flexibility in architecture
as we discussed in my last thesis update, at the heart of my thesis is the issue of flexibility in architecture. as part of an exploration into what this means i spent some time breaking it down into flexible typologies (from here i will begin to distill out the most appropriate types of flexibility for my project). i more than welcome any thoughts you may have on the issue (diagrams i sketched apply to the category immediately following).
adaptable. adaptable structures features repositionable partitions or are changeable per user/occupant (case studies: rietveld schroeder house, japanese housing).
universal. what typifies a universally flexible building is its ease of adaptation per use. these buildings are often characterized by open floor plans and typology free design (case studies: s.r. crown hall, eames house).
movable. movable flexible buildings consist of relocatable or repositionable structures or buildings capable of being torn down and reassembled in another location (case studies: nomadic tents, airstream trailers).
transformable. characterized by modular design (capable of adding or removing units or components) transformable structures can also open and close, change form, or change color (case studies: plug-in city, university of phoenix stadium).
responsive. responsive buildings can respond to a number of external stimuli, including, but not limited to, energy/environment, interaction, usage, or occupation (case studies: allianz arena, institut du monde arab).
[...] bowl i found a post over on bldgblog, one of my favorite blogs, on a topic near and dear to me: flexible architecture. as i’ve been discussing recently, notions of flexible architecture are at the heart of my [...]
i just stumbled across your website and found your thesis interesting. i have been quite interested in flexible building…but wondered how you had thought about issues of style, fashion, branding, and our consumer culture. while flexiblity is a great a noble pursuit, you can not ignore the obvious pitfall…disposability.
thoughts? good luck on your pursuit,
raj
i think you’ve hit on a great point raj. there is a fine line somewhere in there between flexibility and disposability. i suppose the hope is that if designed smartly and successfully the flexible building isn’t disposable but can adapt and evolve to meet the new demands. but the bigger question is “is disposable bad?” sure on the surface anyone would seemingly argue of course, but i think there is more going on in that question than what’s at the surface. for starter’s we no longer live the way we used to. our lives and livelihoods have changed. we move constantly, change jobs, all part of a global culture and economy of impermanence. should anything be permanent for that matter? of course there’s always the environmental issue when one brings up the idea of disposability. maybe it’s not so much disposability as it’s responsible growth? isn’t is possible that these buildings/units/etc could be relocated where they are needed as they are needed, not actually “disposed?” i’m not sure about a lot of this myself. but the point you raise is poignant and certainly something i am exploring in my thesis. as i progress i will be sure to post more in relation to this idea. thanks for your comment!
[...] into and out of the the provided framework allowing for an ever evolving transformable piece of flexible architecture. to further the “machines for living” analogy, people essentially serve as raw [...]
hi geoff am raghu, i am very much intrested in tranformable housing n i have choosen it as my thesis. so if u can help out i will b vry thankful to u
raghu i would be more then happy to you out in any way i could. feel free to email question to: waywelive[at]gmail[dot]com or post them here. i’m sure i could point you to some great research and case studies as well. i know i’ve been absent around here for a while but rest assured it is a function of me finishing my own thesis which is due here in about a week, after which i plan on being back full time!