本书最初的写作目的是教初学者了解建筑设计,它探索了设计过程中的思考过程。人们怎样规划所获得的信息?怎样做决定?在创造空间和形式时,使用哪些指导方针和原则?本书采用单体住宅作为案例,追踪了建筑师构思设计的思考过程。
本书从一个大纲开始,其中包括客户对建筑的需求,以及展现这些需求被转化为符合建筑设计操作的具体要求的示例。建筑师描述了将要修建住宅楼的用地,其设施条件和制约条件,这些条件能够改善或制约建筑设计。建筑师的目标及其为了客户所要达到的成果在大纲之中也有所体现。
作者所绘制的草图在本书中被按照创作的时间顺序排列,它们把设计当中的思考过程以视觉方式呈现出来。草图旁的文字叙述了设计师在绘制每幅草图时的内心想法。作者通过这一系列草图和说明文字,展现了决策制定的过程和帮助其制定这些决定的原则。竣工建筑的照片表达了建筑师意图的实现。
建筑师及其所属公司设计的其他案例进一步阐明了他们的指导方针和原则,这些思想为他们成功完成住宅设计起到了极大的作用。
理查德•波特曼是CBT Architects建筑事务所的主要创建者之一,这是一家有250名员工的公司,主要业务是建筑设计、室内建筑设计和城市设计,公司总部位于美国马萨诸塞州波士顿。该公司已获得200余项国际设计奖项。
他获得了哈佛大学的文学学士学位、麻省理工大学的建筑学士学位以及加州大学伯克利分校的建筑学硕士学位。
波特曼在罗德岛设计学院教授建筑设计课之前,曾为波士顿中央建筑学院(现波士顿建筑学院)授课多年,并担任First Year Design Program项目主席。他多年来一直是加州大学伯克利分校、罗德岛设计学院、塔斯克基学院、麻省理工学院和哈佛大学设计研究生院的客座评论家。
波特曼是美国建筑师协会会员,也是波士顿建筑师协会前会长,该组织将其最高荣誉终身成就奖授予给他。他在帮助美国国家建筑注册委员会(NCARB)筹备国家建筑师注册考试时,曾主持设计委员会。他是新英格兰文物保护社团(现历史上的新英格兰)的受托人。他是后湾建筑委员会(Back Bay Architectural Commission)的主席,地标区南端委员会(South End Landmark DistrictCommission)的成员,也是波士顿地标委员会(Boston
Landmarks Commission)董事会成员,并担任其设计检讨小组委员会的主席。因其“为保护波士顿的建筑遗产奉献终身”的贡献,波特曼被任命为波士顿市的荣誉波士顿地标(Honorary Boston Landmark)。
因其“对建筑行业发展的突出贡献”,他被任命为波士顿建筑学院的荣誉会员。他是率先进入新英格兰设计名人堂的建筑师之一,并获得波士顿保护联盟(BostonPreservation Alliance)颁发的终身成就奖。
波特曼还是获奖雕刻家,制作金属焊接雕塑和木雕。他的作品不断在美国各地——加利福尼亚州、纽约、康乃迪克州、马萨诸塞州——的博物馆和艺术馆展出。
目录
序言 6
设计过程
程序:确定业主的需求和偏好 10
房屋的环境:位置、设施及制约因素 14
设计师的目标 18
探索空间和形式:创建架构 20
实施设计:竣工房屋 80
附加实例 102
伍兹霍尔的房屋 104
韦斯顿的房屋 110
达特茅斯的房屋 114
马特波伊西特的房屋 120
玛莎葡萄岛的房屋 126
伯克希尔山的房屋 132
切斯努特山的房屋 138
雷明顿森林的房屋 144
雅茅斯的房屋 148
灯塔山的房屋 154
伊利湖的房屋 158
普拉姆岛的房屋 162
别克斯岛的房屋 168
致谢 173
照片版权说明 175
将绿色原则(可持续设计)融入到每个项目的设计理念中,促进生态持续发展;
书中的项目获得了多项大奖,设计风格独特,并符合可持续发展理念;
对于建筑设计师和设计爱好者来说,本书有一定的参考价值。
编辑推荐:
本书由一项个人兴趣发展而来。美国著名建筑设计师理查德•波特曼从学生时代起就对建筑师们在设计一个项目时大脑是如何运作的非常感兴趣,而当他终于有时间完成并记录下他的观察结果,本书也就应运而生了。
不同于一般建筑书注重建筑设计的原理和理念,本书的关注点在于“当我们在进行设计时,我们在想什么”。 波特曼用一个案例详述了他的思考全过程,并将其用草图加文字说明的形式呈现出来。书中还收录了其他多个案例,用于补充说明。本书兼具实用性和启发性,能为建筑师和建筑专业学生澄清、阐释以及更好地理解他们自己的想法提供帮助,对于一般读者和建筑专业人员来说,都是一本不可多得的好书。
书摘
探索空间和形式:创建架构
THE SEARCH FOR SPACE AND FORM: Creating Architecture
With a suffi cient understanding of my client’s preferences, and a sense of the amenities and constraints of the site, I began the process of creating space and its enclosing form. The design of a home is a complex problem. Hundreds of issues need to be resolved. Looking back over the process, I seemed to have grappled with this complexity by breaking down the problem into smaller sub-problems, where fewer variables could be more readily comprehended and manipulated. I attacked these sub-problems through a series of drawings, which explored and tested solutions. The process started out abstract and global but, as components were resolved, became more specifi c and detailed. I produced a series of tracing paper overlay sketches in which an initial abstract diagram was transformed into a three-dimensional solution. Each drawing was a refi nement of preceding ones. Each recorded my current understanding of the problem and proposed a partial solution, which was then tested against how well it would meet the objectives defi ned in the program, and my own desires for good architecture. Each new issue was exposed, then addressed and tentatively solved in the following sketches.
These tracing paper overlay drawings were a series of refi nements (although, sometimes, they led to a completely new direction), which helped organize and prioritize the elements of the work. Some of the improvements shaped by this process, adding richness and subtlety to the fi nal design, were: functional improvements, more appropriate volumetric and spatial arrangements and proportions, better defi nition of vistas and incorporation of sunlight, more meaningful arrangement of walls and openings, a better relationship to the land, and easier constructability.
The expression of the house was generated through a dialogue between internal and external infl uences. I continually worked back and forth resolving confl icts between the spatial needs on the inside of the house and the form expression of that space on the outside. My overriding goal was to design a special place, one that would fi t my client’s lifestyle and which would respond to, and express, the unique nature of their site.
The following sketches illustrate the process of generating space and form.
The site for this house is an open fi eld on the north-facing slope of a mountain (Figure 2). From this elevated location, there are outstanding panoramic views over the surrounding countryside and long vistas to distant mountains.
I began the process by responding to the program and the site. Information from the program was converted into an abstract ‘circulation diagram’ (Figure 3) that enabled me to examine, comprehend and establish general relationships between spaces and their connection to the site. The diagram was a useful way to describe and understand the relative position of each space and the connections between them, and to account for the impact of external conditions on their location. To the extent that I understood how each space functioned, I located it in a position that seemed appropriate to its needs. Spaces were positioned to achieve a logical circulation fl ow between them, with an appropriate separation of private spaces from public ones, and an orientation that took advantage of sunlight and views. As I organized the diagram, I also tried to be mindful of the site’s constraints, such as the location of buildable areas, property line setbacks, topography, wind direction (to locate protected outdoor living areas), and the location and proximity of adjacent pedestrian and vehicular access ways. From previous site visits, I had identifi ed two site locations that seemed most appropriate based on topography, views, adjacency to an existing garage/guest cottage, and sun orientation. I had these two locations in mind as I manipulated the diagram.
Although abstract, this diagram set down basic spatial relationships and implied, through the abstraction of connecting lines, where there would be required additional transitional spaces not listed in the program, such as foyers, hallways, galleries, entries and vestibules. Once I was comfortable with the logic of the diagram, I needed to transform it into a scaled drawing, as the actual size and proportion of spaces topologically affects their arrangement. Some alternative plans (see Figures 4 and 5) were laid out, with spaces positioned using the relationships in the diagram as a guide. Spaces were sized and proportioned in a rough attempt to accommodate basic activities, knowing that they would be developed and refi ned later into more livable and comfortable places.
As I proceeded, I reconsidered each of the activities being contemplated. Who would participate in the activities? How would the participants move about? From where would they come? Where would they go? What furniture, fi xtures and equipment would be required? Where should they be located? How much space would they need? Tentatively, I sketched some furniture locations to test whether preliminary room confi gurations would be adequate, wall surfaces suffi cient, and overall proportions appropriate. Since most furniture is made to fi t straight walls and rectangular configurations, I started with rectangular shaped spaces and laid out the spaces orthogonally. Once I had a better comprehension of issues, I knew I would be able to try other confi gurations. I thought about enclosing surfaces. How opaque or transparent should they be? In addition, people need to move about logically, so I positioned spaces for easy connectivity with other spaces and I defi ned each one to ensure unimpeded movement within.
When initially confi guring these spaces, I was especially mindful of the direction of sunlight and views. Although pleasing views were desirable everywhere, due to functional and topological considerations, it was impossible to incorporate the best view from every room. Some prioritizing or compromise was necessary—I favored more heavily used spaces. Paradoxically, the restriction of not being able to take advantage of views from every room resulted in a more innovative and creative organization as I attempted to overcome this constraint. I fi nd this irony an important aspect of the creative process. The very fact that I was unable to achieve an objective working in a conventional way, led to more interesting, unconventional ways to overcome the limitation.
会员家 | 书天堂 | 天猫旗舰店 |
微信公众号 | 官方微博 |
版权所有:广西师范大学出版社集团 GUANGXI NORMAL UNIVERSITY PRESS(GROUP) | 纪委举/报投诉邮箱 :cbsjw@bbtpress.com 纪委举报电话:0773-2288699
网络出版服务许可证: (署) | 网出证 (桂) 字第008号 | 备案号:桂ICP备12003475号 | 新出网证(桂)字002号 | 公安机关备案号:45030202000033号