MAIN IDEAS SUMARY:
1) Architects should Learn from tree structures organization, and nature.
2) We should remove all the impurities form our buildings.
3) It’s difficult to combine “good architecture” and economical factors.
4) Architecture should be done for people, not only for architects.
QUESTION: What kind of elements should architects take into account, to create good architecture with “economical solutions” which could be interesting for builders, politics, and users at the same time?
Towards a Hyperspace
Advancement essentially requires a point of reference. This I believe can be derived with a deep understanding of the past, challenges of the present and needs of the future.
A human being is fundamentally yet another living organism in nature, which to a large extent has adapted itself to the various force and elements within nature. Dubbed the “superior being” man has since time immemorial developed methods of sustaining himself by means of a symbiotic existence within nature. In the recent past however, this relationship was disrupted owing to various socioeconomic changes as well as technological advancements which brought about an utopia of “boxed comfort”. Over the years, this box has in turns produced a being that is inseparable from technology but at the same time one that has been undernourished due its disassociation with nature. Given this context, I believe advanced architecture stepped in to bridge this gap and continues to evolve towards achieving a symbiotic relationship with today’s high-tech being and his natural environment.
Text analysis:-
Talking about “Conditioned Outdoor room” or gardens Rudofsky stresses on the need to adapt to nature and not isolate oneself from it. In his text he describes how the importance and functions of a house garden has changed over the history, taking examples of Pompeii to Japanese garden to lawns in an average north American house. He portrays gardens as a kind of in-between space; between the built(man-made) and the un-built(natural) environments where Man can be at his comfortable level with both. He delineates the possibility of using gardens as a buffer to harsh climate through an environmental relationship with the house and the outdoor. The advantages of positional relationship of “enclosing” garden walls with that of house and a metaphorical relationship(in terms of function) of a less celebrated “non-utilitarian” wall with that of a tree are a few other insights of the text. This text however, completely overlooks the reality that today man is inseparable from technology which for the most part is at conflict with nature. This brings the need for a more holistic definition of “conditioned outdoor room” the relation perhaps could be a disturbed one. Also the inevitable questions; if such a “room” is possible in every dwelling given today’s urban congestion,pollution and price of land.
House study:-
In more recent projects such as Studio House (by F451 Arquitectura),although the idea of a definite “conditioned outdoor room” as suggested by Rudofsky’s relatively older text is absent, nevertheless the concept of using natural environment to attain human comfort is evident. The building, through its functional organization, orientation and location on site is in an environmental relationship with its surrounding. The building, like a well adapted living organism cuts on the loss, stores and takes advantage of the available energy by being partially underground, through storage of rainwater and use of North lights respectively.
Conclusion:
As a possible conclusion we should rather strive to incorporate the effect or benefits of a “conditioned outdoor room” in a human habitat rather than get fixated purely on the more primitive idea of a “garden” itself.
The notion of a “hyperspace” where human beings, nature and technology does not merely coexist but forms a symbiotic relation with each other.
Possible Research topic:
To explore if human relationship with environment is possible in a so called “extreme/harsh environment” taking into consideration technological advancement and if so, to what extent could this relationship be symbiotic.
”Is North-America inhabitable?” Rudofsky believed that the contemporary American house and lifestyle is wrong and suggested that comfort and human satisfaction had been sacrificed for the sake of modernism’s aesthetic and ideological aims. According to Rudofsky, the amenities of modern life have fostered the belief that we have conquered the inconveniences of our climate. Read More
The reading by Sou Fujimoto- The primitive caves talks about the natural process of evolution of architecture, with two elements from the nature that have played a big role in the evolution of architecture.
He starts by distinguishing Caves and Nest to be two elements from nature which have a total opposite ideology to each other, where caves are the fluid spaces where the planning and spaces come out according to the need and the use of the space changes over time. whereas on the other hand a space like a nest which is very rigid in its planning and has a very definitive form and shape.
Read More
Will always bee human been, is jus a fact, no matter how much we developed we will have to find the way of not been trapped in these new idea of contemporary explorations and isolation of humans without nature, it has to be either the other way around, or will be just in a war trying to play against nature, after reading the Conditioned outdoor room by Rudofsky, there’s something that most of humanity including in a very important space architects we had avoid or maybe just ignored the fact that technology has giving us the tools to create whatever we want , we can be able to alternate in all the ways that we want the climate in a indoor place , but that’s something we may question ourselves. If we have all the tools to improved the living in spaces, why can we just make a interconnection with what the nature has given to us in other to improve with the technology the things we have missed, in other to give humanity the interrelation it’s needed with nature, and not try to abolished this connection with simulations if we already have it? These kind of questioning are the one we should work on in order to produce spaces imaginable, to create a source of invitation to be always in relationship with any kind of activity we have with the environment that its surrounding, and just make it to be always related to our activities: eat, sleep, sex, conversations, work, play, read, cook, etc. We don’t need a division of what’s nature as an outdoor idea to just hang some hours, and later on go inside to have some kind of privacy, nature itself should be privacy and liberty at the same time.
Another point of discussion Is how Rudofsky presents his concerned about the Pilgrims, how they immigrate to another unknown place, with different climates, and conditionings of living, in order to “adapt” itself to a unknown environment and just alternated in a space “capable” for them to live, and we have been seeing this for decades, just breaking the bond of environment with space.
Rudofsky also mention another example , is how Pompeii was from the first beginning design to use it climates in other to create space fro acceptable accommodations , but the thing is we still see how we can use our environment in some parts of the day but we are still divided bye these idea that is just for a while and then we just refugee in our “home” just declining the existence and trying label our activities without integrating the nature itself to all of these.
So, may doubt is , are going to be able to just use nature all the time as apart of our all activities and not been just quantifying and qualifying our time spent with our environment itself ? as human been these should be something that comes just along our concerned and humanity itself had created in a unknown way separation that from the beginning should never been there
