Doppler Architecture vs Doppler Effect
The scientific definition of the ‘Doppler effect’ is the
change in feedback you get from an object changing its position relative to a
fixed position (the observer of the phenomenon). The easiest example to understand
this is an ambulance approaching then going away from you. You hear the volume
and frequency of the sirens change as its relative position changes. This
phenomenon can be calculated and has a direct correlation relationship.
The phenomenon of Doppler Architecture is almost as complicated
as the natural occurrence. To break the term down, the idea is that the response
of the building’s form to the context around it is fluid and based on the
changing feedback loop (users) that is involved with it. To say, the architecture
is designed so that no mater the program that needs to occupy the space, the
building can respond accordingly.
Can we measure this phenomenon of Doppler Architecture as
easily as it can be in physics? By this I am asking, is there an underlying
factor that directly correlates the success of a building’s ability to receive changes
in feedback (program/usage) to a tangible changing element (the user’s needs)?
I think you make a great point when you asked if doppler architecture success could be measured as easily as in physics. I think the answer might be yes and no. When it comes to the function of the building and how well the building ages it can be measured fairly objectively based off data. However, when it comes to the aesthetic or experiential qualities of the building, that might be more subjective. If you took a poll of the community you might not get a clear answer.
ReplyDelete