Open Building Concept: A Universal Approach?
Hoping to learn
more about the practicalities of open buildings, I found Open-Building.Org, which offers various case
studies. Helsinki's Tila
Open Building Project (2008) is one of the more recent projects featured on
the site. In the Tila case study, architect Pia Ilonen explained how owners of
39 lofts select infill to customize their homes on either one or two levels,
starting only with two bathrooms (as shown below).
Unlike examples we discussed in class, Tila is not a social housing project. As her involvement ended, Ilonen wrote that owners would need to gain approval from the board of the housing company (i.e., shareholders and residents) and to contract builders and designers if needed. Her report included layouts and photographs of various lofts, illustrating many directions that owners took to outfit their homes.
In “De Drager: The
Supportier,” John Harbaken remarked that open building concept might be a form
of universal architecture, noting two differing responses—one describing the
concept as "the real Marxist approach" and another describing it as
"the real Capitalist approach." While the social housing projects we
have seen in class seem to support a Marxist view, the Tila project provides a
more commercial approach. While the examples we have seen offer occasional flexibility and might address the needs of many different people,
I am not convinced that this architecture is any more “universal” than the International
Style of the Modernists. What do you think... is “universal” a dicey word for this type of
architecture?
Great approach to tackling this concept and good question.
ReplyDeleteI feel that we as architects are far away from being able to use the word "universal". We have tried for years to tackle this concept simply by changing the word; flexible, adaptable, modular, etc. All studies giving more questions then answers, but to tackle this concept you almost have to give a built environment that is not even designed. Once a "universal" design is produced and built, its validity of being universal gets cut in half because its already limiting you based on design or even code. I sometimes think the best universal concept is a flat piece of property that the owner builds on, but then what happens when the user moves out and someone moves in.... it is no longer universal because there are pre-existing constraints