"Buildings with no capacity to change can only become slums or ancient monuments."
This argument presented myself with something which I had never really thought about. In my own experiences I had always believed buildings to be reflections of the time in which they were built, using the past as a foundation and aiming to shape the future. Never before had I encountered the idea of having a building change through time, and had simply considered that the average lifespan of a building (if it is successful) to be about 50 years. However, upon reading this statement it became obvious that a building should adapt to suit changes through time - especially during a sustainability conscious period such as today - and I began to wonder why this hasn't already been taught to us throughout university and why many buildings are still constructed without this principle.
Further reading, especially of the "32 Innovations which will change the world" article led me to believe that designing for the future is all around us, and while it is generally portrayed within an industrial design setting, by no means remains disconnected from the realm of architecture. A feeling which corroborated with Le Corbusier's famous expression that "a house is a machine for living in," and advocated the avant-garde movement that archigram sought.
It appeared to me that this assignment holds linkages to the George Orwell book "1984," which was written during the 1940s about a future world. Within this world there exists new governing bodies, new communication devices, new social structures, new language and even new towns set against a backdrop of a dystopia as a result of war. This assignment therefore should aim to establish the same thing, but in an even further future and more related to the built environment.
Therefore it becomes apparent to begin thinking of possible futures which may arise within the next 100 years.
No comments:
Post a Comment