OrbHab Paper
Spheres, Domes, Limits, Interfaces: The Transgressive Architecture Of Biosphere 2 (1999)
ID: 230 Flag Paper
Title: Spheres, Domes, Limits, Interfaces: The Transgressive Architecture Of Biosphere 2
Authors: M. Miller
Journal Name: Association of Collegiate Schools of Architecture
Year of Publication: 1999
Page Number:
Category: noosphere
Availability: pdf
Detail Page: /papers/230
Web Link: https://www.acsa-arch.org/proceedings/Annual%20Meeting%20Proceedings/ACSA.AM.99/ACSA.AM.99.14.pdf
BoK Link: [[paper:230]]
Abstract
Architecture’s shifting alliances with technology and nature have sponsored a number of sub-dis- ciplines. From Wright’s Broadacre to Banham’s “mechanical invasion,” the thickening field of po- lemics has produced new crossbreeds of disciplin- ary terms. Landscape urbanism, “synthetic land- scapes,” manipulated environments, “corrupted biotopes,” subnatures: each position accepts that the natural world is not “out there” but “in here.” And not only is “it” in “here,” within the domain of architecture’s concerns, but given the more recent mandates on design’s agency in a global ecological crisis, architecture is also out there. Central to these hybrid discourses, which share the rhetoric of blending, exchanging, growing, and emerging, is the question of limits.
Title: Spheres, Domes, Limits, Interfaces: The Transgressive Architecture Of Biosphere 2
Authors: M. Miller
Journal Name: Association of Collegiate Schools of Architecture
Year of Publication: 1999
Page Number:
Category: noosphere
Availability: pdf
Detail Page: /papers/230
Web Link: https://www.acsa-arch.org/proceedings/Annual%20Meeting%20Proceedings/ACSA.AM.99/ACSA.AM.99.14.pdf
BoK Link: [[paper:230]]
Abstract
Architecture’s shifting alliances with technology and nature have sponsored a number of sub-dis- ciplines. From Wright’s Broadacre to Banham’s “mechanical invasion,” the thickening field of po- lemics has produced new crossbreeds of disciplin- ary terms. Landscape urbanism, “synthetic land- scapes,” manipulated environments, “corrupted biotopes,” subnatures: each position accepts that the natural world is not “out there” but “in here.” And not only is “it” in “here,” within the domain of architecture’s concerns, but given the more recent mandates on design’s agency in a global ecological crisis, architecture is also out there. Central to these hybrid discourses, which share the rhetoric of blending, exchanging, growing, and emerging, is the question of limits.