HC2O wrote:
作为研究的设计: 从线性到螺旋性 （节选）
by HC2O

设计与研究Design and Research

mickeytown wrote:
也就是说把“设计”看作是对真实动态的一种营造，而不是一种固定的表现方式或物体。

看到HC2O 的研究课题,非常感兴趣,
也许你们的研究站在了更高的学术概念,而从实际现实意义来说就是实用性及可变化性的结合.
这也是近多年来众多建筑师所希望的突破点.
建筑本身存在的空间量体是固定的,而四周的空间体的则是相对不安定素,觉得你们的研究课题似乎有些讨巧,以一固定的内部空间及短时间的空间量的变幻而含盖了大概念上的建筑体量的变幻,从课题立点上可能就是一个错误.
其次是互动空间的关系在已定空间内的变幻(即不安定因素)是固定式----人流量.但在实际建筑空间内起到影响的往往不是单一的"人流量"所能阐释的.
所以有人想在建筑空间内创造第五空间.
但是我觉得楼主的研究给我们提个一个不错的建议,就是在主体量不变的情况下其内部空间随实际的"人流量"变幻的建筑也许是一个可变通点.也就是所谓的"营造"

sharco wrote:
1，楼主给出的lobby 设计，提到了program, event两个Tschumi的关键词。不知道小组对Tschumi的space and events关系有没有什么借读，还是只是凑巧用了同样的词。
2，关于movement的tracing，似乎不算新鲜的概念，
http://www.arch.ttu.edu/Architecture/Faculty/rex_b/CreateWork/BdgSpc/DAYREX_JAE.PDF
同楼主相比，Rex所作的tracing更突破了Euclidean 空间架构的限制。
3，跟cobusier同时代的schindler 在 space architecture 一文中说到： The man who brings such machines(按照机械美学和理论来设计的住宅机器，坐机器，靠机器...) into his living room is on the same level of primitive development as the farmer who keeps cows and pigs in his house. 不知道楼主对这样的critique怎么看。
4，业界高举research大旗的MVRDV,楼主的小组有没有研究，借鉴？
5，在本人以前对digital/computational architecture的质疑中曾提到：The capacity of digital architectures to generate new designs is therefore highly dependent on designer’s perceptual and cognitive abilities. 我关心楼主对此怎么看，research对 design的过程是介入还是取代，在楼主的实践中，designer's perceptual and cognitive abilities 是否仍然起作用，起什么样的作用，与research 的态度是否矛盾。

毛大爷 wrote:
这本书有些深奥哦，大家多讨论一下吧

HC2O wrote:
1，所提到的program, event是特指barbican中心内所举行的event和其内在的program。下面图解是对其program和event的mapping。Tschumi作品当然有读。



2，Tracing是一种很常见的technique。如何tracing很重要，但更重要的是如何运用tracing得到的结果。
3，没有context, 不能判断schindler那句话的意思。
4，MVRDV在不同时期，在不同的project都有不同的所谓的“research”。Berlarge里的Winy MASS和实践中的Winy MASS也有着很大的不同。MVRDV当然有读。
5，不知道“digital/computational architecture” 指的是什么，sharco是否认为HC2O的设计是“digital/computational architecture”？ 设计行为不可能不涉及“designer's perceptual and cognitive abilities”吧。Research和design的关系如下图解所示。

sharco wrote:
1, Tschumi ask this kinda questions in his book Architecture and Disjunction: can we cook in bedroom and make love in Kitchen? is the relationship between the space and event one to one? The diagram seems to install some kinda one to one relationship, if I didn't misunderstand.
2, Tracing, for me, means the space dosen't pre-exist before the movement. What we trace no matter what kinda method we use is the boundary or surface of the movement. Why we have to do this?
3, Schindler is making fun of Corbusier. Architects are not engineers. Architecture is beyond building. I prefer somebody's summary showed belew:
Creative Design Process
Alpha science: subjective world of beauty and moral, as expressed by the artistic intuitive soul;
Beta science: objective world of facts and logic, represented by the rational mind;
Gama science: interest of the society and culture.
4, so what makes MVRDV's work an actualization of their research instead of superimpose some theoretical frame on top of a common design?
5, Here's the point, if the design process could not independent from the designer's perceptual and cognitive abilities, what's the value of "research design"? Could it help a second year student to create a space as meaningful as Rem or Zaha? If yes, how?, if not, why?
Thanks for your time and patience.