Mutable Architecture: How Architecture Progresses in Modern Society

Originally the formation and growth of cities was an almost entirely organic process. The genesis of a city was usually when group of people settled near a natural feature that was beneficial for whatever reason (cliffs or mountains for protection, rivers for a reliable water source, oceans for transportation and fishing). As the expansion of the settlement progressed, the only restrictions on buildings were generally the lay of the land on which it was being built. This is not exactly the case for modern cities. When an architect makes an addition to a city of today they must not only give consideration to things such as building codes, but they also have to make considerations as to how they choose to address the forms of surrounding architecture.

There are several ways in which an architect may choose to address the preexisting structures around the site of his building. He may choose to directly reference the style and form of the surrounding structures. Building in the same style as other nearby buildings gives a strong sense of continuity. However, it tends to limit the scope of the project and also has the danger of being a sort of fake architecture. An architect may also reference certain proportions or certain features of prior structures without directly coping them. This allows for some degree of continuity but also allows the architect a large amount of freedom. Finally, an architect may completely ignore the structural context of a site. Building a structure that is entirely incongruous is a valid way of working though it can be controversial. Peter Cook and Colin Fournier’s Konthaos is a good example of a building that respects its surroundings by remaining separate from them.

Peter Cook and Colin Fournier-Kunsthaus Graz

How does the city and the architecture within it progress in light of these considerations? Often new styles of building are met with opposition from the public and from critics. It is the architects responsibility to justify his designs. Because of this, often the second way of giving consideration to the site is the best option. This way the building the architect designs becomes more a part of the city. This method of design is most similar to the organic way in which towns and cities originally sprang up.

Despite the legitimacy of this approach sometimes it is necessary to break a few rules in order to design architecture that meets the goals that the architect wishes to accomplish and integrates itself well into the city. A great example of this is the building by Manuel Herz called Legal Illegal. This building breaks many building codes in order to create a structure that is effective. This building also integrates itself into the site in an unexpected way. The inclusion of more traditional elements both contrast the bright red structure, and tie it back into the site. The arch at the bottom of the front façade of the building is one notable example of this.

\Manual Herz - Legal Illegal