The
owners of the structure sought invisibility – a structure that would not
disturb the existing qualities of the residential courtyard situated among a
group of Parisian apartment complexes. A group of radical architects, headed by
Francois Roche (partner in the R&SIE firm), found the answer. R&SIE
architects conceived a simply structured home masked on the site with a new
form of greenery – a technologically oriented blanket of plants that surrounds
the structure and fuses the new house with the existing site and, in effect, creating
the invisible inhabitance appropriately called, “I’m Lost in Paris.” 
The skin of plants that surrounds the simple structure of “I’m Lost in Paris” represents a clash between technology and nature. R&SIE architects created a simple steel mesh structure that indirectly connects to the raw concrete structure of the inhabitance with a grid of steel rods that protrude from the concrete surface. The hydroponic ferns (which were chosen because they do not need soil to grow) attain the necessary minerals from a small tube running back to the roof of the structure, where rainwater and bacteria are collected to form the mineral bath. Intermittent within the fern skin, the architects have implemented groups of glass-blown forms resembling wild berries, which serve to direct and diffuse natural light through the outermost skin into the living areas of the home.
The house exists as a full scale experiment with natural elements that supports cynical undertones. The clash of technology and nature creates an almost robotic plant form – the ferns are supported totally through man-made innovations rather than the natural processes that would typically sustain the plant life. The pseudo-robotic plant forms suggest that man has conquered nature; almost as if we no longer need the natural processes that we can now artificially simulate (at least on a certain scale) and control completely based on our perceptions and knowledge of both the technological systems in place and the natural capabilities of the plant life of our choosing. This example represents fully the modern domestication of natural processes – to the extent that some of the processes are completely supplemented with human innovation. I do not take the stance that this extent of technology in nature is a bad thing, nor necessarily a good thing. I simply think that the juxtaposition of the two are quite interesting, especially to the extent reached in this particular project.
“I’m Lost in Paris” acts as an interesting
play on the idea of parasitic architecture. In this case, is nature a parasite
that has grown to overtake the house, or is the house a parasite on the
residential courtyard that has yet to reveal itself? Seen from the perspective
of the house itself, it seems that nature is the parasitic element of the two.
This form of nature (which happens to be technology based) seems to have
effectively attached itself to the house with a grid of steel rods and a system
of tubes attached to the roof of the structure. The plants get their source of
life from the system of tubes that have, at this point, completely surrounded
the house. Seen from the perspective of the site, however, the structure seems
to retain the more parasitic element. The house is comprised of two stories of
livable space above ground and a basement floor (housing various mechanical
systems) below the grade of the site. Looking at a transverse section through
the structure, the house appears to be rising from within the earth like a
tectonic plate yet to break the surface; forcing the soil and plants of the
site upwards to form a boil within the residential courtyard. In this case, we
know that elements of parasitic architecture are present, but the distinction,
just like the inhabitance, is invisible.
No comments:
Post a Comment