"When we build let us think that we build forever.
Let it not be for present delight or present use alone, but let it be such work our
descendants will thank us for."
- John Ruskin in the Lamp of Memory
Architecture has been thought of and
designed in theory as permanent objects in space however; in practice we see an
expected lifespan of less than a generation.
Due to its ephemerality, architecture has
developed to represent specific moments in time ultimately disregarding the
nature of time as a continuous network of progressing and changing systems.
“Sustainable practices navigate successfully through time and space, while others crack up and vanish. So basically, the sustainable is about time – time and space.”
- Bruce Sterling in The Last Viridian Note.
What if the buildings we design could function through the progression of time by broadening our typical perspective of defined enclosures as the final solution. In the book, How buildings Learn, there is a chapter titled, The Scenario-buffered Building, where they ask this very question:
"All Buildings are predictions. All predictions are wrong. There is no escape from this grim syllogism, but it can be softened. Buildings can be designed and used so it doesn't matter when they are wrong. Vernacular building types often have this quality of forgiveness, but how do you develop it in a new building, or in a difficult building that you are stuck with?"
- Stewart Brand in How Buildings Learn
The approach that is proposed following this question however is a little restricted in my opinion. My understanding is that Brand proposes we design buildings with multiple scenarios in mind and to try and accomodate for as much of them as possible, in a broad sense. "When in doubt add storage".
"The real design is the cycle, and the form – the kind of classical idea of design – is just one image in that transformation."
-Bruce Mau in Design and the Welfare of All Life.
I think Bruce Mau was correct in his quote (see above) in that, the design of the cycle instead of the form will force architects to engage the building more in the changing of the environment around the building before, during, and after its life. An example of this would be the design of the cellophane house by KieranTimberlake located for a brief time in Times Square NY.
Another approach to this topic is Norman Fosters "future proofing" when he refers to his work on the Willis Faber & Dumas Headquarters. In this project, built in the 70s, they allowed room for the building to be wired (hidden ceiling channels) which made the progress from a 1970's typewriting office to a modern day digital office.
With these points in mind I have identified three strategies to accomplish the goals of permanence in architecture.
1. The Timeless Building!
We should not be designing buildings with a specific lifespan. Instead we should focus on the permanent elements that are central to defining the typology of that particular building and solidify them in time and space.2. Eliminating Time Lag!
The building should be conceived with multiple points in time, not just one. We should be designing cycles, with the form of a building as one moment in that cycle, and the accommodation for changes in form, program, materials be accepted. (I use the Star Wars movies as an example. When George Lucas was not satisfied with the current technologies available to film the first 3 movies, he left the series to be completed when the technology became available. We should do this for our buildings in some diluted way)3. The Program-less Building!
Not to be confused with the removal of typology. Program is the most unstable element in architecture and the cause of most butchered renovations and demolitions to build new programmed towers/buildings. If we design buildings with out specific program and allow for program to be applied to the building after the initial design, we wont be locked into restrictive floor plans.I will be updating with Sketches shortly to illustrate these strategies as they apply to our current project. Please post your thoughts, comments, insights and plot holes for the narrative as it exists currently.
Thanks for reading!
Nice summary Jeff.
ReplyDeleteOne concern I would have on the last point is that buildings would no longer have a visible identity. I realize you are clear that it is not the removal of typology, but inadvertently it could end up like that. Or are you suggesting we should be designing a museum rather than the ROM specifically?
Thanks for the comment Steve. I think it’s the difference between the aesthetic qualities vs the programmatic functions within the building. Thinking back to last semesters seminar course there was a week “the end of program” where the discussion was about the emergence of digital space removing the need for specialized program in buildings. I see this possible for our house project as well. To design three spaces, one north, one south and one above. Either could be the “bedroom” or living room etc. it doesn’t detract from the aesthetic of the house being a house in my opinion.
DeleteThis is a fairly well-rounded position that demonstrates a decent level of initial research however the actual strategic outline of progression needs a bit more refinement or clarity in order to ensure an audience is fully aware of what the intentions are. This can certainly come about as design works in tandem with this refinement process.
ReplyDeleteThe first strategy is still rather open-ended. Timeless buildings as a function of permanent elements is a good way to proceed however keep in mind that timeless does not equate to permanence. This might fold into your second strategy more than serving as an autonomous one unless the description becomes a bit more appropriate.
The second strategy makes complete sense and works in the context of previous desk reviews. The only question is how this is specifically relevant to your thesis in light of the tide of adaptive reuse that has come to the forefront as of the past two decades. Buildings tend to be seen as shells that can adapt/adopt new program and editions/additions over time. Perhaps in the tactical articulation you will be able to focus more on this matter.
Finally, the third strategy falls within the scope of what was outlined in the second strategy however if elaborated upon in greater detail (potentially via a design illustration), could be more clear.
There are a few pitfalls that this project may wish to stay clear of:
-trying to create the definitive thesis design that ultimately winds up becoming a box that speaks to nothing you are trying to capture
-relying on too many hypothetical factors/variables that you have yet to anticipate; stick to a few select elements rather than taking on the infinite plane of possibilities
Perhaps working within the "architecture as representation" or "All buildings are wrong" perspective might help you articulate with emphatic clarity those elements I raise here. Doing that while working with your design challenge will likely help make you better prepared for the upcoming deadline.
Thanks, this is very helpful. I would like to clarify the strategies in response to your comments. Please let me know if they help or detract from the argument.
DeleteThe first strategy:
I think “Timeless” is not what I am wanting to say in light of this comment. The intent, illustrated through my tactic is to identify the core or “soul” of the building type (the hearth as the “soul” of the home) and make that particular element permanent. This would be the structural core of the home and as the home changes and is renovated over time this element remains static.
The second strategy:
My position is that we are currently doing it wrong (to take that perspective). We are not really designing buildings at the beginning to be adaptive over time. They are adapted and new programs are adopted but there is no real attempt to do this at a building wide scale in the initial conception of the project. My Tactic with this strategy is to, from the core indicated in strategy 1, form a base structural system that allows for a freeing of the exterior enclosure so that, similar to a curtain wall system, specifically SIP panels are supported minimally. The intent is to reflect this on the exterior façade and allow for the removal and replacement of this system as the home intends to grow in size or new systems become available that are more efficient/ effective. This is my solution to eliminating the time lag between technological advancements in the building industry as well as designing for the full cycle of the building.
The third strategy:
I think I will modify the last sentence of this statement to read “with the developing digital realm, specific programmed space is becoming obsolete and therefore allowing us to free our floor plan of many restrictions”. My intent for this strategy is to design three spaces, a north facing space, a south facing space, and a space that is above. These spaces resolve around the mentioned core of the building but are not specific to living, bedroom, kitchen etc. I’m not sure if this clarifies or distinguishes this strategy from the others any more.
Please let me know if this clarifies or helps refine the approach. I think my current direction is balancing on a fine line between your first mentioned pitfall of a "box that speaks to nothing that [I] am trying to capture". I think the creation of this core has removed the direct relationship of these elements from manifesting in the form and on the facade. I am going to revisit my sketches before I post them.
Thanks again for your comments!