Freaky Architectural Stuff for Ruin

[clockworkjoe]

Neat! I want to make a war game based on those maps...

[CADmonkey]

Oh Ross, have you seen High-Rise yet?


High-Rise by Bryan Rombough, on Flickr

Showing at another theatre in town. 

[RadioactiveBeer]

The BBC has a photo feature about relics of the Soviet era, which are exactly as bleak and colourless as you would expect.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/in-pictures-36764708

[CADmonkey]

https://vimeo.com/174312351

Spatial Bodies depicts the urban landscape and architectural bodies as an autonomous living and self replicating organism. Domesticated and cultivated only by its own nature. A vast concrete vegetation, oscillating between order and chaos.

Music specially composed by Daisuke Tanabe.
Filmed in Osaka, Japan.

Influenced by gunkan and metabolism architecture and the video game Katamari Damacy.

[clockworkjoe]

aahhhhh that is so cool how did I miss this post until now

[trinite]

High-Rise is on Netflix now, in case anybody hasn't seen it yet. My wife and I got about halfway through tonight, and will finish it later in the week.

[CADmonkey]

About those Yugoslav monuments folks love sharing photos of:

Concrete clickbait: next time you share a spomenik photo, think about what it means

Photos of Yugoslav monuments known as spomeniks are often shared online, exoticised and wrenched from context. But now, argues Owen Hatherley, it is vital that we make the effort to understand what they truly represent

[CADmonkey]

This would have been more relevant while The Brutalists APs were being posted, but some recent posts on social media has brought this back to my mind, so:

Opinion: What’s Wrong With Shipping Container Housing? Everything

If you've been following any architectural blogs in the past 5-10 years, you've probably seen shipping container houses/offices/etc., they're pretty popular with architecture nerds.  Liking the look of shipping containers is a matter of taste and not objectively good or bad, but some proponents of the fad like to claim that shipping container architecture is "green" and "sustainable", which is not at all true.  From the opinion piece above, here's a list of reasons why shipping containers are an objectively bad construction material:

• Housing is usually not a technology problem. All parts of the world have vernacular housing, and it usually works quite well for the local climate. There are certainly places with material shortages, or situations where factory built housing might be appropriate- especially when an area is recovering from a disaster. In this case prefab buildings would make sense- but doing them in containers does not.
• If you are going through the trouble of building in factory, why not build to a dimension that is appropriate for human habitation? With only 7’ clear (2.1 m) inside a built-out container, you are left with the building code minimum room width as your typical condition. It’s hardly an ideal width, and it is not difficult to ship wider modular units: modular home builders do it all the time.
• Insulation. All surfaces of the container need to be insulated, and this means either building a new set of walls on the inside or outside of the container. If walls are furred out on the interior, this is convenient for plumbing and electrical lines but it narrows the usable space of an already small box. It also allows for a huge amount of thermal bridging unless the floor is built up with insulation on the inside (which brings up a host of other problems).  If the exterior is insulated it no longer looks like a container, and then you have to pay to clad the entire thing over the insulation. In either scenario you’re duplicating all of the walls that you started with. Improper insulation will result in heavy condensation on the inside of the metal exterior walls.
• Structure. You’ve seen the proposals with cantilevers everywhere. Containers stacked like Lego building blocks, or with one layer perpendicular to the next. Architects love stuff like this, just like they throw around usually misleading/meaningless phrases like “kit of parts.” Guess what- the second you don’t stack the containers on their corners, the structure that is built into the containers needs to be duplicated with heavy steel reinforcing. The rails at the top and the roof of the container are not structural at all (the roof of a container is light gauge steel, and will dent easily if you step on it). If you cut openings in the container walls, the entire structure starts to deflect and needs to be reinforced because the corrugated sides act like the flange of beam and once big pieces are removed, the beam stops working. All of this steel reinforcing is very expensive, and it’s the only way you can build a “double-wide.”
• Stacking. One recent competition boasted that because containers can be stacked 9-high, concrete floors could be provided every 9th floor with stacks of containers in between. That load still needs to travel down through the building, and still then requires columns. Those floors every ninth floor need to hold the entire weight of 9-stories of building above, which makes it dubious that you’d really be saving much on structure. The foundation also needs to be built similarly to a “regular” site-built building, and this is one of the most expensive pieces. Stacking also requires a large crane and an area for staging the prefabricated container modules, which can be hard to arrange on a dense urban infill site.
• Utilities and Mechanical Systems. In a large building, you’ll still need a lot of space to run utilities. Because of the problems with insulation mentioned above, you will need to install a very robust HVAC system to heat and cool the building (that Mumbai tower shown above would literally be a deathtrap without cooling). You will have a hard time taking advantage of passive strategies like thermal mass if you maintain the container aesthetic. You’ll also end up with low ceilings, as even high cube containers are only 9-’6” (2.9 m) in overall exterior height, so any ductwork or utilities start cutting in to headroom.
• Recycling. Part of the container narrative is that it’s “green” because we have a surplus of containers that can be reused. This is somewhat true, but in reality many existing container projects use brand new containers from China (which are still very cheap to buy). Used containers need to be thoroughly cleaned because there is a risk they may have been used to transport something toxic in the past.

What you get with a container is cheap structure, if you can use the box-basically as-is. As soon as you remove anything (including the ends) you need to hire welders and buy steel. Architecture is more than structure though and structure on its own is not particularly expensive- especially when you are building a space as small as a shipping container, so the savings here are minimal. Relatively untrained people can build a room that size of simple wood framing in a day without needing to rent a crane or learning how to weld for about the same cost (or less) than buying a used container.

Most shipping container projects you read about never actually get built, and those that do are for rich clients with more money than sense, but the myth that shipping containers are a viable "solution" to anything is... annoying.

There seems to have been an uptick in "shipping container porn" on social media lately (maybe due to the Ready Player One movie coming out?), and amongst that stuff I've noticed a new --possibly sillier-- idea: OPod Tube Housing.  From an environmental/sustainability standpoint, this is at least as bad as shipping container housing.  To make these things "housing", you have to build a livable space inside a cramped, enclosed space.  And stacking them up means building a separate structure to hold them in place and carry their weight (you can only pile a few of these on top of each other before the weight of the ones on top crush the ones at the bottom), not to mention the nightmare of running services between "pods" that literally only have tangental connections (at best).  But like the shipping container fad, I don't expect that many of these will actually be built.

[clockworkjoe]

hahaha yeah, i found out shipping containers are shit as structure components at some point during the brutalist campaign. Oh well, i guess they are more viable in a zombie apocalypse because steel is stronger than zombie claws.

[CADmonkey]

hahaha yeah, i found out shipping containers are shit as structure components at some point during the brutalist campaign. Oh well, i guess they are more viable in a zombie apocalypse because steel is stronger than zombie claws.

They can make sense if you're cut off from other sources of steel and have a surplus of containers.

[CADmonkey]

On modern architecture, and perceptions & attitudes towards it and how those concepts have changed over time, I went to a lecture at the CCA a couple of weeks ago, and a video is now online:

<a href="" target="_blank" class="aeva_link bbc_link new_win"></a>

Author and critic Owen Hatherley presents and comments on a television broadcast of Open University course A305, for contemporary eyes and ears. The episode, “English Flats of the Thirties,” juxtaposes two housing schemes, one in London and one in Leeds, one public and one private, one modelled on the monumental mass housing of Red Vienna and one on the ideas of Le Corbusier. Looking at how these buildings were perceived in the 1970s, Hatherley reflects both on the changing reputation of modernist mass housing and attitudes toward working class housing and the architectural avant-garde. Why did one of the buildings become “iconic” and get preserved, while the other was demolished?

Hatherley is the author of books including Militant Modernism (2009), A Guide to the New Ruins of Great Britain (2009), and Uncommon (2011), about the pop group Pulp. He has contributed to publications including Building Design, The Guardian, Icon, Jacobin, London Review of Books, New Humanist, New Statesman, Socialist Review, and Socialist Worker.

The CCA currently has an exhibition on, The University Is Now on Air: Broadcasting Modern Architecture, which looks at one of the courses of the British Open University project: A305, History of Architecture and Design, 1890–1939 and they invited Hatherley to comment on an episode of the course broadcasts.  If you're interested in modernist architecture and how people's concept of it have changed over time, this is worth an hour of your time.

The CCA also has broadcast from that Open University course on their youtube channel: A305, History of Architecture and Design 1890–1939.  They're quite interesting on their own, with studies of a number of modern architects and buildings.  And videos from the exhibition are also online: The University Is Now on Air / L'université à l'antenne, for anyone interested in the Open University's experiment in higher education.

Edit A few things I forgot to mention: Hatherley mentions the documentary The Pruitt-Igoe Myth, I can't recall if I've mentioned it on this forum, but it's an absolute must-see for anyone who has opinions on public housing and modernist architecture.  Hartherley also mentions that this was his first trip to Canada, and he made a brief tour of Montréal and was fairly impressed by the Metro.  He also made a side trip to my home town of Ottawa, where he was less impressed with some of our architecture.

Edit the Second  A "Freaky Architectural Stuff" tweet I forgot to mention: Hatherley found the high-rise from David Cronenberg's Shivers (which he considers to be the best adaptation of J.G. Ballard's High-Rise) in Montréal.