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