Permanence & Specificity (Public post of shame #6)

To paraphrase Habraken’s premise in “The Structure of the Ordinary”, the built environment acts as a living organism, constantly evolving in response to the cells (stakeholders) that compose it.  Our knowledge of the built environment depends on a premise that change and renewal are key to the evolution of the built environment and that everyone is a stakeholder to some degree in the control they hold within that context.

As architects we like to think very highly of our work and often ourselves as creators of timeless and enduring works of art.  However, in truth we understand this is usually not the case.  Buildings are often repurposed, added onto, or demolished. We can breed buildings that are flexible and account for future adaptation, or we can create buildings with such specificity and permanence that they will likely endure the test of time – challenging Habraken’s thesis.

We might look at buildings through a spectrum of permanence and specificity.  The temporary Serpentine Pavilions may rest at one end of that spectrum where program is virtually non-existent and the building stands for less than a year.  Peter Zumthor designed the 2011 pavilion.  Interestingly enough, Zumthor’s thermal baths at Vals immediately come to mind for an example of extreme specificity and permanence.

The baths at Vals are timeless in their approach, seemingly forged by the mountains themselves, composed of locally quarried Valser Quarzite slabs.  Each room of the baths is carefully delineated and highly specific to its use.  It is impossible to imagine a secondary purpose for the baths or that they would ever evolve through human intervention.  Zumthor seemingly removed man as a stakeholder, leaving only time and the earth as tenants of change and renewal.