Architecture Practice and Theory Discussion

Architecture Practice and Theory Discussion ORDER NOW FOR CUSTOMIZED AND ORIGINAL ESSAY PAPERS ON Architecture Practice and Theory Discussion I need you to describe the difference between theory and practice in architecture. What it means to architecture and how it has evolved through modern architecture. Look at the design work done by Zaha Hadid and how her design pushed theory to becoming a real building. Below are a few links to look at but find more that you can and cite all the work. Needs to be about 3 pages. I have attached some example, these are just examples do not copy these. Architecture Practice and Theory Discussion https://www.archdaily.com/903947/how-architectural… https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-05-31… attachment_1 attachment_2 The relationship between architectural theory and practice seems to be at a point of breaking up in many contemporary and past architectural endeavours. This is not to say that architecture in current times is bad, or good. But it is to say that there seems to be a loss in connection when it comes to theory and practice between sustainability, resiliency, or even just realizing the importance of what needs to come out of a project in any given circumstance. One project that can be seen as having a missed connection to the architect’s theory is El Lissitzky’s Cloud Iron, Wolkenbugel of 1925. Lissitzky realized that there may not always be enough space for humans to move in their natural direction, horizontally, so he began to propose towers that not only went up, but also eventually went horizontal at the top to create spaces for horizontal movement. This of course something that may look a bit different than the typical urban landscape but Lissiztsky still believed that this project had a very important role in human movement. I believe that in theory, this project makes a lot of sense when you think of how humans move and how they could get from point A to point B but it also seems that the space is a bit wasted. The space on top, which you can see in the image below, seems to be a space where humans can move through at the ground level. I believe that because this project was heavily premised on the issue of overcrowding in Moscow, that it seemed to fail a bit. Although this is creating more space, ultimately, I believe that it is wasting even more vertical space. In between each of these vertical skyscrapers, others could have been placed, thus helping with the pressure of human population overcrowding and would then aid in the growth of cities. There is a heavy presence of interesting technology with finding ways for the horizontal planes to cantilever over the vertical skyscrapers. This also maximizes the space and would provide for more space in skyscrapers, however, I am not sure that the design was able to be physically produced due to there not being any other projects similar to this at the time of its conception. This did introduce a very interesting idea of technology within architecture as well as finding new ways to sustainably house more people in a horizontal fashion far above grade, rather than continuing to build up. El Lissitzky found something interesting in designing skyscrapers, but it seems that he may have been far ahead of his time in building technology strategies and materiality. However, it seemed that for decades after the conception of this project, skyscrapers continued to be built in a predominantly vertical fashion. This may be due to cost, lack of material until the contemporary period. This seems to have not been a very sustainable design in the aspect that the core would have to take up all of the space of at least one of the skyscrapers and due to the use of a mostly glass facade, it seems that it would have been very difficult to have a controlled environment so many people would most likely not enjoy inhabiting the space. He had also realized that emphasized the issue of overpopulation at a time where the numbers of humans was much lower in comparison to what it is in current times. Architecture Practice and Theory Discussion He related this to an issue that we are still having in modern society. We are still currently building in a predominantly vertical fashion, however we have now begun building underground more often than we did back in 1925. I believe that his idea of humans moving more horizontally can be compared to the much larger modern day PATH system in Toronto, Canada. This space offers ways for people to access the transit system, but also allows for learning space, retail space, and a lot of horizontal movement in a city with an ever growing population. Overall, I believe that Lissitzky had a brilliant plan for how to help move people around the city in a more natural direction than up. He found ways to create revolutionary architecture for a city that needed new spaces for a growing population, however, this may have been a bit too impractical for the city of Moscow at the time. Based on sustainability, spatial planning, and the actual practical use of a building in this style, we can see why this building was never actually constructed. Theory and practice in architecture are vital in creating good design. It is essential in understanding both concepts to make buildings that are based on precedent, while also focusing on the needs and problems of real people. Without theory, the buildings we create will have no correlation to the future or past. Similarly, focusing too much on hypothetical situations will not allow people to inhabit the space. Finding a balance between theory and reality enables architects to apply the core principles of architecture to solving different problems properly. Antoni Gaudi, well known for his work in Spain, was requested to design a hotel in Lower Manhattan in 1908. Gaudi’s lavish design, Hotel Attraction, was made up of several components, including guest rooms, a theatre, dining rooms, and restaurants. Unlike the typical skyscrapers found in New York City, Hotel Attraction was composed of organic rounded forms. Gaudi’s proposed hotel would have towered over the Woolworth building, which was being planned around the same time. The star-shaped tower allowed open views of the city, and would have been one of Manhattan’s tallest buildings. The men who commissioned the project wanted the hotel to serve Manhattan’s elite, but Antoni abandoned the project based on his communist principles. Gaudi’s Grand Hotel Attraction was a castle-like structure, reaching 1,000 feet in height. The interior would include an enormous hall rimmed with galleries and adorned with sculptures of American presidents. During the time it was introduced, many people believed the futuristic hotel was too unrealistic to actually have been built. Only a few conceptual sketches were ever created for this project, but it was re-introduced in 2003 for the new World Trade Center design competition. Although Gaudi’s alien skyscraper was an extravagant idea, the plan was too unrealistic for the time it was introduced. In 1908, the tallest building in Manhattan was the Park Row building that reached 391 feet, three times under the height proposed by Gaudi for his Hotel Attraction. During the 19th-century, booming insurance companies were the first to commission the technological advancements that made the beginning of skyscrapers possible in New York. The technological revolution from 1880-1890 introduced Bessemer steel, a material that enabled a more flexible frame design compared to cast iron. Architecture Practice and Theory Discussion The wave of new inventions, such as AC, and a newly patented sprinkler head, made it feasible for buildings to be designed taller. In order for Gaudi’s Hotel to be achievable, these inventions would have to be up to today’s standards in terms of architecture. We began to see changes in urban life during the 19th-century through the use of subways and trams that delivered more people to certain locations at a time, encouraging higher density buildings. Although Gaudi’s design proposal was forward-thinking for large masses of people, the sheer scale of the project would not have been feasible considering the towers were dome shaped as well. The Hotel Attraction, along with most of Gaudi’s other work, was focused on organic ornamentation shown on the interior and exterior. The skyscrapers proposed during this time were largely business driven, and aesthetics began to pay the price. In 1893, the architectural writer Barr Ferre wrote “current American architecture is not a matter of art, but of business. A building must pay, or there will be no investor ready with the money to meet its cost. This is at once the curse and the glory of American architecture.” Considering this, I find it hard to believe that during this same era, Gaudi would find investors willing to support his costly design concepts that were largely ornamentally driven. Gaudi’s Hotel was not only of an extravagant height, but it was largely dome shaped. An important invention during the 1950’s changed the way engineers looked at domes forever, which would have proven itself very useful during the commissioning of Gaudi’s Hotel Attraction. The geodesic dome, a partial sphere shaped structure, was composed of triangles instead of arches. This new discovery changed the ways engineers structured domes in architecture, which would have propelled Gaudi one step closer in tackling the Hotel Attraction. In conclusion, Gaudi’s Hotel Attraction proved itself to be too unrealistic of a building to be constructed in 1908. Not only was the mere height of the building unheard of, the shape of the structure had never been done before at that scale. With the driving force of skyscrapers focusing on business, Hotel Attraction would have been a hard project to persuade. Theory and practice are not only vital in creating good design, they are imperative in proposing buildings that work given the parameters you are dealt. In order for architecture to be successful, it must draw upon precedents from the past, present, and future, while also diving into the realistic circumstances of each project. Architecture, similar to law and medicine, is a practice. Practice requires the correct application of theory, and a full understanding of how basic principles of design are attainable. … Get a 10 % discount on an order above $ 100 Use the following coupon code : NURSING10