Most architects design spaces. But as such architectural academics such as Bryan Lawson or Jeremy Till point out we are not inculturated to think about space in time, rather to freeze our concept of space as if buildings will not adapt or change functions.
Which architects do you think consider time in their architecture?
pretty much anyone that you might call a phenomenologist... definitely zumthor as previously mentioned... i'd really recommend david leatherbarrow's new book "architecture oriented otherwise"...
in physics time is often only the intensities changes and many found out they do not need the variables of time to solve the problem... time is often an obstacles than a solution...
the issue is do time really exist? or merely intensity changes...
architects who "concern" the implication of time often take the conventional concept of time for granted.
When I mention time my biggest curiosity lies in how designers deal with the uncertainty of the future (if at all) – functions change with time, get combined with other functions and are sometimes even replaced as society and technology change and develop. The problem is intrinsic to the modernists underlying idea that functions must be located in space and have space that is somehow precisely adjusted to their needs (zones of activity/ zonal functional planning). The more precise a solution; the less adaptive.
How can we increase the capacity to accommodate change – without the obvious big box solution?
My understanding of the New Brutalist style included the expressive nature of space revealing the again specific functions designated to various spaces – most of which were criticized for being contextual eyesores disregarding the social and historic context. Does this style really lend itself to an evolving environment/ changing user demands and needs?
Lawson mentions the need for the view of architecture to be not as a work of art that is a sole creation of the architect, but as a dynamic, almost organic, extension of the everyday lives of inhabitants.
OMA is always talking about future cities and buildings that adapt and change over time.
Lots of Japanese architecture confronts temporal change - weather and seasonal evolution. Check out Kevin Nute's book Place, Time and Being in Japanese Architecture. It's a fantastic book.
Almost every building confronts time and any decent designer thinks about it. The way materials age, the function of an open floor plan in an office building, solar orientation for passive heating and cooling, how light and shadows affect a space. Kahn would think about his buildings as future ruins.
Steven Holl is another phenomenologist who considers issues of time in his designs - especially the play of light.
and don't forget about the "landscape urbanists" and just straight-up landscape architects... just by the nature of landscape they have to be concerned with time...
i would say there are two camps as relates to time. there are the touchy feely architects like zumthor, siza, ando (most of the above mentioned; kahn probably being the grandfather of this group) who are really only obsessed with time in terms of decay. this group tends to be very much building focussed. how does the material change? some untenable notion of "timelessness" seems to be the ultimate goal for this type of architecture.
the second group is the "dutch guys," oma and company. they are far less building focussed, instead focussing on planning, program, and people. buildings participate in a much larger web of interaction with external circumstances. i would look at some of the writings of michael speaks on design intelligence and scenario planning to get a better idea of how this group works.
I agree, and would say your two camps refer to the end of my last comment. I think the first group you mention which seems to be the primary way of interpreting my initial question is interested in the preservation of their object as a built entity, not as a space which accommodates the evolving demands of a dynamic environment (i.e. users, owners, society, technology).
This embraces (in my mind) a more traditional understanding of space as an abstract concept and not a behavioral phenomenon, and yet paradoxically assume that behavior will follow their predictions.
I'm unfamiliar with the writings of Speaks and will check out - thanks for the recommendation. There is also a publication that I recently came across called Time-based Architecture http://www.tba-int.com/
talkitect - Place, time, and being in Japanese Architecture is a great reference - thanks!
Yeah jafidler I think has hit on the two camps... the people interested in weathering and aging of buildings as it related to how the building is crafted to consider the affects of time... Poetry and light etc.also included here, more like *the sensory aspects of building*.
vs. time as program, like the ephemeral lived in aspects of buildings and how people operate in them, day by day, seasonally, and over years... More *the performance aspects of building*.
Does anyone have or know where I can find an electronic copy of the article in ARQ 6/02: "Theory was interesting…but now we have work" by Michael Speaks?
There is another set that has not been mentioned - those that are interested in parametrics. Hernan Diaz Alonso comes to mind, and 'Algorithmic Architecture' is an interesting book on it.
I think it might be said that 'scripting' deals with time on a case by case basis, where each design solution might be treated as something that can adapt to specific problems by outlining a set of common parameters, but it ultimately becomes fixed in time.
I have also worked on methods that can extend the notions of parametrics to time that exists outside of the 'final production' of the built artifact. Some examples include Niel Denari's Solar Clock in London, and the work of Wes Jones. There are numerous examples in Robert Kronenberg's books, like 'Flexible'. Also look at Jennifer Siegals' books on mobile architecture.
There are projects along these lines that are less based on form and more on surface and technology. Check out the book 'Responsive Environments', and firms like LoTek and SERVO.
Other investigations include work on adaptable dwellings, like Avi Freedman's 'Adaptable House', or even projects like the Schroder House.
Some great writing on 'speed' and urban shifts are Lars Lerup's 'After the City', Bergers 'Drosscape'. Mitchel Schwarzer's 'Zoomscape', and even 'All That Is Solid Melts Into Air'.
Someone mentioned landscape urbansim, take a look at James Corner, 'Taking Measures Accross the American Landscape', or 'The Landscape Urbanism Reader'. Stan Allen and Field Operations are great firms / websites to check out.
A few other thoughts - Potteries Thinkbelt, Archigram and the Walking City, Koolhaas and the LaVillete competition...
architects that generally design around nature instead of razing it out belong here, i think, people like vieira, ando, muro, zumthor, aalto, herzog, even wright initially (though i say this very gingerly since he was too arrogant to deal with the design/engineering concurrence, hence his buildings are falling apart now).
Trendy & squishy form oriented architects, while they make their mark on history are not prepared for the dyamics of the HUMANS who do have to use it (what use is a space you can't move in eh?). While i do admire the in your face impact of the design, its rather superficial...
one of my (former) bosses always asked me to consider time in producing architecture. to the point where he asked me to produce my weekly timesheet on monday morning, and made sure i stuck to it. All the while he was busy considering money in architecture.
May 24, 09 12:43 pm ·
·
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.
Which architects consider time in their architecture?
Most architects design spaces. But as such architectural academics such as Bryan Lawson or Jeremy Till point out we are not inculturated to think about space in time, rather to freeze our concept of space as if buildings will not adapt or change functions.
Which architects do you think consider time in their architecture?
Greg Brady
Oops...That was mike brady. Joke botched.
zumthor no question
not exactly an architect, but james turrell's work at roden crater has alignments with sun/stars so special stuff happens during the year
All of us with deadlines.... HEY-OH... rimshot!
Alison and Peter Smithson - other members of team 10...
wasn't the whole new brutalist movement was about creating buildings that would eventually be "beautiful ruins?"
pretty much anyone that you might call a phenomenologist... definitely zumthor as previously mentioned... i'd really recommend david leatherbarrow's new book "architecture oriented otherwise"...
Kahn, more than having an understanding of time, knew how to be timeless.
H&DM in the deYoung
... though I feel there's a difference between buildings that 'age' well and buildings that 'time' well. (not sure if that makes sense)
also Tadao Ando
in physics time is often only the intensities changes and many found out they do not need the variables of time to solve the problem... time is often an obstacles than a solution...
the issue is do time really exist? or merely intensity changes...
architects who "concern" the implication of time often take the conventional concept of time for granted.
corb was obsessed with time, wasn't he? or was that just watches?
When I mention time my biggest curiosity lies in how designers deal with the uncertainty of the future (if at all) – functions change with time, get combined with other functions and are sometimes even replaced as society and technology change and develop. The problem is intrinsic to the modernists underlying idea that functions must be located in space and have space that is somehow precisely adjusted to their needs (zones of activity/ zonal functional planning). The more precise a solution; the less adaptive.
How can we increase the capacity to accommodate change – without the obvious big box solution?
My understanding of the New Brutalist style included the expressive nature of space revealing the again specific functions designated to various spaces – most of which were criticized for being contextual eyesores disregarding the social and historic context. Does this style really lend itself to an evolving environment/ changing user demands and needs?
Lawson mentions the need for the view of architecture to be not as a work of art that is a sole creation of the architect, but as a dynamic, almost organic, extension of the everyday lives of inhabitants.
(e.g. Stewart Brand, N. John Habarkan)
OMA is always talking about future cities and buildings that adapt and change over time.
Lots of Japanese architecture confronts temporal change - weather and seasonal evolution. Check out Kevin Nute's book Place, Time and Being in Japanese Architecture. It's a fantastic book.
Almost every building confronts time and any decent designer thinks about it. The way materials age, the function of an open floor plan in an office building, solar orientation for passive heating and cooling, how light and shadows affect a space. Kahn would think about his buildings as future ruins.
Steven Holl is another phenomenologist who considers issues of time in his designs - especially the play of light.
and don't forget about the "landscape urbanists" and just straight-up landscape architects... just by the nature of landscape they have to be concerned with time...
i would say there are two camps as relates to time. there are the touchy feely architects like zumthor, siza, ando (most of the above mentioned; kahn probably being the grandfather of this group) who are really only obsessed with time in terms of decay. this group tends to be very much building focussed. how does the material change? some untenable notion of "timelessness" seems to be the ultimate goal for this type of architecture.
the second group is the "dutch guys," oma and company. they are far less building focussed, instead focussing on planning, program, and people. buildings participate in a much larger web of interaction with external circumstances. i would look at some of the writings of michael speaks on design intelligence and scenario planning to get a better idea of how this group works.
or my camp^^
jafidler -
I agree, and would say your two camps refer to the end of my last comment. I think the first group you mention which seems to be the primary way of interpreting my initial question is interested in the preservation of their object as a built entity, not as a space which accommodates the evolving demands of a dynamic environment (i.e. users, owners, society, technology).
This embraces (in my mind) a more traditional understanding of space as an abstract concept and not a behavioral phenomenon, and yet paradoxically assume that behavior will follow their predictions.
I'm unfamiliar with the writings of Speaks and will check out - thanks for the recommendation. There is also a publication that I recently came across called Time-based Architecture http://www.tba-int.com/
talkitect - Place, time, and being in Japanese Architecture is a great reference - thanks!
Who has the time to think bout time?!!
Yeah jafidler I think has hit on the two camps... the people interested in weathering and aging of buildings as it related to how the building is crafted to consider the affects of time... Poetry and light etc.also included here, more like *the sensory aspects of building*.
vs. time as program, like the ephemeral lived in aspects of buildings and how people operate in them, day by day, seasonally, and over years... More *the performance aspects of building*.
Does anyone have or know where I can find an electronic copy of the article in ARQ 6/02: "Theory was interesting…but now we have work" by Michael Speaks?
would be a big help :)
what about cinematic aspects ,image and time in relation to spaces in Tschumi etc. or even the "route architecturale" of le Corbusier?
Architects that hire planners... HI OHHHHHHHHHHHHH!
rsiii, email me for that article.
There is another set that has not been mentioned - those that are interested in parametrics. Hernan Diaz Alonso comes to mind, and 'Algorithmic Architecture' is an interesting book on it.
I think it might be said that 'scripting' deals with time on a case by case basis, where each design solution might be treated as something that can adapt to specific problems by outlining a set of common parameters, but it ultimately becomes fixed in time.
I have also worked on methods that can extend the notions of parametrics to time that exists outside of the 'final production' of the built artifact. Some examples include Niel Denari's Solar Clock in London, and the work of Wes Jones. There are numerous examples in Robert Kronenberg's books, like 'Flexible'. Also look at Jennifer Siegals' books on mobile architecture.
There are projects along these lines that are less based on form and more on surface and technology. Check out the book 'Responsive Environments', and firms like LoTek and SERVO.
Other investigations include work on adaptable dwellings, like Avi Freedman's 'Adaptable House', or even projects like the Schroder House.
Some great writing on 'speed' and urban shifts are Lars Lerup's 'After the City', Bergers 'Drosscape'. Mitchel Schwarzer's 'Zoomscape', and even 'All That Is Solid Melts Into Air'.
Someone mentioned landscape urbansim, take a look at James Corner, 'Taking Measures Accross the American Landscape', or 'The Landscape Urbanism Reader'. Stan Allen and Field Operations are great firms / websites to check out.
A few other thoughts - Potteries Thinkbelt, Archigram and the Walking City, Koolhaas and the LaVillete competition...
Interesting discussion. Thanks.
architects that generally design around nature instead of razing it out belong here, i think, people like vieira, ando, muro, zumthor, aalto, herzog, even wright initially (though i say this very gingerly since he was too arrogant to deal with the design/engineering concurrence, hence his buildings are falling apart now).
Trendy & squishy form oriented architects, while they make their mark on history are not prepared for the dyamics of the HUMANS who do have to use it (what use is a space you can't move in eh?). While i do admire the in your face impact of the design, its rather superficial...
all the good ones.
one of my (former) bosses always asked me to consider time in producing architecture. to the point where he asked me to produce my weekly timesheet on monday morning, and made sure i stuck to it. All the while he was busy considering money in architecture.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.