Less Becomes Nothing

By Shawna Hammon

Lecture – “Temporary Architecture”

"It seems that perfection is reached not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away". - Antoine de St-Expurey

A few semesters ago, I teamed up with NC State studio mate, Jessie Braverman, to produce a prototype we lovingly dubbed the Folding Modular Retreat (FMR).   We envisioned that this piece of temporary architecture could be used as disaster relief shelter, a child’s playhouse, a dog house, or a camping lodge.  We sought a patent for it, and it is currently being reviewed by NC State’s Office of Technology Transfer who is in contact with industry partners to see if there is interest in development of the invention.  The design won first place in its category at the Graduate Student Research Symposium last spring for our research on the prototype – we built a full scale model and lived in it 24/7 for a full week.  During this week long occupation of FMR, we observed many issues, particularly with waterproofing, that needed to be reviewed and developed in later iterations, but there is certainly potential for this product.

FMR @ the Prototypes Show

 It was with this experience on my plate that we began our lecture on temporary architecture.  I was quite excited to learn more about its application throughout history and around the world.  But I was not prepared for the sharp emotions that overwhelmed me through the next three hours.  I believe I felt everything from awe and delight to disgust and revulsion with our profession.  Please allow me tell you why.

To me, architecture is not just about designing something beautiful, but it must be functional.  We do not want buildings that are as pointless as tea pots with no bottom, no matter how aesthetically pleasing that tea pot may be, we will eventually want some tea.  Buildings are no different – it could be fun to walk through a building that exhibits the latest technology – for about 5 minutes, then we wonder, how do I occupy this space?  What is the point?  Especially during this economic crisis, why do we continue to design and build temporary structures that serve no function? 

Perhaps the most popular examples of temporary architecture are the German Pavilion in Barcelona by Mies van der Rohe, the Venice Biennale, and the Eiffel Tower, to name a few.  These are not disaster relief solutions and yet we hold them up as architecture examples to follow. 

“Less is more.” – Mies van der Rohe

Barcelona Pavilion

While I know there is something to be learned from Mies’ Minimalist ideals, I feel like he has taken away so much from his pavilion that he forgot to leave the program.  Less is more, but what does it mean to create a space with no function.  If this exhibition was about the relationship of architecture and intentionally served no function, what kind of message is our profession conveying to the world?  Are we excessive?

Less is More installation by Pravdo.com

I had the pleasure of seeing the Venice Biennale this year and it was one of my favorite experiences, but I cannot help but feel like it was a vice that I should feel guilty for indulging in.  After all, we are in one of the worst economic crisis of our time and yet, we built these pavilions to show off our “mad skills” to other architects and the public.  This hardly seems like a noble thing to do, how many people could we have helped if we had put that money towards disaster relief.  How many houses could we have built with Habitat for Humanity with that money?  Did someone walk away with so much knowledge from this exhibition that they will make a real difference in the future making the capital invested truly worth it?  I have a hard time believing it is so.

And then there is the Eiffel Tower, which was certainly a flex of the technological muscle of its time that led to greater developments and technologies so that allowing it to remain as a beacon to tourism seems acceptable.  This was meant to be a temporary structure, but it was so successful and became an icon in Paris, that the city would hardly be the same without it.

What does temporary architecture say to the general public about architecture?  Does this stuff just fuel our egos or is it helping us stay ahead?  I stand by my conviction that architecture should serve a purpose and do something to better the communities in which we live, but I do wonder which exhibit at this years’ Biennale will be the next Barcelona Pavilion – which of these spectacles will we put on a pedestal for all time?

“Keep it simple stupid.” – Kelly Johnson

Sources:

http://www.pravdo.com/less-is-more-2011.html

Genius and Insanity: A Look at the Walking City

By Jordan Grant

The fine line between genius and insanity is often discussed and often crossed; the topic of this post is about architects that perch on that fine line and stay there.

 

Archigram, the 1960s avant garde London firm is perhaps one of the best examples of this tightrope act of insanity that I can think of. Their futurist-inspired work glorifies machines, the glamour of technology and mass consumerism. It disregards concerns for the environment and the social implications of mass standardization.

Perhaps my favorite example is that of the Walking City, a project from 1964 by Archigram. Simplified, the Walking City is a collection of insect-like robot cities that roam the world in search for resources. The cities could join forces when a metropolis was needed and even the buildings could move to wherever their owner commanded. 

My first reaction to this proposal is to deem Archigram insane, past the line between genius and insanity. The thought of giant bug robots carrying human cities and stomping across continents sounds absolutely ridiculous. The image that forms in my mind is absurd- mechanical cockroaches jumping over forests while humans ride their backs like fleas.

Yet, Archigram may have had a genius premise, one that is actually something much more ancient and instinctual- a nomadic lifestyle and the benefits that it grants. Following resources, protection from attack on permanent structures, the capability to flee dangers and escape harsh climates. It’s not a new concept at all, it’s just the first time it’s presented in such a ridiculous manner. Yet in reality, the Walking City might have already existed.

Railroad cities were once prominent, popping up along the US Transcontinental Railroad. The tracks lent the perfect opportunity for cities to become moveable and nomadic by following where the railroad led.

Additionally, some ships have verged on the scale that the Walking City suggests; the largest aircraft carriers can hold up to 6,000 people. These are the only vessels of such a large magnitude that support extended living, but their counterparts could be considered cruise ships- though only intended to be lived in for short periods of time, these ships can fill almost any function or program for a large number of people. Yet the few attempts at a true floating city have failed.

Even the notion of a city in space is not a new one, though it reminds me of the children’s movie Wall-E. The Walking City might one day exist in space in a ship that can simulate a city environment for humanity and an escape from a decaying planet Earth.

Genius or insane, I know not. However, the Walking City is an interesting idea to contemplate- perhaps I must categorize Archigram as a blanket of insanity that obscures genius from sight, but does not remove it.

Paving the Future with Temporary Architecture

By: Khris Kirk

“The temporary pavilion has become unmissable, a rare opportunity to view the work of the finest international architects at first hand. This is how architecture should be exhibited and remembered.” Financial Times

A new style of architecture has become very huge within the past century, temporary architecture. Temporary architecture is a great way for an architect to present his idea to the public to see and experience firsthand. By the design being temporary, it forces the architect to use light materials and prefabricated materials. Also, the project being presented has a limited time of being available; therefore, the architect has to advertise his idea to the public effectively so it may take effect. 

A good example of temporary architecture is the Serpentine Gallery Pavilion. Ever since 2000, there is a new pavilion in front of the Serpentine Gallery. Each year an architect is chosen to design and build a pavilion that presents his idea of temporary architecture or pavilionaire architecture. Some well designed pavilions are Serpentine Gallery Pavilion 2002
by Toyo Ito and Cecil Balmond with Arup, Serpentine Gallery Pavilion 2005
by Alvaro Siza and Eduardo Souto de Moura with Cecil Balmond – Arup, and Serpentine Gallery Pavilion 2008 by Frank Gehry.

Each of these pavilions was designed with a preconceived idea that the architects tried to represent in the architecture. For example, the 2002 pavilion by Toyo Ito and Cecil Balmond is derived from an algorithm of a cube that was expanded and rotated. This is evident in the many triangles and trapezoids seen on the skin of the pavilion. These triangles and trapezoids are the spaces created with the rotating and expanding cube. One does not see a cube on the outside of the building but the spaces created between the cubes. By the constant changing of material and shape, allows for the building to have a sense of motion.

Another example of these preconceived ideas being represented in the architecture is present by the 2005 pavilion by Alvaro Siza and Eduardo Souto de Moura. Siza designed the pavilion to work well with the permanent Neo-classical house that the pavilion sits in front of. These triangles and trapezoids are the spaces created with the rotating and expanding cube. One does not see a cube on the outside of the building but the spaces created between the cubes. By the constant changing of material and shape, allows for the building to have a sense of motion.

Another example of these preconceived ideas being represented in the architecture is presented by the 2005 pavilion by Alvaro Siza and Eduardo Souto de Moura. Siza designed the pavilion to work well with the permanent Neo-classical house that the pavilion sits in front of. Therefore he designed the pavilion in a rectangular grid like pattern, but distorted the rectangles to be individual when a person looks at them from below. The pavilion is moving with the landscape as if it was a part of the land instead of a focus point.

A third example of preconceived ideas is the 2008 pavilion by Frank Gehry. Gehry’s inspiration for this pavilion was from wooden catapults designed by Leonard da Vinci and striped walls of summer beach huts. This explains the random pattern of wooden and glass canopies that hang above the space and the structure above supporting the canopies.

Each architect has come up with an idea that they try to portray within their building. These are revolutionary ideas that have yet to be set to buildings in this way. These architects are paving was to abstract a building in such a way to present an idea of how the space should be felt and viewed. Also, by having these pavilions be temporary, it makes the architect explore a different approach on the type of material used in construction. Most architects have used prefabricated materials that are built off site and then assembled on site. For example, the 2005 pavilion is comprised of wooden panels in a grid pattern. All the builders had to do was piece the pavilion together like a puzzle, just like Gehry’s and Ito’s pavilions in 2002 and 2008.

If buildings are designed like this more often, it will allow for buildings to be built faster on site and have more available homes and public spaces for the future families of the world.     

Links:

Serpentine Gallery Pavilion