Place.MAKING as an Architectural Pedagogy Agenda

Pameran Place

Juli 7 - 13, 2012

‘Tempat’ (place) adalah sebuah titik (locus) pada ruang yang terdefinisikan dari hadirnya manusia berkegiatan. Arsitek, melalui kepekaan dan daya kritisnya,  membaca lapisan rajutan-rajutan teks dari ruang sebagai potensi hadirnya sebuah tempat. Arsitek, melalui kepekaan dan daya kritisnya lagi,  memberdayakan material untuk mengungkap, mengartikulasi, dan mengomposisi lapisan rajutan teks tersebut menjadi sebuah tempat.

Pameran Place ini akan memperlihatkan beberapa karya mahasiswa dari lima studio dan sebuah mata kuliah yang berupaya menunjukkan bagaimana sederhana atau kompleksitas terbacanya lapisan rajutan teks tersebut (konteks) mempengaruhi arsitektur yang hadir. Sebuah kenangan/ romantisme terhadap kualitas sebuah tempat dapat menjadi daya yang kuat untuk merancang arsitektur.

Kondisi iklim/ geografis mempengaruhi sumber daya material, pasti langsung mempengaruhi tektonika dari arsitektur tersebut. Pada tataran kota, lapisan teks sosial, ekonomi, dan politik jelas tak bisa dihindari menjadi rajutan yang harus dengan peka dan kritis dibaca oleh arsitek dalam merencanakan dan merancang sebuah arsitektur dalam ruang.

Pameran MAKING

Juli 14 - 22, 2012

“The scale model machine extends the architect’s own modest ability to measure the perceived chaos of the unknown. The scale mode is our modest mode in which the manner is measured”

Albert Smith

Architectural Model as Machine

Membuat adalah persoalan memindahkan apa yang ada di pikiran menjadi nyata pada dunia indera, untuk menjembataninya, sebuah medium selalu dibutuhkan, medium tersebut adalah scale model.

Dalam subtema pameran ini, melalui scale model yang mereka hasilkan mahasiswa Arsitektur UPH dari tiga studio berbeda ingin menunjukkan dua peran sebuah model (modus). Pertama, ia dapat berperan sebagai penengah (modest) antara pikiran dan dunia; antara apa yang sudah diketahui dan yang belum diketahui; antara apa yang diinginkan dengan segala konsekuensi yang tak terduga.

Kedua, model juga berfungsi sebagai alat ukur atau pencari (modulus), untuk mengetahui berbagai peluang yang tak terpikirkan sebelumnya. Scale model tersebut mendemonstrasikan sejauh mana pemikiran dan menggunakan metode analog dan digital, memahami material dan  konstruksi, serta bentuk dan fungsi. Hadirnya 3 studio dengan titik berangkat yang berbeda ini menunjukkan kesatuan kronologis cara berpikir dalam membuat. Mana yang lebih dulu? Mungkin hanya dapat dijawab oleh mereka yang pernah mengalaminya.

Pavillion Project

Juli 7 - 22, 2012

The Pavilion Project adalah proyek yang diprakarsai oleh mahasiswa arsitektur UPH dan dibimbing oleh staf pengajar jurusan arsitektur. Projek berbasis bengkel eksperimen ini dijadwalkan secara teratur sepanjang semester dari Januari sampai Mei 2012.

Proyek tahun ini bertujuan untuk melakukan percobaan pada penggunaan mesin lasercutter, maka workshop desain ini mengeksplorasi berbagai kemungkinan bentuk yang dapat dicapai melalui modul-modul planar. Workshop ini juga menjajaki kelayakan material dan sambungan, dan bertujuan untuk menemukan cara yang paling efisien untuk mencapai desain yang spesifik melalui penggunaan perangkat Grasshopper, dan batas kapasitas mesin lasercutter (dengan menggunakan kayu multipleks 9 mm).

Desain akhir mengekspresikan susunan modul planar ke ruang volumetrik. Modul-modul metaballs melengkapi instalasi ini dan dihasilkan dengan teknik pemetaan perangkat Grasshopper.

Personal Space Installation

Juli 7 - 22, 2012

Pada studio ini, model merepresentasikan bagaimana eksplorasi mahasiswa menggunakan alat analog. Segala macam permasalahan olah bentuk mereka hadapi saat itu juga tanpa perantara, seperti sambungan, material, dimensi dan bobot, serta masalah lainnya. Tujuan dari studio ini adalah melatih kepekaan indera mahasiswa akan bentuk - fungsi - material.

Tindakan visualisasi adalah tindakan pasif dan merupakan bakat dasar yang mempengaruhi indera dan keadaan pikiran (kreativitas). Oleh karena itu, ia juga mempengaruhi tubuh secara langsung dan menggairahkan indera. Jika arsitektur, dilihat sebagai objek yang diinginkan oleh indera, maka proses membuat harus dilibatkan dalam proses berarsitektur. Dalam konteks ini, proses membuat menjadi sebuah proyeksi visual dan medium desain yang mana ia dapat memperluas spektrum visual untuk dalam pengembangan ide dan cara berpikir.

Tema pameran ini menyarankan proses membuat sebagai komponen dalam proses mengubah ide menjadi benda nyata melalui eksplorasi yang terus menerus. Dasar pembuatan itu sendiri adalah kritik-diri dan produk-produknya adalah kualitas yang berakar pada alam bawah sadar indera tubuh dan pikiran.

Text by Andreas Wibisono, Stanley Wangsadihardja, Dani Hermawan and Hafiz Amirrol

Place.MAKING - UPH Architecture Department 2nd Public Exhibition

‘Place.MAKING’ sebagai sebuah obyektif dari kegiatan berarsitektur adalah sesuatu yang berlapis dan terdiri dari komposisi beragam komponen dan elemen yang berbeda skala, konstrain, dan konteks.

Sebagai sebuah operasi ‘Place.MAKING’ adalah proses yang mengandalkan kepekaan terhadap sesuatu yang abstrak dan kongkrit, serta kemampuan untuk melakukan translasi dari ranah abstrak ke kongkrit.

Pergerakan ini adalah sebuah dialektika. Pada saat sebuah ide arsitektur termaterialisasi, arsitektur memberikan abstraksi bagi lingkungan di sekitarnya. Sebagai proses spiral yang berputar saling mengisi. Jonathan Hill, membacanya sebagai sebuah peluang munculnya hal-hal yang bersifat happening dalam sebuah proyek arsitektur; tidak lain karena ide arsitektur hanya bisa terbukti setelah tergunakan. Selalu adanya aspek contigency dalam kegiatan berarsitektur dan menggunakan arsitektur adalah sesuatu yang sebaiknya diprovokasi hadir dan bukan dihindari.

‘Membuat/membangun (making) adalah salah satu proses penting dalam berarsitektur namun daya dorong dan kepekaan terhadap masalah-masalah yang berkaitan dengan ‘tempat bagi manusia’ lah yang menjadi kunci ketepatan dan ketajaman kehadirannya.

Masalah arsitektur adalah masalah pelik (wicked problem) menurut Horst Rittel. Sebuah masalah yang tak berujung dan tak mungkin dibuktikan sampai ia hadir. Mungkin ini lebih pas jika kita gunakan sebagai landasan untuk melihat arsitektur adalah sesuatu yang hidup dan bukan hanya sebuah obyek.

Arsitektur punya keterbatasan karena pada akhirnya ia menyentuh/ menyapa/ menyampaikan pesannya kepada para pengguna dan pengamatnya melalui hal-hal praktis; melalui elemen titik, garis, bidang atau lantai, kolom, dan atap. Dari hal-hal praktis inilah kemudian muncul makna jika dipahami oleh penggunanya. Oleh karena itu arsitek harus melihat lebih jauh dan melampaui pemahaman bahwa arsitektur bukan hanya  ‘olah ruang’ (articulation of space) namun sebuah operasi ‘membuat tempat’ (place making). Ini akan memberikan perspektif yang lebih membumi namun kaya, dan membuka peluang lebih luas untuk berkontribusi pada kemanusiaan pada porsinya.

Pameran ‘Place.MAKING’ ini terdiri dari dua pameran yang disusun secara naratif tentang bagaimana pendekatan pendidikan arsitektur di UPH mendemonstrasikan pemahaman tersebut. Pameran ini akan berlangsung selama dua minggu. Pameran ‘Place’ akan membuka kegiatan pameran ini yang akan dilanjutkan secara simultan dengan pameran ‘MAKING’ pada minggu kedua.

Text by David Hutama

Place.MAKING

UPH Architecture Department 2nd Public Exhibition

July 7 - 22, 2012

dia.lo.gue Artspace

Jl.Kemang Selatan 99a, Jakarta Selatan

Check out for more Place.MAKING updates

Urban Tree House (Recycled)

Rethinking the Man-Nature Equilibrium through Recycling Building Components

Since 2007, the FuturArc Prize has championed forward-thinking, innovative design ideas for Asia. The awards have seen numerous sustainable design proposals. The question now is, how sustainable those design may lasts and survive? Our proposal is to re-think and analyze these proposals into making them becoming still relevant even after they have passed their life-cycle period.

With the assumptions of a certain life-cycle period of a building, we are looking for the possibilities of recycling previous winner’s building components and transforming them into a new design with new programs, functions and purposes. The approach is also responding to the ubiquitous urban issues of land scarcity, travel distance, economic forces, density and facility programming. 

Towards a Zero Waste Singapore

Despite the current brouhaha over problems of carbon emission, carbon footprints, etc, the issue of sustainability is not just limited to matters of earth, water, air and the environment. This proposal asserts that the core component in ensuring sustainability of any field is the people and their attitude towards the environment. Integral to this is their day-to-day attitudes that also for the culture of the society. Hence, the cultural habits vis the cultural longevity will also impact the sustenance of the lived environment. Alongside the culture of daily life practice, this proposal sees the importance of public awareness on the practice of recycling – from household waste to the larger scale of construction waste. Our design proposal promotes the idea of reduce, reuse and recycle building components that have reached their life-span cycle, transforming them into new uses and types for a sustainable city of the future.

Supported by data and statistics obtained from various sources, we start to think of a new innovative effort on how sustainability and architectural design should be approach today, and what are the alternatives to current ideas on green design? The answer to this, as we believe, is to look at the future. Approximately within 75 years from today, most of the building structures and components will reached their lifespan period, and demolition or total repair may be required. We see this as a potential of not wasting those components, but to reuse them as the main building materials for new functions and forms. Urban Tree House is the winning proposal from the 2010 Futurarc Prize, designed by Lau Siong Weng and Surbana International Consultants. Our scheme was designed based on the idea of recycling the Urban Tree House, thus to be called Urban Tree House (Recycled). We identified building components from the previous winning design scheme and calculated the quantity of materials that can be recycled, before reassembling these components into new, reconstructed building with new mix functions, aesthetics and value. This could be the answer for a more sustainable approach in the built environment that rethinks the Man-Nature equilibrium.

Let The People Live in the City

Our proposal have identified the four major groups that should be given priority to live in the city center, which include:

1. Employees working around the area – as an effort to reduce travel distances from home to work place, people who worked within close proximity with the area should be given priority to live here. By doing so, a more time efficient and environmentally friendly lifestyle can be achieved. 

2. Students and artists – this social group would help to light up the vibrancy of the area with their active and creative lifestyle, contributing to the development of social creativity and active participation in the city.

3. Retirees – senior citizens, who would benefit from the familiar sights and close proximity to other residents, could enrich the area with their activities that are more relaxed and culturally related.

4. Higher income singles or couples without children – this group can afford the rental or sales prices of city residential units, and they contribute to other social activities in the city such as attending cultural events, socializing, music festivals, etc.

Intervention Strategies

Several design issues that are crucial to be responded were identified and research were done to tackle and approach these issues, which include:

1. Land is scarce and expensive - urban infill strategy and joint development with land owners and related stakeholders such as the local government and community groups.

2. In-situ construction will disturb surrounding neighborhood - recycle old building and construction materials utilizing pre-fabricated construction methods.

3. Issues of urban fabric, public realm and conservation - regenerate the area with infill and buildings that are within the human scale but at the same time are high density-use.

4. Site’s bearing capacity, public services and infrastructure - facility programming strategies for shared amenities, complementing the surrounding building uses and infrastructures.

5. Creating life on the street for a charming public realm - place mixed functions of retails, public facilities and amenities, park, shaded walkways and community library on the ground level.

6. Avoiding heat island effect from hardscapes - microclimate control through landscaping - trees, garden pockets, pond, roof water collector and openings oriented towards breeze flow.

7. Giving back to the public - allowing public crossing and circulation at ground level, with public infrastructures are made available and accessible.

The inter-connected organization of the residential units, where each unit were organized in the form of continuous clusters, connected with corridors and public spaces were resemblance of the spatial organization structure of the long lost urban village, used to be found in Singapore before modernism swept them away. By implementing convoluting spatial organization, density of the housing development may be increased but at the same time has successfully avoided uncontrollable sprawling growth. This method proved to reduce environmental degradation of the area, since compact urban neighborhoods were created in a self-sustaining way, thus promising economic sustainability for the whole new neighborhoods.     

The whole new master plan for the neighborhood is designed to create permeability for the site. This is again a design strategy to encourage social interaction and networking in creating a dwelling system that care about each other and towards their surrounding environment. The convoluted and interconnected housing units, infrastructural nodes, communal spaces and access points are also strategies to allow flexible mode of use in anticipating future density growth, economic status and also act as important mitigation plan during the event of disaster. These consolidated urban and housing components are hoped to provide a better living system for the users.

With the advent of technology and its accompanying ideas, building forms with strong local identity are beginning to change and disappear. This will only lead to the loss of precious cultural heritage and block the passage of significant values to future generations of Singapore. Nowadays, the development of new urban structure no longer reflects the simplicity in its design and its relationship with nature no longer dominates the tectonics of its composition. The search for a unique and strong local identity in urban form has always been a major issue in any local discourse but the problem has never been resolved. Our proposal also tries to respond to this problem by carefully putting the new recycled building in a configuration that specifically responding to its site context (existing trees are maintained) and orientation is crucial in determining the whole design alignment. Also projected in the idea is put forth a charming public realm for the community and public at large by placing public infrastructures and landscaping at the ground level as a strategy to create a good city branding as we believe that city branding is becoming a competitive tool among cities to project the various image.

Our proposal also responds to this quote, written by the Singaporean architect and urbanist, William Lim from his book Alternatives in Transition (2001);

“How Singapore rethinks its urban strategy for the twenty-first century and onwards will certainly provide some interesting and innovative lessons for other Southeast Asian cities. Once the hardware is in place, the next crucial step must be to ensure that a vibrant residential ‘heartware’ pumps life through the system”.

Citation Award for the Futurarc 2012 Prize.

Design team: Rampakasli

Medan North Point Master Plan

           

                          

 

Design team: Rampakasli

Kupang Community Based Settlement Master Plan

Design team: PT Studio Cilaki 45 (Regional and Town Planning), Rampakasli (Site Planning, Architecture, Landscaping)

Padang Waterfront Re-Master Planning

Design team: PT Studio Cilaki 45 (Regional and Town Planning), Aryani Murcahyani (Master Plan and Urban Design), Rampakasli (Urban Design and Disaster Risk Reduction Planning)

Maja Innovative Township Master Plan

This is a master plan proposal for the development of Maja Ecological Innovative Township in Tangerang, Indonesia – a development proposal initiated by the Ministry of Public Housing (KEMENPERA). We particularly to assist the consortia involved in the development of those schemes and provide more detailed information for the local government, which is charged with delivering the policy.

Eco-township is an urban center that is moving toward controlled and sustainable patterns of consumption and growth. It also mean that the development must contribute in the effort of reducing the ecological footprint while simultaneously improving the quality of life for our and future generations within the capacity limits of the township. Eco-towns should be places where it is easy for residents to adopt sustainable lifestyles. This means that the choices offered across all aspects of living and working need to be sustainable ones. Developers need to put in place the foundations to enable this. These will include energy efficient buildings, renewable energy, resource efficient infrastructure and proximity to employment and services. It should also include access to sustainable lifestyle options, services and information to make it the everyday ‘default’ for residents to choose a more sustainable way of living in the eco-town.

Sustainability is about more than resource efficiency: sustainable communities will be well designed and will foster social and economic sustainability. Often the issues are interwoven. For example, sustainable transport options such as cycling and walking reduce environmental impact but also bring benefits for personal health and well-being; walkable communities encourage social connection. It is vital that the eco-towns work well as places. This means in social and economic terms as well as environmental. Our aim is to provide a clear illustration of the core issues that will affect whether a proposal is good enough to be an eco-town, and the criteria against which this can be measured. The development will take on the design approach of integrated urbanism, which include the followings criteria checklist:

1. Human and environmental health 
2. Economic vitality and individual prosperity
3. Energy
4. Housing
5. Urban-rural linkages
6. Mobility and access
7. Education and culture
8. Governance and civic engagement
9. Water
10. Materials and waste

The standards of the desired eco-township should meet include the following as set out in the draft Planning Policy Statement of Eco-Towns, developed by the Town and Country Planning Association and used internationally as the standard guideline in creating eco-townships:

1. Affordable housing: a minimum of 30% affordable housing in each eco-towns.
2. Zero-carbon: eco-towns must be zero-carbon over the course of a year (not including transport emissions).
3. Green space: a minimum of 40% of eco-towns must be green space.
4. Waste and recycling: eco-towns must have higher recycling rates and make use of waste in new ways.
5.  Homes: homes must reach Code for Sustainable Homes level 4 or higher.
6. Employment: at least one job opportunity per house accessible by public transport, walking or cycling.
7. Services: there must be shops and a primary school within easy walk of every single home, and all the services expected from a town of up to 20,000 homes.
8. Transition/construction: facilities should be in place before and during construction.
9. Public transport: real-time public transport information in every home, a public transport link within ten minutes walk of every home.
10. Community: there must be a mixture of housing types and densities, and residents must have a say in how their town is run, by governance in new and innovative ways.

Design team: PT Studio Cilaki 45 (Regional and Town Planning), Antoni Ariadi (Master Plan), Toni Djuliantono (Master Plan and Transportation), Rampakasli (Master Plan and Urban Design),  Isak Ariadhy (Master Plan, Feasibility Studies and Business Plan), Joko Subekti (Development Marketing and Business Plan), Toni Trigayana (Geologist), M. Arief (Detailed Engineering Design)

Museum Nasional - Koridor Perjalanan Indonesia

Koridor Galeri Kota dan Pelayanan Publik 24 Jam

Competition Entry for Sayembara Koridor Kampus Departemen Pekerjaan Umum Indonesia
Design Team: Rampakasli

Living Room in the Forest

Third prize winner for Sayembara Desain Babakan Siliwangi, Bandung

Design Team: Rampakasli in collaboration with local communities of Hegarbudhi

Regeneration of Decaying Urban Place - Final Presentation

The state of urban and architectural decay of the site has always been a classic case in most urban centers of Asian cities. The center of a city usually always displays urban decays, because development is concentrated too much in these areas. Seeing this almost ubiquitous phenomenon, radical examination and re-assessment on all the planning and design principles that we have used until now is needed. However, there will be no single and definite answer to how city planning for the future should be, but there will only be many options that must be carefully selected before being implemented in each different context of a place. Many urban places in Bandung have experienced unprecedented growth, urban growth and radical changes in recent years. In the process, much of the traditional urban areas have been either damaged, destroyed or badly mutilated, with policy makers often arguing that conserving these areas as being a luxury, which emerging economies can ill afford during the early stages of their development. This is what exactly had happened, and will continue to happen to the downtown area of Jalan Jenderal Sudirman and its surroundings. Once was one of the most important district in Bandung, with all of its potential and rich tissue of urban components, the area is being left to suffer decay and lack of attention, both from policy makers and those involved in the industry of built environment.

Another critical problem that need to be addressed and responded in this thesis is on the issue of planning and zoning. In general terms, rapid changes never happened in an orderly manner. The traditional planning policies and approaches that we have been using over the years failed to accommodate these chaotic and fast changes, while strict planning regulation are not flexible and will only result in stagnant urban condition. Changes and transformation occurs all the time and have been an integral part of the planning process. In this case, the ability to change and adapt is essential to any plans. This ability to adapt is the target of this thesis, challenging single usage zoning, as being practiced now to be replaced. Adoption of modern planning approaches, as those practiced in western cities has done more damage to urban life, as we can witness at the site today. Thus, from all these criticisms, the big issue that will act as the main framework of this thesis is the question of action – Jalan Jenderal Sudirman – quo vadis?