![]() ![]() |
|||||
6/2006 |
Architecture on the Edge: Engagement Speakers define new roles, new thinking in infrastructure design |
![]() |
|||
Day: Aviation infrastructure needs architects
Only after World War II did airports become economically important, Day reminded the audience, and it is interesting to note how changes in the industry have transformed what originally were long, low civic buildings. The Jet Age began in the 1960s, and Eero Saarinen’s TWA Terminal at New York’s Kennedy Airport and Dulles Airport outside of Washington, D.C., served as the “poster children” for this age. Jumbo jets appearing in the 1970s brought with them more severe environmental impacts in terms of air quality and noise. Recent projects, Day said, show the return of terminals as civic buildings. However, the dominant design element these days is security. No industry was as devastated by the impact of the 9/11 terrorist attacks than the airport industry, Day said. A completely new paradigm of security, coupled with the growth of low-cost carriers, has created a need for a new terminal prototype. Issues that need to be considered include: security, access/wayfinding, advances in technology, passenger processing, efficiency/flexibility/capacity, new aircraft under development, growing markets, and sustainability/adaptability/reuse. As an industry facing great challenges, aviation infrastructure needs help from the architectural community,” Day said. “We can be the professionals who prepare this vital industry for a successful future.”
Taylor said she felt fortunate that her home town of New York City understands the importance of cities and the urban fabric. As an example, she used SOM’s AOL Time Warner Center project, which offers “a vivid mix of uses.” The project works, she says, because of the inclusion of two jazz halls as well as a Whole Foods supermarket. “That makes it a dynamic and active place—everyone needs groceries,” she explained. “It is essential that we become pro-city,” Taylor said. It is not enough to be for smart growth or community development. 2. Infrastructure: Public investment, public realm: Investment in infrastructure is a given in Asia and Europe, Taylor explained. “Infrastructure is the skeleton around which the city can be shaped.” Just to stay current with our infrastructure needs would take an investment of billions of dollars nationally, and “there is no national policy for infrastructure.” The change also requires a shift in thinking about infrastructure. For example, SOM “replaced” the long-gone but not forgotten Penn Station in New York City by thinking of the restoration of McKim Mead and White’s Farley Building, (pictured) a historic postal facility located across Eighth Avenue from the current station, as a “great corridor of connection. It’s the belt of 33rd Street that connects two airports and Midtown,” Taylor said. 3. Commitment to community: Taylor presented as an example the Urban Land Institute’s presence in New Orleans after Katrina. The group developed a plan “Bring New Orleans Back” that includes an economic plan that offers a living wage; emphasizes infrastructure; allows for rebuilding, then reviving, and then repositioning for long-term growth; and emphasizes the rights of property owners. Additionally, the plan calls for a strategy to protect the wetlands of coastal Louisiana, which vanished at an alarming rate in the wake of Katrina. The ULI’s plan strategy works with topography to create three levels of investment zones for the region. In the first, the least risky, development decisions lie with the individual; in the second zone, decisions must be shared among neighbors; in the third zone, public input is required for decisions. “Without our engagement, we will not be where we need to be to bring New Orleans back,” Taylor said. Taylor concluded with five challenges toward a new urbanism:
Morrish explained that our fundamental relationship to architecture must change. “We must move from ‘drain’ to ‘harvest of our natural environment.’ We can catch the rain and sun instead of trying to fight them and keep them out. “This opportunity changes the paradigm and opens the opportunity of architecture,” he explained. We need to view architecture and landscape as infrastructure, Morrish said. The infrastructure we created in the 1950s created the economy of the 1980s and 1990s, he said, and the infrastructure we create today will create future economy. Our concern with a city’s health, safety, and welfare will soon be defined as concern with a city’s quality of life. It will not be defined in terms of its current “silos,” but rather health, safety, and welfare integrated together. “Additionally, 80 to 90 percent of infrastructure is built and managed by the state and local governments. We need to decide who is going to control our infrastructure—the public or private realm,” he said. Morrish proposed four new ecologies:
Harking back to his original analogy, Morris concluded, “When architecture harvests rains, we move from being utility users to cultural generators.” He asked the architects in the audience to think of this new creative process as making a fine gumbo—it all starts with making the right roux,” he said with a grin. If you don’t start with the right roux, it burns and then “you don’t have dinner!” Copyright 2006 The American Institute of Architects.
All rights reserved. Home Page |
This session was sponsored through the generous contribution of the McGraw Hill Construction Company. Photos by Aaron Johnson, Innov8iv Design Incorporated. |
||||
![]() |
|||||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |