For my thesis sketch, I wanted to express my idea of using the architecture to propose a lighting technique to define and unite a particular area of a city. The design intent begins at the human scale but ultimately moves to a urban scale to understand the implications of the design on the community as well as the individual.
I agree with the reading that the program is capable of limiting a building potential if an architect does not considered the potential of the building not only after the original intent for the project, but even during as to what it can be. The program given to the building and even each individual space should not prohibit the possible change in the space. Allowing the program to accommodate the user, help the success of the building within the client and community’s eyes.
One way of adaptive re-using the space is for the architect to put themselves in the users’ shoes and begins to think that you have a certain function; what else could the function be doubled as. In this idea, the form will not follow the function as many other post-modernist architect focus. Many post-modernist, for example Mies, allow the function to control the form to the point which the project only accompanies the function and does not have the ability to adjust to fit other specifications. Some simple ways of allowing myself from falling into the trap of having the program to control the project is to allow the project to gain additional programmatic elements. Also the client is the important part of the design process and therefore the architect should allow the client to engage or in my case the community needs to engage due to the scale of the project being the urban fabric.
I think the way you talk about adaptive reuse is creating a very interesting forward-looking theme in your thesis. If I understand right, you're considering the future (re)use of your building while engaging in an adaptive reuse program. I was given the suggestion of starting with successful and unsuccessful examples of things relating to my thesis; if you're looking for ideas maybe look to all the spaces @ CMU who've changed function and evaluate them.
ReplyDeleteIn a vaguely related topic, I can't remember who it was, but I remember seeing a reference to an an architect who essentially designed for the eventual demolition of his structures (via the book: "Rubble: Unearthing the History of Demolition", I think).
Your ideas of architecture and lighting are also interesting, and I think if you can devise a way of testing the ability of your architecture/lighting to unite people, you'll be in a very good place.
you might want to read the site selection reading as well; you start to hit on a key point of the reading, in your comments about your thesis (looking not just at the immediate context but the urban fabric).
ReplyDeletejust a sidenote, i think when you write 'postmodern' you mean 'modern'... i think?
anyways back to your thesis... i would challenge you to perhaps try and figure out some implications of designing a building with no specific program - is it possible even? if you are truly focused on an 'adaptive' building, it would seem that looking at an extreme side of flexibility is a non-programmed space.