100%
|
465楼#
发布于：2015-12-06 08:41
|
|
|
466楼#
发布于：2015-12-06 08:48
|
|
|
467楼#
发布于：2015-12-06 09:06
|
|
|
468楼#
发布于：2015-12-06 10:17
|
|
|
469楼#
发布于：2015-12-06 10:31
|
|
|
470楼#
发布于：2015-12-06 11:04
|
|
|
471楼#
发布于：2015-12-06 11:11
|
|
|
472楼#
发布于：2015-12-06 12:01
|
|
|
473楼#
发布于：2015-12-06 12:20
|
|
|
474楼#
发布于：2015-12-06 17:31
|
|
|
475楼#
发布于：2015-12-06 17:49
|
|
|
476楼#
发布于：2015-12-06 20:21
|
|
|
477楼#
发布于：2015-12-07 09:31
|
|
名动一方
|
479楼#
发布于：2015-12-07 10:38
CONTENTS
1 PREAMBLE 1 2 THE CONTEXT FOR DESIGN 3 3 ARRIVING AT THE DIAGRAM 13 RESPONDING TO THE SITE 13 CHOOSING AN APPROPRIATE ‘MODEL’ 16 ORGANISING THE PLAN 23 4 CHOOSING APPROPRIATE TECHNOLOGIES 39 STRUCTURE 39 SERVICES 42 HOW WILL IT STAND UP? 43 HOW IS IT MADE? 51 WILL IT BE COMFORTABLE? 58 WILL IT BE GREEN? 62 5 HOW WILL IT LOOK? 71 EXPRESSION V SUPPRESSION 71 ROOF 74 OPENINGS 77 ELEVATIONS 77 WALL MEMBRANES 78 THE CORNER 81 SCALE 83 6 THE SPACES AROUND 93 CENTRIFUGAL AND CENTRIPETAL SPACE 93 URBAN SPACE TYPOLOGY 101 7 POSTSCRIPT: A WORKING METHOD 107 TRADITION V THE VIRTUAL BUILDING 107 FURTHER READING 111 1 PREAMBLE As we enter the twenty-first century, it has become fashionable to consider architecture through a veil of literature. Such was not always the case; indeed, it could be argued that the practice of architecture has rarely been underpinned by a close correspondence with theory, and that designers have been drawnmore to precedent, to seminal buildings and projects rather than to texts for a creative springboard to their fertile imaginations. This is merely an observation and not an argument against fledgling building designers adopting even the simplest of theoretical positions; nor does it deny the profound influence of a small number of seminal texts upon the development of twentieth-century architecture, for there has been a close correspondence between some of those texts and icons which emerged as the built outcome. But even the most basic theoretical stance must be supported in turn by a few fundamental maxims which can point the inexperienced designer in the right direction towards prosecuting an acceptable architectural solution. This book, then, attempts to offer that support by not only offering some accepted maxims or design orthodoxies, but also by suggesting how they can inform crucial decisions which face the architect engaged in the act of designing. The text is non-theoretical and therefore makes no attempt to add to the ample literature surrounding architectural theory; rather it aims to provide students engaged in building design with a framework of accepted ways of looking at things which will support and inform their experiment and exploration during the socalled ‘design process’. The plethora of literature concerned with the ‘design process’ or ‘design methodology’ is a fairly recent phenomenon which gained momentum during the late 1950s. In these early explorations design was promulgated as a straightforward linear process from analysis via synthesis to evaluation as if conform ing to some universal sequence of decisionmaking. Moreover, design theorists urged designers to delay as long as possible the creative leap into ‘form-making’ until every aspect of the architectural problem was thought to be clearly understood. But every practising architect knew that this restrictive linearmodel of the design process flew in the face of all shared experience; the reality of designing did not conform to a predetermined sequence at all but demanded that the designer should skip between various aspects of the problem in any order or at any time, should consider several aspects simultaneously or, indeed, should revisit some aspects in a cyclical process as the problem became more clearly defined. Furthermore, the experience of most architects was that a powerful visual image of their embryonic solution had already been formed early on in the design process, suggesting that fundamental aspects of ‘form-making’ such as how the building would look, or how its threedimensional organisation would be configured in plan and section, represented in reality an early, if tentative, creative response to any architectural problem. The act of designing clearly embraces at its extremes logical analysis on the one hand and profound creative thought on the other, both of which contribute crucially to that central ground of ‘form-making’. It is axiomatic that all good buildings depend upon sound and imaginative decisions on the part of the designer at these early stages and how such decision-making informs that creative ‘leap’ towards establishing an appropriate threedimensional outcome. These initial forays into ‘form-making’ remain the most problematic for the novice and the experienced architect alike; what follows are a few signposts towards easing a fledgling designer’s passage through these potentially rough pastures. 2 Architecture: Design Notebook 2 THE CONTEXT FOR DESIGN It’s a hoary old cliche′ that society gets the architecture it deserves, or, put more extremely, that decadent regimes will, ipso facto, produce reactionary architecture whilst only democracies will support the progressive. But to a large extent post-Versailles Europe bore this out; the Weimar Republic’s fourteen-year lifespan coincided exactly with that of the Bauhaus, whose progressive aims it endorsed, and modern architecture flourished in the fledgling democracy of Czechoslovakia. But the rise of totalitarianism in inter-war Europe soon put an end to such worthy ambition and it was left to the free world (andmost particularly the New World) to prosecute the new architecture until a peaceful Europe again prevailed. This is, of course, a gross over-simplification but serves to demonstrate that all architects work within an established socio-political framework which, to a greater or lesser extent, inevitably encourages or restricts their creative impulses, a condition which would not necessarily obtain with some other design disciplines like, for example, mechanical engineering (which, incidentally, thrived under totalitarianism). This brings us to another well-worn stance adopted by progressive architects; that architecture (unlike mechanical engineering) responds in some measure to a prevailing cultural climate in which it is created and therefore emerges inevitably as a cultural artefact reflecting the nature of that culture. Certainly the development of progressive architecture during its so-called ‘heroic’ period after the First World War would seem to support this claim; architects found themselves at the heart of new artistic movements throughout Europe like, for example, Purism in Paris, De Stijl in Rotterdam, Constructivism in Moscow or the Bauhaus in Weimar and Dessau. Inevitably, such movements generated a close correspondence between architecture and the visual arts so that architects looked naturally to painters and sculptors for inspiration in their quest for developing new architec hv权囹 
联系QQ：526781618 淘宝旺旺：跟朝流走 有需要的欢迎联系！专业代购电子书 ebook 英文电子书代购 |
