The Aging of a Structure
The everyday building, the building which sits in solitude and is supportive of one's routines, enables human life. "The small scale of daily life as the generative component of good urbanism" emphasizes the reality of how designing with tactics, over strategy, is beneficial for the conditions of building occupancy over time. A structure that becomes worn over time and reshapes itself dependent on the occupant's needs and site conditions defines architecture as successful. As Crawford discusses, a project truly becomes successful when multiple parties are involved. To me, this is not only multiple in terms of a contractor, architect, and client but numerous in how the occupant changes over time. The discussion during Thursday's class and Crawford's depiction of the fine line between a tactic and strategy is what piqued my interest in pursuing architecture. The photo posted this week is one I took on a farm many years ago, where I began to invest in the compliment of building to time. Not only to hunt but how to improve the conditions a person experiences within an area.
The passage of time in a building is something that interests me about architecture and one of the reasons why I like the idea (though not the actuality) of designing renovations. There's something beautiful about how old cities have grown where they had no choice but to build on top of what they had because expanding outward was not an option because of the containment of its walls or natural features. Another would be the way some hippie treehouse villages where the rooms were built from junk, but each room served a specific purpose. Seeing time reflected in a building gives it a presence that you can't capture in a new construction.
ReplyDeleteSarah,
ReplyDeleteYour notion of time being one of the multiple parties involved in a successful project is beautiful. If we were set up a design framework in which Time is an equal what would it look like? Certainly the architecture generated would be freer to accept the lives of those who lived, are living, and will live within the architecture. I think in order for the tactical to challenge the structural, the architecture has to allow the tactical to leave reminders of its presence.
Sarah,
ReplyDeleteI agree – a building must be malleable. It must lend itself to responding to the needs of its user. A building withstands the test of time if it is able to change alongside the occupant. But how does this change the role of design? The easy answer would be to make every building a well-structured shell that can be filled with different program as needed. However – we already know this does not work (i.e. the shopping mall). So, what makes an old farm outbuilding successful? Is it because its design is more closely linked to a sense of place? I would be curious to hear your thoughts on this.