FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W236881372> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W236881372 abstract "The Inhabited Landscape Catherine Howett 1 was struck, in rereading the statements that accompanied, the projects submitted for consideration in T h e Inhabited Landscape e x h i b i t i o n , by a passage in Garrett Eckbo's letter to Frances H a l s b a n d . He said that he believed that his o w n submissions reflected the theme o f the e x h i b i t i o n : 1 believe they all exemplify, i n various ways, y o u r concept, w h i c h has been a d r i v i n g force in my w o r k for fifty years, the integration of architecture and the landscape . . . is absolutely central. I n actual practice this rarely happens t h r o u g h direct, one-time, equal base c o l l a b o ­ ration. Usually architecture/ construction is there first, actually or conceptually. T h e landscape elements must adapt to, g r o w f r o m , and extend the a r c h i t e c t u r a l / s t r u c t u r a l concepts (whether o r n o t they seem to lend themselves to t h a t ) , and establish connections or separations between the project and the s u r r o u n d i n g n e i g h b o r h o o d and region. The e n v i r o n m e n t is littered w i t h impossible tangles w h i c h have resulted f r o m the absence of t h o u g h t about this end p r o d u c t of each development project. The e n v i r o n m e n t a l art of the future w i l l be kept busy t r y i n g to untangle such messes. The occasional one-to-one c o l l a b o r a t i o n — 1 have h a d some—serves as guide and beacon. Eckbo articulates here his impres­ sion of w h a t the focus of this e x h i b i t i o n was to be, an impression that I shared b u t a b o u t w h i c h there was some disagreement a m o n g the jury. H e makes the p o i n t that historically the design of buildings most often literally precedes— and f r o m that, takes precedence over—the design of the larger e n v i r o n m e n t of w h i c h the b u i l d ­ ings w i l l u l t i m a t e l y be just a part. He clearly favors an alternative approach, in w h i c h considerations of the total site's existing and potential character are addressed f r o m the beginning of a design process that gives equal importance and p r i o r i t y to architectural and landscape values. T h i s d i s t i n c t i o n is more p r o f o u n d than simply the question of w h o w o r k s w i t h w h o m at the various stages of the project. Eckbo makes the p o i n t that in the right k i n d of design process the character of the site actually shapes the decisions that determine b u i l d i n g f o r m , instead of h a v i n g to respond afterwards to the a r c h i t e c t u r a l / s t r u c t u r a l concepts. His reading of the criteria for the e x h i b i t i o n reflects my o w n o r i g i n a l understanding, and I t h i n k the jury's disagreement about the meaning of these criteria was hardly a m i n o r matter, but rather a significant schism that must be taken i n t o account in any effort to interpret the e x h i b i t i o n . House i n V e r m o n t is useful i n this way. N o t h i n g in the architecture of this house seemed to me p a r t i c u ­ larly responsive to the n a t u r e — big N o r little n — o f the V e r m o n t sheep farm i n w h i c h i t is set, except perhaps that its w o o d - frame c o n s t r u c t i o n reflects a regional vernacular. O n the contrary, Brook's a c c o m p a n y i n g comments underscore the fact that his V e r m o n t houses deliberately aim for the l o o k of a n e r v o u s architecture that always seems to be sliding across the landscape i n the f o r m of steamboats o r some other f o r m of vehicle. A c o m m e n t on his w o r k that appeared i n Architectural Record makes the p o i n t that the h i n t o f p o t e n t i a l m o b i l i t y i n such houses reflects the nature of their inhabitants, many of w h o m are transplants f r o m city or suburbia, or o n l y part- time c o u n t r y f o l k . H o w w e l l the Sheldon House succeeds as architecture is n o t at issue here; its failure to accommodate its forms to the existing landscape, so that one has the sense that the house m i g h t have been b u i l t o n another site in almost the same way, makes me question its v i a b i l i t y as a model of building/landscape i n t e g r a t i o n . Perhaps m y response to one of the projects w i l l make clear w h a t 1 see as a critical a m b i g u i t y i n the selection process that has made it impossible for me to evaluate w h a t the sum total of the projects chosen actually can tell us a b o u t c o n t e m p o r a r y approaches to the design of the i n h a b i t e d l a n d ­ scape. T u r n e r Brooks's Sheldon A n o t h e r residential design, A n t o i n e Predock's Fuller House i n the Sonoran desert of A r i z o n a , offers a g o o d example of a contrasting approach. Here the desert e n v i r o n ­ ment, the specific character of the place—its topography, geology, vegetation, climate, etc.—has determined the forms o f the b u i l d i n g , so that the line of demarcation between the house and Places / Volume 4, Number 4" @default.
• W236881372 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W236881372 creator A5090088095 @default.
• W236881372 date "1988-01-15" @default.
• W236881372 modified "2023-09-24" @default.
• W236881372 title "The Inhabited Landscape [The Inhabited Landscape: An Exhibition]" @default.
• W236881372 hasPublicationYear "1988" @default.
• W236881372 type Work @default.
• W236881372 sameAs 236881372 @default.
• W236881372 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W236881372 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W236881372 hasAuthorship W236881372A5090088095 @default.
• W236881372 hasConcept C107826830 @default.
• W236881372 hasConcept C108865711 @default.
• W236881372 hasConcept C129216166 @default.
• W236881372 hasConcept C166957645 @default.
• W236881372 hasConcept C179399861 @default.
• W236881372 hasConcept C205649164 @default.
• W236881372 hasConcept C2776608160 @default.
• W236881372 hasConcept C37531588 @default.
• W236881372 hasConcept C39432304 @default.
• W236881372 hasConcept C533912065 @default.
• W236881372 hasConceptScore W236881372C107826830 @default.
• W236881372 hasConceptScore W236881372C108865711 @default.
• W236881372 hasConceptScore W236881372C129216166 @default.
• W236881372 hasConceptScore W236881372C166957645 @default.
• W236881372 hasConceptScore W236881372C179399861 @default.
• W236881372 hasConceptScore W236881372C205649164 @default.
• W236881372 hasConceptScore W236881372C2776608160 @default.
• W236881372 hasConceptScore W236881372C37531588 @default.
• W236881372 hasConceptScore W236881372C39432304 @default.
• W236881372 hasConceptScore W236881372C533912065 @default.
• W236881372 hasIssue "4" @default.
• W236881372 hasLocation W2368813721 @default.
• W236881372 hasOpenAccess W236881372 @default.
• W236881372 hasPrimaryLocation W2368813721 @default.
• W236881372 hasRelatedWork W1495013504 @default.
• W236881372 hasRelatedWork W210641487 @default.
• W236881372 hasRelatedWork W2130078235 @default.
• W236881372 hasRelatedWork W223722716 @default.
• W236881372 hasRelatedWork W234079655 @default.
• W236881372 hasRelatedWork W237670200 @default.
• W236881372 hasRelatedWork W249930181 @default.
• W236881372 hasRelatedWork W261811049 @default.
• W236881372 hasRelatedWork W266561064 @default.
• W236881372 hasRelatedWork W2765101581 @default.
• W236881372 hasRelatedWork W2768352744 @default.
• W236881372 hasRelatedWork W2768843646 @default.
• W236881372 hasRelatedWork W2778949198 @default.
• W236881372 hasRelatedWork W2779906034 @default.
• W236881372 hasRelatedWork W303613775 @default.
• W236881372 hasRelatedWork W305364409 @default.
• W236881372 hasRelatedWork W310881336 @default.
• W236881372 hasRelatedWork W343554003 @default.
• W236881372 hasRelatedWork W348346129 @default.
• W236881372 hasRelatedWork W211993209 @default.
• W236881372 hasVolume "4" @default.
• W236881372 isParatext "false" @default.
• W236881372 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W236881372 magId "236881372" @default.
• W236881372 workType "article" @default.