Groformen
Wasel Delawar, Michael Thomas, Ian Ollivier, Alagialoglou Kleopatra, Nechalioti Anastasia, Piniara Ioanna, Silvia Fracassi, Lisa Jones, Christian Rutherford, Christian Seidel
Grossformen im Wohnungsbau deals with the issue of public space within the city. Written by Oswal Mathias Ungers in 1966, it considers the state of the city at the time and propsoses a solution to the loss of public space and its connection with indi- vidual expression. The problem, he argues may be solved with a Grossform. To Ungers however, Grossform is not the same notion of bigness that Koolhass, a contemporary of Ungers, expressed in his book Bigness or the problem of large in S, M, L, XL in 1995. For Ungers, Grossform has little to do with size, but is rather an architectural expres- sion across any scale that offers a grounding to the unpredictable and fleeting condi- tion of life in the city (Schrijver L., The Archipelago City: Piecing together Collectivi- ties, Oase 71): Warum Grossform?...Die Antwort: Die Grossform schafft den Rahmen, die Ordnung und den geplanten Raum fr einen unvorhersehbaren, nicht planbaren, lebendigen Prozess, fr eine parasitre Architektur. Ohne diese Komponente bleibt jede Planung starr und leblos. (Ungers O.M., Grossformen im Wohnungsbau, 1966, p. 15) Ungers starts the book by stating that there is a growing population increasing the amount of land available per capita in the city. Paris, for example, he estimates at be- ing 5 times overbuilt for the amount of land needed for each person. The result of this is that the city must grow upwards. He discusses 2 points at length: 1. The loss of unity within the city 2. The loss of individual expression bertriebene Ballung und uferloses Wachstum sind die Beiden Pole, ywischen denen das Pendel ausschlgt. Dazwischen liegt die Beschrnkung auf das noch tragbare Mass. (Ungers O.M., Grossformen im Wohnungsbau, 1966, p. 15) The complexity of life within the city is so vast and undefined that it is not to be un- derstood by architects, explains Ungers. Social engineering should not be the purpose of architects and city planners but rather the pursuit of architecture as architecture. Ungers suggests that a formal exploration of spacial configurations at multiple scales will provide the grounding for functional solutions (Schrijver L., The Archipelago City: Piecing together Collectivities, Oase 71). Grossformen become the organisational masterplans that establishes the order within the city. As Ungers defines the Grossform as a system rather than as specific objects, it allows for the individual growth and design to emerge as a parasitic archi- tecture (Ungers O.M., Grossformen im Wohnungsbau, 1966,). See opposite Ungers gives a range of historical and contemporary architectural examples to explain his concept of Grossformen. Of these he identifies 4 main types: the street, the pla- teau, the tower and the wall.
Groformen
text
Wall
Tower
Street
Plateau
ADIP
ISLAND LIFE
SS 2010
Wall
Image
Sideplan (19, in Arch+ n.180/182, p.138) Buckow 3: Joeres, Schalow
Sideplan (19, in Arch+ n.180/182, p.138) Buckow 2: Krause, Taner
Plan of the selected City-islands (City within the City, in Arch+ n.180/182, p.182)
Sideplan (...) Rupenhorn O.M. Ungers
Wall
ADIP
ISLAND LIFE
SS 2010
Wall
The Wall as definer of Urbanity Kevin Bone The area was unqualified, composed by fragments which were unrelated. The intensification of this chosen place of reason is managed by means of a wall, as a Groform, which creates a coherent composition. It defines the street and re-establishes an urban condition. The fragments, memories of the area, are them imbedded in the wall or are given rural condition by being set in the Backyard.
The Wall Spatial Reference: it establishes an urban condition, while redefining the street. It acts as an organizer for the scattered fragments. Chronological Refernce: the preexisting fragments stand as memories. Some are imbedded or impregnated in the wall. The project is open to the future, as the wall would always serve as a backdrop to coordinate future objects. The Garden The resultant backyard is gets a rural meaning. The city as a garden. The fragments of the city are given a new compositional coherence. They then relate to each other, each with its own history and symbols: the fragile ruin, the immovable bunker, conflicting memories.
ADIP
ISLAND LIFE
SS 2010
Tower
Image
Plan of the selected City-islands (City within the City, in Arch+ n.180/182, p.182)
Plan Voisin Le Corbusier
text
Sideplan
Axo
ADIP
ISLAND LIFE
SS 2010
Street
Image
Sideplan (19, in Arch+ n.180/182, p.138) Wedding 1: Dennert, Mahlke
Sideplan (19, in Arch+ n.180/182, p.138) Buckow 2: Krause, Taner
Plan of the selected City-islands (City within the City, in Arch+ n.180/182, p.182)
Plateau
Image
Sideplan (19, in Arch+ n.180/182, p.138) Buckow 5: Uhlmann, Schaper
Plan of the selected City-islands (City within the City, in Arch+ n.180/182, p.182)
ADIP
ISLAND LIFE
SS 2010
Building and infrastructure
Ian Ollivier, Alagialoglou Kleopatra, Nechalioti Anastasia, Piniara Ioanna, Silvia Fracassi, Brnice Corret, Caterina Viguera, Alexandra Giura, Lisa Jones, Christian Rutherford, Christian Seidel
Ungers work maintains a keen interest in the relationship of transit infrastructure and buildings. Often, transportation strategies are used as a catalyst whatever the scale: master planning schemes or housing projects. The interface between these fundamental city elements provides the framework for creating new urban models and forms. The goal is efficiency, the methods rational. Projects will begin with an analysis of transit networks at an urban scale. In Schnellbahn und Gebude, for example, the hierarchy for transportation is set out as a structure for development. The question then is how can this network be used to generate built form? How can one reconcile existing infrastructure systems, that have been informed by historical patterns of growth and new systems? Four main conditions can be extrapolated from the study of Ungers. Each condition is defined by the mediator, how users phase out of transit and into building. The first is the street, where individual built elements connect independently to the transit network. The node is defined by the various levels of transit that cross it. The building is formed by the need for connexion. When transit is above or below buildings, vertical circulation is the last step in transitioning to building. Finally, parking solutions are developed when automobiles are the main mode of transportation to a given building. The project Rehabilitation and Parking develops a series of solutions for this condition. Later projects display all four strategies. The hyperdensity of megastructural Berlin 1995, for example, allows for the application of parking, vertical cir culation, streets and especially nodes in close proximity to one another. In one of two models for the megastructure, an intricate and multilayered web of transit is laid out, then program is slotted in between.
10
Building and Infrastructure
text
Street
Node
Vertical circulation
Parking
ADIP
ISLAND LIFE
SS 2010
11
Street
Image
Plan of the selected City-islands (City within the City, in Arch+ n.180/182, p.182)
12
Node
Image
Plan of the selected City-islands (City within the City, in Arch+ n.180/182, p.182)
13
Axo
Axo
Axo
14
nodes
ADIP
ISLAND LIFE
SS 2010
15
Vertical circulation
Image
Plan of the selected City-islands (City within the City, in Arch+ n.180/182, p.182)
16
Yona Friedmann
Image text
Sideplan
Axo
ADIP
ISLAND LIFE
SS 2010
17
Parking
Image
Plan of the selected City-islands (City within the City, in Arch+ n.180/182, p.182)
ADIP
ISLAND LIFE
SS 2010
18
Project .....
Image text
Sideplan
Axo
ADIP
ISLAND LIFE
SS 2010
19
ADIP
ISLAND LIFE
SS 2010
20
