City Sense and City Design
This reading objectively outlines a variety of means to deal with obsolete environments, flexibility, and rate of change relating to flexibility. These issues are relevant to emergent architecture theory, discussed in an earlier reflection.
"The more adequate our predictions of the future become, the more will our anxiety for flexibility be transmuted into such tangible problems" - How can we provide for unspecified future change?
The reading reinforces the notion of understanding a building not necessarily as bricks and mortar, rather as a complex system which should behave as an organism; subject to evolution and revolution, and where, just as humans have successfully done so, adaptable populations will survive and the inflexible succumb.
Lynch posits an interesting flip of perspective: look to "...not the adaptability of the organism to his environment, but that of the environment to the changing purposes of the organism"
This stand point made me consider the environment of Paddington, and if let to interact with the organism (the building or form which stands as Paddington Central), what would be the result of this relationship between environment and organism? How should the Paddington organism influence its environment?
Lynch also suggests successful adaptation occurs when the user is given a chance for active participation. This creates a plastic environment, stretching beyond making choices which have so driven the consumer market for an era (Such 'choices' can be counter productive in a 'flexible environment'). However, this lateral plasticity of flexibility (the blank piece of paper analogy) contends the traditional architectural adaptability (provide media open for any use).
Lynch pushes two measures for flexible spaces:
1. Separate specialised complex purpose-driven spaces as a unique zoning of 'fixed and fluid'/specialised functions. These will support or communicate to some other integral part of the organism (i.e. Is the presence of Woolworths an integral part of the organisms life? If so, it should be a sturdy element of the building that is not removable). This method encourages a buffer zone around specialised spaces and placement on important axes. The crossover creates a vacuum opportunity for potential.
2. Separate by permanence of space/program. To determine this, ask: what is easy to change in the building OR what changes and what doesn't over the building's anticipated lifespan (i.e. how long will that space (XXXX Space) within Paddington Central need to be a bottle shop? - the need informs the physical form and arrangement of program). The intensity of the the permanence could accomodate 'intensity rings' for interaction with the building uses.
This reading objectively outlines a variety of means to deal with obsolete environments, flexibility, and rate of change relating to flexibility. These issues are relevant to emergent architecture theory, discussed in an earlier reflection.
"The more adequate our predictions of the future become, the more will our anxiety for flexibility be transmuted into such tangible problems" - How can we provide for unspecified future change?
The reading reinforces the notion of understanding a building not necessarily as bricks and mortar, rather as a complex system which should behave as an organism; subject to evolution and revolution, and where, just as humans have successfully done so, adaptable populations will survive and the inflexible succumb.
Lynch posits an interesting flip of perspective: look to "...not the adaptability of the organism to his environment, but that of the environment to the changing purposes of the organism"
This stand point made me consider the environment of Paddington, and if let to interact with the organism (the building or form which stands as Paddington Central), what would be the result of this relationship between environment and organism? How should the Paddington organism influence its environment?
Lynch also suggests successful adaptation occurs when the user is given a chance for active participation. This creates a plastic environment, stretching beyond making choices which have so driven the consumer market for an era (Such 'choices' can be counter productive in a 'flexible environment'). However, this lateral plasticity of flexibility (the blank piece of paper analogy) contends the traditional architectural adaptability (provide media open for any use).
Lynch pushes two measures for flexible spaces:
1. Separate specialised complex purpose-driven spaces as a unique zoning of 'fixed and fluid'/specialised functions. These will support or communicate to some other integral part of the organism (i.e. Is the presence of Woolworths an integral part of the organisms life? If so, it should be a sturdy element of the building that is not removable). This method encourages a buffer zone around specialised spaces and placement on important axes. The crossover creates a vacuum opportunity for potential.
 |
| source: self made |
2. Separate by permanence of space/program. To determine this, ask: what is easy to change in the building OR what changes and what doesn't over the building's anticipated lifespan (i.e. how long will that space (XXXX Space) within Paddington Central need to be a bottle shop? - the need informs the physical form and arrangement of program). The intensity of the the permanence could accomodate 'intensity rings' for interaction with the building uses.
 |
| source: self made |
No comments:
Post a Comment