still wondering why palafox created a huge shoebox with a sea of parking slots and covered the whole ortigas development? can't we just burn megamall?
i understand also your feeling that buildings are being anti-human. i have read all corbu writings (locsin has all of them in second prints, woot!) and i know where youre coming from. sometimes you can blame economics, its just too harsh for them to continuously mention r.o.i........c'mon! i want a park at the middle of the building footprint..... i want skygardens.. a place for a man's soul. your great ideas will just die the moment they mention r.o.i.
as an architect, my strategy is always to consider 'porosity'... when it comes to treating my silhouette, building footprint, crowd dynamics and even in programme. i just loooove it when you mention the word 'fabric'. in essence, that is architecture! its all about the skin bro and how a skin relate to another skin.
in micro, my architecture is an extension of my skin... it creates a body and its a built-form represented by a pixel. in macro, a pixel sitting beside a group creates a blanket of pixels. it takes a lot of collaboration and sensitivity from all aspects of life (from the mantataho vendor to the bus driver to a child crossing the street) to form an idea to create a functioning blanket that answers all concerned entity in each pixel.
so im leaving the blanket to you leandro, as for me... ill be concentrating on doing good pixels and hope that each of my pixel correspond to your blanket.
cheers to enlightenment! =)
pareng leandro... why do i feel like i'm talking to myself when i say that? salamat sa iyong comments... the fact that architects operate in the scale of buildings shouldn't stop them in seeing the fabric... and how they're plugged into the mesh. its great that you're aware about these things despite the almost minimal discourse on cities in design school and in practice.
ReplyDeletejudging from how some of the undergrads (actually iisa lang naman) have reacted... it really does go to show that locally... WE still can't take criticism (see... i'm including myself for good measure) the problem is... these kids want someone to pat their little backs and tell them how brilliant their architectural ideas are... pero when someone tells them in flat terms that they missed something out... and its just wrong... they refuse to stop... listen... process and acknowledge whatever content or substance the message has...
kasi nga nasa design studio culture natin... (of course... malay ko sa UP diba) profs don't go to great lengths examining your process... and weak ang mentoring... the good mentors are too few and far apart in the academe to have any critical mass... in the mean time... students are lucky if they fall under someone who is willing to take apart and question his/her own presuppositions... and concepts... (i think... these are important in the function of design... we need introspection) you just don't think about what you're designing... but why you're thinking of designing it that way.
so we end up with self-made architects... they take what they like and they become the choices they make... this may be good or bad... but in life... mentoring and apprenticeship has a big effect in the kind of person you'll be... its just like parenting and child-rearing... pag walang modo yung tao... at balasubas... wala siyang upbringing... if he can't react properly to an honest-to-goodness crit... hindi siya mentored kasi nakikinig lang siya sa sarili niya... nakakaawa din ang ganun dahil kahit gano ka-capable... stunted na growth niya... in the mean time... the world will run its course on him... because karma's a bitch...
anyway... speaking of iconism... i have nothing against it... but there are good ones and bad ones... and indeed... the best icons we've seen... are products of how strongly these starchitects process urbanistic fundamentals... the Euro architects have some very strong sensibilities towards cities dahil nga they have a lot of this fine-grain... so they know how to meet and engage the street... the bilbao effect, if you take away the great architecture... for all its worth... was a great urban design solution... so there... they are thoroughly enmeshed... and to say na aesthetics alone solves things... we have to examine deeply the kind of forward-looking policy that Bilbao's leaders had in terms of realising the value of their city.
wala naman akong sinasabi na hindi puwedeng rumak-en-rol! =D
Amen leandro! crit is essential, the best ideas are usually results from crits of a paradigm eg. super naked by p starck.
ReplyDeleteone of the best realizations i had is that "a man is strongest when he knows he's weak". if you dont know youre weak, you will never learn and youll end up being a fool. it really takes a lot of humility to listen to crit, but a wise man takes it like a man. im always open to crit otherwise i wouldnt be aware where im standing now.
regarding undergrads, kids are kids bro. allow them to make mistakes on the condition that they are in school. and school is fun! its the best platform to take crit kasi wala namang commitment to end-user. medyo mahirap lang tanggalin ang ugaling cake-decorating paglabas ng iskuwelahan lalo na kung mahina ang pundasyon ng "critical thinking".
yeah, thank God for corbu, rem and those euros for having such sophisticated sensibilities. we can really learn a whole lot from them.
rock 'n roll naaahhhhhh!!! =)
Hi Leandro. What a heated post you have here! Haha! l'll soon post my points in defense with what you are trying to prove. I believe that I am involved here when you generalized "all the thesis works in multiply." But here are some of my preliminary views to start with.
ReplyDelete- Architecture and Urban Design is related, yet somehow, different.
- Criticism is part of our profession. But this should done in good faith, without self-gratification.
- There are always rooms for improvement, but there must be a good reason why somethings should remain that way.
That's for now;)
I like the way you think about design. Basically, designing with the whole in mind and not just designing a piece.
ReplyDeleteHow'd you like to collaborate on a project with us?
What an entertaining comments section!
ReplyDeleteI have to agree that architectural pedagogy in the Philippines focuses too much on form-making and not enough on critical analysis and the design process.
Based on my experience, studying urban design definitely helps in training you to be a more sensitive architect, in terms of the larger context. Undergrad architecture training tends to make one very egotistic. Pabonggahan na lang ng design, trying to make it more iconic than the next. While there is nothing wrong with iconic buildings per se, it shouldn't be the raison d'etre during the design process.
The architecture media is partly to blame, putting up these starchitects like Hadid, Liebskind and Gehry high on a pedestal. This encourages our young architects to think that the weirder and more different looking the building, the better it is.
Hy,dissertation Dissertation writing was such a nightmare for me. Your blog helped me write my dissertation on time. Thanks for this valuable information. Regards
ReplyDelete