Rem Koolhaas
describes a completely new form of living in the Metropolis. Instead of rooms
and environments being informed by the context on the exterior and understood
from the exterior, the predominance of monolithic forms with flexibility of
program informs a new way of building. In some respects, this can be viewed as
significantly more environmentally minded. The ability to have flexible interior
space, that can change to the ever-changing needs of the owner, allows the buildings
to continually be reused without being rebuilt. But can a building that is not
built specifically to support a certain program be good architecture? Either an
architect designs a flexible space for any program or designs the most efficient
space for a specific program. Which is right? What is better?
 |
Rem Koolhaas's interpretation of different environments within different layers.
|
 |
| ehdd flexible architecture image |
It is interesting to think about the multitude of possibilities that could occur in a building that is made up of flexible spaces. These spaces could be forever changing and one wouldn't have to worry about not ever being able to use a space. Whereas when a space is designed specifically for a program, it becomes more permanent and then it is much harder to transform that space into something completely different. There are pros and cons in both instances. I don't think one is better than the other.
ReplyDeleteThis conversation reminds me of the case study that we did for Professional Practice I, concerning the CUICAR out in Greenville. We spent a lot of time discussing with the owners/architects the needs and benefits for having a "core and shell" approach and how it ultimately extends the life of the building. While you might be able to justify the efficiency of a specific design for a certain program, to me it seems that the "flexible design" is more environmentally thoughtful.
ReplyDeleteI think that your point of designing resilient architecture is a very important topic, especially today. I do believe that there is a way to make good architecture that caters to programming and is flexible. Actually, I would argue that good architecture is flexible and not pinned to one set of programs. With today's world, needs are continually changing. If your architecture is not able to adapt, it will simply be torn down and something else built in its place. In my opinion, good architecture is architecture that can stand the test of time.
ReplyDeleteThere is actually a lot of research that has gone into this idea of how to design for resiliency. A lot of it comes down to material choice and structural layout, this way if the program changes, the building can still stand and adapt. At some point, a renovation becomes a waste of money and it is better to tear down and rebuild, so how can we build such that the building can really stand the test of time.