Towards Parasitic Architecture by Zhuocheng YU (Joey)

Towards Parasitic Architecture a manifesto by Zhuocheng YU

2019 SEM2 ABPL90117 21C Architecture @ the University of Melbourne by Zhuocheng (Joey) Yu 692171

Zagreb Free Zone Lebbeus Woods, 19911

CONTENTS

Preface

Chapter 1: Locus

Operations

[Attaching]

[Ingestion]

[Infill]

Strategies

[Aggressive Mimicry]

[Camouflage]

[Symbiosis]

Chapter 2: Urbs - Civitas

Small Architecture

Agency

Mediator

Epilogue

References

â&#x20AC;&#x153;...stability and predictability ... we construct a system of knowledge that privileges these qualities ... The unity and symmetry of monumental architecture refers symbolically to a harmonious and balanced universe in which contending forces are reconciled.â&#x20AC;&#x153;2 --- Lebbeus Woods

The Storm and The Fall

PREFACE

parasitic+ architecture vs Architecture From mathematical precision and geometric proportion to Gesamtkunstwerk, architecture has been Pursuing perfection through completeness. Placing the perfect jewel requires a designated socket. Yet the urban habitat is already littered with previous creations. Monumentality is sadly always achieved at the expense of necessary destruction. The city is ordered with erasure and succession of architectural entities. While within the competition, a new species of architecture emerged. Parasitic, this prefix to Architecture introduces an alternative mindset which defies the ideology of wholeness, mocking the ordering system and instigate the static. The integrity of the physical boundary is at the same time challenged, literally and figuratively, by this unexpected intervention.

PREFACE

Biological Origin

The definition of Parasitic Architecture clings back to its biological origin. It stems from a relationship between ‘parasite’ and ‘host’, as the former survive or reproduce by drawing nutrients from the latter. This reciprocal system leads to the conception that the new architecture is ‘incomplete‘ by itself and in need to reach others. While Parasitic Architecture is naturally exploitive, its dependence on ‘host’ architecture must assure the continuity of the ‘host’. Thus its mode of creation inherently forbids destruction.

PREFACE

Missing Liveliness â&#x20AC;&#x153;Grossform creates the framework, the order and the planned space for an unpredictable, unplanned for, spontaneous process â&#x20AC;&#x201C; for a parasitic architecture. Without this component any planning remains rigid and lifeless.â&#x20AC;?3 --- O.M. UNGERS

Grossformen im Wohnungsbau

The first appearance of the Parasite in the architectural discourse is brought up by Oswald Mathias Ungers as a part of the formulation of Grossform - a radical formal framework with a substantial scale that contains and orders multiplicity. With its formal grandeur and monumentality, Grossform by no doubts fascinates prominent architects such as Rem Koolhaas who carries over the influence. However, behind the illusion of false completeness reconciled via assimilation and suppression, the formal monumentality only produces a coarse and brutal carcass. The viscera - Parasitic Architecture that endows life to Grossform, is left dismissed, set aside from the mainstream discourse. This calls for exploitation of this empty shell of monumentality to actively stimulate the emergence. The chapters of Parasitic Architecture starts.

Morsbroich Museum4 O.M. Ungers, 1975

Exodus, or the Voluntary Prisoners of Architecture: The Strip5 Rem Koolhaas, 1972

CHAPTER 1

LOCUS Parasitic Architecture is a confrontation to the imaginary boundary - ‘site‘. Working incisively and in maximal proximity with the existing fabrics, the ‘site’ is no longer a mere supplement to the design process. With multiplicity and uncertainty of local conditions, Parasitic Architecture refuses to be prescribed to any preconceived style, process or materiality. The local condition is hence incorporated in every aspects of Parasitic Architecture. What used to be the backdrop now takes part in the spatial dialogue. Despite the seemingly eclectic and haphazard natures, Parasitic Architecture is not mindlessly deployed. The opportunistic nature to this reciprocal relationship beckons a new taxonomy and vocabulary to signify the gestures from the intervention towards the existing condition. Such patterns exist in locus that can be described as operations and strategies. Parasitic silo prototypes Zhuocheng Yu, 2019 Eclecticism is inherent to Parasitic Architecture, but not without patterns.

+ +

LOCUS: OPERATIONS

Parasitic silo prototype Zhuocheng Yu, 2019 Melbourne, Australia

[Attaching] [Attaching] is a direct intrusion to the integrity of host architecture. This formal operation starts with the exploitation of envelope of the existing architecture. Since Modernist era, architects incorporate piloti as a visual gimmick to trick the sense of gravity. Nevertheless, architecture as a singular entity inevitably anchored to its footprint. On the contrary, [Attaching] frees Parasitic Architecture from this binding between ground plane and verticality. In its place, the topological ‘exterior‘ becomes the new ‘ground’ that gives firmness to Parasitic Architecture. Meanwhile, the deconstruction of the external boundary primes the building envelope to be figuratively porous, as the intimate formal encounters permit exchanges (structural, spatial, flows of energy) to happen.

LOCUS: OPERATIONS

Zeitz MOCAA Heatherwick Studio, 2017 Cape Town, South Africa The repurposed silo structure was carved out by a corn-shaped void, creating a visual spectacle through revitalisation of both space and structure.6 /Photograph by Iwan Baan

[Ingestion] In opposite to [Attaching], this spatial operation essentially deploys void instead of objects. While [Attaching] feasts on the envelope of existing building fabric, [Ingestion] starts with dissecting what lies beneath the skin. [Ingestion] is not to be purely reductive. It welcomes the accidental spatial discovery through the temporal absence of rigidity and entanglement between solid and void. Freed from fixation, the former spatial organs and skeletons are once again malleable in the hands of the parasitic operation. [Ingestion] therefore creates an opportunity to a crossover between sterotomic and tectonic approaches. Such possibility alludes to the discovery of a new dynamic to the internal order of existing hosts.

LOCUS: OPERATIONS

Parasitic Link prototype Zhuocheng Yu, Suyi Zha, Danika Pandinata, 2018 Melbourne, Australia

[In-fill] Outside Ungerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Grossform, Parasitic Architecture is not caged by a formal ordering. Without a predesignated framework, it seeks to exploit waste space across the uneven landscape of detached architectural entities. [In-fill] leads Parasitic Architecture to maneuver through the gaps between potential hosts. It nests in the power vacuum within the architectural presences. Then it proceeds to expand and reach out, dissolving and assimilating the boundaries into part of itself. [In-fill] essentially produces the new â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;greyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; in the field of figure-ground dualism. As the Parasite takes shape of the residual space, the demarcation between the interior and the exterior becomes ambiguous. As a result, the Parasite reactivates and stimulates the tension between the hosts. The interconnected static architectural entities acquire a new collective body, where the [In-fill] parasite is both the heart and the veins.

LOCUS: STRATEGIES

[Aggressive Mimicry] Aggressive Mimicry is a strategy that parasites such as Leucochloridium uses to highlight itself along with the host in order to attract potential preys or predators.

The deployment of Parasitic Architecture inevitably instigates the provocation against the existing architecture. When such provocation is intended, Parasitic Architecture will follow the strategy that fully exposes itself to its recipients. To maximise the effect of deliberate expressiveness, Parasitic Architecture must form a vivid display of juxtapositions to its host. This is when Parasitic Architecture fully releases its eccentric and playful side. By exploitation of the host and immediate context, it creates counterparts from the existing tectonic elements (form, materiality, transparency, structure etc) and styles (historic-cultural references).

Hutong Bubble MAD Architects, 2009 Beijing, China The superimposed reflective bubble produces a dialogue between novelty and tradition through contradiction between materiality and form.7 /Photograph by Shu He

LOCUS: STRATEGIES

However, this form of extroversion does not elevate Parasite to be monumental. The signification cannot be acquired by its own. Only by means of superimposition, its critical aesthetics can gain validity. The parasite and the host are entwined in this reciprocal juxtaposition while retaining their respective readiness. Consequently, Parasitic Architecture is situated as a heterotopic existence parallel to the ordinary space which we inhabit. This tangible â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;othernessâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; makes Parasitic Architecture a mirror that reflects the possibilities outside the ordinary. It is a corporeal gesture towards the existing fabrics that instigates the necessary critique of the mundanity.

Rooftop Remodeling Falkestrasse Coop Himmelb(l)au, 1988 Vienna, Austria The superimposition of parasitic structure in a transitory state between art installation and architecture. The building itself is a very symbol of deconstructivism.8

LOCUS: STRATEGIES

[Camouflage] Active provocation is not always favoured. Radical transformation will always meet rejection. Especially for Parasitic Architecture, its controversial nature of exploiting existing building fabrics inevitably traverses public and private boundaries. The â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;immune systemâ&#x20AC;&#x2DC; of the city - a collective consciousness or legislation that resists transformation9- will target any changes that perceived as subversion to the ordinary system. Therefore, Parasitic Architecture must adopt an alternative strategy instead of direct conflict. The solution, [Camouflage], as a defensive strategy requires cunningness in either tectonic adaptation and when selecting its host and immediate context. In the first approach, the parasite actively mimic its host and the immediate surrounding to disguise or mitigate its presence. Through a series of carefully selected ad hoc bricolage, the parasite draws tectonic elements from the host which produces a subtle parody to the existing order.

Radetzkystraße – A village on the roof PPAG Architects, 2012 Vienna, Austria Camouflage by formal mimicry of the typical roof.10 /Photograph by Roland Kraus

LOCUS: STRATEGIES

The second approach is more of a passive approach which utilises the immediate context as a cover. For instance, hiding in the existing plain orderlessness will shield Parasitic Architecture from the grasp of legislative rejection. Other factors such as traffic, orientation, visual blockade and even the perceived cultural/economic value of the host, can also be exploited to conceal Parasitic Architecture. Both approaches to [Camouflage] are able to render the parasite elusive from the general audience, therefore the scrutiny of â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;immune systemâ&#x20AC;&#x2DC; of the city. Only accidental or voluntary intimate encounters can expose the provocative element of Parasitic Architecture to the explorers. Therefore, [Camouflage] introduces a positive side-effect which amplifies the transformation through unexpectedness.

Arcadia in back alley Hsieh Ying-chun, 2011 Taiwan â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;Illegalâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; parasitic architecture sitting in a deteriorated residential street with existing orderlessness.11 /Photograph by Huang Chi Teng

LOCUS: STRATEGIES

[Symbiosis] Not all Parasitic Architecture have to sacrifice for transient provocations or struggle to survive. [Symbiosis] offers a peaceful reconciliation between the parasite and its potential threat through the notion of mutualism. When the utilitarian aspect of Parasitic Architecture aligns with the needs for improvements, The parasitic relationship of [Symbiosis] benefits both the host and the parasite. Often appear in junction with adaptive reuse, the parasitic intervention is at the same time diagnostic and remedial to the static (in most cases deteriorating) state of the existing architecture. Metaphorically, the parasite is comparable to an external, transplanted organ, which introduces a new system of flow that circulates between the parasite and the host. A positive feedback process is essential for the reactivation and transformation, as well as the sustainability of the couple.

Hi-pod BKK Architects, 2011 Footscray, Australia Experimental prefabricated extension pod as a part of re-adaptation that seeks to transform the undesirable living condition associated with social housing. /Photograph by Zhuocheng Yu

LOCUS: STRATEGIES

Parasitic Architecture is always more than creating surplus space. The spatial expansion is coincided with programmatic transformation, alluding a process of continuous and progressive building. The parasitic interaction allows new trajectory of design evolution to be grafted onto the loosen end of the finished, enclosed architectural entity. The design process is reinstated. [Symbiosis] foresees a possibility to gain semipermanence and legitimacy for a ‘pacified’ type of Parasitic Architecture. Its capability to introduce continuous design that transforms the rigid and static conventional architecture to a flexible organic body. The notion of ‘liveliness‘ is then acquired by hybridisation and supplementary ‘genes’.

Bombay Sapphire Distillery Heatherwick Studio, 2014 Laverstoke, UK The parasite takes metaphor of lungs which incorporates a new ventilation system that feeds back to the existing building.12 13 /Photograph by NAAR0

CHAPTER 2

URBS

CIVITAS Situating in a larger urban context, Parasitic Architecture requires to adopt different scopes of engagement. The discourse must expand beyond sole interaction with the existing fabrics. ‘Urbs – Civitas’, is essentially a binary narrative which describes the city as a collection of building fabrics versus a collection of citizenship. Parasitic Architecture resides on the demarcation between the duality, as evident in the previously introduced struggles against the ‘immune system‘. It inverts the mindset of architecture from a physical representation of territorialisation to deteritorialisation. Maneuvering within the turbulence of contending forces, Parasitic Architecture with its opportunistic tactics creates the middle ground: either to provoke frictions in where calls for agency needs to be incarnated in the form of physical construct; or to mediate through occupation of residual space.

Turbulence Lebbeus Woods, 2010

PREFACE ‘L, M & S’

Antwerp Port House Zaha Hadid Architects, 2016 Antwerp, Belgium 15

/Photograph by Laurian Ghinitoiu

The Bank Apartments Urban Design Architects, 2011 Melbourne, Australia

La Bulle Pirate Jean-Louis Chanéac, 1971 Geneva, Switzerland 16

/Photograph by Zhuocheng Yu

Small Mindset "...too unfocused, too weak, too unrespectable, too defiant, too secret, too subversive, too ‘nothing’.” 17 ---Rem Koolhaas Bigness, or the Problem of Large

From the formal monumentality to Big urbanism, ‘smallness’ is easily neglected as insignificant subsidiaries - the programs too arbitrary to be planned for and the needs too niche to be satisfied. However, being small is not being dismissible. Parasitic Architecture offers irresistible opportunities for smallness to make a physical claim as an irreducible form of weak architecture. It allows unexpected, and even defiant activities to take place. These form a critical spatial practice which introduces the necessary deviations from the predominant, institution-driven and urbanisation. Spatially, smallness enables exploration of qualities such as transiency and informality, and also ambiguity and intimacy of boundary conditions that are overlooked by the definitive solidity of Big urbanism. To embrace the emergence, Parasitic Architecture needs to advocate for the smallness.

URBS - CIVITAS

Berlin Free Zone Lebbeus Woods, 1990 Los Angeles, US 18

Agency The conflict between urban fabrics and the people further extends to the question of agency. Referring to Henri Lefebvre’s idea of ‘the Right to the City‘, architecture can be seen as the embodiment of power and ownership. In losing battles of individual versus collective, public versus private, spontaneous versus planned, Parasitic Architecture has its insinuating tactics to traverse the boundaries. It provides means for the minorities to act their right to participate in physical construct, and operable space to satiate the niche needs.

As a mean to express and practice agency, Parasitic Architecture has a few firm supporters. The radical proposal by Lebbeus Woods’ ‘Freespace’ 19 was conceived as a volatile parasitic shelter being injected into the literal ruins of the existing architecture. The destabilisation of an ordered structure is equivalent to the absence of the overruling system. This particular zone becomes the experimental ground for new forms of living. Liesbeth proposes a more transient variation of Parasitic Architecture that praises the “instable“ “mobile“ and even the “nomadic“ quality20. The ephemeral, ad-hoc setting and limited scale allow Parasitic Architecture to be approachable even by individuals. These pop-up space essentially establishes dynamic cultural heterotopia in parallel to daily practices. On a side note, the cyber media of today allows Parasitic Architecture to gain substantial publicity while remaining anonymity. No matter how transient, the spread of imagery allows its message of claim to gain momentum before the ‘immune system‘ starts to retaliate. The battle for Agency is even closer to guerrilla incursions.

Ballon fĂźr Zwei Haus-Rucker-Co, 1967 Vienna, Austria Pneumatic installation which creates a reclamation of personal utopia.21

URBS - CIVITAS

Mediator Infrastructure - the most monumental urban fabrics - sustains the cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s operation. While engineered to prioritise capacity and efficiency, its design principles often leads to uninhabitable residual spaces. Its capability of supporting is ironically related to its inhuman physicality. This paradox sets the infrastructure apart from conventional architecture. Nonetheless, Parasitic Architecture can traverse between this demarcation. Through the exploitation of rigid structure, Parasitic Architecture takes a host of the residual space. Without impeding the functioning of the host, the parasite works alongside the integrity of the structure and operation while feasting on its spatial debris. With success, accumulatively the parasite expands and propagates. As a result, parasitic architecture pioneers the ideal of inhabitable infrastructure22 as the hidden mediators. The inhuman life support of the city now facilitate habitability in both micro and macro scale.

Covert studio under bridge Fernando Abellanas, 2017 Valencia, Spanish Personal space can be constructed even from the most devalued, obscure and brutal urban fabrics with practice of Parasitic Architecture.22 /Photograph by Jose Manuel Pedrajas

URBS - CIVITAS

The process of mediation is evident in clustered urban landscapes lacking predominant ordering. In Japanese cities such as Tokyo-Yokohama megalopolis, the constant disintegration, fragmentation and diffusion between the old and the new create a field of that weaves together all typologies of urban fabrics into a web of heterarchy. The dynamism in this field prompts all sorts of unexpected hybrids. However, alongside the (necessary) ugliness and madness, there is also the tolerance that permits and even expects the propagation of Parasitic Architecture. A culture of spatial handling is naturally acquired due to the constant tension between urbs-civitas due to land scarcity and absence of formal spatial planning. This phenomenon also leads to a dilemma on what is after Parasitic Architecture: when its formal practice gains popularity and reduces to a consumable method or an architectural â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;tropeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;, are the strategies and operations still relevant to its criticality?

Life under the highways 2019 Yokohama & Tokyo, Japan Collection parasitic adaptations of elevated which has become the norm of urban densification. (Inspiration from the observations by Atelier Bow Wow in Made in Tokyo) /Photographs by Zhuocheng Yu

EPILOGUE

Cycle of life Parasitic Architecture adheres to both physical and temporal context. Its energy peaks at the moment of deployment. After that, the aesthetic fatigue and dynamic environment will eventually diminish the effect of provocation. The predominant system will either assimilate (pacify) or remove the presence of Parasitic Architecture. Parasitic Architecture may die in its physical form or lose its inertia. Nonetheless, there will always be a defiant spirit in pursuit of the critique of the ordinary and the illusion of completeness. It will eventually seek out physical representation as an alternative form of architecture sitting in parallel with the existing ones. With new hosts and new carriers, the critical gene of Parasitic Architecture continues.

REFERENCES

1. Lebbeus Woods, Zagreb Free Zone [Illustration]; 1991, http://s3.amazonaws.com/contemporaryartgroup/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/images_file_15274.jpg. 2. Lebbeus Woods, The Storm and the Fall (New York: Princeton Architectural Press; 2004), 45-47. 3. Oswald M. Ungers, Grossformen im Wohnungsbau, trans. Martin Hättasch, in Martin Hättasch, “Form after Urbanism: The Potential of Grossform”, The Plan Journal 0, No. 0 (2016), 59-76. 4. Oswald M. Ungers, Morsbroich Museum [Diagram], in Hättasch, “Form after Urbanism: The Potential of Grossform”, 69. 5. Rem Koolhaas, Exodus, or the Voluntary Prisoners of Architecture: The Strip [Collage & ink on photograph]; 1972, https://www.moma.org/collection/works/104692. 6. Iwan Baan, Zeitz MOCAA [Photograph]; 2017, https://images.adsttc.com/ media/images/59bc/17c0/b22e/3813/9f00/0151/large_jpg/776_6__HR_ ZeitzMOCAA_HeatherwickStudio_Credit_Iwan_Baan_Atrium_view_towards_ entrance.jpg?1505499051. 7. Shu He, Hutong Bubble [Photograph]; 2009, https://images.adsttc.com/ media/images/55f6/e4f7/adbc/01b9/0100/019d/large_jpg/_mg_9940_byshuhe.jpg?1442243825. 8. Coop Himmelb(l)au, Rooftop Remodeling Falkestrasse [Photograph]; 1988, http://www.coop-himmelblau.at/uploads/made/uploads/images/Projects/8401_Falke/P_8401_F3_GZ_1097_1377_90.jpg. 9. Merel Pit, Karel Steller, and Gerjan Streng, Parasitic architecture; 2007, http://www.gerjanstreng.eu/files/T02%20essay%20parasitic%20architecture.pdf. 10. Roland Kraus, Radetzkystraße – A village on the roof [Photograph]; 2012, https://www.re-thinkingthefuture.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/2579Radetzkystra%C3%9Fe-A-village-on-the-roof-By-PPAG-architects.jpg. 11. Huang Chi Teng, Arcadia in back alley [Photograph]; 2011, https://huangchiteng.com/Arcadia-in-the-Back-Alley. 12. Heatherwick Studio, Bombay Sapphire Distillery [Diagram]; 2014, https:// images.adsttc.com/media/images/5425/99c0/c07a/8054/8f00/015b/ slideshow/486_05_PDF_GlassHouseSection_CREDIT_HeatherwickStudio_(1). jpg?1411750288. 13. NAAR0, Bombay Sapphire Distillery [Photograph]; 2014, https://www. arch2o.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Arch2O-Bombay-Sapphire-Distillery-Heatherwick-Studio-Naaro-004.jpg.

14. Lebbeus Woods, Turbulence [Illustration]; 2010, https://66.media.tumblr. com/tumblr_kx6cdwEObY1qatyj2o1_1280.jpg. 15. Laurian Ghinitoiu, Antwerp Port House [Photograph]; 2016, https://images.adsttc.com/media/images/57e5/240a/e58e/cefe/0400/01f2/slideshow/ laurian_ghinitoiu_port_house_(40_of_42).jpg?1474634758 16. La Bulle Pirate [Photograph]; 1971, https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-mo0_ FLZT2zU/WEL5h69iD4I/AAAAAAAAHKY/6z4SO3xFIMMVNapWiJnE1QxHbGBRCOjegCLcB/s1600/parasite_08_jpg.jpg. 17. Rem Koolhaas, “Bigness or the Problem of Large.” S, M, L, XL 10 (1994), 516. 18. Lebbeus Woods, Berlin Free Zone [Illustration]; 1990, https://66.media. tumblr.com/876ab24a3e2672018529ef9fbaf30037/tumblr_n4hpthy7PZ1rf984qo1_1280.jpg. 19. Lebbeus Woods, War and Architecture (New York: Princeton Architectural Press; 1993). 20. Liesbeth Melis, Parasite paradise: a manifesto for temporary architecture and flexible urbanism (Rotterdam: Nai Uitgevers Pub, 2003). 21. Ballon für Zwei [Photograph]; 1967, https://www.archdaily. com/582842/haus-rucker-co-architectural-utopia-reloaded/54a2c1dee58ece22f6000003-haus-rucker-co-ball. 22. C. J. Lim, Inhabitable Infrastructures: Science fiction or urban future? (Routledge, 2017). 23. Jose Manuel Pedrajas, Covert studio under bridge [Photograph]; 2017, https://static.dezeen.com/uploads/2017/08/secret-studio-fernando-abellanas-architecture-offices_dezeen_2364_col_6.jpg

2 1

0 9