One may say it's simply the mixture of volume surface and structure. I hadn't been asked to describe a project simply based on those terms since first year - doing so with a more complex project can actually be quite difficult. Architecture is complex. Architecture should have some complexities. It should not necessarily confusing, but should reach beyond the base idea. Complexity in origin of thought might be what I prefer, ending at a simple solution can be much more successful at times. Architecture is certainly complex though. It is a multi-faceted thing that can traverse space and time.
Architecture is ever changing. When architecture becomes static it could very well disappear as a profession. As a field of thought and as a built reality, architecture will continue on, but the architect might disappear.
It seems that the newest idea architecture has clung onto is sustainability. I am not averse to this is any way, but architecture, like a lot of big businesses out there, has grabbed onto this idea of sustainability in order to continue on in existence. Construction is responsible for a considerable percentage of the worlds waste and energy consumption. As governments and individuals have realized this, architecture is being forced to clean itself up. The next step in this evolution could take any number of routes...space architecture perhaps, but at the moment it is pushing the abilities of the sustainable practice.
Architecture can be used as a form of propaganda. It can be used to convince people of ideas - important or trivial. Architecture has a backing of cost - large buildings can carry large messages. That is one of the reasons so many office buildings have been able to reach such great heights. What if the message behind the building, the construction methods, and the conceptual driver of the building were one and the same? Could using sustainability as this driver work to create a built essay in why energy conservation is important? In why it is necessary? The world could use someone to speak up - if architecture did that, could it be ignored?
The movement to bring sustainability front and center is the current trend. Further exploring the boundaries of sustainability and renewable energy sources will open new doors.
Will your design be limited to the current popular issue of sustainability? How will people understand your design 100 or 200 years from now? Will its message become obsolete if energy conservation becomes the norm? Will your design be viewed as a relic of this trendy "green" propaganda craze?
ReplyDeleteI intend for people to understand the design through the pure function-ability of the building. If the passive systems I plan to design are successful they will operate without wear that would be perceptible after an extended time period. Seeing buildings with passive systems that actually work often opens one's eyes to how simple and effective they are. This is especially shocking when the building you are viewing is 100+ years old. I also would suggest that the green propaganda craze has to do with capitalizing on the current trend whereas a sustainable building is capitalizing on it's own virtue. and to address your other question, if energy conservation does become the norm I don't think the message will become obsolete, the systems may be surpassed by new technology, but the message would still be read in the same light, especially with the design of long lasting systems that would be effective for years to come. If those systems fail it is much more possible that it would be interpreted as an attempt to just meld with the trend.
ReplyDelete