سلام مهمان گرامي؛

خوش آمدید، براي مشاهده تالار با امکانات کامل ميبايست از طريق ايــن ليـــنک ثبت نام کنيد.

در صورتی که قبلا ثبت نام کرده و رمز عبور خود را فراموش کرده اید از طریق ايــن ليـــنک آنرا بازیابی کنید.

مقالات لاتین معماری

پاسخ یاب یافتن سریع پاسخ ها ویژه آزمون نظام مهندسی

برای مشاهده راهنمای استفاده از امکانات سایت و روش ایجاد تاپیک جدید اینجا کلیک کنید.

برای ارتقا عنوان کاربری خود به کاربر ویژه و دسترسی به بخش ویژه VIP اینجا کلیک کنید.
نمایش نتایج: از 1 به 3 از 3

موضوع: مقالات لاتین معماری

  1. Top | #1


    تاریخ عضویت
    دی -۱۳۹۳
    عنوان کاربر
    مدیر بخش معماری
    محل سکونت
    بوکـــان
    رشته تحصيلي
    معماری
    نوشته ها
    661
    پسندیده
    701
    مورد پسند: 994 بار در 499 پست
    میزان امتیاز
    1361

    مقالات لاتین معماری

    مقاله اول:Rising from Tragedy: A Conversation with Calatrava, Childs, and Libeskind by Andrew Caruso


    [تنها کاربران عضو سايت قادر به مشاهده لينک ها هستند. ]

    1 World Trade Center rendering © SOM / dbox studio



    National Building Museum and Metropolis Magazine contributor Andrew Caruso takes you “inside the design mind” of three prominent figures in the 9/11 rebuilding process with this recent interview conducted at the ۲۰۱۲ AIA National Convention.
    Heroic. Contemplative. Grieving. Victorious. The rebirth of the former World Trade Center site in lower Manhattan has engendered significant public reaction and reflection. With implications as complex as they are profound, it is not surprising that it has taken more than a decade to heal the urban scars of September 11, 2001.

    I had the rare opportunity to sit down with three architects working on the site, Santiago Calatrava, David Childs, and Daniel Libeskind, at the recent American Institute of Architects convention in Washington, D.C., where they were honored along with four others, as “Architects of Healing.” We discussed their experience of reshaping one of the most culturally significant sites in the history of the United States.

    With this interview we begin a series of conversations, “Inside the Design Mind,” with key architects, exploring the motivations of today’s design icons and influencers. This initiative is part of the National Building Museum’s intention to tell the story of our time through architecture, engineering, and design.


    [تنها کاربران عضو سايت قادر به مشاهده لينک ها هستند. ]

    National 9/11 Memorial Aerial © Joe Woolhead
    Andrew Caruso: What is it about architecture, perhaps distinct from other art forms, that promotes a healing process?
    Santiago Calatrava: I never thought about that, but we understand architecture as having a sense of permanence. Architecture mostly survives us. Whatever we build, we are conscious that it stays for the next generation. In terms of giving the sense of being remembered, architecture is very useful.
    Being remembered, in Latin, is the root of the word monument. So, the monument character [sic] of architecture has to do with passing an idea to the next generation. On one side architecture will preserve [this memory] to the next generation so that it never again happens; and on the other side, [the attitude] to rebuild, is also exemplar for the coming generation. From these two points you can see analytically the deep sense of the effort in lower Manhattan.
    David Childs: I’m not so sure I buy into that. Can you really describe sculpture being different from painting, from architecture? Over the past three or four decades there has been a merging of these disciplines. I think, in fact, these things have blurred. It’s so wonderful, the openness of it. Architecture can certainly [heal] in its own way, but so can poetry.
    Daniel Libeskind: Architecture promotes healing because it brings people together. It is literally the space of emotions and of our lives. There’s nothing abstract about architecture when it comes to healing. Yet it’s something also of dreams because architecture creates the perspective of orientation—of where you are, and of memory—at the same time. In that sense I think it’s the greatest instrument of healing that we have. Every urban context and building brings people into a social and contextual whole. That is the enigma and the power of architecture.
    Caruso: What new awareness did this specific project bring to you as a designer?
    Calatrava: As you hear in my accent, I am not American. But the tragedy of September 11 was not a local fact; it was a fact worldwide. The world after September 11—the day after—was different. On September 11, I never thought I would have been here today. To be part of those who have contributed, and I am just one part, I think is part of my destiny.
    Libeskind: I am a New Yorker, an immigrant to the city. That’s why I didn’t just rebuild the necessary buildings. I wanted to imbue the site with the spirit of what I believe New York to be. Though the buildings stand in a grid, they form a spiral open to the Hudson River, the great route of the immigrants. I wanted to imbue the site with the symbolism of light, which opens between 8:46am and 10:28am when the world changed; to be a memorial in light and a grand new civic space beyond the memorial itself. The 1776 height of the building—I didn’t’ care that it should be the tallest building in the world, but I wanted people to feel that the Declaration of Independence is connected to the bedrock at which people fell, and so too becomes part of the memorial.
    It’s an unprecedented project. You can’t foresee how emotional and complex such a project is. It’s a marathon and not a sprint. You have to have a lot of patience and cannot be swayed by all sorts of opinions and gossip generated around you. You learn many things that you could never learn from any place other than that experience.
    Caruso: Mr. Childs, you’ve done many skyscrapers before. What was so different about 1 World Trade Center?
    Childs: Well, every building has its own challenges. This one had many technical challenges. It’s in a river, a big river. You have to go down 80 feet to bedrock to anchor it down. And, being a tall building, it’s another animal, so the slenderness ratio is very complicated.
    But there are a lot of [other] aspects that had to be accomplished. First of course was the symbolic: rebuilding the skyline. But we also took just as seriously advancing the art of architecture in terms of its safety. The skyscraper is really an American invention, but we lost the forefront. This was a wakeup call and enabled us to upgrade all sorts of codes in New York that have become models for other cities.
    Caruso: Mr. Calatrava, your practice has explored the incredible balance between beauty and performance in architecture. How did you extend the concept of balance to accommodate the emotions and physical requirements of the PATH station at Ground Zero?
    Calatrava: I’ve been involved in several railway stations, and I recognize they are basically functional. They have to work. They have to be easy to use, function twenty-four hours a day and are probably the most public buildings because everybody can enter and go out, no restriction, no limitation.
    But the stations also have something mystical. They are the gates; people come to cities and go out of cities through them. In the history of New York, enormous, interesting, and beautiful buildings have served for 100 years [now] ten times more people with the same infrastructure.
    We try to capture all of that and I think what uplifted our effort is the Port Authority, itself. They wanted to catch the spirit of the great buildings of New York. Without [their collaboration] the project would have been impossible.

    Caruso: Mr. Libeskind, you have worked very successfully as an architect of healing, most notably for the Jüdisches Museum, Berlin. What is it about these projects that draw you to them?
    Libeskind: I don’t know if I’m drawn to them, but these projects are not abstract to me; they are part of my own experience. Whether it is as somebody born to Holocaust survivors or someone who studied architecture in Europe when the Twin Towers were built, it’s not something that is remote. The response to it was an instant response. It came from the heart. Of course you have to support that response with a lot of technical and professional knowledge, but ultimately it’s about the human response and the values that I believe make New York a great city; a city of opportunity, freedom, liberty, talent, and a city where bigotry is not tolerated. As an immigrant, I feel that this is really the shaping of the site. That’s where I thought we have to bring the character of publicness [sic] to bear.

    Caruso: How do you measure success for this collective project?
    Calatrava: I cannot judge globally how much time we will need to reconstruct, but it is very important that the whole reconstruction happens. This is a key goal. We have to preserve this goal and not lose stamina or momentum. The success of this project will be measured in that we really achieved a goal that people put [to us] ten years ago. That is number one.
    Childs: Ten years ago, when everybody went down to the site they were looking down with frowns on their face. Now they look up and smile. People love to see things happening again and being replaced.
    I think [1 World Trade Center] has clearly made advances, from technical detailing of the window wall to green engineering, and so forth. And I think that people respond so positively to seeing that marker. [After September 11], you saw the tip of Manhattan and had no idea where the World Trade Center was. But now, there’s that vertical presence. There’s a nice dialogue now between downtown and midtown that was lost. We do have tall buildings downtown, but the connection is back again, sort of talking to each other like when the towers were there.
    Libeskind: Success is measured in how it brings together two almost irreconcilable aspects: the loss of those who perished on that tragic day and a force to rebuild the city in an affirmation of life. And I think those two things go together; they are not really opposites. One supports the other and that’s the beauty of the development of Ground Zero.
    It was not easy to achieve, but I wanted to touch the fullness of the experience of what happened there. And at the same time I wanted to create streets that are interesting and balance the need for retail and open to the memorial in a civic way. It is a complex equation of emotion and realism, and I think both are needed. That’s what New York has always been.
    Success is also measured in response to the needs of people. It’s not how tall the buildings are, it’s about the healing atmosphere that a space communicates. That is ineffable; it is not measurable on a scale of objective values. It is something deeply cultural and spiritual, and that’s what I would define as the civic art of architecture, the civic art of cities. It balances memory and tragedy, integrates it into life and moves life forward in a way that is full of joy and celebration. This is really the notion of living in an open and democratic city.
    Caruso: What do you think now when you step on the site?
    Libeskind: I’m inspired that all the things that were drawn are really underway and they look fantastic. And I can see people have smiles on their face and are suddenly coming back to the memorial. I see that energy coming back to this place as really interesting, civic, important and beautiful; something that I think will contribute to the future of a great city.


    [تنها کاربران عضو سايت قادر به مشاهده لينک ها هستند. ]

    World Trade Center Plaza Path station © John Bartelstone Photography
    About “Inside the Design Mind”
    Andrew Caruso , AIA, LEED AP BD+C, CDT, publishes and speaks internationally on issues of talent within the creative industries. His latest column, “Inside the Design Mind,” explores the motivations of today’s design icons and influencers, surfacing key elements of their identity and examining their agency within the community of practice. Andrew can be reached at: inquiries[at]andrewcaruso[dot]com. “Inside the Design Mind” is presented in partnership with the National Building Museum and Metropolis Magazine.

    This interview was originally published by the National Building Museum and Metropolis Magazine



    خـــدا صـــدامــو میـــشنوی؟ ... بـــاور کـــن بـُــــریـــدم... بُــــریدم از آدمـــهای ایــــن زمیــــنت خـــــدا...

    خســـته نیـــستم امــــا خســــته م کــــردن...

  2. Top | #2


    تاریخ عضویت
    دی -۱۳۹۳
    عنوان کاربر
    مدیر بخش معماری
    محل سکونت
    بوکـــان
    رشته تحصيلي
    معماری
    نوشته ها
    661
    پسندیده
    701
    مورد پسند: 994 بار در 499 پست
    میزان امتیاز
    1361
    مقاله دوم:Istanbul Disaster Prevention and Education Center / CRAB Studio




    [تنها کاربران عضو سايت قادر به مشاهده لينک ها هستند. ]

    Courtesy of CRAB Studio
    Inspired by a reaction to the tsunami, the proposal for the Istanbul Disaster Prevention and Education Center is symbolically and practically rising above the streams. Designed byCRAB, the studio of Sir Peter Cook and Gavin Robotham, the building sits with its blades resting into the ground, ready to divide the streams of water if and when they come. Organized as a series of five clusters, it meanders along the site as a chain of events and somewhat in the manner of a chain of flowers. More images and architects’ description after the break.
    [تنها کاربران عضو سايت قادر به مشاهده لينک ها هستند. ]
    Courtesy of CRAB Studio
    In some ways aggressive towards the threat, the building is at the same time deliberately lyrical and airy. It gives a series of highlights and shadows, rises and falls, with expressions of resistance and caress that with their sense of dynamic aim to be a focus for an otherwise unlovely piece of suburbia. Beneath the series of clusters are a series of shallow pools and dampened earth with indigenous plants. At the more formal edges of the site these rise to being banks of small trees, towards the south the ground is treated as a brittle, fractured shale-like surface with fissures that are themselves a reminder of the seismic inheritance.
    [تنها کاربران عضو سايت قادر به مشاهده لينک ها هستند. ]
    Courtesy of CRAB Studio
    Most visitors will enter at the north-east corner, either parking below the building or walking directly in from the higher ground to the lobby and coffee shop in the first cluster. From then on the route through the building is really an experience, but always having a simple interface with each of the clusters. The second cluster contains the planetarium and hovers over the parking area. The third cluster contains the conference room. The fourth cluster contains the earthquake simulation section and the fifth cluster houses the rainstorm simulation and the training evaluation section.
    [تنها کاربران عضو سايت قادر به مشاهده لينک ها هستند. ]
    Courtesy of CRAB Studio
    Construction is of fair faced ‘visual’ reinforced concrete. A special detail is our suggestion that a family of toads be housed and watched: scientific evidence suggests that these animals have strong reactions some time before an earthquake.
    Architects: CRAB Studio
    Location: Istanbul, Turkey
    Design Team: Sir Peter Cook and Gavin Robotham (CRAB); Keti Carapuli, Andreea An Mar, Alice Labourel, Jonas Ersson, Oskar EdstromStatus: Competition



    خـــدا صـــدامــو میـــشنوی؟ ... بـــاور کـــن بـُــــریـــدم... بُــــریدم از آدمـــهای ایــــن زمیــــنت خـــــدا...

    خســـته نیـــستم امــــا خســــته م کــــردن...

  3. Top | #3


    تاریخ عضویت
    دی -۱۳۹۳
    عنوان کاربر
    مدیر بخش معماری
    محل سکونت
    بوکـــان
    رشته تحصيلي
    معماری
    نوشته ها
    661
    پسندیده
    701
    مورد پسند: 994 بار در 499 پست
    میزان امتیاز
    1361
    مقاله سوم :Farnsworth House


    he Farnsworth House is one of the most significant of Mies van der Rohe’s works, equal in importance to such canonical monuments as the Barcelona Pavilion, built for the 1929 International Exposition and the 1954-58 Seagram Building in New York. Its significance is two-fold. First, as one of a long series of house projects, the Farnsworth House embodies a certain aesthetic culmination in Mies van der Rohe’s experiment with this building type. Second, the house is perhaps the fullest expression of modernist ideals that had begun in Europe, but which were consummated in Plano, Illinois. As historian Maritz Vandenburg has written in his monograph on the Farnsworth House:
    “Every physical element has been distilled to its irreducible essence. The interior is unprecedentedly transparent to the surrounding site, and also unprecedentedly uncluttered in itself. All of the paraphernalia of traditional living –rooms, walls, doors, interior trim, loose furniture, pictures on walls, even personal possessions – have been virtually abolished in a puritanical vision of simplified, transcendental existence. Mies had finally achieved a goal towards which he had been feeling his way for three decades.”
    In many ways also, Mies van der Rohe was able to realize spatial and structural ideals that were impossible in larger projects, such as the Seagram Building. For example, the I-beams of the Farnsworth House are both structural and expressive, whereas in the Seagram Building they are attached to exterior as symbols for what is necessarily invisible behind fireproof cladding. In addition, the one-story Farnsworth house with its isolated site allowed a degree of transparency and simplicity impossible in the larger, more urban projects.
    The significance of the Farnsworth House was recognized even before it was built. In 1947 a model of the Farnsworth House was exhibited at the Museum of Modern Art in New York. Describing it, along with the unbuilt Resor House, as a “radical departure from his last European domestic projects,” Philip Johnson noted that it went further than the Resor house in its expression of the floating volume: “The Farnsworth house with its continuous glass walls is an even simpler interpretation of an idea. Here the purity of the cage is undisturbed. Neither the steel columns from which it is suspended nor the independent floating terrace break the taut skin.” In the actual construction, the aesthetic idea was progressively refined and developed through the choices of materials, colors and details. While subsequent debates and lawsuits sometimes questioned the practicality and livability of its design, the Farnsworth House would increasingly be considered, by architects and scholars alike, to constitute one of the crystallizing and pivotal moments of Mies van der Rohe’s long artistic career
    First conceived in 1945 as a country retreat for the client, Dr. Edith Farnsworth, the house as finally built appears as a structure of Platonic perfection against a complementary ground of informal landscape. This landscape is an integral aspect of Mies van der Rohe’s aesthetic conception. The house faces the Fox River just to the south and is raised 5 feet 3 inches above the ground, its thin, white I-beam supports contrasting with the darker, sinuous trunks of the surrounding trees. The calm stillness of the man-made object contrasts also with the subtle movements, sounds, and rhythms of water, sky and vegetation.
    The dominance of a single, geometric form in a pastoral setting, with a complete exclusion of extraneous elements normally associated with habitation, reinforces the architect’s statement about the potential of a building to express “dwelling” in its simplest essence. While the elongated rectangle of the house lies parallel to the course of the Fox River, the perpendicular cross axis, represented by the suspended stairways, faces the river directly. With its emphatically planar floors and roof suspended on the widely-spaced, steel columns, the one-story house appears to float above the ground, infinitely extending the figurative space of the hovering planes into the surrounding site.
    At the same time, the prismatic composition of the house maintains a sense of boundary and centrality against the vegetative landscape, thus maintaining its temple-like aloofness. The great panes of glass redefine the character of the boundary between shelter and that which is outside. The exterior glazing and the intermittent partitions of the interior work together dialectically, shifting the viewer’s awareness between the thrill of exposure to the raw elements of nature and the comforting stability of architectonic enclosure.
    The architecture of the house represents the ultimate refinement of Mies van der Rohe’s minimalist expression of structure and space. It is composed of three strong, horizontal steel forms – the terrace, the floor of the house, and the roof – attached to attenuated, steel flange columns.
    Since its completion in 1951, the Farnsworth house has been meticulously maintained and restored. The most important restoration took place in 1972, when then owner Peter Palumbo hired the firm of Mies van der Rohe’s grandson, Dirk Lohan, to restore the house to its original 1951 appearance. A second restoration took place in 1996, after a devastating flood damaged the interior. Although the house was built to resist floods in 1951, building in the surrounding area has caused higher flood levels in recent decades



    خـــدا صـــدامــو میـــشنوی؟ ... بـــاور کـــن بـُــــریـــدم... بُــــریدم از آدمـــهای ایــــن زمیــــنت خـــــدا...

    خســـته نیـــستم امــــا خســــته م کــــردن...

اطلاعات موضوع

کاربرانی که در حال مشاهده این موضوع هستند

در حال حاضر 1 کاربر در حال مشاهده این موضوع است. (0 کاربران و 1 مهمان ها)

کلمات کلیدی این موضوع

مجوز های ارسال و ویرایش

  • شما نمیتوانید موضوع جدیدی ارسال کنید
  • شما امکان ارسال پاسخ را ندارید
  • شما نمیتوانید فایل پیوست کنید.
  • شما نمیتوانید پست های خود را ویرایش کنید
  •  
وبسایت تخصصی مهندسی عمران و معماری به عنوان یکی از نخستین سایتهای تخصصی رشته های مهندسی، خدمت رسانی خود را در سال 1389 آغاز کرد.
تمامی فایلها و آموزشهایی که در سایت قرار می گیرند بصورت کاملا رایگان بوده و هدف ما ارتقا سطح علمی دانشجویان و مهندسان عزیز کشورمان بوده است.

اکنون ساعت 03:59 برپایه ساعت جهانی (GMT - گرینویچ) +3.5 می باشد.
ایمیل مدیریت سایت پست الکترونیکی مدیریت سایت: iromran@yahoo.com
X بستن تبلیغات
همکاري در فروش فايل سل يو