This is old, but in case some of you havent seen it...

http://inhabitat.com/new-uk-library-fits-within-a-phone-booth/

MM

Hi all! I finally caught up with all the readings and would like to make a few comments on some of them.

I really enjoyed the interviews, especially one of them – with Dominique Perrault. Perhaps this is not going to be a library-related comment, but rather a very generic one, but I absolutely loved how he said that “architecture is a violent action”. Specifically, he talks about walls and how placing a wall that would separate a space is a “violent action” and almost an intrusion into privacy. I think this statement is absolutely astonishing. Quite often, in studios we tend to forget the importance of a plan. We are often too engaged with the conceptual design and at the end we merely disperse the programmatic elements based on the principle “what can fit where”. I love plans and often become obsessed with its perfect organization. I think that every wall, every door, etc if it’s placed somewhere – there has to be a specific reason why. Only then it would be possible to create a meaningful space that would work both inside and out!

I also loved how he talked about facades and materials (materials, especially). He said that everything in architecture can be considered a material – the client, the site, the context. I think that we tend to forget about this too. It is extremely hard however, to remember all the parts of the design and their importance and incorporate them into the final scheme.

here is a link for inspiration: (matthew this is right up your alley!)

http://feltron.com/

i am sure you have all seen this (his) work at some point, but i find myself going back to it pretty often. so many different ways to interpret information and they look so good! make sure to check out the blog too.

Somol's "Shape"

After a couple of readings of Somol's "12 Reasons to Get Back into Shape" his intentions for the article became a bit more clear. I looked up shape and form in my dictionary, and there really is very little difference between the two according to Webster, but again, after the a couple of readings Somol's distinction is a bit more clear. How I interpreted his thoughts is as follows: Massing and Form are two popular avenues architects take to determine the appearance of a project. Massing is the exterior expression of interior function. Form on the other hand is a response to external forces. This response ultimately affects the organization and appearance of the interior. Somol's argument is that this does not have to be our approach. The exterior "shape" can be used to respond to exterior forces, or to frame the city in a new and better way. Additionally, the interior - although constrained in some way by the limits imposed on it by the exterior envelope - can adhere to its own set of rules. In fact, the divergence of the interior and exterior "shapes" creates the opportunity for some pretty terrific interior spacial volumes, both in size and "shape".

Ultimately, Somol's "shape" approach allows us designers a little more latitude in developing more successful interior and exterior spaces in the built environment. This article has definitely affected my approach to the massing excercise due in 8 hours or so.

The Wall and the Wall Library

The Garden Library for Refugees and Migrant Workers, Tel Aviv.  Yoav, Meiri Architects

Archdaily has recently posted a project demonstrating how a library might exist beyond its traditional, institutional form.  The “garden library” is an example of what I have been interested in, generally, in our early research on the building type---a library that is deployed into the community it serves.  It is a form of anti-institution, one that delivers public information outside of a formal, institutional setting.  

Besides sharing this project, I also want to discuss how it might relate to Laura and Evan’s comments regarding Perrault’s description of the “wall” as architectonic violence.  I will let Archdaily describe the particulars of the garden library, but the fact that the library is reduced entirely to a single book-laden wall provides an interesting corollary to Perrault’s point of view.  In this case, the wall services a population on the fringe of society.  As with many disenfranchised sectors of modern society, those without access to public information services are usually the ones who are in most need of those entitlements.  If the “wall” as Perrault perceives it, as architectural device and symbol, is fundamentally about hierarchy and divisions of power (which is how I interpret Perrault’s sentiment), then the garden library conforms to that metaphor.  Ironically, the book-wall of the garden library subverts the “wall’s” stratifying potential by offering an under-serviced community free access to knowledge.  This is a thought-provoking twist on the traditional, enclosed library which surely signifies an alternate “attitude towards the quality and status of the wall”.

Just as a matter of trivia, I also find it interesting that the “wall library” was a specific, common library typology until the 18^th century (reference “The Library through History”).  As noted, it was the over-abundance of printed material that forced the wall library model into obsolescence, as the interior perimeters alone were no longer capable of housing burgeoning collections.  Perhaps, the garden library demonstrates how the “wall library” might find a second-life.  Instead of delimiting spacious, decorated enclosures, it becomes a free-standing object (of information) within the landscape.  The wall library may now be best suited for micro-collections that operate, physically and figuratively, within a field of social and political engagement.