Ambiguity and Dynamism

Cars move, buildings generally don’t. Dynamism is a quality generally reserved for things that move. Here’s a definition:

1. the quality of being characterized by vigorous activity and progress.

--

Which is why when dynamism is applied to architecture, it generates interest just as two juxtaposing words with contrasting meanings and intent are brought together (oxymoron). I can recall some memorable ones that have stuck with me throughout my life:

• Organized mess

• Living Saint

• Airline food

This is not to say that buildings do not move at all. In fact, there are many elements of a building that do move. The most obvious ones are doors and windows, followed by larger and more complex components such as elevators. If one can look beyond the finished surfaces, one would also see duct work and piping transporting all kinds of energy and fluids. One could even be metaphysical and think about the self and other people as entities moving through a building, contributing to the life of the building.

The type of dynamism generally not seen in a building is the same level of dynamism found and regularly expected of a functioning car. Cars are designed to move, to carry a person from point A to point B. Its inherent purpose is movement and dynamism. Its form is a derivation of this primary function coupled with ideas of aerodynamics.

However, a Google search for “dynamic architecture” also reveals some interesting results.

The most prominent of these seem to be the Dynamic Tower, though one can only imagine the infrastructure and energy required to rotate each floor.

Dynamic Tower by David Fisher, https://gizmodo.com/dynamic-tower-skyscraper-every-floor-self-rotates-pow-5019323

--

Here is another link that present different types of smaller projects with dynamic features: https://weburbanist.com/2016/05/04/dynamic-architecture-13-buildings-with-moving-parts/

Some of the dynamic attributes of the projects listed in the article above include moveable facades, rotational capabilities, and ideas designed around solar properties that lead to changes in form. I would argue that the coolest of these is probably the Falkirk Wheel, though it’s technically more infrastructure than architecture.

Falkirk Wheel by RMJM, https://weburbanist.com/2016/05/04/dynamic-architecture-13-buildings-with-moving-parts/3/

--

Walking City by Archigram also brings to mind some of the endeavours of the mid 1960’s of a dynamic type of architecture, albeit in a more utopian, visionary way.

Walking City by Archigram, http://www.moma.org/media/W1siZiIsIjExNTUwIl0sWyJwIiwiY29udmVydCIsIi1yZXNpemUgMjAwMHgyMDAwXHUwMDNlIl1d.jpg?sha=fc8067208137e29b

--

However, the pursuit of a dynamic architecture includes more than buildings that literally move. This idea can also be pursued metaphorically. A building that appears to move may still be a legitimate and noteworthy enterprise and ambition. This has bred a series of buildings that have the appearance of movement, through embodying the contradiction between the building surfaces’ seemingly free-flowing appearance with its actual, solid material makeup, the use of materials such as fiber reinforced plastic or GFRC. On a side note, one might argue that the visual interest comes more from the curved forms themselves, rather than the curved forms appearing to be materially light. This is debatable. Regardless, the visual quality or appearance presents a frame capture of a suggested moving sequence by a fluid body, which evokes a sensational and phenomenal response.

Zaha Hadid’s Jockey Club Innovation Tower in Hong Kong is one such example:

Jockey Club Innovation Tower, Hong Kong (photo by author)

Jockey Club Innovation Tower, Hong Kong (photo by author)

[Project description below]

“...The [Jockey Club Innovation Tower] creates a new urban space that enriches the diversity of university life and expresses the dynamism of an institution looking to the future. Located on a narrow, irregular site at the northeastern tip of the university campus (bordered by the university’s football ground to the south, and the Chatham Road / Kowloon Corridor motorway interchange to the north), the [Jockey Club Innovation Tower] is connected to the heart of the campus; encouraging the university’s various faculties and schools to develop multidisciplinary initiatives and engagement with the community, government, industry, NGO’s and academia.

The [Jockey Club Innovation Tower] design dissolves the typical typology of the tower/podium into a more fluid composition. Interior and exterior courtyards create informal spaces to meet and interact, complementing the large exhibition forums, studios, theatre and recreational facilities…” Note 1.

Interestingly enough (or maybe not), the words “dynamism” and “fluid” are used in the project description, though “dynamism” is used rather metaphorically to describe the state of the institution itself and not of any formal properties. The ambiguity behind the different possible meanings of these words allow the rationalization of the morphological moves that define building’s final form, justified or not. Nevertheless, the use of words such as “dynamism” and “fluid”, words generally associated with cars, are used to describe a building.

--

I had the fortunate opportunity to experience the building via different means of transportation, and I would argue that the most legitimate way to experience the building is driving along the adjacent highway which encircles the building. At a high enough speed, one could grasp the dynamic nature of the building’s form and the animation of its facade, an experience similar to spinning a complex, curvilinear digital model.

Inside the building, there was a communal poster board with commentary from the students protesting how impractical the building’s internal spaces are, but that’s besides the point here.

--

The metaphorical dynamism in building form can also appear in other ways. The method described previously illustrates a visual personification of movement: the building appears to move given the selection of material and form. Another method would be a psychological personification of movement.

This other “dynamism” is not suggested through the surface quality or by any inherent paradoxes between form and material, but rather expressed through the ambiguity in the reading and comprehension of the building.

Ambiguity is a term that is often thrown around in architecture school and discourse. Sometimes, ambiguity and the lack of clarity is a bad thing. It leads to unclear drawings, often a result of poor adherence to representational standards.

On the contrary, ambiguity can also be a good thing. I recall a time as a graduate student instructor in a studio course, when images produced for an assignment of a cropped black and white drawing exercise brought forth many realistic charcoal drawings, though the ones that were most interesting were those that focused less on a hyper realistic rendering, but rather contained a graphic, ambiguous quality.

This following image was also shown during a lecture of that same studio course:

Figure - Ground sketch of Aires Mateus’ House of the Serra de Mira de Aire. Note 2.

This image was used as an example illustrating ideas of figure - ground and the multiple readings that were present. Ambiguity, in this case, is used as a discursive and explanatory method and also expand the possibilities in the reading and comprehension of an image.

Another ambiguity is found in the following image based on Francis Ching’s diagram sketch:

Sequence drawings based on Francis Ching’s diagrams in Architecture: Form, Space, and Order (redrawn/reinterpreted by author). Note 3.

Here, a sequence of diagrams in conjunction illustrate the possibility of understanding the third drawing as composed methodically of either two, long boxes joined in union (second drawing), or a small box subtracted from a larger box (first drawing). The possibility that either method behind the first two images could have created the third image presents ambiguity, a shifting in the how the mind perceives the inception of the third image. This shifting embodies the second definition of dynamism as described here. It is not a dynamism of suggested, literal movement of shapes or forms, but movement within the mind of the shifting perception towards the methodology or formal construct of the given shape or form.

SANAA’s Vitra Factory Building exemplifies this idea: https://www.archdaily.com/363581/factory-building-on-the-vitra-campus-sanaa

Vitra Factory Building, Weil am Rhein (photo by author)

Vitra Factory Building, Weil am Rhein (photo by author)

[Project description below]

“...For the design of the hall we proposed a round shape and thus offer an alternative to the present tradition of rectangular factory buildings on site. The shape and position of the hall relate to the logistical flow of goods on site: it has no front or back, leaving it to be explored from all directions.

As free the outline of the building is, as calm and organized is its interior: the different areas, racks and goods are carefully arranged according to a strict logistical concept. The main structure exists of 9.5 m high, thin steel columns, with the main I-girders and trusses spanning 22.8 by 17.5 meters. The steel structure was optimized to a maximum, by taking advantage of the circular concrete facade to brace and stabilize the building.” Note 4.

Interestingly enough, SANAA’s Vitra Factory Building was designed and constructed during the same time period as Zaha’s Jockey Club Innovation Tower, which further makes the comparison between them even more interesting:

Jockey Club Innovation Tower (Zaha Hadid): 2007-14

Vitra Factory Building (SANAA): 2006-12

As with the first building, the basis of analysis is on the form, facade and surface. With the Vitra Factory Building, the basis is rather an examination of the floor plan. If one examines the plan, one can see that the plan isn’t a circle as suggested in the project description, but also not a totally arbitrary curve (see below):

Vitra Factory Building diagrams. Note 5.

Vitra Campus Plan. #9 refers to the Vitra Factory Building. Note 6.

The viewer’s mind would need to work to grasp how the layout was produced and the methodology behind the outline. The circle jumps out, but also jumps away, replaced with something eerily recognizable. Symmetry and alignments don’t seem to be distinct features, though the layout does appear to be logically conceived. What kind of curves were used? How were the different curvatures resolved? Are these simply arcs with different radii? What was the logic behind those curves? What was the placement of the control points? It is this kind of dynamic reading that keeps the eye lingering and the mind working, causing the dynamic nature of the project to come out.

--

There probably isn’t an objective basis to determine whether one type of “dynamic” design philosophy is better than the other. To do so would be akin to objectively argue that “flat” design is better than “material” design (or vice versa), though there is no space to explore that discussion here.

However, this discussion could illustrate one of the ways that ambiguity is of great value, as it engages the mind beyond mere visual intake. It requires a little more digging, using our eyes of course, but also forcing us to work and think. It does not hand it to us, nor does it spoon feed us, but ultimately makes us look and long for deeper.

--

Note 1: Zaha Hadid Architects. Jockey Club Innovation Tower. http://www.zaha-hadid.com/architecture/jockey-club-innovation-tower/

Note 2: Lo, Adrian. (2012, August 19). Formal Analyses: Two Houses by Aires Mateus & Associados [Web blog post]. https://architecturality.wordpress.com/tag/aires-mateus/

Note 3: Ching, Francis D. K. Architecture: Form, Space, and Order. John Wiley & Sons, 2007.

Note 4: “Vitra Factory Building.” SANAA: Kazuyo Sejima, Ryue Nishizawa, 2011-2018, by Kazuyo Sejima and Nishizawa Ryūe, A.D.A. Edita, 2018, pp. 122–125.

Note 5: Ibid., p. 122.

Note 6: Vitra Campus General Plan. From “Factory Building on the Vitra Campus / SANAA, ArchDaily. Accessed 2019, February 3. <https://www.archdaily.com/363581/factory-building-on-the-vitra-campus-sanaa/> ISSN 0719-888

An Architect’s Assimilation of Another Architect’s Architecture

To be completely honest, I have no idea how to start a blog post, particularly the very first one of hopefully many. I searched the definition of “blog” on the dictionary, and this is what I found:

blog | bläɡ | noun

a regularly updated website or web page, typically one run by an individual or small group, that is written in an informal or conversational style. verb (blogs, blogging, blogged) [with object] write about (an event, situation, topic, etc.) in a blog: he blogged the Democratic and Republican national conventions as an independent.

How many Independents are there that blog on both the Democratic and Republican national conventions (presumably without bias)? I’d love to read that blog. Which brings up another random thought...what would a politically charged dictionary look like? Can dictionaries be totally free of all biases? That’s probably a discussion for another time.

I think this blog exists as an informal reflection on the contemporary and past architectural, building and design culture, mixed in sporadically with historical and religious references. It would probably have the feel akin to an open journal.

So perhaps it’s fitting to start journaling about the present and discover ties to the past and how it can also inform the future. Specifically, I’ve been thinking about the connection between architectural history, historical buildings and its implication to a contemporary architectural and design career.

By the way, in case you are curious, here is the dictionary definition of “journal”:

journal | ˈjərnl | noun

1 a newspaper or magazine that deals with a particular subject or professional activity: medical journals | [in names] :  the Wall Street Journal.

2 a daily record of news and events of a personal nature; a diary. • Nautical a logbook.

--

One is always presented with multiple attitudes towards architectural history. It can be sentimalized (Neoclassicism / Preservationism), it can be ignored (Modernism), or it can be ridiculed (Postmodernism)...and that ridicule can also experience revival (Neo-Postmodernism).

As we live in what I believe to be an age where fast image culture, personal expression and #DIFTI reign supreme, the words of a relatively (compared to the avant-gardists of today) conservative architect named Rafael Moneo struck a nerve within me:

Experience is barely taken into account in the education of an architect. Furthermore, that which was circumstantial in modern architects has become the norm; architects do not accept the contents of experience and they reject introducing into their own works what other colleagues have previously achieved, seeking originality at any cost - originality for which society patently pays a high price. Note 1

Evidently, Moneo critiques the tendencies of a prominent design attitude present in architectural discourse, a design mindset that perhaps is viscerally championed by his fellow Pritzker laureates (Zaha Hadid and Frank Gehry come to mind.)

An author writes of Moneo:

Moneo believes architects should have a deep knowledge of history, and this allows them to make use of solutions that have already been thought through and tested by their predecessors.

An examination of Rafael Moneo’s own buildings reveals numerous elements already ‘tested’ in the long history of architecture. Note 2

To be clear, Moneo is a creative and expressive individual. Not all that he does is a direct derivative of what’s been done before. Rather, what’s significant about Moneo is his sound acknowledgement of architectural history and buildings that inform him of adequate strategies to be utilized in light of a building and design problem. For him, building and architecture is not and should not be arbitrary...rather, those elements and design strategies that have been tested through time are the ones worthy of replication and re-adaptation. Thus, he argues, the need to have a solid grasp of architectural history and the development of a critical eye towards the built environment.

Precisely how Rafael Moneo “tests” is the prime focus of this reflection and writing, and there is no better way to understand Moneo’s writing than in parallel examination with his own architecture. Thus, I will look at two buildings, the Great Mosque of Cordoba (an ancient monument which Moneo writes extensively about) and the Museum of Roman Art at Merida (one of Moneo’s seminal pieces of work).

If you are unfamiliar with either (or both) pieces of work, here are some good primers:

Mosque of Cordoba:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosque%E2%80%93Cathedral_of_C%C3%B3rdoba

Museum of Roman Art, Merida:

https://www.archdaily.com/625552/ad-classics-national-museum-of-roman-art-rafael-moneo

This examination will also include excerpts from two separate texts, both by Moneo. One text is an essay written by himself, “The Life of Buildings”, where he writes about the unearthing of formal principles of buildings, using the Mosque (Cordoba) as an example. Note 3. The other text is a description of the methodology and process used in designing the Museum of Roman Art (Merida) found in his own monograph, “Remarks on 21 Works”. Note 4.

Three major topics are explored between the two buildings: Construction, Spatial Definition, and Coexistence with a Historical Past. Excerpts pertaining to the Mosque of Cordoba will be followed by excerpts pertaining to the Museum of Roman Art at Merida, with emphasis on certain key phrases and words to highlight similarities and “tested” design attributes. Furthermore, relevant photos of the two spaces will be compared.

--

Construction:

On Cordoba:

The reason why we talk about walls when describing the mosque is perhaps because these are identified, metaphorically, with aqueducts. So we see how, in the Mosque of Cordoba, a system of walls, that drains rainwater at the same time that it spans over the internal space, becomes an element of special interest as the walls accept, with naive literality, their condition as aqueducts.

On Merida:

...we decided to use a quasi-Roman construction method, applying techniques and procedures not unlike those of the builders who had worked on the site long before us.

The point of departure for the museum was a well known building procedure involving a system of parallel bearing walls that solved both the structural and drainage issues. This system was developed by the Romans with countless variations was later used as a model in both Muslim and Gothic architecture.

Top: Mosque of Cordoba (photo by author), Bottom: Museum of Roman Art, Merida (courtesy of Rafael Moneo)

Spatial Definition

On Cordoba:

“However, once we take into account the thickness of those parallel walls, then we can read the semicircular arches defined by them as a series of continuous vaults; a new direction is thus introduced, parallel to the qibla.”

On Merida:

...in the dialectic established between the transverse layout of the walls and the longitudinal sequence created by the voids produced by the arches, a space emerged to frame the fragments so carefully...The space is the result of digging, of hollowing out the static wall system with a series of voids that bring movement to the space.

This procedure created the perception of a virtual nave solely defined by the arches, since the structural elements that brace the walls - the concrete slabs - are formally separate from it. Therefore, the virtual nave emerges as an abstract, intangible space that is only shaped by the geometry of the arches...

Left: Mosque of Cordoba (photo by author), Right: Museum of Roman Art, Merida (courtesy of Rafael Moneo)

Coexistence with a Historical Past

On Cordoba:

We have thus reached a point in which it is possible to state that the formal principles of the Mosque of Cordoba were so clearly established from the beginning and were, in addition, so decisive, that the later extensions of the building did not lead to its radical transformations. The future life of a building is implied in the formal principles that are present in its origin, and this is why understanding these gives us clues for understanding the building’s history.”

On Merida:

...the new museum became the latest component in the building continuum on the site, the most recent episode in its history. The new museum was being treated as an instrument, as a “machine” - to quote the terminology used in the past...that enabled us to see all the layers, all the different Meridas contained in the site...highlight a Merida that was not only written memory, but quite the opposite; a buried presence with which the new construction would coexist.

Left: Mosque of Cordoba (photo by author), Right: Museum of Roman Art, Merida (courtesy of Rafael Moneo)

--

The same exact study can be done on Moneo’s other projects, as he is known to have taken elements from Louis Kahn’s works and the Sir John Soane. Note 5. Reading further in depth into Moneo’s works, it is apparent that Moneo’s interpretation of the Mosque’s design strategies and mindset has also been applied to other Moneo’s own projects, particularly in his depiction of the design process of the Thyssen-Bornemisza Museum. Note 6.

Perhaps this methodology may appear a bit too constrictive, but it definitely gives reason to be much more thoughtful about the organization and experience of buildings through a thorough study of past architectural works. It is absurd to think that the creators of the Ferrari totally neglected the design of previous generations of racecars before them, or that the latest tech start-ups have no comprehensive understanding of the various establishments they are trying to disrupt.

Conversely, why must architectural history and the study of buildings past be relegated into an antiquated field in favor of formal experimentations, which are often driven by amoral technological advances and perhaps even anxieties of the expressive creativity experienced by other design fields?

Note 1: Gonzalez de Canales, F. Ray, N. (2015) Rafael Moneo: Building, Teaching, Writing. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. p. 195.

Note 2: Ibid., p. 197.

Note 3: Ibid., p. 266-284.

Note 4: Moneo, R. (2010) Remarks on 21 Works. New York, NY: The Monacelli Press. p. 103-134. 

Note 5: Gonzalez de Canales, Ray, Rafael Moneo: Building, Teaching, Writing, p. 198.

Note 6: Moneo, Remarks on 21 Works, p. 311-342.