Gas Stations and Restaurants: Living Environment vs. Built Environment
Habraken’s text “The
Structure of the Ordinary” makes me think a lot about the built environment of
Charleston where there are historic Charleston single houses that have been
turned into businesses, or larger single-family residences that have been
subdivided into multi-family dwellings, and even old gas stations turned into
restaurants. I think the point that
Habraken is trying to make is that as architects we create the "built
environment," but it is only through the appropriation of the space by the
user (and future users) that perpetuates the "living environment,"
which he argues can only occur through change and adaptation. Perhaps as
architects we have to accept, and embrace, the fact that our designs will inevitably
evolve based on the user's appropriation of the space. I think that what makes
the built environment of Charleston so interesting is the evidence of
adaptation and transformation that has taken place from user to user over the
history of the building’s lifetime. The
original design of the gas station, for example, did not try to anticipate that
the building would later be turned into a restaurant. Instead of the original
design trying to anticipate the future, it is the current use and design that reveals
something about the past life of the space.
There are numerous examples of this in Charleston where the history of
uses and users is physically visible in a building like the layering of paint
on a canvas.
Habraken’s point that seems
to most clearly convey this idea is that the “built environment is more of an
organism than an artifact.” His definition of the built environment implies
that the design of all buildings will continue to evolve beyond the architect’s
involvement.
Considering our own designs
through this lens, should we as architects quit looking at our projects as
being artifacts that remain static and unchanged throughout time and accept
that buildings become part of a living organism that will inevitably change and
evolve? If we chose to think of our
buildings as unchanging artifacts, do we risk that our designs might become
obsolete in their inability to adapt alongside the rest of the built
environment?
The building as its original use - a service station
The building transformed to it's current use - a restaurant.
I was also thinking 100% about Charleston when I wrote my own blog because of the way buildings have evolved in their use. What I think is also relevant about Charleston is the resistance of residents to allow a building's use to evolve with time but not a building's aesthetic. I think as designers we need to understand how people and changing times will change our building and I think that the unwillingness to accept this fact will hinder a design. I think some of the best designs are those that do allow change and evolve, whether it be use, facade, additional mass, etc. I think the best place to be in as a designer is to understand a building will change but not let that hinder designing for now.
ReplyDeleteEurope/Italy are also great examples of how the users take the built environment and changed it to meet their needs. It's an amazing thing to see the multiple transformations through time and how each century used it for what was appropriate. Even if architects design with this idea of "unchanging artifacts", it'll never work because the user will always find away to make it fit their needs.
ReplyDelete