Opportunities in adaptability

As a design student, I’ve typically understood adaptability as a question of whether or not a building could change functions over time. If I could picture it being something else in twenty years, I could confidently describe it as adaptable: large bay sizes would allow this office building to become housing; durable building materials can withstand more occupants if need be; maybe there is some kind of modular component (shipping containers? Just kidding).

I’d never considered the way designers prevent adaptability until Habraken mentions the modern starchitects – Mies, Frank Llyod Wright – and how they would micromanage (out of love, understandably) every aspect of their projects “down to the furniture in it.” Habraken suggests that architects must allow – and anticipate – other design participants:

“….such control must be dispersed, allowing different parties taking care of things on different levels in the environmental hierarchy.”

This made me reconsider my holistic design philosophy I’ve held closely over the past few years. I often get asked if I would like to continue designing workplace interiors as I did before I came to grad school, and my answer is always along the lines of “no, because I really didn’t like the disconnect between interior and exterior.” I didn’t like the idea that one team of architects would design an envelope, structure, and core, while another set of designers would come in for the interior build out. It’s actually something I didn’t like about the interior design profession in general.

But Habraken made me realize that this separation of responsibilities between interior and exterior isn’t such a bad thing. I know this sounds naïve, but the reality is that building functions change and will more than likely require renovations that keep some parts of a building while reconfiguring others.

Below is a project I worked on in the (coincidentally) the Seagram building. The building is outliving its designer, but its tenants and their needs change. Maybe instead of negatively viewing the idea of there being multiple architects on one project, it should be seen as an opportunity to build off and push each other’s ideas, as was the case for this project.