Louis Kahn , Circulation Studies [0]
Program Adapatation on Topographic Field [7]
Infrastructural Urbanism FOA Yokohama International Passenger Terminal
Text by Tang Chin Hong, Jonas (M1)
Topic This paper is going to look at the how design and practice of FOA reflects the Stan Allen’s theory of infrastructural urbanism. Particular case of Yokohama International Passenger Terminal, a winning proposal of the competition, completed in 2002, would be in foci of investigation, with reference to different critiques and formulated theory onwards. This kind of reflection will later serve strategically as a perspective to examine their new proposal on London Olympic Master Plan in Lea Valley.
of their project, of course, they deal with flow and movements and multi-disciplinary programs, but more because the project touches in depth the critical tendency of post-modernity proposed by Stan Allen, which contributes the actualization of material practice and instrumentality of different systems. The process itself carries through a lot of infrastructural ideology which Stan Allen suggests as a contemporary text guide to architects in the late 90s.
dernity itself.”[0] This is in line of thinking of FOA thoughts in which objects and image doesn’t shape the project but the process of development and experimentation. As a representation, they are resultant of the materialized process, from which a diagram is mediated into architecture back and fore, for instance the circuit diagram and mediated sections. The images carries no driven force of the project, “it develops as an embodiment of an original idea and has to keep as much as possible the original integrity is precisely what we are trying to fight” [2].
“Modernity tended toward abstract systems of ex-
Why Infrastructural Urbanism? The reason why infrastructural urbanism is linked to the practice of FOA is not because of the directly infrastructural nature
change and serial production. The passage from concrete, material things to ephemeral signs- the dissolution of objects into flow of information- was in many ways already anticipated by the abstract logics of mo-
The use of Diagram In the project, much of the investigation starts from the circuit diagram which gives later on the spatial dimensions and spa-
No-return diagram [4]
Programmatic Solenoid [7]
tial fluidity of the project, the diagram, as referred by FOA as a “no-return diagram” defines the project where spatial experience is one-directional, vector-specific. Another solenoid diagram illustrates the liberty of program where its magnitude is softly imposed as field and its size is under typological investigation. It is energy and activity-embracing and drives the projects on its spatial organization and flow, thus the spatial effect is an overall resultant where aesthetic concern is not justified.
provide an adaptive foundation to absorb as much as information for mediating between the diagram and architecture. As a key concept, they “try to allow information of different scale that enters the project only after the initial stage, to be added into the diagram of the project and to drive the project forward” [3].
Mediation between Diagram and Drawings “What is truly productive is the process of feedback
cerned with what things look like and more concerned
It is worth pointing out that the diagram is not so much a direct translation of form or geometries, but mediation took places in between the diagram and architectural plan. “There needs to be several forms of mediation
These two diagrams
between the form of the diagram and the final form
In many ways, this kind of performancebased preference, as Stan Allen stated, “goes beyond stylistic or formal issues”, “they are less conwith what they can do”.[0]
between the diagram and the drawing”
of the building” “Yokohama is a pier where you never retrace your steps. The project is generated from a functional diagram that tries to avoid the characteristic linear organization of a pier”.[2]
For instance they took the bifurcation nature of circuit diagram as an inspiration to double curvature surfaces. They maintained symmetrical form but asymmetrical structure, where one side cantilevers 15m to air to adapt to typological information. They produced kind of intervention of the cafeteria area and spaces for immigrant organization check-in, as individual compartments which serve as necessary intervention of the overall concept. These are not directly related to diagram-
Structural Deformation - Differentiation from the global structural system [1][4]
ming practice as form-shaping governance but more as an essence and nature for interpretation and to incubate potentials and to make the later-on process flexible and regenerative for architect to stretch, manipulate and materialize. Thus, plan is only a representational tool, a resultant from the diagram, which is enriched by different system inputs. “The ambiguity is one of the great potentials of operating with diagrams. In Yokohama, the material ‘ground’ is deployed to turn the no-return diagram into a three-dimensional diagram. Ergonomic and functional
after the diagram has absorbed all this information does it becomes an actualized, acquiring metrical and geometrical determinations.”[2]
This draws somehow a similar attitude towards Stan Allen theory of immersing architecture in the” world of things”, in which architecture gain complexity and subjectivity. In Stan Allen infrastructural view, such kind of urbanism is not expressive and doesn’t necessarily gain identity of personal taste, architect point of view or collective will of society. Its ultimate goal is not to produce autonomous objects but
information are then incorporated in the diagram to
“the directed field in which program, event and activ-
determine the scale and geometry of the surface de-
ity can play out.”[0]
formations. Technical information about the scale of the load-bearing structures is also incorporated. Only
Directed Field and Structural Instrumentality
If the Yokohama terminal would be viewed as set of directed field, which is strongly conceived in the early solenoid diagram, it is especially successful in terms of program and event, as inductive paths and places. This is by many ways brought about through system integration and its system instrumentality, for key instance the actualization of structures, and it is in a more advanced version of structural attitude of Stan Allen design, the “Logistic Activity Zone of Barcelona”. In Stan Allen design, structure serves as individual instrument to be manipulated to generate field where in FOA design, structure serves as integrative components. The degree of instrumentality is much higher and as it affects
Site Contextual Diagram [7]
the resultant surface, the effect is much more spatial and programmatic and that allows multi-disciplinary inputs. The Yokohama project adopted its longitudinal continuity from around 40 transverse sections of bridge structures. The uniformity of structures doesn’t limit it as an all-time identical but as gene to proliferate and liberate to a certain critical dimensions. What’s interesting is that the actual construction of the building was made by 3 different contractors due to the tight schedule of the project. It further organizes the steel structures to a deeper and richer level of variations, and architect’s control on the overall consistency was still kept due to a keen design of sys-
tem, rather than intervention. Technically, the structural system has its own parametric outfits and potentials for alternation. With the aid of computer programs, the specific geometry with reference to deformed vector of program and typological necessity is generated and at the same time the overall surfaces. Later on, rigidity is added, in terms of “origami” secondary structures, the kind of folding mechanism, which strengthen the surface-structure as a whole. Territorization and Site-reconstruction As Stan Allen early advice to infrastructural urbanism, the first of the seven propositions is perhaps the most related to FOA
philosophy on public space of the Yokohama project. Stan Allen states “Infrastructure works not so much to propose specific buildings on given site, but to construct the site itself, it prepares the ground for future building and creates the condi-
Although the project doesn’t really prepares for flexibility for future modifications, but as a site re-construction strategy, it prepares the undulating surface for events and activities occurs on roof, and prepares the large columnless chamber in the interior space. You can see the temporary enclosure for the immigrant checking, you can see temporary set-up for outdoor gathering of families. It is not producing directly specific types of architecture, but a dynamic space, in terms it changes on different time. The site itself
tions for future events” [0]
Local Contingency : Differentiation of Ramp Details [3]
prepares potential and opportunities rather than rules and obligations. The merging of space is seamless and the control of the space of users is liberated. FOA used the word of “battlefield” to delineate the unlimited support for future programs. What Stan Allen elaborated in the theory is a set of architectural device which is possible for site-reconstruction to occur and most of these have been taken radically in Yokohama project.
“network establishment”, in association with wheelchair access, solenoid program and activities are of the same ramp and induced path has been generated and input into the consideration of the surface geometries. Local contingency and overall continuity One of the propositions that Stan Allen suggest for infrastructural urbanism is that “It accommodate local contingency while maintaining overall continuity” [0] This is perhaps very obvi-
The double curvature “surface” and bifurcating as a spatial dividing elements for above and below and accommodate possible program, the “service” of drainage, fire-emergency, hygienic equipment and air-handling to allow future program. The
ous in the Yokohama project that the surface continuity shapes access .Further disjunction of surface, where the 2 deformed surface bifurcate, provide necessary gaps and threshold for entrance/exit to interior spaces as ramps. Those 4 ramps are dis-
torted distinctively. Another example is the small compartment for immigrant checkers; they are necessary but somehow break the continuity of the chamber spaces. However, the visual continuity is maintained as they are made transparent as possible by the use of self-supported glass. Such visual continuity may not be as pragmatic that access continuity, but it helps as directional guides. Structure, circulation and program into artificial ecologies In Stan Allen theory, “the energy inputs and outputs”, “the calibration of force and resistance”, “the generative force for a renewed investment in infra-
From diagram into interrelation of space , structure and program Circulation density, Zone of Gradient of 6% slope, Gradient under 6%(dark), gradient more than 6% (light grey), no gradient (white) [5]
structure”, “the imaginative and technical efforts” [0]
have all be transferred into reality of the Yokohama project, where these ideas are not only central to discussion, but really research to confront with and to answer through creative processes. It is pragmatic and at the same time idealistic.
gation of a building which can accommodates different activities, based on the competition brief in early 1995, “garden and infrastructure, external passengers and local visitors” were critical ideas to be formulated. To FOA, the issue of how the Passenger Ferry Terminal would mix with civic facilities. “It demands a kind of space that
“What interests us is to explore system of construc-
is able to produce continuities and hybrid fields.”[4]
tion, system of planning….So in Yokohama the system
And the team, in design principle, is looking into the very nature of the project by investigating into a kind of deep research and thinking of how landscape and infrastructure work together, to develop the project into a specific form from potentials of different systems and information.
emerges from function, from circulation, from structure…We are less interested in practice purely to provide service, and more in turning the act of providing service into research that opens up hidden possibilities by the common practice.” [2]
When it applies to the terminal project, the FOA has very much in detail investi-
They explored the circulation as weav-
ing the incomers and local visitors, they develops kind of mutant angle and softly induced path to hybrid the circulation of the two. They achieve it in parallel in the fire escape requirement where the roof is the open-to-air platform for the singular interior chamber to be escaped to. They produced a structure deformation due to the inscribing of upper surface solenoid field and the interfacial access between the upper and the lower surface, the ramps. In terms of function, they placed civic exchange at the sea end and several individual function boxes on the 2 sides, but leaving the gap, the corridor for passing through its transverse section. Thoses boxes produce certain kind of structural stiffness to the ramp and are therefore
Bifurcation Sequence - an representational spatial organization [4]
interrelated to the structure and direct access of the activity. Such kind of co-relation between structure, circulation and program contributes to the generative field or an artificial ecology, established as an infrastructural concept by Stan Allen, where there is no fix plan, but dynamics of energy. “Infrastructure systems work like artificial ecologies. They manage the flows of energy and resources on a site, and they direct the density and distribution of a habitat.” [0]One
can make an attempt to map, the flow of energy with pedestrian mobility, the resources with capacity of view and program, what density and distribution refer to maybe the ramp geometries and threshold distribution. All these are inter-
Program and Acitivity Distribution - a conceptual field of possibilities [7]
related strategically and form a complex ecological system. Such complicated relationship, as a strategic result, produces flexibilities and multiple readabilities for later on design stages. Flexibility and Anticipatory Stan Allen emphasizes on infrastructural nature as flexible and anticipatory device which “work with time and are open to change”. It is certainly cannot be directly interpreted from the final workout of Yokohama as any of the tactical deformation has been taken into rigidity of the building which doesn’t induce physical change of itself or absorb further drastic changes. The flexibility and anticipatory is virtually over once the building has bee pinned to be a
completed task. However, upon its progress, there still exist many traces of flexible and anticipatory quality, from which the plan has been involving in versions upon typological changes, functional requirements and optimum configuration. For instance, they have constrained the building edge adjacent to the traffic plaza further due to the ownership of land. They cancelled the basement layer such that only 2 deformed plane exists. They have merged the two entrances from civic facilities to roof plaza into one. Still, the underlying principle and concept doesn’t change but evolve in depth. Such kind of flexibility is not only by the immediate intelligent of the architect,
Actualization [7]
Illustration Here
Material Practice leads to structural organization [7]
by tactical involvement but more importantly is how the system laid out is anticipatory and flexible. Using Stan Allen word, “They can be precise and indeterminate at the same time…They do not progress toward a predetermined state, but are always evolving within a loose envelope
Although the final outcome is geometrically precise and structural rigid, the project itself, within the process between design and actualization, has already taken and demonstrated the loose field manipulation. The outcome is plastic spatial organization. “Your spacing idea is plastic.
of constraint.”[0]
From its very beginning, the project has its very short duration of 3 months to complete its feasibility stage. FOA didn’t respond in a fixed and rigid structure but a general space-framing strategy to add stiffness to the structure. Later on, they discussed with the structural consultant, SDG and discovered that the third layer of structure was unnecessary, and it is more relevant to the idea of “origami” when the second layer of folding structure in the below interior space is exposed to air. “In
to make architecture. Japan, for example, has a very
the competition we had a folded plate in between the
advanced system of construction, probably the best
In doing so, a coordinated and materialized research happened through a consistent and on-going effort of the architect and structural engineer. Such kind of research practice is not mentally crucial to contractor and the public or even difficult in many countries. As FOA mentioned, “These (Spain and Japan) are countries where it is still possible to make architecture because there is a certain cultural or social interest and a structure of product that perhaps is already obsolete, but allows you
It can suit the change of the program, depending on
two main plates that were curved but that was obvi-
construction industry in the world, within a culture
situations.”[2]
ously too expensive to do. Now they are plates that are
that in many aspects is almost medieval.” [7]
hinged. It is more and more like an origami, which was
Construction materials/methods as material practice
the main idea of the competition project in terms of the material organization of the structure.”[7]
It is not hard to believe that FOA has, no matter intentionally or coincidentally taken the greatest potential for the project benefits
Glazing details and handrail details which was designed globally and differentiated locally. [4]
as a reaction to not only the immediate site context but the real context of making building, the method of construction, its techniques and cultural awareness as background. They wanted to somehow investigate how much detail and effort would design bring about to real practice and this could be an exhaustive attitude into material practice. In reflection of Stan Allen ideology, FOA has taken the real power of architecture of transforming the reality. It is not simply done by paper and drawings, but through material practice and constant investigation and reaction to direct manipulation of material. It is distinctive from any other means of media of production. It embodies
the transformation process as an indirect interplay between materials and abstract images, unlike other media disciplines.
len final thought to urbanism: “Infrastructure allow detailed design of typical elements or repetitive structures, facilitating an architectural approach to urbanism” [0]
Details, Direct Manipulation and Tactical Improvisation “Infrastructure itself works strategically, but it encour-
This laid out Stan Allen ideology of the liberty to directly manipulate material. In which detail give a principle relationship between materials and its variations. The geometries of them are not fixed or limited to the overall organization. It rather has a proliferate ability to adapt to constantly-changing local scenarios, which is self-definitive by itself. The detail approach perhaps matches Stan Alages tactical improvisation.”
The Japan construction cultures allow FOA to stretch their design into the latest phase of actualization. The design absorbs any possibilities from the contractor, as a real project. “Most of the good ideas appear on site, working with contractors. Nobody can solve an entire building on paper; you need to react to the real scale”
This perhaps explains the openness of the project, to different system and flows of information. FOA success is not about a rigid structure but an adaptive system in which detail can be parametrically enriched. As Stan Allen stated “Material practice
Flow is controlled in a inducive way for roofscape but is controlled efficiently internally. [4]
rial.” [0]
produce a minimum amount of detail, as principal design to comprehend. For instance the wood decking cutting methodology is similar for inside and outside, but the material are of different thickness and anti-slippery surfaces. For the glass separating inside and outside, the major principle is to fold to make it become self supportable. The handrail with using metal edge as faces geometrically contain 2 lines, which can be adjusted to a resultant angle satisfactory for local adaptation of the slope of the decking surfaces.
The tension between liberation and control of the detail is resolved by the achieving the number of details to a minimum in the project. In the project they tried to
Described by FOA, the project has one floor detail, one glass detail and one handrail detail. Making the assemblies into entity production, the approach is very likely
deploy an open catalog of techniques without preconceived formal ends”.[0]
For FOA, “every detail that we do is repeated in a differentiated form”, such that no ad-hoc or any other kind of specially standalone intervention would be made. This architectural homogeneous intention keeps the project consistent through but also allows direct manipulation. “Although these material practices work instrumentally, they are not limited to the direct manipulation of given mate-
an infrastructural design. “Infrastructural design begins with the precise delineation of specific architecture elements within specific limits.” “We are planning few details because we are interested in exploring how a consistent piece of matter can generate difference through continuous variation in form, rather than producing differentiation in building by treating the building with many different details.” [2] The de-
tail gain specificity and variation (when it applies to different region). Flow, movement, exchange… It can be seen from the circuit diagram that the Ferry Terminal project primarily deals with flow. The circuit diagram suggests a kind of one-off, directional and departure sense of fluidity. This is surely not regulative but indicative. The combina-
Illustration Here
Plans absorbed input from differnet materials and system, evolved in different times. [7]
tion of routes, by vector and magnitudes, generates pattern of circulation, which facilitated the intention of non-oriented program and activities. Unlike Stan Allen, FOA want to hide the obvious part of the infrastructure, “We wanted a non-oriented space that would be part of the city. We wanted to make the infrastructure disappear, so that it would be more like the relationship between a typical city and its metro system.”[7] This specific approach challenges
the typical infrastructural quality of the project nature. In a detail sense, however, it merges architecture and infrastructure to a great extent. Similar to Stan Allen, FOA inscribes infrastructural quality into architecture, “Not only do they provide a network of pathways, they also work
through systems of locks, gates and valves: - a series if checks that control and regulate flow.”(Stan Allen)[0]
One may argue that the flow is not regulated and it leads to ultimate freedom and liberty. It could not be true even though the path is loosely regulated; the degree of control to such looseness is carefully taken into the issue for design for Yokohama. Such looseness has its precious control of geometries, in terms of vector field and typological dimensions, by diagrammatic solenoid, by construction field, etc. Being a basic unit of ferry terminal, the generic flow of passengers has been considered, typical gates and valves has been turned into smooth and transparent booth. As much as city like, the ramp
access between the above and below has been well conceived as “field of possible gates” which liberate flow, or as what Stan Allen called, the net gain of freedom through new network.
Beyond infrastructural urbanism The London Olympic Master-plan is conditionally better for implementing the infrastructural ideology into its architecture due to its large scale, multiple authors, which FOA is only one of the members of the team, with EDAW, HOK and Zaha Hadid Architect. The project is on-going and the scheme is on its preliminary stage which suggests
Strategic Plan by EDAW [16]
the issue of regeneration after Olympics, ecological sustainability of the Lea Valley and its immediate context and infrastructural efficiency. With tight control of budget and scale, the London Olympic authorities have been refrained from total destruction or total construction. “Infrastructural work recognizes the collective nature of the city and allows for the participation of multiple
However, how do the collaborative force aggregates remain a challenge to architect, Seeing that the London master-plan is sort of top to bottom situation where building again work as object and the Olympic park serves as field. The instrumentality of building is still codes and regulation, by prohibition, rather than lib-
authors.”
eration of elements and encourages kind of bottom-up thinking. Of course, Zaha Hadid and other expressive architect surely want to stamp a signature, an identification of individuality and character of work which works very close to object. The potential of material practice in the construction context and culture in London seems lower than that of Japan due to heavy claims from contractor for not obeying to earlier document. It is therefore, the carrying through of energy from design to practice may not be so smooth. In additional to cost constraints, dedicated and slight variations of components to form the whole system is limited, those may be why FOA recent decision to quit
the team. “The firm walked out on the consortium last week over what are understood to be fears that the design quality of the plan had been dumbed down.”
This draws on the limitations of Infrastructural Urbanism that one could not escape from reality that the implementation cost of time and labor is surprising high, especially when it involves restructuring and reengineering architectural materials, non-conventional building methods, etc. While the public may not see the field, and are akin to determinate image and object, there is limited potential for architect’s own power or wish to implement the ideology thoughtfully.
Bibiography 0. Stan Allen, Points + lines : diagrams and projects for the city, New York : Princeton Architectural Press, c1999. 1. Zaera-Polo, Alejandro,; Moussavi, Farshid, Interview with Alejandro Zaera-Polo and Farshid Moussavi, FOA (Foreign Office Architects Ltd) on YIPT , A + U: architecture and urbanism 2000 Feb., n.2(353), p.4-31 2. Kipnis, Jeffrey. ; Najle, Ciro ; Ito, Toyo , Foreign Office Architects: obras y proyectos = Works and projects., 2G: revista internacional de arquitectura = international architecture review 2000, n.16, entire issue (144 p.) 3. Scalbert, Irénée. ,Foreign Office Architects: Yokohama International Port Terminal [exhibition review] ,AA files 1995 Autumn, n.30, p.86-87 4. Sanford Kwinter, Mark Wigley, Detlef Mertins, Jeffrey Kipnis, Phylogenesis: Foa’s Ark / Foreign Office Architects, Actar, 2004 5. Tomoko Sakamoto, Alberto Ferre, Michael Kubo, The Yokohama Projects / Foreign Office Architects, Actar, Barcelona, Spain, 2002 6. Moussavi, Farshid; Zaera Polo, Alejandro; Watanabe, Kunio; Kanebako, Yoshiharu.; Suzuki, Takanori.; Miura,
Takenori., Yokohama International Passenger Terminal., Kenchiku bunka 2002 Aug., v.57, n.660, p.17-58 7. Zaera-Polo, Alejandro,; Moussavi, Farshid, ZaeraPolo and Moussavi: young dark horses win Yokohama Port Terminal competition ,Kenchiku bunka 1995 June, v.50, n.584, p.73-110 8. Genovese, Paolo Vincenzo., Architettura topologica: teoria e pratica della progettazione, 2 = Topological architecture: theory and practice, 2 , Architettura 2004 May, v.50, n.583, p.419-421 9. Foreign Office Architects: Yokohama International Passenger Terminal, Japan architect 2003 Winter, n.48, p.62-63 10. Moore, Rowan., Point of departure [Yokohama Port Terminal] ,Domus 2002 Sept., n.851, p.[64]-[75] 11. Daniell, Thomas. , Strange attractor: the Yokohama International Port Terminal , Archis 2002, n.5, p.105-109 12. Zaera-Polo, Alejandro,; Moussavi, Farshid, Foreign Office Architects Ltd: Terminal passeggeri del porto di Yokohama (2002) , Osanbashi Pier, Yokohama, Giappone /, Casabella 2001 Dec.-2002 Jan., v.65, n.695-696, p.108-115 13. Bullivant, Lucy. , Yokohama’s custom-made ferry terminal: two young architects pull off the commission of a lifetime, Metropolis 2002 Nov., v.22, n.3, p.100-105
14. Hays, K. Michael; Kogod, Lauren. , Twenty projects at the boundaries of the architectural discipline examined in relation to the historical and contemporary debates over autonomy, Perspecta 2002, n.33, p.54-71 15. Klauser, Wilhelm. , Zaera & Moussavi - olas en el puerto: terminal marítima, Yokohama = harbor waves: maritime terminal, Yokohama, AV monografías = AV monographs 2002 July-Aug., n.96, p.110-123 16. Lea Valley regeneration: challenges and opportunities, http://www.capitasymonds.co.uk/talkingpoint/talkingpointarchive/article.asp?id=18