Habraken me crazy
Week 7
 |
This is one of the few excerpts Ive seen referencing the dynamic element of time on our buildings (aside for material wear and tear). I have yet to here a studio critic or professor ever say - the design of (x) is not considerate of future adaptation and reusage.
So what's doing more for the environment? Slapping some solar panels on that will be VE'd out, or a structural system that doesn't need tearing down in 30 years? Where is the disconnect?
As a profession, its very self gratifying to point out the issues of "magazine architecture" which is a sales/media consumption generated issue, yet we are still acting on the undercurrents of these techniques every day.
Our boards for studio depend on our successful skills in photography architecture. Not in the least bit on how a building ages. It's the single point of sale system that creates new development that causes us to fail.
"All Self-Help Boils Down to Choosing Long-Term Over Short-Term."
-Naval Ravikant
Unfortunately, the market rewards short-term. It all leads up to a single point of sale. It's not financially rewarding to build a long-lasting building. Building lifespans outlive most companies anyways, how can a company base themselves on quality and lasting design if they aren't around enough to accumulate evidence, or by the time they have, technology has outpaced what they have learned?
I have a lot of questions.
Baker,
ReplyDeleteAn interesting, yet important point you bring up, we are rarely criticized or encouraged to make a building that will last for hundreds of years. We are never asked about the life span that we suspect our building will have, therefore, for studio purposes i've probably never even thought about it. But, how often do we ever get asked if these projects can even be built, haha. I think that you have good questions and definitely things to think about as we move into the field.
Baker, I also have struggling much with how the society is not building things that last. I way I usually think about it that these buildings will not stand long enough to become ruins. They will not stand there for thousands of years for the history to be preserved. But on a conflicting side, the materials that we know to last that long are stone and concrete for example. These materials have such a negative impact on the environment. If we still building in that way for all the buildings now, I would imagine that we would be in a few magnitudes worst of a situation that we are in right now - environmentally-wise. On another conflicting side, with would say that with technology of how we are recording and achieving things now, we would still have the historical record, say thousands of years from now.
ReplyDelete