Issue: Today, most cultures pursue a more or les stationary life style. However, with the arrival of the sustainability revolution, our world is once again leaning towards more flexible living environments; thus encouraging a new form of existence. To be sustainable, to design for the changing fashions and increasing growth of our dynamic cities, architecture must become more adaptable, flexible and less fixed.
Position: This concept provides a driver for this sustainable revolution to produce architectural proposals that have transformable qualities that can make physical and/or experiential spatial changes over a span of time.
What does it mean to be flexible? Is it designing architecture that possesses morphological qualities - creating new spaces, formations both on the interior and exterior faces for the different uses? What are these uses and how do they overlap?
How do you design for change without designing emptiness? What elements within architecture need to possess this changing quality?
Challenge: Controlling flexibility | Creating architecture that is less fixed, more flexible, adaptable but with control, a predictable nature. Perhaps - creating flexibility within permanence | controlled barriers?
Studio Sketches: Site Analysis
Initial Sketches
Site: Fort York Car Park.
Access points x2
Historical Landmark.
Flat land sloping down below the Gardner Highway.
Old edge of Toronto. - Water's Edge -
Reasons for chosen site: Mixed use area. A combination of history |Museum|, live/work (Condos) Medium to high rise. Gardner Highway. A place for entertainment - outdoor & Indoor events/festivals (New Visitor's Centre) already multi use building located on the site - mainly a museum - drawing people in to the importance of the site and Toronto's development around that site. Any alteration to this site is therefore in direct relationship to that of the old Fort York. - A place of permanence that will remain untouched.
The site stands today as a key step in Toronto's development as a City, a City that started somewhere but never stops growing/changing.
Design Proposal: A performing arts centre with controlled elements within its flexible make up. Perhaps this centre will work with a given timeline like that of the 'Fun House' project [?] A structure that adapts to the seasons? Type of events? Number of occupants?
A playful flexible structure that 'dances|morphs' with that of its performers and intrigued audience within a rather permanent sense of place. - historical Fort York. -
Concept Models to come.
Strategy 1. Further understanding the difference between adaptability and flexibility. Designing Adaptable|Flexible uses of space within more controlled parameters...An exterior facade of permanence with a playful interior of diversity or architecture that moves like a breathing organism?
Aim: avoid designing emptiness.Permanence/control within this adaptable sense of place.
Idea: Slinky Architecture. Concept models to come.
Strategy 2. To relate back to this revolution of sustainability, the design will focus on the choice of design materials and energy independent strategies.So not only is the architecture sustainable with its adaptable nature, the sourcing of materials, production, maintenance and means of operating will all be taken into consideration with regards to its level of sustainability.
Strategy 3. Dealing with sense of place & connectivity. Connecting the structure, as 'temporary' or non-fixed as it may be, with its given surroundings (its untouchable/permanent historic site) and its changing users.
Case studies thus far..
This is a bit of a shift in the work you presented from P1 but fortunately not too much that it compromises your initial interests. The relationship you present between sustainability and flexibility is interesting and makes sense as they are interconnected. The first strategy is a bit unclear still. If anything it pertains to defining criteria for adjustability/flexibility. There are two things that are problematic with what you state for this strategy as: a) "playful" starts diluting the discussion and almost heads towards what Rebecca is looking at, and b) the breathing aspect becomes less about sustainability/flexibility and instead becomes tacked-on and a forced metaphor for homeostasis in a building. The second strategy cannot be made up of other strategies so be mindful of the wording. If the second strategy is about identifying material choices relative to some sustainability metric, then you can proceed with it. The third strategy pertaining to "connectivity" could work as it relates back to reuse of materials/contextual elements that may be addressing the sustainability issue however it is a bit vague to speak of a "sense of place" as most buildings try to engage that in some way or another (e.g. to complement, contrast, draw attention to, etc. existing context elements).
ReplyDeleteIf you really wish to look to the flexibility of buildings such that building envelopes move, you should a) identify why this is so critical to your thesis, b) how such systems work, and c) where and why such elements should be in the architecture. That buildings can move and change shape/volume would really only connect to sustainability if pertaining to things like orientation, treated (heat, air, moisture) volumes, occupant demand (peak vs unused) so if you are investigating this, please be clear as to which (if not all) of these factors play into the discussion.
You may also wish to take a look at Ashley Biren's work from last year's thesis class as she was interested in buildings that potentially changed shape but based upon neuromorphological factors. Additionally, Robert Kronenberg's transportable architecture series may yield better ideas on flexibility in architecture (as opposed to the rather flat flap opening conditions you have proposed in your sketches that really do not seem to complement the triangulated forms you present).