Connecting the Pieces

Emma Lyne Pouch

Interior of Rucksack House

           As cities are growing and space continues to be limited, architects are forced to find new ways to produce designs that are moving forward in the new era and that are still pleasing to the eye of the viewers. New contemporary designs are vital towards progressing in architecture but what’s more important is that these projects are complementary to their surroundings. In our class lecture “Staying Together” many projects from the 2006 Biennale, Convertible City were addressed with their relation to redesigning a city block. Often in these situations architects are not given the option to tear down and start fresh with the buildings, instead they are forced to enhance the existing. The design strategies I found most engaging are addition, insertion and connection, words that strengthen the current conditions of a space. In the projects “Rucksack House” and “Polizei und Feuerwache” I uncovered the concepts of joining spaces on different scales that further define the purpose and use without complicating the original plans.

Shape and Section of Rucksack House

            Stefan Eberstadt’s design of the Rucksack House in Munich, Germany is a parasite in what it appears, as it’s simplest form. Parasites in architecture can be as simple or as complicated as you make them and in both cases can be very successful when serving the purpose for which it is intended. So when Eberstadt wanted to create a universal parasite that is prefabricated and can be easily transported, he broke it down to an uncomplicated form that balances art and architecture. His creation is a floating space that is light and open and brings a new view to the city. Its addition to the building connects any residential space to a room that appears empty but is filled with hidden furnishings. From the outside a passerby who notices the parasite sees a clear division created between the existing and the addition but from within the structures there is only a continuation.

Plan of "Polizei and Feuerwache" 

            Another project that stands out by it’s division between the old and new is the “Polizei and Feuerwache” project in Berlin, Germany by Sauerbruch Hutton. Designed as a new station for the police and fire departments of Berlin, this architecture connects a 19^th century Prussian-style structure to a contemporary design that plays with an irregular contrast. In this project we see the existing structure used as a backbone and support system to the addition, a concept that is evident in parasites but used here it a much larger scale. The greatest opposition in this project comes form the skin of geometric glass stretched over the new façade with the old brick façade emerging from the top. In plan we see how these spaces nicely join together and are reflected of one another yet it is the facade that we find the greatest division.

            These two examples from projects at the Convertible City Biennale identify with the strategies of creating complementary architecture. Although the project sizes are at a different scale they are similar in the use of addition, insertion and connection. They insert a new design and style by adding to the existing and creating a fluid connection in the plan arrangement. The divisions in space are evident from the exteriors but are nicely hidden within. As contemporary designs become prevalent, architects must continue using strategies of blending the old and new to create harmonious city blocks.

http://www.convertiblecity.de/projekte_en.html

A Non-Mutual Relationship

By Jordan Grant

The topic of parasitic architecture was one of the most interesting to me that we’ve seen in class; to see abstract forms clinging to the sides of buildings or perched on rooftops is surely amazing and interesting. But these forms that are becoming increasingly popular have a name that raises another question- are they truly parasites? If we view the urban jungle like an ecosystem found in nature, perhaps the effects of parasitic architecture might be explored more in depth.

A typical parasite found in nature.

A parasite (loosely described) is a living organism that finds a host and lives off it in a non-mutual relationship. These two organisms are of different species and the host suffers at the expense of the parasite. A parasite is different than a predator because a parasite is usually much smaller than its host, and it’s different from other organisms in the fact that they do not create a symbiotic relationship; the parasite only takes, never gives.

What’s more, parasites in nature can have a drastic effect on their hosts. They most often infect or influence the central nervous system, with the most common effect being a shortened lifespan for the host. So is the name for parasitic architecture just an unfortunate namesake, or could these pieces of architecture be having a detrimental effect on their host buildings or the urban jungle?

The Rucksack House, clinging to a facade.

Based on the lecture, I see a few different types of parasitic architecture evolving; permanent versus temporary and cost-effective versus sustainable (although one is not mutually exclusive of the other, they seem to be often in competition). For example, the Rucksack House is a small room that hangs off of an existing building’s façade and is accessible through a window to add 9 square meters of space to an apartment. Like a parasite found in nature, the Rucksack House leeches to the existing building’s structure and must attach to its central nervous system to at least gain electricity. It’s a temporary structure made of a steel cage and plywood that hangs on steel cables.

Project Orange's parasite.

This project has many similarities to one by Project Orange- but unlike the Rucksack House, Project Orange has created a permanent parasite. It’s still a group of steel blocks that bites through roof of an existing brick building, relying on its structure and stability.

My mind immediately begs the question “Are parasites destroying their hosts? Even more, are they going to cause decay in the urban fabric?” It seems that there is a delicate balance between how much of a structure architectural parasites can inhabit, and if that balance is wrong then the parasite would be doing what it does in nature- shortening the lifespan of the building. Even more, all these “temporary” structures seems to be constructed of low cost, durable materials like steel and concrete. Will the use of these finite materials in temporary structures have a detrimental effect on the environment? It seems to me that temporary structures should utilize recycled/recyclable materials, or at least renewable materials that can be replaced in the same lifespan of the parasitic structure that consumed them.

The Dresden Museum of Military History by Daniel Libeskind.

Perhaps parasitic architecture is just unfortunately named and really does have a helpful, useful role in contemporary architecture. I’m sure that many of my peers will have written about the positive effects that parasitic architecture can have. I have faith that these parasitic structures could become an innovative way to reduce our environmental footprints while improving the quality of life. However, my limited research shows that very little commentary has been made as to the unwanted side effects or risks associated with attaching parasites to our cityscapes and potentially shortening the lifetimes of our buildings. Architects must be aware that we build and inhabit in a very delicate ecosystem here in the urban jungle, and introducing too many parasites that haven’t been well designed could have a detrimental effect.

Sources: http://www.dezeen.com/tag/parasites/