December 25, 2012 | ∞ My family has been enjoying a great Christmas and we wish for Happy Holidays for all!
To help get us in the mood, Amazing Pics has a great collection of holiday inspired pictures.
December 24, 2012 | ∞ Speaking of navigating the nighttime skies, photographer Thierry Cohen has an intriguing series on darkened cities. As Francis Hodgson explains:
In Thierry Cohen’s series, Darkened Cities, we think we see bright night skies over cities. Very traditional, very poetical. Actually, what we’re seeing is the opposite. These skies are an indictment and a lament. These are the skies that we don’t see. They are also extremely clever photography, in which highly skilled execution provides rich layers of meaning.
[…}
This is a very powerful treatment. It is laborious in the extreme. To find places with the right degree of atmospheric clarity, Cohen has to go – always on the latitudes of our cities – into the wild places of the earth, the Atacama, the Mojave, the northern wastes of Mongolia. Who among us beyond a handful of professional astronomers would know if Cohen cut the odd corner by finding a good sky not quite so remote? But photography has always had a very tight relationship to reality. A good sky is not the right sky. And the right sky in each case has a huge emotional effect.
Via Gizmodo
December 24, 2012 | ∞ Paul Knight has a humorous report regarding Santa’s disdain for suburbia:
For centuries, Santa Claus has been successfully delivering gifts on time and in budget to every good boy and girl. But today, at a meeting of the United Nations in New York, Santa made a surprising announcement: “Christmas is in jeopardy.”
The announcement came following last year’s major research and development project at the North Pole. Santa, flanked by scores of elves and about nine reindeer, detailed the findings of his team’s analysis. In short, the NP-R&D organization found that the suburban development patterns over the last several decades were responsible for the rapid rise in operational costs at Santa’s workshop.
I thought it was amusing, so check it out. It reminds me of another of Santa’s critiques of the way we build:
December 24, 2012 | ∞ Speaking of maps, Eric Jaffe has a piece for The Atlantic Cities on the hand drawn maps created by illustrator Jenni Sparks:
In a world of digital renderings and computer graphics, illustrator Jenni Sparks prefers to draw cities by hand. This past spring, just in time for the Olympics, Sparks completed a wonderfully intricate hand-drawn map of London. Earlier this month she duplicated that feat for New York, capturing most of Manhattan and parts of Brooklyn and Queens.
The intricate detail in the resulting hand drawn maps is amazing and the amount of research involved is astounding.
December 19, 2012 | ∞ After an absence of a few months, Google has released their official maps application for iOS bringing vector tiles, turn-by-turn navigation, and transit directions. I haven’t had any issues with Apple’s maps, but having a choice is even better. As John Gruber notes:
This iOS 6 mapping saga has been a source of tremendous controversy, but here we are three months after iOS 6 was released and iPhone users now have a better Google Maps experience than they did when Google was providing the back-end data for the built-in Maps app. It all worked out.
So iOS users went from having a maps experience that was lagging behind to having the option of choosing between two better options. As an architect and urban designer, the Flyover feature in Apple’s maps is enthralling. But Google’s streetview is equally engaging. I am glad to have both options and I think both are better than the previous hamstrung maps app.
December 11, 2012 | ∞ What is art? This is the question I asked myself when reviewing the proposed piece of art that will be a part of a project I have been involved with. Public art is even trickier, as it must have wide appeal and general understanding. However, in the case of this project (and many projects in many cities near and far) it is a requirement that the project include an element of public art.
Many cities have programs in place to require the incorporation of art into projects. These programs, usually called “Art in Public Places” or something similar, require the developer to place a piece of “art” into the project. This requirement usually comes in the form of a percentage of construction cost being set aside to provide for an art installation as part of the building or as a stand-alone element.
As someone who cares deeply about the quality and human experience of the places we build, I find myself strangely at odds with the concept of Art in Public Places. This isn’t because I don’t believe we should be building beautiful, engaging, interesting places. This isn’t because I don’t think that art is important. To the contrary, I believe that the mission of these programs is noble and good. We should be creating beautiful and interesting places. We should engage with humanity in an artistic way. And yes, public art is important. I’m just not sure the Art in Public Places program is the way to get the kinds of places we love. Here’s why.
I firmly believe that architecture is an art form and good architecture can provide the kind of visual interest and delight that these programs are trying to achieve. The places I love are populated with exquisite pieces of architecture that work together to achieve a delightful place full of interesting and engaging elements. These places were created by craftsmen, artists of a trade that bestowed beauty upon the buildings they helped craft. The wrought iron railing, the flamboyant brickwork, the precisely detailed moldings and cornices - these are the elements that create a symphony of visual delight. By requiring art specifically, these programs undermine the notion that architecture is the ultimate public art and devalue the importance of good architecture in the minds of the public, the city, the developer, and even the architect.
This brings me my next point:
Perhaps the very existence of these programs is an indictment on the state of architecture. These programs can be seen as a reaction against the banality of today’s architecture. Fed up with the monotony and lack of human engagement that our recent places have exhibited, cities took it upon themselves to require public art as a way to mitigate the cultural wastelands we have been building. At some point, architects have seemingly lost the trust of the public to make great places.
This leaves me wondering if the Art in Public Places programs are actually a hindrance to the great buildings we need to complete our great places. Taking money out of the construction budget to set aside for art leaves less money on the table for just making the building great. Instead of concentrating on making great building, we get plastered on art as an after thought.
So where do we go from here? I would strongly advocate that we focus on getting the buildings right before looking at public art. Good architecture in the context of a good human environment will be delightful, invigorating, and enlightening. This is the true purpose of art. Cities should work with developers to craft truly great places from the smallest detail to the largest design parti. This would provide a greater service to the public than the incorporation of public art of varying quality into every project of large enough scope.
Yes there is a place for public art and it is an important element of great human environments. However, I would question the need for a piece of art to be included with every project that gets built. The highest calling of most buildings is to become great citizen buildings which means they need to get the architecture and the relationship to the human realm right before worrying about where to put the super-graphic or the dynamic LED light installation. Public art mostly belongs at places of urban significance - the public squares and parks, the vistas, the public “foreground” buildings, and prominent intersections to name a few. Art can certainly be a part of the rest of the urban fabric, however it should be organic and natural as a consequence of the character and flavor of the neighborhood.
So rather than focusing on requiring developers to place a piece of art into every project, let’s encourage developers to build great Architecture. Because Architecture (with a capital “A”) is art and will ultimately have a far greater impact on the quality of the human environment.
December 10, 2012 | ∞ Admin Vit, writing for Brand New, on the new logo for the University of California:
Basically, the previous wordmark could have not even existed and no one would have complained. With this new identity, it’s clear that UC wants to stand out more and establish itself as the guardian of all these campuses and it’s a great move. The icon is simple and memorable; perhaps hard to read as “UC” because the “C” is so prominent and the “U” reads first as a book/shield than a “U” but emphasizing C for California is not such a bad thing. Some of our tipsters suggested it doesn’t look very collegiate and I think that’s fine as this is more about establishing a friendly brand presence for the overall family of campuses while each campus then can drill the collegiate message more efficiently. The wordmark is set in FF Kievit, which starts to look a little too default-y or Microsoft-y but it’s certainly a safe and honest choice.
Personally I think it is terrible. It lacks sophistication and weight. I don’t think it properly reflects the prestige of a serious academic institution.
The design team made the following video explaining their design choices:
Via Daring Fireball
December 5, 2012 | ∞ Kaid Benfield, writing for his Switchboard blog, has an excellent overview and commentary on Jeff Speck’s new book, Walkable City:
In Jeff Speck’s excellent new book, Walkable City, he suggests that there are ten keys to creating walkability. Most of them also have something to do with redressing the deleterious effects caused by our allowing cars to dominate urban spaces for decades. I don’t necessarily agree with every detail, and my own list might differ in some ways that reflect my own experience and values. But it’s a heck of a good menu to get city leaders and thinkers started in making their communities more hospitable to walkers.
Kaid relays the ten steps of walkability as laid out by Jeff:
- Put cars in their place.
- Mix the uses.
- Get the parking right.
- Let transit work.
- Protect the pedestrian.
- Welcome bikes.
- Shape the spaces.
- Plant trees.
- Make friendly and unique [building] faces.
- Pick your winners.
There is too much good stuff to pick out from the article, so I suggest heading over to the original and reading the whole thing. It’s well worth the time.
December 5, 2012 | ∞ Jason Kottke, writing for his blog, has an interesting post of color photography from the early 1900s commissioned by Albert Kahn. I find it sad how the buildings in the then and now shot have degraded over time - not from lack of upkeep but from willful remodelling. Also note the increased “noise” in traffic and street related additions as compared to the clear simplicity of the street in the original.
Also don’t miss this expanded collection of early 1900 photographs.
December 5, 2012 | ∞ Henry Grabar, writing for The Atlantic Cities, reports on an interactive map that plots the locations of all the bombs dropped on London during the London Blitz (October 7, 1940 - June 6, 1941):
To really appreciate the scope of the attacks, though, you must explore the Bomb Sight Map, a project that plots the records of the Bomb Census Survey on a digital map of London. The interactive project, produced by Jisc in collaboration with Portsmouth University and the National Archives, shows the location and type of every bomb that fell on Greater London between October and June, along with links to accompanying photographs and other resources.
The resulting map is truly amazing and makes you appreciate how fortunate it is that some of the iconic buildings of historic London were saved.
