Comments on: marsh experiments

By: dike field – mammoth // building nothing out of something

dike field – mammoth // building nothing out of something — Fri, 15 Jul 2011 16:34:18 +0000

[...] is experimental landscape architecture, testing various infrastructural hacks through the construction and modification of physical [...]

By: starting from zero – mammoth // building nothing out of something

starting from zero – mammoth // building nothing out of something — Fri, 18 Jun 2010 02:13:27 +0000

[...] look at examples of empirical architecture, such as the labyrinth project highlighted by BLDGBLOG, Berger’s landscape experiments for his Pontine Marsh project, or One Wilshire Blvd, subject of this week’s chapter. In the [...]

By: “the parrot, the weed, and the sludge mat” – mammoth // building nothing out of something

Mon, 03 May 2010 10:02:46 +0000

[...] constructed in an interdependent fashion, lo-fi interventions are relatively independent, even potentially experimental in a scientific sense. If we accept that, as Fletcher suggests, the removal of the hard-engineered infrastructural [...]

By: Pointline Marshes Project . PREX

Pointline Marshes Project . PREX — Tue, 27 Apr 2010 14:25:13 +0000

[...] in greater ecological fitness. Great images and videos at MIT news page and an interesting post on mammoth. No Comments, Comment or [...]

By: rholmes

rholmes — Mon, 26 Apr 2010 04:03:37 +0000

I like the connection between the pre-Columbian mound structures and Berger’s project — makes total sense to me, but I hadn’t made it (I’ve had that wired article open in a tab since it ran, but haven’t been able to figure out what to do with it, other than knowing that it fascinates me).

By: rholmes

rholmes — Mon, 26 Apr 2010 04:01:44 +0000

Those are great! Thanks, Brian.

By: Free Association Design

Free Association Design — Sat, 24 Apr 2010 05:02:46 +0000

Funny…the Berger quote regarding research stayed with me too.
I think the interdisciplinary research that is going on here is noteworthy and kudos to MIT. It takes the teaching tool of ‘design build’ in an informative new direction, even if its still a scaled model. From a practice perspective, I think its safe to say we need way more of this type of physical modeling and testing with regard to the cleansing of water, as the guidelines are vague and the hard research to back it up is fairly limited.

By: faslanyc

faslanyc — Fri, 23 Apr 2010 23:24:03 +0000

super interesting!

also vital there, is the way they are considering how this model would scale; how it goes from a prototypical and effective treatment system to creating a place (relationship of space, experiences, materials, et cetera). In my mind that takes it from a viable engineering solution to a landscape architectural solution. You can see how they are considering it in the second image on the website- it is now a variety of spaces at different scales, which begin to inform other types of circulation and connection.

in other news regarding “miraculous mini mounds”, some ancient amazonians were doing some sophisticated stuff (via wired), until they all died or moved.

Berger sums it up well (which you’ve noted before)-“But if you do good research, you can change the type of project that is done.” Now how to work research into all projects…?

I love that the macabre is coming back!

By: (re)newed landscape ecologies « FindingForm

(re)newed landscape ecologies « FindingForm — Fri, 23 Apr 2010 20:07:56 +0000

[...] 23, 2010 · Leave a Comment Pontine Marsh experiments, found here. (co-founder of blog Mammoth, Stephen Becker, is a former [...]

By: BrianR

BrianR — Fri, 23 Apr 2010 19:53:12 +0000

Very cool … if you like this kind of stuff, check out some of the experimental sedimentary systems research going on at St. Anthony Falls Lab (SAFL) in Minnesota — http://talc.geo.umn.edu/orgs/seds/Sedi_Research.htm

By: rholmes

rholmes — Fri, 23 Apr 2010 17:56:43 +0000

Don’t architects (mostly) and (some) landscape architects do this with regards to materials (scale mockups etc) already? Testing for performance and durability?

To some degree, sure, though in the average project the purpose of the mock-ups is to ensure that the materials and workmanship meet a known normative standard of quality, not to advance a body of knowledge (the latter being what scientific experiments do).

And of course one might consider drawings, models, and the other various tools used to develop designs to be forms of “experimentation”, which they are, but I think that there’s a difference in kind, not just degree, between that sort of experimentation and the sort of scientific testing of new ecologies which Berger’s team is performing.

By: namhenderson

namhenderson — Fri, 23 Apr 2010 17:14:02 +0000

woops bad editing sorry

By: namhenderson

namhenderson — Fri, 23 Apr 2010 17:13:39 +0000

Don’t architects (mostly) and (some) landscape architects do this with regards to materials (scale mockups etc) already? Testing for performance and durability?

I agree however, that this sort of quantitative analysis needs to be increased, especially as it relates to performance and the process of designing a program.

Reminds me of a comment Rem made in a conversation between him, Peter Eisenman and Phyllis Lambert.
He said, and I paraphrase
if we don’t introduce the quantitative in architecture than we cannot address issues such as the value of cheapness, prefabrication, the generic
See here
http://www.cca.qc.ca/en/education-events/71-urgency-2007-rem-koolhaas-and-peter-eisenman

Also, i think it is interesting that experimental does within architectural/design circles not refer to experimenting a la scientific method but rather extravagant form asking. It would be interesting to find out when and why this happened. Was there a divergence from the meaning within other professions at some point?