Author: Julia (Page 2 of 2)

Walking up to the Frick Museum on a rainy day felt like an absolute chore that I wanted no part of. It was a long walk from the station that had forced me to purchase an umbrella, but as I was plodding along the tall brick boundary of the house, I hadn’t realized that this would become my eventual destination. I bounded up the stairs, to be greeted by one of my classmates. It was a challenge simply walking the museum; the doorway was much too small for a pair to enter at once, let alone with umbrellas, and visitors exiting the building at the same time from the same entrance.
Entering the lobby felt hectic; you could tell it wasn’t designed to be a lobby. Your path was guided by well-placed desks and velvet ropes. After the claustrophobic fiasco that is entering the museum, the class met in a central garden, atrium, plaza that is in the center of the house. I couldn’t exactly fathom this existing in someone’s home; I kept thinking, “What would you put in here?” “What do people do in this space?” “Is there WIFI here?” granted, the last question is unrelated to the topic, but I’m sure it made someone exhale through the nose. Walking through each gallery and admiring the art, it was clearly as claustrophobic as the entryway. I spent a lot of time trying to decode the building; “What room was this?” “Where is the kitchen?” Every time I walk into a dark room with a green rug and a fireplace, I say “Yes, this is the living room!” Only to be proven wrong by the next room.

In contrast, the Guggenheim museum only proved as a great design. There was a separation between entrance and exit; there was much more space in the atrium, and felt more like the architecture itself is guiding you to the ticket booth. What I admire about it is the clear line of movement through the art; the single ramp that guides you down the atrium; you don’t get lost, like in some other museums.

The lever house’s ‘exterior skin’ is one of the most magnificent buildings that we had stumbled upon in this class. The subject that stood out the most to me was relief of the facade between the lower level, and the tower; right where the outdoor space is located, for the users of the building. The attempt at separating the building uses through this slight setback of elevation had been stuck in my mind, and the urge to implement it into my current design class has been strong. Not only is this a fantastic spectacle of exhibiting an attenuate cantilever; but its a fantastic way to compose a high rise building. Knowing that this was during the times that architects were trying to rationalize the massing of high rise buildings, I’m rather fond of the Lever House for how the design was approached.
The Lever house is confronted  by the Seagram Building, and to a bystander, I don’t think one would be able to pick apart all of the minute details that set these cor-rivals apart. Yes, they do differ in color palettes; The green glass and almost white curtain wall mullions of the Lever House are quite opposite on the color spectrum from the orange tinted glass and matte black mullions of the Seagram building; but those aren’t the only differences. stepping closer, you realize that the Lever house is not on center; it is off balance from the columns. In the meanwhile, every single detail, up to the position of the interior light at the Seagram buildings are exactly on point and symmetrical.

The concept for Central Park arose from a 1840s newspaper editor, that said the city required more parks in order to be a livable city. From that point on, there became a movement to convince the state of New York to create a park in 1850; this was approved in 1853, and a  competition was held in 1857 to try to figure out the best design for the people who will leisure in it.

Of all the designs, the one that won was by Frederick Law Olmsted and Calvert Vaux. What gave them the winner’s medal, was the integration of the city streets with the park, which other competitors hadn’t included, but in a way that was almost ingenious. When walking inside of the park, it inst easily noticeable that you are walking next to one of the fast-paced Manhattan streets that run through the park. The architects had created a small greenery escape in the center of the city, that allowed people to stroll, ride bareback, and ride in horse pulled carriages through the lanes. The architects looked to English parks for inspiration, and even took England’s love for animals and the land into consideration. Sheep’s meadow, originally contained grazing sheep that gave the effect of being in the country, with the Dairy providing fresh sheeps milk. What wasn’t included in the original schematic was any play place for children; as this was a park meant for the wealthy adults.

What i think is a decent design element of the park, was the usage of benches, and how they span down each pathway with little to no separation between them. I can imagine people being able to interact with one another with great ease, on a beautiful spring day. Each one of the paths isn’t covered with benches, but that immediately tells you the different program for this path. The use of man made landscape and tunnels through bridges also creates a fairy tale feeling, like traveling through a secret arch into adventure.

Manhattan, being the new up and coming city of the 19th century, became a hip and popular spot for people to move to. The major reason for this was the Depression of 1894. People began to move to the city to find jobs, bring some money back to their families, and simply survive. But the first thing a person needs is housing – a place to rest. And this vast spike in population created a demand for housing.

Yet, another type of person in Manhattan were the ones seeking profit from this demand. Landowners and people with a large sum of capitol began to quickly develop housing. Homeowners began to rent out their homes, their apartments, and even single rooms. One family brownstones became multi-family homes, and charged for high profit. Landlords wanted money, income, and efficiency. Housing was being stuffed with people like sardines in a can, completely disregarding the safety and health of the people living there.

These homes were not meant for this scale of people living there. With no codes, there was no rules on the health and safety of the people. One toilet in a household could be used by twenties of people. Majority of the time, sewage lines were not maintained, or weren’t even connected to the city sewers. Cesspools were created in back yards for the tenants, and they remained as they were built. This led to epidemics of disease.

The lack of building code led to people becoming infected with tuberculosis.
On a specific block, the disease got so out of hand, it got the title the Lung Block. This was caused by the development of buildings with no light or air circulation. The entire block was demolished, and a plan to create a new housing design was petitioned. The major issue with this is that the newer designs didn’t help; what actually solved the problem, was returning to the original building designs that were much shallower, and allowed more light and air circulation.