Morphological Principles: Current Kinetic Architectural Structures Carolina M. Stevenson University of Liverpool
Biography Dr. Carolina Stevenson is an architect and lecturer at the University of Liverpool, UK. She has ten years of experience researching the topic of kinetic architecture. Her book entitled Kinetic Architecture: designing with movement is due to be published by Birkhäuser in 2011. She is the author of Arquitectura Metamorfica (2000) and has written numerous articles for architecture books and journals. Her PhD at the University of Nottingham was concerned with the study and development of the swivel diaphragm: a retractable mechanism, which showed potential for architectural applications. She has won various international awards due to her work in kinetic architecture including the Hangai Prize, international contest of research papers and innovative ideas organized by the IASS, Taiwan (2003).
International Adaptive Architecture Conference, Building Centre, London, March 2011: C. M. Stevenson
1
Morphological Principles of Current Kinetic Architectural Structures Carolina M. Stevenson Liverpool School of Architecture, Leverhulme Building, Abercromby Square, University Liverpool, Liverpool, L69 7ZN. Tel: +44 (0)151 794 2341 E-mail: bernal@liverpool.ac.uk Abstract: Innovations in computer technology and materials have lead to an unprecedented shift towards kinetic and responsive structures designed to react to ever-changing demands. However, the exponential way in which technology advances nowadays makes objects and equipment such as computers, mobile phones, cars, etc, become obsolete very quickly. Architectural components that rely on advanced technology can also become out-of-date even before they are implemented. Hence, the challenge for designers is to successfully integrate them within their projects without becoming just temporary gimmicks. The key for this may be in recognizing where the need for kinetic and responsive building structures comes from, what the possible systems are and how they can be implemented in architecture. Within this context, this paper is an attempt to identify fundamental morphological characteristics of kinetic architectural structures related to the design of the transformation and the ways used to arrange and co-ordinate the various elements in the composition to achieve a desirable whole. It introduces the topic with a brief overview of the evolution of kinetic and responsive building structures and cites pioneer built examples and visionary projects that have, and continue to, set important mile stones in their development. The aim of the paper is not to standardize or enlist all systems available or to meticulously describe their technical details; but to highlight existing and emerging typologies and their foremost formal characteristics. Key Words: kinetic, deployable, interactive, transformable, movable. Evolutionary overview Historically, architectural structures that incorporated motion have been of great interest for engineers, architects and designers. For centuries, kinetic devices have been repeatedly used as architectural components; from traditional hinged windows, sliding doors and shutters to innovative fully portable dwellings, folding bridges and entirely adaptable structures. The evolution of kinetic architecture has by no means been linear or straightforward. It has been steered in different directions, advanced, accustomed and matured over time as a result of complex social-cultural circumstances, progress in technology and changes in physical environments and human biological needs. There are a number of identifiable decisive periods that have shaped the advancement of this type of architecture; periods of cumulative advancement and periods of revolutionary transition. Early historical precedents of kinetic architectural structures can be traced back to ancient foldable and portable nomadic shelters, such as the North American tepees, Mongolian yurts and African Berber tents. Nomadic architecture was not built to physically last, it often had to be repaired and replaced. However, the skills and techniques for their construction were passed, advanced and refined from generation to generation. With the advent of sedentism, the creation of settlements and population growth; architecture by definition took the roll to be permanent, to serve a purpose over an indefinite 1 period of time and to eternally freeze an isolated fragment of history . As more complex permanent architecture proliferated, subsidiary kinetic structures emerged as common features embedded within buildings. These primarily served functions that permanent features could not satisfy. A well know historic example is the vela, velarium or velum, built for theatres and coliseums during the Roman Empire to provide temporary sun-shade for spectators. As buildings increased in height, the demand International Adaptive Architecture Conference, Building Centre, London, March 2011: C. M. Stevenson
2
for different types of vertical circulation to lift people and loads between floors increased; resulting in the invention of a range of kinetic subsidiary devices operated by mechanical means. During the industrial revolution of the 19th century these and other kinetic devices attached to buildings, such as rolling blinds, louvers, foldable shutters, revolving partitions, foldable canopies and collapsible parasols, became commercially popular. Although, examples of architecture that could be described as kinetic can be traced back many centuries, academic research on kinetic architecture as a distinct subject is comparatively recent. Theoretical framework on kinetic architecture began to appear within early modernist architecture. The largely conceptual, utopian and experimental work of this period aimed to harmoniously integrate human happiness, mobility and environment. Visionary intellectuals, such as Bruno Taut, Hermann Finsterlin, Frederick Kiesler and Richard Buckminster Fuller believed that design and technology could transform society and ultimately the world. They, in particular, had a great impact in moulding kinetic architecture as a defined area of study. The pinnacle of this theoretical work came with the 2 European radical Avant-Garde movement of the 1960s and 1970s . The idealistic projects of groups such as Archigram, Utopie Group, Haus-Rucker Co., Super Studio and Archizoom unleashed the intellectual discussion behind the dynamism and freedom of the new world. It lit a bonfire in the collective imagination of the world and planted the seeds for many trends of unconventional architecture that pursued mobility and freedom of the mind and body within its architecture; in so doing experimenting with kinetic, expendable, inflatable, pneumatic, transportable, adaptable and movable structures. William Zuk and Roger Clark were amongst the first academics to describe kinetic architecture as ‘one that has the capability of adapting to change through kinetics’, in their 3 book titled Kinetic Architecture, published in 1970 . When kinetic architecture started to be intellectually acknowledged as being divergent from traditionally bodily-static architecture a new type began to take shape. The second half of the 20th century witnessed a rapid increase in the number of architectural projects that included dominant kinetic components, driven by new particular requirements. Oil crises and the growing awareness of climate change, for example, prompted the design of kinetic façades, which regulate internal climate conditions in unison with external environmental changes, thus reducing the 4 energy consumption for heating and cooling . Economic pressures to use sport and entertainment venues to their full potential urged the construction of large retractable roofs to cover spaces where a 5 variety of outdoor and indoor activities could be performed . Advances in technology and the development of new materials triggered alternative proposals for transportable-collapsible buildings targeting emergency housing, commerce, industry, education, healthcare and military applications. Furthermore, architectural postmodernism fetched unorthodox ideals on user-space-context interfaces which engendered the emergence of responsive architecture able to use feedback in order 6 to react to changes . Models of feedback ranged from direct human manipulation to total automation aided by the integration of advanced computer technology. Since the work of Zuk and Clark, a wide variety of classifications of kinetic architecture have emerged. Some of them concentrate on the structural aspects of the devices used to attain and transmit the 7 movement. For example, Levy and Luebkeman propose a classification that emphasizes on the deployment technology used to achieve movement in certain deployable structures. Hanaor and 8 Levy suggests a further classification that not only looks at the structural kinematic properties of deployable structures, which are closely related to deployment technology, but also at some 9 10 11 morphological aspects. Other such as Escrig and Valcarcel , Pellegrino and Guest , Gantes , and 12 Langbecker , look at further structural characteristics of the mechanisms and components of kinetic structures used in engineering and architecture, which can serve to classify them. Other classifications cover singular only kinetic architectural components. An example of this is Frei Otto’s matrix to classify convertible roofs, which distinguishes between rigid constructions and flexible International Adaptive Architecture Conference, Building Centre, London, March 2011: C. M. Stevenson
3
13
membrane constructions and highlights various possible directions of movement . Similar considerations are taken by Schumacher, Schaeffer and Vogt, who classify typologies of movement in 14 15 includes a rigid building elements and deformable building elements . Furthermore, Ishii classification of retractable roof systems subdivided into sliding, pivoted, folding, expandable and combined systems, according to the opening and closing method used. There are also taxonomies that consider mainly the way in which kinetic structures are arranged. Fox, for instance, proposes a classification that separates kinetic structures into three general categories: embedded kinetic structures (which exist within a larger architectural whole in a fixed location), deployable kinetic structures (which exist in a temporary location and are easily transportable) and dynamic kinetic structures (which exist within a larger architectural whole but act independently with respect to control 16 of the larger context) . Kinetic architecture of the 21st century is found in a context enriched by historical references, which are at the same time mixed but with the inherent characteristic of movement and transformation that makes them comparable. To my knowledge, there is no yet a concluding definition that sets fixed boundaries to kinetic architecture. Hence buildings with kinetic components can be found referenced with terms such as dynamic, deployable, transformable, adaptable, adaptive, flexible, collapsible, retractable, foldable or portable. I personally like to use the term kinetic, which derives from the Greek word κίνησις (kinesis) that indicates motion, movement or the act of moving. This paper adopts this term in response to the need or desire to describe and analyse a number of varied precedents organized under an architectural type. The goal here is not to outline a rigid set of rules defining a type or to reclassify existing typologies, but to understand the broadest possible nature of kinetic architecture as well as making distinctions and establishing relationships between existing models. Morphological considerations This work has opted for a morphological approach that primarily identifies formal characteristics that arise independently, to a certain extent, from physical functions. The morphological aspects of kinetic architectural structures considered here are related to the design of the transformation and the ways used to arrange and co-ordinate the various elements in the composition to achieve a desirable whole. This is an attempt to delineate recurring themes and typologies beneath a variety of buildings with common characteristics that identify them as kinetic. This paper takes the Quatremere de Quincy perspective where type is a priori which can be further transformed by the designer to fit the 17 requirements of the brief allowing for innovation on the basis of a tradition . This embraces changes in type due to evolutionary processes of forms and styles. However, deep transcendental implications of aesthetic and philosophical character that may be engaged with kinetic architecture are not in the scope of this particular work. When studying the morphology of a ‘bodily-static’ building general formal attributes are normally identified. For example, its overall shape, the way in which spaces relate to each other and/or the pattern formed by its main components. When studying the morphology of a kinetic building, further elements need to be considered, which relate to the changes in form that the building may experienced during the process of movement. The morphological analysis presented here takes a synergetic view where the combined action of the architectural components is considered to be far reaching than the singular operation of the parts. In so doing, the nature of components and patterns is initially studied and then reinterpreted in the context of the entire form and the overall transformation. Nature of the components The operation of kinetic architectural structures is in essence comparable to the operation of a machine. It involves an array of components (very often identical) organized within a set of patterns International Adaptive Architecture Conference, Building Centre, London, March 2011: C. M. Stevenson
4
that relate them in order to complete a whole. In the case of kinetic architecture, modularity is fundamental due to the pragmatic need of movement being transmitted from one element to the next. In order to achieve physical motion, these modules or components (denoted in this text as kinetic devices) must embrace a wide range of transformative faculties. Their ability to modify their physical characteristics is to a great extent directly influenced by both: the material in which they are built in and the way the parts are connected. Past examples of kinetic devices have mostly used three types of materials: rigid, flexible or smart. Rigid materials (such as solid metals, plastics or timber) allow the transmittance of movement through mechanisms (formed by bars or plates linked by hinges or pivoting joints). Rigid kinetic devices are mainly used within kinetic structures such as foldable or retractable plates, scissor-type structures, retractable reciprocal frames and swivel diaphragms. A built example of a kinetic architectural structure using mainly rigid devices is the Hoberman Arch installed in front of the stage at the 2002 Winter- Olympic- Medals-Plaza in Salt Lake City. The structure comprised 96 interlinked angulated-scissor modules made of sandblasted aluminium profiles and translucent fibre-reinforced covers which moved simultaneously operated by 30PS electric motors (Figure 1. a). Flexible materials (such as textiles or cables) allow the transmittance of movement by folding, creasing, bending, stretching and/or inflating. Flexible kinetic devices can be part of foldable membranes or deformable pneumatic structures. Foldable textile roofs, such as the retractable roof built in 2006 at the Fortress Kufstein, Austria by Kugel + Rein (Figure 1. b), are great examples of kinetic architectural structures that use mainly flexible devices. Combinations of rigid and flexible devices can form composite structures such as deployable tensegrity systems.
Figure 1. a) Hoberman Arch, b) retractable roof, Fortress Kufstein, c) ‘open columns’.
Smart or intelligent materials transmit movement by changing their physical properties and characteristics. Recent advances in nanotechnology and bio-mimicry have prompted the emergence of innovative smart materials. These have the extraordinary ability to change their properties International Adaptive Architecture Conference, Building Centre, London, March 2011: C. M. Stevenson
5
(mechanical, electrical, appearance), their structure or composition, and/or their functions in a controlled manner to suit desirable behaviours. Smart devices can be part of responsive surfaces or structures such the ‘open columns’ proposed at the Department of Architecture in Buffalo, USA. These collapsible structures are programmed to drop from the ceiling when CO2 levels are going up in the room where they are placed; as a result the physical space is reconfigured encouraging people to disperse into smaller groups(Figure 1. c). Connections between parts and actuators (elements that set motion) are fundamental in relation to systems of moving bodies; hence they play a central role in kinetic devices. Finding the appropriate methods to realize a transformation strategy demands putting systems in place to induce, operate or control movement within the kinetic devices that comprise the building structure. A variety of methods have been employed in contemporary built examples including amongst others: manual, natural (i.e solar or wind power), biological, mechanical, chemical, pneumatic, electric, magnetic, and/or computerized. Computerized systems implanted within the building structure have been increasingly used within contemporary skin proposals. They can be used to gather information, process it, and use 18 it intelligently to control the behaviour of the structure and regulate internal comfort conditions . A question of Patterns and formal configurations The movement of an individual kinetic device is not of great consequence; however, when a series of kinetic devices move in unison or in progression the end result can be astonishing. Hence, organizational patterns are of great importance in kinetic architecture. The same components can be configured differently to create an endless range of transformable structures. Depending on their position in space and their interconnections, they can operate in two or three dimensions forming many possible shapes. Although there is a rich variety of pattern designs, common characteristics persist. According to Purves, there are two spatial themes that dominate architecture: the centric space and the linear space. ‘The organizational patterns that follow these two themes divide between those that focus on centre, as in a courtyard, and those that distribute along a line in response to movement. The courtyard is a comprehensive pattern which can include the ideas of atrium, cloister, castle, square, and temenos. Within patterns that are organized in response to movement, two ideas, 19 the circulation spine and serial progression, can be distinguished’ . It is necessary to clarify that ‘movement’ in the context of Purves’ work does not indicate the physical motion of the building itself. It refers to perceptions formed by spatial sequences, optical illusions and changes in composition that can bring a sense of movement, which may be experienced differently by occupants. In kinetic architectural structures the persistence of patterns with centric and linear configurations (commonly used within centric and linear spaces respectively) can be easily recognized in precedents from different periods and from all around the world (Figure 2 and 3).
Traditional North-American Tepee
Traditional Mongolian Yurt
Qi Zhong Tennis Center
Figure 2. Kinetic architectural structures with centric configuration
International Adaptive Architecture Conference, Building Centre, London, March 2011: C. M. Stevenson
6
Deployable structure with straight-scissors
Jaen Auditorium, F Escrig
Sliding House, DRMM
Figure 3. Kinetic architectural structures with centric configuration
Patterns with centric configurations comprise forms that can be inscribed in circular or spherical shapes; from geometrically rigid polygons and polyhedrons to organic loops and blobs. In centric configurations the centre is the main generator of the form and the focal point of the space. Usually the components of the configuration are structured to radiate from or towards this point. In kinetic architectural structures, two main typologies of patterns with centric configurations can be identified: pivotal and peripheral. Structures with pivotal configurations are organized from a principal supporting element (pivot) placed at the centre of the form. Commonly, the kinetic devices that constitute these structures are arranged to operate back and forwards from the centre towards the perimeter of the shape. It is usual to have two primary phases of deployment in these structures; fully open and fully closed. As a result, structures of this kind need to be highly compactable in order to be contained within a closed position and extended in an open position. Umbrella-type structures are typical examples of this typology, such as the 17x18m large automatically controlled umbrellas proposed in 1992 by SL-Rasch GmbH for the courts of the Prophet`s Holy Mosque in Madinah (Figure 4).Structures with peripheral configurations, on the contrary, are organized from a series of supporting elements placed on the perimeter of the form and normally equidistant from the centre. These types of kinetic structures usually allow intermediate stages of deployment from the closed position (where the overall shape is fully covered) to the open position (where the centre of the shape is revealed). Closed-loop-type structures are typical examples of this typology, such as the retractable roof designed by Mitsuru Senda in 2006 for the Qi Zhong Tennis Center in China (Figure 2).
Figure 4. Umbrellas at the Prophet`s Holy Mosque in Madinah
Physical movement in kinetic structures with centric configurations places an added emphasis on the centre of the shape; therefore they can be designed and located to highlight the importance of a centric space in a building. Structures with pivotal configuration tend to become the protagonist of a space (especially if the central support descends to the ground); whilst structures with peripheral configuration can be used to frame or stage a focal point. Patterns with centric configurations generally operate on two dimensions when inscribed on a circular shape or in three dimensions when inscribed on a spherical shape. Regular polygonal shapes that can be inscribed in circles (normally with an even number of sides such as squares, hexagons and octagons) are very often used in twodimensional patterns, especially in structures with rigid components and mechanical connections. Spatial polyhedral shapes formed by intersecting regular polygons, are commonly found as the International Adaptive Architecture Conference, Building Centre, London, March 2011: C. M. Stevenson
7
generators of three-dimensional patterns (Figure 5.a). In contrast to patterns with centric configurations are patterns with linear configurations. These involve forms generally organized along a spine or axis (following straight or curved lines) where length prevails over width and where direction replaces centre. Linear configurations can be formed by a series of intermittently placed modules (kinetic devices) that span the narrow dimension of a longitudinal shape or volume. Modules can be geometrically linked by their edges or by their vertices allowing movement to be transmitted from one to the next. Modularity and repetition are common features in all patterns; however in kinetic structures with linear configuration they play a further architectural role. The repetition of elements can be used to create perspective or a perception of endlessness in a linear space. In addition, the introduction of physical motion can also serve to stress a sense of progression and movement or a notion of growth and incremental change in the experience of a space (Figure 5.b).
Figure 5. a)Centric configuration based on a spatial polyhedral shape, b) Linear configuration generated along a axis.
Grid patterns can be generated by overlapping two or more linear systems or by tiling a surface with series of centric systems. Grid systems, especially the Cartesian grid, are easily grasped patterns that frequently appear in architecture. They can imply infinite repetition, periodicity and translational symmetry with no necessary hierarchy, centre or direction. Grid patterns are of great relevance in kinetic architectural structures, particularly during the process of manipulating scale and proportions. They provide a method and a strategy to organize and control multipart compositions by serving as a platform for positioning connections and motion-transmitter components. It can be argued that grid design possibilities are limited only by the imagination of the designer, however, there are particular geometrical constrains that make certain types of grids more prevalent (Figure 6). For example, regular grids formed by periodic tessellations of three main regular polygons (triangles, squares and hexagons) are predominant in kinetic structures, due to their compatibility with conventional architectural forms. Semi-regular or Archimedean tessellations can be occasionally found, whilst nonperiodic or polymorph organizations are comparatively rare (Figure 7). Within planar grids, kinetic devices operate primarily on the two-dimensional plane of the grid; whereas in space grids, devices accomplish three-dimensional movement.
International Adaptive Architecture Conference, Building Centre, London, March 2011: C. M. Stevenson
8
Figure 6. a) Regular tessellations, b) Archimedean tessellations.
Figure 7. Swivel Diaphragm grid based on an Archimedean tessellation of hexagons and triangles.
Transformation strategies Conceiving kinetic architecture goes beyond the mere integration of movable structures to predefined spaces; instead it entails the creation of transformable spatial experiences. The combination of physical movement of bodies and space has been explored in other disciplines such as choreography and film. In these particular cases, architecture commonly becomes the stage for the performance of moving objects. Kinetic architectural structures, however, can develop into both the arena and the protagonist of the transformation. Designing transformation in kinetic architecture can be comparable to choreographing a show or creating a story with moving images. Devising transformation strategies for kinetic architectural structures involves setting up a range of formal variables scheduled to change during a determined period of time. The main modifiable formal variables have been identified here as: size, shape, geographical position and constitution. The overall type of transformation depends on the physical change experienced by the building when one or more formal variables are altered within a timeframe. Structures that modify their size accomplish movement mainly through a change in scale and proportions. Structures that modify their shape are in motion whilst transforming their geometrical patterns and modularity. Those that modify their geographical position move by relocating in space mainly by means of rotation, translation and/or deformation. Whilst those that modify their constitution may produce movement by altering their material properties. Modifying size, shape and/or position results in a spectrum of transformations commonly found in contemporary examples of kinetic buildings. The main ones have been categorized in this paper as: deform, fold, deploy, retract, slide and revolve. These are not absolute, but permeate between each other; hence some structures may present combinations of two or more of these types of transformation. Deform implies that the structure mainly changes form in an ‘unregimented’ way and has the ability to be reshaped back to its original configuration. A beautiful example of this was the International Adaptive Architecture Conference, Building Centre, London, March 2011: C. M. Stevenson
9
Floating Theatre, designed by Yutaka Murata and engineered by Mamoru Kawaguchi. It was formed by three highly pressurized inflated tubes connected by a single layer membrane and supported by buoyancy bags that were automatically adjusted to respond to audience load and movements (Figure 8.a). Fold encompasses structures made from a flexible material that can crinkle or crease so that it comes into contact with itself. This is the case with foldable textile roofs, such as the one for the Commerzbank-Arena in Frankfurt completed in 2005 (arguably the largest structure of this type in the world measuring 113m x 78m) (Figure 8.b). Deploy includes structures comprised by mechanisms (rigid elements linked with pivoting joints) that can be compacted away for storage and extended ready to be used when needed. Emilio Perez PiĂąero was a pioneer in proposing kinetic structures of this type. One of his first conceptual projects was a travelling theatre presented at the International Union of Architects (IUA) in London in 1961(Figure 8.c). Retract involves structures formed from planar rigid elements (such as plates) that can be pulled back or pulled in, one on top of the other. Many observatory roofs and stadium roofs (such as the Mellon Arena in Pittsburgh, the Olympic Stadium in Montreal, and the SkyDome in Toronto (Figure 8.d)), have been built with this principal. Slide refers to structures that move entirely from side to side in continuous contact with a surface. An interesting example of this is the Sliding House in Suffolk, UK, designed by dRMM Architects and completed in 2009. The house has a 5.8m wide, 7.2m high, 28 metres long and 50 tons heavy sliding encasement formed by a steel structure filled with insulation and clad with larch, which moves along rails set into the ground (Figure 8.e).. The encasement slides over the annexe, house and glasshouse, creating combinations of enclosure, open-air living and framing of views according to position. It also helps control lighting conditions, provides additional insulation and creates a sense of openness and enclosure inside the house. Movement is powered by four separate electric motors hidden into the wall cavity, which can be charged by mains or by PV solar panels. Revolve embraces structures or structure components that turn, rotate or orbit on an axis. The Flare system by WHITEvoid is an example of this. It consists of a number of tiltable metal flake bodies individually controlled by pneumatic cylinders. Flakes can be mounted on a building surface forming an array of patterns. The overall structure can be controlled and animated by a computer to interact with its context (Figure 8.f).. Transformation in constitution depends on alterations of the physical characteristics and properties of the materials in which the components of the structure are built, for example, colour, brightness, texture, density, weight, etc. These have been increasingly explored in the last decade. A good example of this is Smartwrap, an ultra-thin polymer-based laminated skin designed by KieranTimberlake Associates. The inventors claimed that smartwrap has the capacity to change colour and appearance, as well as to provide shelter, control interior climates, and offer light and electricity (Figure 8.g).. On the other hand, the introduction of time as an element of design vastly enriches the possibilities within this field. Building structures can be designed to perform following a script where movement and time are coordinated, acting similarly to a living organism. In this instance, moving elements can operate following rhythms, sequences or progressions; movement can be periodical, cyclical, repetitive or assorted. Furthermore, introducing responsiveness into the design involves considerations of abstract and qualitative issues concerning context awareness, spatial experience, social engagement and building-user interaction. Aspects of this nature have been explored in projects such as Aegis HypoSurface by dECOi Design, a display built with pneumatically operated devices formed by reflecting metal plates. These are equipped with sensors that transfer impulses from the surroundings of the display to instantly react to the movements of the spectator. The result is a dynamic, highly interactive and ‘free flowing structure’ (Figure 8.h).
International Adaptive Architecture Conference, Building Centre, London, March 2011: C. M. Stevenson
10
Figure 8.a) Floating theatre, b) Commerzbank-Arena, c) Piùero’s travelling theatre, d) SkyDome, e) Sliding house, f) Flare system, g) Smartwrap, h) HypoSurface.
International Adaptive Architecture Conference, Building Centre, London, March 2011: C. M. Stevenson
11
Figure 9. Morphological aspects and transformation strategies in kinetic architectural structures.
International Adaptive Architecture Conference, Building Centre, London, March 2011: C. M. Stevenson
12
Discussion More than absolute conclusions, this paper offers remarks that aim to instigate a critical discussion around typo-morphological aspects that influence kinetic structures within the current architectural context. Typology constituted a prime issue for architectural theory during the 1960s and 1970s; but it appears that the last two decades have witnessed a progressive shift in academic research on kinetic structures from the architectural sphere to the domain of engineering. During this time, a great number of kinetic structural systems have emerged using new and optimized technologies, many of which have been realized in buildings. With a long list of recent precedents, new design typologies have become apparent. In turn, the discussion of type, typology and morphology is once again relevant, so architecture does not come about by blind translation of geometries or merely adaptation of state-of-the-art technology. The crucial typological debate currently needed to study kinetic architecture is by no means a matter of simplification or standardization of architectural models, but an indispensable link between contemporary forms and their historical precedents. This paper is concerned with identifying a variety of recurring 2morphological principles in kinetic architecture; from those that have evolved over time from bodily-static architecture to those that have sprung from the introduction of physical movement into habitable space. 1
Zuk, W. and Clark, R. Kinetic Architecture. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, 1970. Hejduk, R. A Generation on the Move: The Emancipatory Function of Architecture in the Radical Avant-garde 1960-1972. Transportable Environments 3, Taylor and Francis, 2006. pp 40-52. 3 Zuk, W. and Clark, R. Kinetic Architecture. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, 1970. 4 Wigginton, M. and Harris, J. Intelligent Skins. Architectural Press, Oxford, 2002. 5 Ishii, K. (Ed).Structural Design of Retractable Roofs, Working group 6 IASS, WIT Press, Japan, 2000. 6 Sterk, T., Shape Control in Responsive Architectural Structures – Current Reasons & Challenges, 4th World Conference on Structural Control and Monitoring, California, 2006. 7 Levy, M. and Luebkeman, C. Typology of Mobile and Rapidly Assembled Structures, Proceedings of the IASS 40th Anniversary congress, Shells and Spatial Structures: From Recent Past to the Next Millennium, Madrid, 1999. 8 Hanaor, A. and Levy, R. Evaluation of Deployable Structures for Space Enclosures, International Journal of Space Structures, 2001, 16(4), pp.211-227. 9 Escrig, F and Valcarcel, P., Geometry of expandable space structures, International Journal of Space Structures, 1996, 11(1), pp.257-274. 10 Pellegrino, S. and Guest, S. (Eds.), IUTAM-IASS Symposium on Deployable Structures: Theory and Applications. Kluwer Academic Publishers, The Netherlands, 2000. 11 Gantes, C. Deployable structures analysis and design, WIT Press, Great Britain, 2001. 12 Langbecker, T. Kinematic Analysis of Deployable Scissor Structures, International Journal of Space Structures, 1999, 14(1), pp.1-15. 13 Otto, F. IL5 Wandelbare Dächer Convertible Roofs, Institute for Lightweight Structures, University of Stuttgart, Wittenborn and Company, New York, 1972. 14 Schumacher, M., Schaeffer, O. and Vogt, M. Move, Architecture in Motion-Dynamic Components and Elements. Birkhauser, 2010. 15 Ishii, K. (Ed).Structural Design of Retractable Roofs, Working group 6 IASS, WIT Press, Japan, 2000. 16 Fox, M. & Kemp, M., Interactive Architecture. Princeton Architectural Press, New York, 2009. 17 Quatremère de Quincy, A, ‘Type’, in Dictionaire d’architecture: Encyclopédie Méthodique. Vol. III, part 2, Paris. 18 Anshuman, S., Responsiveness and Social Expression; Seeking Human Embodiment in Intelligent Façades, Smart Architecture: Integration of Digital and Building Technologies Proceedings of the 2005 Annual Conference of the Association for Computer Aided Design In Architecture, 2005,pp.12-23. 19 Purves, A. The Persistence of Formal Patterns, Perspecta, Vol. 19 (1982), pp. 138-163 2
International Adaptive Architecture Conference, Building Centre, London, March 2011: C. M. Stevenson
13