TEACHING URBAN DESIGN of replication - can bring forth something interesting and ideally inventive in itself. Therefore, things are made to look interesting. Just as in real life, if you fire two or more rounds of shots with limited experience, maybe one hits the target. Or, put less brutally but nonetheless in an equally straightforward manner, in architecture and urban design education out of half a dozen student projects, one may be convincing. But luckily most of the projects can be made to look interesting (There are strong similarities with actual contemporary architectural and urban design practice here).
n Studio between
The underlying assumption in this whole representation game is, if it looks good, and it frequently looks good and if it has the looks of contemporary practice mentioned above (albeit in parenthesis), then surely it must be good. This forms a typical conditioned assumption based on which we make poor and superficial (in the whole though limited
tollmann tharina Hagg
Misselwitz ver Schetter
volumetric dimension of the term) consumer and life choices on a daily basis thereby negatively impacting our life expectation on this planet. Secondly and more importantly, it is assumed that if it looks good it is because of good teaching. This is indeed convenient reasoning: it looks good because of good teaching and of course good teaching is done by good teachers. You can travel far and wide through academia and everywhere you will find more people subscribing to this notion than to the equally plausible one that good teaching need not reflect in a student project’s good looks and that a good teacher will help you to get to the bottom of questions rather than chaining you to the surface. However, despite the possible validity of the counterargument, we apparently also promote good looks along with everybody else. So, did we hit a dead end? Maybe not: good is a derivative of normative
NEIGHBORHOOD ANALYSIS The property is surrounded by 22m high walls on two and a half sides. The street façade faces north and a listed church flanks one side. Responding to the difficult conditions, three different typologies were developed with unmistakable characteristics. The street-side townhouse construction is only 4 storeys high, to prevent overshadowing the three-storey firewall garden houses and garden. The buildings have several entrances providing independent access, while paths in the courtyard, lobby, garage and street repeatedly overlap. The projects size allowed a series of communal facilities, first of all the communal yard, which is not divided into individual gardens and the common roof terrace. The garden with its narrow modular grid and separate, yet overlapping accesses give the projects users a village-like character. With its huge windows the town houses open out towards the street level, providing much insight into the interior life of the residents and allowing actually the use by small businesses.
COORDINATION
-building hights -simplified style, material
COTRAST
-long unit vs small units -bigyard vs small yards -historical vs modern
UD STUDIO
HOME GROWN - HOUSING ALLIANCES ON THE RISE
Prototype of the first assignment: a Baugruppe in Pankow. Image credit: UD Studio, WS 2015/16
138 CITY OBSERVER | June 2016
A COOPERATION OF HABITAT UNIT . PROFESSOR PHILIPP MISSELWITZ . WM OLIVER SCHETTER CHAIR FOR URBAN DESIGN AND URBANISATION . PROFESSOR JÖRG STOLLMANN . WM KATHARINA HAGG
M : NTS
ASSIGNMENT 1-C
RICO DIEDERING FINYA EICHHORST YUSHAN CHEN
7