What's interesting to me though, is that the phrase that I hear much more often is "people resist change". Whether it is in school, at the work place, at home, or in a social group it seems we as humans are hard-wired to resist change. You hear of the old employee that has designed a wall the same way for 50 years and exclaims why change what works. Or of the brother that never did the dishes in middle school and doesn't want to start in high school. Even the family dog resists change. He likes his yard, his pillow, his daily walk around the block at his house. When you change any of these things he doesn't understand and rebels, whether that is by barking, ripping up his new bed, or pulling harder on his leash in the new neighborhood you've brought him too.
Image 1: Kemba (my puppy) after ripping up his new bed
So why do we as people not like change? Change is unknown, it adds more work for us, or possibly it is just plain scary. You can Google why people resist change and you will get over 30 million results. Maybe that is why change has to be this persistent.
In the article "The Future of Space Toward an Architecture of Invention", Elizabeth Grosz draws parallels between architecture and philosophy and then goes on to describe the two different ideologies behind time. She explains that "architecture has thought time...through history rather than through duration" and that this ideology about time is being questioned, explored, and is ultimately facing change. New architecture firms are exploring time in their designs, while older architects are resisting and turning back to the way of the past. She explains how we can view space as a moment of becoming instead space as a medium, drawing on examples in architecture of our time. So why is anyone opposing this new thought provoking way of viewing time and space?
Ingeborg Rocker describes this change in ideology in a little different way but carries a very similar underlining meaning. Explaining the term "versioning" quite well throughout her article, she talks about how "repetition of the same" is being replaced by "repetition of difference". She explains how a thing always evolved from the thing before it, how the past brings about the present, but how both must exist in order for either to exist. Also giving examples of architecture in our time that has adopted, or at least tested, the design methods of versioning, she enlightens the reader about how versioning is leading to new state-of-the-art designs and how certain companies are using versioning to design these interesting structures. So again, why would anyone be resisting this change in design philosophy if it seems to be producing exceptional results?
As Ingeborg puts it, the concepts of "standardisation and norms" are one thing that might be hindering the advancement of architectural design. She describes how new ways of working require old methods to be questioned. The normal way of architectural design worked in the past, why change it even if it is outdated and has figuratively reached a plateau? Versioning questions architecture "as a linear progressing design process", leading to more interesting forms that evolve from practically nothing. There is no preconceived idea about what the design will be, just a starting point that evolves to the next phase and then the next, and with the help of technology a new unique form is developed.
Image 2: Standard Luminaires used on Engineering Interstate Projects
While reading this article by Ingeborg, specifically this page explaining standardization and norms along with the two following pages, I came up with a new idea about this situation that I hadn't thought of before. As you can imagine, architecture, engineering, and the construction profession are very closely interrelated whether they want to be or not. As the architect comes up with the form of a structure, the engineer designs it, and the construction crew builds it. These are typically separate entities in the United States, and may cause competition as each entity tries to maximize its profit. So maybe architects aren't trying to resist change, maybe they are getting resistance (a lot of resistance) from the engineering and construction professions. After all, whatever is thought up must be structurally designed and then physically built. Standards and norms in engineering make life easy, for example we know this type of railing works, so why not use it? Unique forms create additional work and require more thought and time on the design side of the process for engineers, naturally encouraging them to rebel. Then when it comes to constructing this form, the unique methods that must be thought up in order to build it entice the construction companies about why they aren't just building a square frame. It seems that anything outside of the norm brings uncertainty with it, making engineering and construction firms start to worry about whether this project will allow them to turn a profit, and if so, how the profit could be larger if the structure was simpler.
I am not saying that Corporate America has caused what many describe as the plateau of architectural design, I am merely saying that we as humans naturally resist additional work and that pressure from other professions may have helped subdue the creativity in architecture and the change to this new method of design. This change is persistent though, and I believe all professions will begin to realize its potential. The perfect example is the one discussed in class regarding SHoP Architects and the construction of the Barclay Center. This might currently be my favorite modern project I have heard of, how they were able to disguise a preconceived plan of a pre-existing building and make it look totally different even with the same structural frame. The creativity involved and the advances in construction techniques used seem to be way ahead of the industry. As I continued to ponder how this project was done, I think one aspect of the situation that helped SHoP Architects in this case was the fact that they had control over the development, design, and construction of this structure. There wasn't the same competition of maximizing profits between companies, instead the same company (or sister companies) was working together in order to create a unique structure and at the same time, maximize their own profits. The architects helped their fellow engineers with the structural design as well as their co-worker construction crews with the methodology of construction, every day. The single company also knows that it can get uncontested recognition for the work and doesn't have to worry about competing for that from other companies as well. I think this ultimately leads to innovative solutions to problems and interesting structures. It was a great example to go over in class and I believe with the continuing advancement of technology, as well as how the three professions and the public will start to realize the benefit of this way of working, we will see a lot more of these types of successful projects in our society.
Image 3: Barclays Center by SHoP Architects
No comments:
Post a Comment