Mapping Heterologies/Project - IX

The site, an ‘inner’ city is a desert.

The ‘inner’ city represents voids, the absences or the wanting. It is the locus supreme where our despairs are vigorously enacted. It is the place of riots, the site of exploitations. It is the site of the politics of underdevelopment.

A site full of potentials, in other words. Of, for example, the affirmation of a world with little or no sensation of the god-like. Or of Animalities.

The site is at a junction between several sub-types of conventional South Asian urban space. It’s peripheries are at tangent to most of the conventional morphologies observable in the Indian city: the ‘public’ street, residential pol, the shared public chowk, temples, houses.

• massing model:

...the principle of Mutual Encapsulation

• volumetric study: axonometric:

or envelopment of space by space

• study sketch:

conjoined in a relation of Otherness...

You just saw some images from a large design investigation, running to a dozen architectural projects. Mapping Heterologies has basically two sets of propositions towards morpholoiges for urban artefacts, anywhere:

1. propositions concerning the form-function of the architectural, the formalisation of its order of presence[s] in the city
2. propositions concerning the programme or the shifting, nebulous mass of rituals, practices, functions and actions which necessitate the specifying of ‘this’ segment of urban space as thus

The strategy, or architectural form.

1. to represent the programme by the structural system itself. wherein the three major programmes are represented by distinct types of construction, which establish the primary character of the building.
2. the system of mutual encapsulations by the volumetric system: an encapsulation or a 'capture' of space by space.

Form-Function: the principle of layer[ing]

This is obtained by a classification or the devices of composition. These are compounded, their unity does not constitute the corporeal body, but the MONADIC BODY [1].

The Programmatic, represented through the Motif or the Ichnographic objects.

Elements: structural frames, the structural form.

AN OBJECT-FORM

...with...

INSIDES, the 'Inward Nodes', concepts

INTERFACES: or, membrane systems, encapsulating the Ichnographic objects.

Architectural Element: layering of space throughout.

A SPACE-FORM

...with...

the ‘OUTSIDE’, or the tangible nodes of design

These ‘insides’ and ‘outsides’ are not reducible into simple morphological formations; e.g., the ‘courtyard’ and the ‘façade’. They are two codes inter-penetrating. Their logic is two-fold yet not binary nor oppositional. They operate on the principle of mutual encapsulation capable of syntheses (disjunctive, conjunctive or connective). They are destributed along the following table, which is the broad outline of this study:

1) INTRODUCTION AND THE PREMISE:

2) LOCATION:

a) SITING: or the Urban Significances.

b) LOCATIONAL LOGIC: or the local Significances.

3) COMPOSITION:

i) Form - Function: {the programmatic function of Figurative Elements}

1. Form - Function: [01] : spatial structure.

2. Form - Function: [02] : functional structure.

ii) INSIDE(S):

1. Elements: layering of space, throughout.

2. Physically Determining Factors.

4) DESCRIPTION OF THE PROGRAMME COMPONENTS:

a) THE PROGRAMME ELEMENTS: (interpretation of the type[s]): The Pedhi. ~ Dharamshala. ~ Residences. ~ Library.

b) DOUBLE ARTICULATED SPACES.

Sketches + Source Models + The Model.

Illustrations.

• Geometry of mediaeval Ahmedabad & its transformation.
• MAJOR SPACE[S] : AMORPHOUS-UNIFIED.
• Movement : the Privacy Gradient.
• Numbers : Loading / Effective Length.
• Functions : Temples, Institutions, Commerce.
• Transformations... THE STRUCTURAL SYSTEM.
  • Layering diagram # I. & diagram # II.
  • Structural Form, the Ichnographic Objects. ('I'-o1)
  • Interfaces, or membrane-structures. ('I'-o2).

Appendices

Appendix--I. Composition of the City.

Appendix--II. THE CITY, EYE[S] AND 'I'.

Appendix--III. FORMATION OF ORGANISATION.

a b, -a generally patterns its heterologies projects on its understanding of space constructed in discourse, in speech, for example in space modelled by people speaking in the indo-european group of languages.

notes:

THE MONAD:

1. The monad, of which we will speak here, is nothing else than a simple substance, which goes to make up composites; by simple, we mean without parts.
2. There must be simple substances because there are composites; for a composite is nothing else than a collection or aggregatum of simple substances.
3. Now, where there are no constituent parts there is possible neither extension, nor form, nor divisibility. These monads are the true atoms of nature, and, in fact, the elements of things.
4. Their dissolution, therefore, is not to be feared and there is no way conceivable by which a simple substance can perish through natural means.
5. For the same reason there is no way conceivable by which a simple substance might, through natural means, come into existence, since it can not be formed by composition.
6. We may say then, that the existence of monads can begin or end only all at once, that is to say, the monad can begin only through creation and end only through annihilation. Composites, however, begin or end gradually.