“LIMINAL ARCHITECTURE. THE PROJECT”
“draft”
graduation committee additional members
Laurens Jan ten Kate (mentor)
Jeroen van Mechelen
Alexey Boev
Ira Koers
Uri Gilad
KANIN
“3”
a “project” by
current architecture is a cult
“5”
cargo cult religionvoodoo practice architecturepropaganda
naivety hypocrisyfutility businessmanipulation
“presupposition”
current architecture must be stopped
current architecture is ignorant current architecture is hypocritical current architecture is superficial current architecture is vain current architecture is late current architecture is deceptive current architecture is wasteful current architecture is excessive
“7”
“direct action”
world changes faster than someone could comprehend it
“9” 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22century units “statistics”
new unknown architecture is coming
“11”
everything anything nothing unknowndigital
“presumption”
liminal architecture is a transition between current and new
no longer liminal not yet
liminal
/ˈlɪmɪn(ə)l/
from the Latin word līmen, meaning “a threshold”
1. relating to a transitional or initial stage of a process.
2. occupying a position at, or on both sides of, a boundary or threshold.
“13”
“definition”
the project is an example of liminal architecture
Media not displayed
This image has been removed in response to its meaningless
“15”
“new paradigm”
liminal architecture is non-referential
liminal architecture = art + science
liminal architecture = feelings + mind
liminal architecture = subjective + objective
liminal architecture = interpretation + facts
liminal architecture = biased + unbiased
liminal architecture = personal + universal
liminal architecture = sign + actuality
liminal architecture = meaning + content
“17”
“non-referencial”
liminal architecture is not conceived or perceived based on subjective, outdated values and principles
charming story inconceivable form balanced proportion indispensable motivation anew interpreted traditions elaborate detailing ingenious structure delicate materials spectacular light happy ambience
“19”
“amazing
representation” no more
vs.
vessels emptiness design purposevs.
Lao-Tzu “Tao Te Ching” chapter 11
“21”
“Shape clay into a vessel; It is the space within that makes it useful.”
“occam’s
razor”
different spaces contain different amount of materials/energy
m2
perimeter surface
m
m2
m + 11%
m2 36,5 m + 22%
m2 40,0 m + 29%
“23” 64,0
28,4
100% area
64,0
32,0
64,0
64,0
“basics”
different spaces possess different level of efficiency
production interconnection usability
no no yes
yes yes yes
yes no no
yes yes no
“25”
“basics”
global CO2 emissions by income group*
global CO2 emissions by region*
* Global Carbon Project, UN Population Division (2016)
“27” 5%
of population emits more than 18% of global CO2
“basics”
daily distance travelled per inhabitant in the Netherlands by transport modes*
daily distance travelled per person in the Netherlands by purpose and transport mode*
* ‘Smart about cities’ Maarten Hajer & Ton Dassen
“29”
sustainability = more of sustainable transport sustainability = less of transportation
“basics”
life-cycle CO2 emissions of electric and conventional vehicles*
global electricity production by source**
* the International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT) ** International Energy Agency (IEA)
“31”
sustainability = more of sustainable energy sustainability = less of energy usage/waste
“basics”
vs.
plastic paper glass metal
“33”
sustainability = more of sustainable construction sustainability = less of construction
“basics”
new sustainable transport no more new sustainable energy sources no more new sustainable urbanism no more new sustainable architecture no more new sustainable design no more sustainability no more
less transportation/commuting less energy usage/waste revitalize, reuse, remodel less construction less overproduction/overconsumption it is just common sense
“35”
“sustainability”
no more
liminal architecture is non-contextual
“37” “non-contextual”
developing inwards and skywards compact, efficient, self-sufficient coexistence of paradoxes tensegrity of contradictions place for people by people
urbanism”
“39” “insular
Manhattan is an ultimate urbanism
“41” 14st.3av. “ultimate urbanism”
the project is an element of insular urbanism on all scales
“43” 3rd
Avenue
E 14th Street
E 16th Street
Consolidated Edison Building
“location”
33% singles 40% couple without children NYC’s households by type* 11% single parent with children 16% couple with children studios 13% 1 bedroom 40% NYC’s apartments by type** 2 bedrooms 30% 3+ bedrooms 17% “choice” or “compulsion” supply rule the demand
“45” 8% extremely low income 12% very low income NYC’s households by income* 58% low income 11% moderate income 11% middle income under $500K 12% $500K-$1M 35% NYC’s apartments by price* $1M-$2M 27% $2M-$3M 11% over $3M 15% “compulsion” 88% of “poor” population versus 12% of “cheap” apartments
live further lack of time die young
or
what do you
“47” live smaller lack of space die alone or you prefer
“happy life
“49” in the city”
“live low not 2,8m 48m2 vs.
“51” not small” 2,1m 64m2 vs.
177,0 cm 2,1m 2,8m 0,0m height vs. 36,1%
“53” 163,0 cm vs. gender 39,3%
2,1m 2,8m
169,4183,4 Montenegro
169,4181,7
168 1
166,8182,0 Serbia
99 2
135 3
Bosnia and Herzegovina
166,8181,5 Sweden
168,0181,0
91 4
167,5181,3 Lithuania
167,2180,4
142 5
166,5180,4
181 6
Iceland
69 7
167,5180,8 Netherlands
115 8
Denmark
130 9
Croatia
167,2180,3 Czech Republic
86 10
167,4180,3 Slovenia
149 11
167,1179,7 Norway
164,8179,1
119 12
166,0179,0
161,5175,3
118 13
165,6179,4 Slovakia
155 14
97 15 population height
Estonia
Austria
3 31
United States
height vs. nationality/race
Russia
8
Bamgladesh
7
Nigeria
6
Brazil
5
Pakistan
8
Indonesia
2
158,0
1
India
China
“55”
169,5
64 152,6166,3
71 147,0158,0
83 153,9165,8
75 158,8170,7
53 157,8163,8
78 150,3162,1
122 164,1177,2
9 20 159,0172,0 Mexico 10 44 158,0172,0 Japan 11 43 158,1167,6 Ethiopia 12 121 151,8163,5 Philippines 13 80 158,9170,3 Egypt 14 57 152,2162,1 Vietnam 15 82 158,1172,3 USAsian Americans 5,9 % 163,4176,4 USAfrican Americans 13,4 % 158,7171,2 USHispanic & Latino Americans 18,5 % 164,5178,0 USNon-Hispanic Whites 60,3 % 159,5171,3 World Average nationality/race
personal care including sleep eating and drinking sport and leisure 43,5%44,6%78,3%95,2%95,8%100% household activities work-related activities purchasing goods and services 8.11h 5.45h 9.62h 2,1m 2,8m “height” vs. “daily
“57” 13,4%20,4%20,7%23,7% 8,0%10,5% caring for children telephone calls, mail, e-mail other activities religious and civic activities caring for adults educational activities 5,73h “daily activity”
sleeping 100% 8.84h watching television 77,9% 3.61h 23,7% caring for children 34,8% socializing and communication 3,4%(18,7%) work-related activities 7.60h 6,10% homework and research “height” vs. “inhome
“59” 19,3%34,6%59,7% food preparation housework and cleaning sports, exercise, recreation 20,4% other activities personal care 100% eating and drinking 95,8% “inhome activity”
sleeping 8,84h watching television 3,61h 2,06h caring for children 1,83h socializing and communication 7,60h work-related activities 3,13h homework and research height vs. temperature
“61” 1,59h1,54h1,00h food preparation housework and cleaning sports, exercise, recreation 1,35h other activities personal care 0,78h eating and drinking 1,23h temperature
256 units 32 floors 512-1024 inhabitants 250 units * 64m2 25 floors * 2,8m 250-500 inhabitants 80m “envelope”
“63” units * 64m2 floors * 2,1m inhabitants 350 units * 48m2 25 floors * 2,8m 350-700 inhabitants “envelope” 80m 80m
floor area internal volume structure volume partition volume finishing surface
-7% +20% -12% +78% +32% (+8%)
80m
floor area internal volume structure volume partition volume finishing surface
“resources”
area
volume
volume
-9% +18% -0,1% +57% +24% (+16%)
“65” 17981 m2 37760 m3 12927 m3 314 m3 57358 m2 floor
internal
structure
partition volume finishing surface
“resources” 80m 80m
64 m2 2.8m 179,2 m3 32,8 m 91,8 m2 floor area height volume perimeter surface floor area height volume perimeter surface “alternative”
m2
m
m
m
area height volume perimeter surface
m2
m
m
m
“67” 64
2.1m 134,4
3 32,0
67,2
2 48
2.8m 134,4
3 30,2
84,6
2 floor
“alternative”
“new day -
“69” new home”
“open vs. B K D LT S 32 m2 per person max. 40% in use
“71” plan” vs. B/L/D/S/K + B2/B3 T K 16 m2 per person min. 95% in use
“73”
front top
side
“bedstede”
“75” “daytime”
“77” “nighttime”
“79” “concealed kitchen”
the project is an open-source system to adapt to any demand
“81”
“open-source system”spatial lattice exchangeable infilling adjustable installations
decor bio-reactive facadephoto-voltaic panels
vertical garden media displaydichroic glass
“83”
stainless steel plasticietcork
wool carpet media displayaerogel glass panels
“exterior” / “interior”
the project is able to adjust its performance, structure, appearance
“85” “framework”
01 waste of heat/cold 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 sleeping 01 breakfast work/education 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 after hours 210C 210C 200C 190C 18 190C 180C 190C 180C 170C 160C 160C 160C 21210C 210C 160C 160C 160C160C 160C 160C home work
“87” heat/cold 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 evening activitieswork/education activities outside of the house 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 sleeping work and work related activities 0C 190C 180C 170C 160C 160C 160C 210C 210C 200C 210C 210C210C 210C 190C 180C 190C 180C 170C 210C 210C 200C 210C 210C210C 210C0C 210C after hours
“structure
work
home work
home work
home work
home work home
“89” “structure sharing”
“new day-
“91” new work”
“energy sharing”
work
home work
home work
home work
home work home
“93” sharing”
“95” “home”+”work”
fast access direct connection instant transision easy navigation expected result
“97”
“hierarchy of spaces” no more
“waste spaces” versus
“99” spaces” no more -25% GEA versus
of inbetween space
surplus of outdoor space
surplus - an amount of something left over when
1. 2. 3. 4. 0. 0. 0. 0. surplus
1. 1. 2. 3.
“surplus” *
requirements
“101” 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 1. 2. 3. 4. surplus of interior space 5. 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 surplus of usage 5. 4. 3. 2. 1. “surplus” no more have been met; an excess of production or supply over demand
the project is not a program composition but equal volumes for each of the three basic daily activities
“103” “program” no more 8 + 8 + 8 = 24h free time home work home work home work home work
the project is a self-sufficient urban element with variety of spaces for necessary program at a given time
“105” “free time”
12 1 3 5 11 10 8 7 "excess facade" "liminal facade" "generic facade" 1:300
FIRMITĀTIS.ŪTILITĀTIS.VENUSTĀTIS* stability.utility.beauty vs. NECESSITĀTIS.FACULTĀTIS.STATUS necessity.ability.status
“107”
* Vitruvius “identity” no more
+56.00
+53.55
+50.40
+47.95
+44.80
+39.20
+36.75
+3.15 +5.60 +8.75 +11.20 +14.35 +16.80 +19.95 +22.40 +25.55 +28.00 +31.15 +33.60
+42.35
+59.15 +61.60 +64.75 +67.20 +70.35 +72.80 +75.95 +78.40 +81.55 level 02 level 03 level 04 level 05 level 06 level 07 level 08 level 09 level 10 level 11 level 12 level 13 level 14 level 15 level 16 level 17 level 18 level 19 level 20 level 21 level 22 level 23 level 24 level 25 level 26 level 27 level 28 level 29 roof top street0.00 +7.00 floor 03 0.00 +2.80 floor 02 +11.20 floor 04 +15.40 floor 05 +19.60 floor 06 +23.80 floor 07 +28.00 floor 08 +32.20 floor 09 +36.40 floor 10 +40.60 floor 11 +44.80 floor 12 +49.00 floor 13 +53.20 floor 14 +57.40 floor 15 +61.60 floor 16 +65.80 floor 17 +70.00 floor 18 +74.20 floor 19 +78.40 floor 20 +82.60 floor 21 +86.80 roof street 1:200
“Illinois State Journal and Register” of Springfield, Illinois, 1948
“109”
“The really fine things of life are not things at all.”
“no identity” but “vitality”
the project is not a solution to problems, it is a symbol of solutions
“111” “symbol”
liminal architecture
non-referential non-contextual no identity no program no transition adaptive result driven maximal use
“113” “principles”
1:200 0 12 appendix
"level" 00
"street art square""neighborhood plaza"
"ground floor"
“street art plaza”
“neiborhood plaza”
"second hand shop"
"level"
"convenience store"
"floor"
03
04
"market
"floor"
"market square"
square"
04
"level"
05
“market plaza”
“balcony”
"indoor playground"
"daycare"
"floor"
06/05 "level" 08
"level"
"outdoor
"floor"
"skate park"
playground"
07/06
09
“daycare”
“skate park”
"spa
"level"
"swimming pool"
"floor"
center"
09/08
12
"stone
"floor"
"urban
garden"
garden"
10/09 "level" 13
“swimming pool”
“urban garden”
"boxing
"floor"
"gym"
club"
11 "level" 16
"sport
"level"
"sport plaza"
"floor"
plaza"
12
17
“boxing club”
“sport plaza”
"convention
center" "auditorium"
"floor" 14/13
"level" 20
"open-air gallery" "open-air cinema"
"floor" 15/14
"level" 21
“sport plaza”
“open-air cinema”
"reading club" "library" "floor" 17/16 "level" 24
"dune" "oasis" "floor" 18/17 "level" 25
“stone garden”
“oasis”
"food court" "restaurant" "floor" 19 "level" 28
"roof
garden" "roof terrace" "floor" 20 "level" 29
“food court”
“atrium”
current architecture is a cult
current architecture is ignorant current architecture is hypocritical current architecture is slow current architecture is lacking aspiration current architecture is misleading current architecture must be stopped new unknown architecture is coming new unknown architecture is intangible new unknown architecture targets not senses, but minds new unknown architecture serves people, not individuals new unknown architecture is a collaboration of experts new unknown architecture is fast new unknown architecture is unknown yet
liminal architecture is a transition between current and new
liminal architecture represents neither old nor new values, it is anthropocentric liminal architecture represents neither old nor new principles, it is reasonable liminal architecture represents neither old nor new perceptions, it is universal liminal architecture is non-referential and non-contextual liminal architecture is unbiased, objective, pure liminal architecture considers only basic fundamentals
the project is an example of liminal architecture
the project is an open-source system to adapt to any demand the project is able to adjust its performance, structure, appearance the project is able to adjust daily, seasonally, yearly the project has no identity, only vitality the project has no form, only a purpose the project is not a solution to problems, it is a symbol of solutions
the project is not sustainable no more new sustainable transport - do less transportation/commuting no more new sustainable energy sources - do less energy usage/waste no more new sustainable urbanism - revitalize, reuse, remodel no more new sustainable architecture - do less construction no more new sustainable design - do less overproduction/overconsumption no more sustainability - it is just common sense, not a feature
the project is an element of insular urbanism
insular urbanism is Manhattan, Singapore, Malé insular urbanism develops inwards and skywards insular urbanism is compact, efficient, self-sufficient insular urbanism is a place for people created by people insular urbanism is a coexistence of paradoxes, a tensegrity of contradictions insular urbanism is an ultimate urbanism
the project is an alternative reality, where everyone can afford to live in the city
two choices: to live in the city or to live in the countryside two choices: to live smaller or to live further two choices: to have a lack of space or to have a lack of time two choices: to be alone in the city or to have a family in the countryside two choices define the fate of a person and a whole generation two choices drive the supply, but do not satisfy the demand
live low, not small – pay for the volume not for the floor area
low ceiling height equals more floor surface to live or work low ceiling height equals less of construction materials low ceiling height equals less energy to heat or cool low ceiling height is an approach with no wasteful infills, only useful emptiness low ceiling height is a process of reinventing the space, its qualities and boundaries low ceiling height is an example of an open mind architecture
the truly open plan is a new best open plan
the truly open plan is open to every possibility the truly open plan is living in the center and life-support on every side the truly open plan is the maximum space for each single activity the truly open plan is the flexible isolation for multiple activities the truly open plan serves equally one person and a family of four the truly open plan turns the routine of existence into the art of living the project is not a machine for living, but the frame for the life
live + work + free time is a self-sufficient urban element live + work + free time is a model of sharing structure, energy, circulation live + work + free time is a model of sharing the vibe within a programmatic variety live + work + free time is a model of sharing and dividing between private and public live + work + free time is a model of non-forced human interaction live + work + free time is a model of life with fewer constraints
27 01 2022