Limitations: Inside & Out

Even though the readings this week were quite lengthy I found the two points of view very interesting, especially because these are some of the big topics all architects are facing currently around the world. After working for a few years, I find myself somewhere in between these two arguments (however leaning more towards thermodynamic materiality then purely envelope-focused).

While I agree with Zaera’s poetics as he describes the beauty and importance of envelope design: “The building envelope is possibly the oldest and most primitive architectural element. It materializes the separation of the inside and outside, natural and artificial and it demarcates private property and land ownership…The building envelope forms the border, the frontier, the edge, the enclosure and the joint: it is loaded with political content.” And, in his defense, the envelope is lots of fun to design and where a lot of political and interesting design decisions are made.  Unfortunately and fortunately, the façade is typically the most obvious and easiest to criticize by the non-architect public because it is so highly visible and should define the qualities of the project you value the most. “The plan of the building organizes the political structure and protocols hosted within it, while the section organizes the social strata and its relationships with the ground.” Where I disagree is when Zaera says:

“While most other aspects of the architectural project are now in control of other agents (e.g. project managers, specialist contractors) that ensure the efficiency of the project delivery, the increasing falseness of the client gives architects license to invent the building’s interface. The envelope has become the last realm of architectural power, despite the discipline’s inability to articulate a theoretical framework capable of structuring its renewed importance.”

While I do not deny that the modern architect has lost a significant amount of control throughout the entire design process, I do not agree that the envelope is the last realm nor should it be the only thing we should strive to design. I think that the decisions we make early in the design of a project should carry through to the end details. We aren’t just junkies drafting construction details we should constantly be thinking about the entire building throughout the entire process. In my opinion, to neglect the interior space, where the majority of users interact and use the space is a crime. I much prefer to agree with Abalos:

“Thermodynamic materiality does not focus on the “construction detail” as an expressive moment, or the “envelope” as primary manifestations. On the contrary, it aims to abolish them in favour of a 3D ensemble, ideally constituted as a set of natural and artificial materials, both visible and invisible, combined in a performative system with maximized compatibility and hence minimized complexity in its optimal expression.”

With that being said, there is a certain reality to Zaera’s argument. In my working experience, the majority of my time was spent drawing wall sections (whether right or wrong, it takes a long time to finely craft cohesive details that work in all directions.) But even though Zaera mentions the limitations of the interior he neglects the limitations of the exterior as well. In my experience, not only are you limited by a client’s desire to do what they want the building to look like, you are also subject to local neighbors and sometimes public groups and politicians. Apart from other people’s desires, we were limited to the local craftsmanship of construction work in our area. When you start to do something new and adventurous, not only are contractors less likely to bid, but when they do bid it can be very expensive. If builders in your area have never built with a specific building material, like poly-carbonate, then they will have to send for craftsman outside of the local area which can get costly.

I also believe there is a certain irony to Zaera’s argument because the envelope is both exterior and interior-- Whether he wants it to our not he is always affecting the interior with his decisions made on the exterior envelope. There is a certain beauty to blurring the lines between the inside and outside, and I think a truly good architect knows how best to do that. I think that instead of arguing inside or outside we should be asking ourselves: how and should we start to get some of those interior responsibilities back to the architect?