Comments on: Capernaum House of St Peter and landscape archaeology

By: Christine

Christine — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 04:19:46 +0000

Oh. Perhaps in a different mould from Corbusier but still not, I would think, demonstrating any of the elements you spoke of: 1) a clear link with the landscape setting 2) a sense of view lines within and from the city or 3) an idea of an urban garden transition zone is the new Korean city of Gwanggyo by Dutch firm MVRDV.[ http://www.dezeen.com/2008/12/03/gwanggyo-power-centre-by-mvrdv/ ] But perhaps it is early days yet?

Or perhaps the set of relations they have conceptualised are entirely different from those you nominated?

True it is a little difficult to get a sense of the landscape setting from the CAD renderings so I tried to find some visual reference material
[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gwanggyo_Reservoir_-_2008-10-12.JPG ]
[ http://www.theeastworld.com/2009/01/discover-korea-1-suwon-east-campaign-in.html ]

By: Tom Turner

Tom Turner — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 13:46:27 +0000

In essence ‘planners’ is a word for people who produce plans. Given recent changes in technology we should probably call them CADers (or ‘cads’ as a diminutive and affectionate term!). But if ‘planners’ is used to mean ‘bureaucrats who administer regulations for the planning of town and country’, then, ‘No’ – I think they have few principles, few ideas and hardly any honour.

By: Christine

Christine — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 01:57:02 +0000

I am not sure I am clear about your answer….are you saying that the aspect of the relationship between building and landscapes that should found our understanding is planning principles?

Or is your answer more akin to this statement about Planning from The Victorian Transport Policy Institute;

“Traditional communities relied on shamans and priests to help maintain balance between human and natural worlds. In modern communities these responsibilities are borne by planners.”

By: Tom Turner

Tom Turner — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 08:54:50 +0000

I did not expect to get away with such a brief reply but it is a big question.
As a natural skeptic, I nonetheless think religions have something very important and I think they managed it by developing principles at a time when society was less complex and truths could take shape over what Christopher calls a ‘timeless’ period. From this, I reason that the same applies to relationships between buildings and landscapes. The principles were easier to appreciate when society was less complex. So I think the study of ancient places has a comparable role in planning to that of religion in society: the ancient ways are important but we need to keep on adjusting them as society evolves. My sharpest reservations about religions are connected to the fundamentalists who oppose change – they make me wonder if Karl Marx was right about religion being ‘the opium of the people’. I see evolution as part of the nature of the world and cannot see how religions can even dream of being changeless.

By: Christine

Christine — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 02:42:49 +0000

Should I have said ‘with what aspect’ would you start exploring this relationship? However, you must have had something particular in mind when you nominated Sumer, Babylon, Assur, Waset (Thebes) and Knossos?

By: Tom Turner

Tom Turner — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 10:30:25 +0000

Sumer, Babylon, Assur, Waset (Thebes) and Knossos.

By: Christine

Christine — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 02:55:51 +0000

Where would you start in exploring this relationship between buildings and landscapes?

By: Tom Turner

Tom Turner — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 06:59:32 +0000

It is a good quotation but does not take us very far. For example, I certainly regard Norman Foster and Richard Rogers as good architects, and they often have good clients, but I often think they do not produce ‘good architecture’ because it is insufficiently context-sensitive. They seem to care far more about internal space and about producing iconic buildings than about the relationship between their buildings and the landscapes in which they are set.

By: Christine

Christine — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 00:15:06 +0000

In the ‘Urban Design Reader’ (Matthew Carmona and Steve Tiesdell) the following is said of enlightened patronage:

“What makes a good building is quite simply a good brief, a good client and a good architect – in other words – enlightened architectural patronage….While patronage will always remain the privilege of the few, it can no longer operate without support from the man in the street. A better educated public therefore becomes a prerequisite of enlightened patronage.” (What makes a good building? p203)

Boston University in their study of British architecture reference the text by Kenneth Powell and Renzo Piano ‘City Reborn: Architecture and Regeneration in London, from Bankside to Dulwich’ [ http://www.bu.edu/abroad/syllabi/AH_381.pdf ].

By: Tom Turner

Tom Turner — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 15:38:56 +0000

The Malaga Visitor Centre is less assertive and more elegant and more sympathetic – I suppose the reflectivity makes it responsive to its context. But I still think it attracts too much attention to itself and therefore makes the Roman remains appear, in the photograph, as little more than external works to the building.

Re public consultation, I am both a believer and a sceptic. If it can be arranged, it is better for a designer to work with a single enlightened client – a patron – than a miscellaneous self-selected group of consultees,