Culture, Climate and Codes
There is no doubt that the interior is shaped by culture,
climate and codes. If we were honest
with ourselves, we would say that these social and physical existing conditions
influence the interiors of the spaces we design far more than we do as designer.
The Abalos article, “Achilles Heel of Modernity,” discusses some of the thermosocial properties of interiors corresponding with different climates, temperate and tropical. With the interior either developing into a heat-sink or heat-source, much of the activity in a building pushes further into the center, creating a rich density of social interaction in the interior. This is important for a couple of reasons: 1) it suggests that the interior of the building is the life, or heart of the building; 2) it turns the interior of the building rather than the exterior into the spaces most frequently used and inhabited. I am willing to accept that architecture is most free to manipulate the façade, but if that is all an architect does, he or she is a well-informed but expensive exterior decorator, without much real power for designs to interact with and guide the use of a space.
Another aspect of the limited freedom architects possess to shape the interior is the influence of building codes and their ever tightening grip of what is permissible in the construction of the interior. No one is arguing that life safety is unimportant, but there are times when the code takes a great design or detail and turns it into something common, banal.
Maybe the strongest opponent the architect seeking complete design autonomy over the interior is the culture of the user or occupant. In a hospital, very limiting conditions are placed on the design, just as commercial stores have a different interior typology than a bank or a residence. In an age valuing research to a greater degree than previous generations, findings can prove to be a double-edged sword. Findings can cause the designer to improve upon the interior and thus have a more successful design, while other findings may find a particular scheme more profitable, thus limiting the designer’s choices to the call of money.
Sometimes restrictions can produce better design. When a certain limitation narrows the scope of possibility, instead of faced with boundless options, the architect has a more specific problem to solve. There is no denying the fact that the interiors of buildings often come with the most restrictions. Yet just because these restrictions limit freedom we have as designers does not mean the space isn’t worth the try. I would argue that even though other factors tend to design theses spaces more than we would choose, ignoring the ability to design them as well as possible consequently ignores the part of the building with the most life and cheapens our profession.
The Abalos article, “Achilles Heel of Modernity,” discusses some of the thermosocial properties of interiors corresponding with different climates, temperate and tropical. With the interior either developing into a heat-sink or heat-source, much of the activity in a building pushes further into the center, creating a rich density of social interaction in the interior. This is important for a couple of reasons: 1) it suggests that the interior of the building is the life, or heart of the building; 2) it turns the interior of the building rather than the exterior into the spaces most frequently used and inhabited. I am willing to accept that architecture is most free to manipulate the façade, but if that is all an architect does, he or she is a well-informed but expensive exterior decorator, without much real power for designs to interact with and guide the use of a space.
Another aspect of the limited freedom architects possess to shape the interior is the influence of building codes and their ever tightening grip of what is permissible in the construction of the interior. No one is arguing that life safety is unimportant, but there are times when the code takes a great design or detail and turns it into something common, banal.
Maybe the strongest opponent the architect seeking complete design autonomy over the interior is the culture of the user or occupant. In a hospital, very limiting conditions are placed on the design, just as commercial stores have a different interior typology than a bank or a residence. In an age valuing research to a greater degree than previous generations, findings can prove to be a double-edged sword. Findings can cause the designer to improve upon the interior and thus have a more successful design, while other findings may find a particular scheme more profitable, thus limiting the designer’s choices to the call of money.
Sometimes restrictions can produce better design. When a certain limitation narrows the scope of possibility, instead of faced with boundless options, the architect has a more specific problem to solve. There is no denying the fact that the interiors of buildings often come with the most restrictions. Yet just because these restrictions limit freedom we have as designers does not mean the space isn’t worth the try. I would argue that even though other factors tend to design theses spaces more than we would choose, ignoring the ability to design them as well as possible consequently ignores the part of the building with the most life and cheapens our profession.
Comments
Post a Comment