|
Posted by EDS on March 18, 2008, 1:06 pm
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On my own house, it went through several hurricanes but some
>>>>>>>>>> things did fail, though nothing structural.
>>>>>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>>>> I couldn't really tell from the program - in many areas, it
>>>>>>>>> looks like they're reinforcing it, but I don't knw whether
>>>>>>>>> other areas might be put onto rubber "floats" - I couldn't
>>>>>>>>> tell. But San Francisco (IIRC) has been literally lifted and
>>>>>>>>> placed onto rubber plugs that are supposed to absorb the
>>>>>>>>> shaking. THey also described the swaying that some wooden
>>>>>>>>> houses can withstand.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Earth tremours are usually cyclic, so anything like rubber plugs
>>>>>>>> will certainly help. I've experienced a Richter 7.8 in PNG, and
>>>>>>>> seen what happens to structures in similar shakes. In timber
>>>>>>>> structures, multi-bolted plates are preferable to single bolts,
>>>>>>>> also trussed structures work well. In PNG joints in traditional
>>>>>>>> buildings are constructed out of a complex weave of bush vine;
>>>>>>>> acts as a torsion joint - moves, but tightens as it moves.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Is PNG Papua New Guinea...? Maybe I can fond some pic online.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A Google for "haus tambaran" (Sepik Province) will produce
>>>>>> examples of the type of building where vine is used as a torsion
>>>>>> joint between a heavy beam and a column. I didn't find any where
>>>>>> you can see a joint detail. These buildings are sometimes three
>>>>>> storeys high and full of carvings, so the structural details tend
>>>>>> to get overlooked.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks, there are a lot of references, looking through them now.
>>>>>
>>>>> Structureal details do often tend to be either ovelooked, or
>>>>> deliberately hidden. I know that part of the "Modernist" movement
>>>>> was to lay them bare, but the results are IMO very seldom
>>>>> aesthetic. So it strikes me that ti's an inherent dichotomy in
>>>>> architecture, i.e. the balance between revealing the structural
>>>>> workings, and concealing them...
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If done correctly, designing with a logical structure and developing
>>>> fine structural details produce some of the finest architecture.
>>>
>>> No doubt (good image sources, whether books or URLS, are always
>>> welcome ;) ) - OTOH, I've seen it where things like pipes and
>>> ductwork are left exposed in a way that strikles me as being either
>>> affectatious, or cheap/lazy (or worse, both). It's one thing to be
>>> able to trace lines of force and so on, but I think there is more to
>>> revealing the structure, than merely leaving pipes and valves naked,
>>> especailly when they just end up collecting cobwebs and soot and so
>>> on. Wall surfaces/finishes were invented for a reason, I think.
>>> Even if I lived in a loft and wanted to see the gridwork, it seems to
>>> me that maintenence would be something of a nightmere.
>>>
>>> That being said, your points below are good ones:
>>>
>>>> What
>>>> is a Gothic Cathedral but a giant structural diagram of forces, in
>>>> stone, from roof peak to grade. Greek and Roman temples and Roman
>>>> baths are visible structures. Domes are structures that visibly bear
>>>> the weight. A bridge structure, clearly delineating the forces that
>>>> hold it up, is certainly more naturally pleasing to the eye than FOG
>>>> stuff. The list of beautiful structures is endless. A great and
>>>> logical structure is a joy to behold. EDS
>>>
>>> It's true that that those examples represent a balance between
>>> structure, and the concealment of structural workings. I suppose
>>> that "dichotiomy" was not the right word for me to use, and
>>> "infrastructure" (pipes, wiring, ductwork, etc) might also be more
>>> accurate than "structure" - although I've seen those things *called*
>>> (in books) part of the structure.
>>>
>>> At the same time, tho', taking, for example, the Roman bathsyou
>>> mentioned, I find myself doubting that, had the Romans had clear
>>> heat- tolerant flooring available, they'd have used it specifically
>>> to allow patrons to view the workings of the heating system...
>>>
>>>
>> Nor would I, but those items can often be incorporated within the
>> structural structure or other systems devised to move the air.
>> Exposing the structure in most minor buildings would just be messy.
>> The engineer and the architect should work together (or be the same
>> person) from the beginning of a major project to make it work. See
>> Calatrava's and Nervi's work for structure and architecture working
>> together. To my understanding the MEP systems are not a part of the
>> structure.
>
>
> Is that Santiago Calatrava...? I googled "Calatrava"+(arcchitect OR
> archtiecture) and got a numer of returns on Santiago Calatrava. I'm
> looking through his website now, actually
> ( http://www.calatrava.com/main.htm )
> and so far, I'm finding the work quite beautiful, so Many Thanks for that
> reference :D ! THat articulation is interesting. I'm not educated in
> "archispeak", so I don't know what the correct terminology would be, but
> Im
> reminded of dragonfly wings, diatome skeletons, and otehr articulated
> organic/biological structrues. The Tenerife Opera House is IMO
> particularly beautiful, along with the bridges in general. I'm still
> looking through the site.
>
> Anway, there, yes, structure as art and art as structure.
>
> It is entirely possible (and even probable) that what I'd had in mind was
> not the "Architect-Artist-Engineer" but rather the work of people who are
> trying to be all of that but not quite cutting it, and resorting to
> affectations as a result...?
>
> Obviously, the work of Calatrava is nothing at all like those peole who
> seem to think that just letting ductwork and piping and wiring hang out is
> "exposing the structure". Calatrava isn't merely exposing pipes and
> beams.
> There is simply no comparison.
>
> Unfortunately, a lot fo people fall for words rather than looking
> at/experiencing the work.
> IMO, if something needs 2 pages of polysyllabic (polysyBABBLic!) jargon to
> make sense, it isn't art, and IMO isn't good work.
>
> Anyway, thanks again for the reference, I'm enjoying it quite a lot.
>
>
I think he also designed the Athens Olympic Stadium. I like his work as it
transcends architecture and structure.
I have only done a few jobs where the structure and architecture worked
together. The one I liked the best was in NH, a 25 meter x 6 lane pool with
5' deep gluelam beams, gluelam columns, exposed 1.25" diameter galvanized
steel wind bracing with big exposed turnbuckles, and custom galvanized steel
connections co-designed with the structural engineer. That complex also had
a fieldhouse with 10' deep steel trusses (painted bright red) spanning
132'. In that complex we did attempt to integrate the HVAC into the design.
Also used solar heating with oil backup. It was and is a gutsy complex, with
systems highlighted in a 1979 DOE conference in Norfolk VA.
EDS
| 
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
XML Sitemap