Life in The Cracks: Architecture in space left over between adjacent city buildings.

Page 1

life in the cracks Architecture in space left over between adjacent city buildings.

Simon Kahn Tollman

Dissertation Information

Dissertation Title:

Life in the Cracks: Architecture in space left over between adjacent city buildings.

Name of Student:

Simon Kahn Tollman

Supervisors:

Professor Jo Noero

Associate Professor Nic Coetzer

Rob de Jager

Francis Carter

(semester 1/2)

(semester 2/2)

.>?I :?II;HJ7J?ED ?I IK8C?JJ;: ?D F7HJ?7B <KBUBC;DJ E< J>; :;=H;; '7IJ;H E< H9>?J;9JKH; *HE<;II?ED7B JE J>; -9>EEB E< Architecture, Planning and Geomatics, University of Cape Town.

16 - 10 - 2013 I hereby a. grant the University of Cape Town free licence to reproduce the above dissertation in whole or in part for the

purpose of research. b. declare that

(i)

the above dissertation is my own unaided work in conception and execution and that apart from the normal guidance of my supervisors I have received no assistance.

(ii)

neither the substance or any part of the dissertation has been submitted for a degree at the

University of Cape Town or any other university. ??? # 7C DEM IK8C?JJ?D= J>; :?II;HJ7J?ED <EH ;N7C?D7J?ED ?D F7HJ?7B <KBUBC;DJ E< J>; :;=H;; '7IJ;H of Architecture (Professional).

Plagiarism Declaration: (i) I know that plagiarism is wrong. Plagiarism is to use another’s work and pretend it is one’s own. (ii) I have used the Harvard convention for citation and referencing. Each contribution to, and quotation in this

report from the work(s) of other people has been attributed to them, cited and referenced. (iii) This report is my own work. (iv) I have not allowed and will not allow anyone to copy my work with the intention of passing it off as his or her

own work.

Signature _________________________________

1

Abstract

This dissertation is rooted in a concern that legislation governing the built environment is shaping the way space is considered in material terms; that in the mind of the architect the prescriptions might constitute a set of indomitable values that cause the presupposition of certain formal and spatial validities and invalidities. In this vein the focus of the project is the commonly occurring leftover, awkward and constrained spaces between adjacent city buildings borne of such regulation. The thesis of this dissertation is that such presuppositions are unfounded. Its purpose is to demonstrate that the spaces can be occupied while adequately tending to the concerns on which building codes are based. It also makes a case for their occupation by man and architecture in spatial and infrastructural terms. It illustrates the extent of opportunities on offer by tackling a site representative of the extremities of the ‘inbetween’ condition. JH?E E< ?DJ;HFH;J?L; ?:;7I ?D<EHC J>; ?DL;IJ?=7J?ED D7C;BO SJ>; ?DUBJH7J?ED E< J>; 9EDIJHK9J;: 9?JOT SJ>; ecology of buildings’, and ‘ergonomics and exaggerated spatialities’. A design project explores the themes in manifest terms an irregular site, expansive in height and length but slight in breadth and bound to serve many of the regulated functions of a servitude. It is also largely inaccessible by construction machinery. .>; UHIJ E< J>; FHE@;9JTI J>;C;I ?I 87I;: ED J>; MEHA E< -E@7 $79E8I 7D: H?IC7D .>; I;9ED: ED J>; MEHA E< 1EE:I ?DKH 7D: ;D@7C?D .>; J>?H: ED J>; MEHA E< 0?:B;H ";?:;==;H 7D: &;7J>;H87HHEM .7BA?D= FE?DJI JE ;C;H=; ?D9BK:; KH87D VK?:?JO 7D: VKN ‘found land’, the conception of architecture as a dynamic system within a dynamic context, bio-functional mimesis, formal/spatial ambiguity and reciprocity, and the experience of the proximate environment.

2

Table of Contents

p. 4

Table of Figures

p. 6

1. Introduction

p.21

.>; #DUBJH7J?ED E< J>; EDIJHK9J;: ?JO

F

.>; 9EBE=O E< K?B:?D=I

p.33

4. Ergonomics and Exaggerated Spatialities

F

&?<; ?D J>; H79AI

p.60

6. Conclusion

p.62

,;<;H;D9; &?IJ

p.65

Figure References

p.69

Design Presentation 11-11-2013

3

Table of Figures

F Fig. 1.1

Sculptural study.

F Fig. 1.2

Photographic studies; extracts.

p.10

Fig. 1.3

Graphic physio-kinetic study; extracts.

p.11

Fig. 1.4

Initial conceptual formal study; sectional isometric.

p.12

Fig. 1.5

Site photographs.

p.12

Fig. 1.6

Site void inversion model.

p.13

?=

HEFF;: EHJ>EF>EJE=H7F>

p.13

Fig. 1.8

Site and context; exploded isometric.

p.14

?=

Site proportion, scale and material study.

p.14

Fig. 1.10

Knight-Daimler engine, side section.

p.14

Fig. 1.11

Printed circuit board silk-screen diagram.

p.15

Fig. 1.12

Sectional formal study.

p.15

Fig. 1.13

Concept model.

p.16

Fig. 1.14

Elemental study; extracts.

F Fig. 1.15

'7II?D= 7D: PED?D= IJK:?;I

p.18 Fig. 1.16

Curved space sketch.

p.18 ?=

Structural study.

p.18

Fig. 1.18

Construction study.

p.18

?=

Utilities study.

p.18

Fig. 1.20

Hypothetical material studies.

p.23

Fig. 2.1

Pet architecture typologies.

p.23

Fig. 2.2

Pet architectures.

p.24

Fig. 2.3

Keret House, Warsaw.

p.25

Fig. 2.4

*7H7I?J; &7I *7BC7I ,EJJ;H:7C

p.25

Fig. 2.5

&7I *7BC7I K?B:?D=

p.25

Fig. 2.6

*7H7I?J; &7I *7BC7I *B7DI 7D: 9HEII I;9J?ED

p.26

?=

'7FF?D= E< B;<JEL;H B7D: ?D 9;DJH7B 7F; .EMD

4

F Fig. 3.1

*7H7I?J; E<U9; 'EI9EM

F Fig. 3.2

*7H7I?J; )<U9; D: VEEH FB7D 7D: 9HEII I;9J?ED

p.30

Fig. 3.3

Excrescent Utopia; extracts.

p.30

Fig. 3.4

paraSITE.

p.31

Fig. 3.5

*7H7I?J; &7I *7BC7I 9EDIJHK9J?ED I;H?;I

p.32

Fig. 3.6

;HB?D H;; 3ED; ;NJH79J

p.35

Fig. 4.1

.>; 0?JHKL?7D '7D

p35

Fig. 4.2

0?I?ED '79>?D;

p.35

Fig. 4.3

Haptic Design Interface.

p.36

Fig. 4.4

TurnOn.

p.36

Fig. 4.5

.>;7JHE )U9?D7 -7E *7KBE =HEKD: VEEH FB7D 7D: BED=?JK:?D7B I;9J?ED

p.36

Fig. 4.6

.>;7JHE )U9?D7

F ?=

USS North Carolina through-hatch.

F Fig. 4.8

Near House, Tokyo.

p.41

Fig. 5.1

&7D: KI; 7D: PED?D= :?7=H7C

p.42

Fig. 5.2

7HH79A "EKI; J> VEEH FB7D

p.42

Fig. 5.3

.>; 7I>?ED 1EHAI>EF IJ VEEH FB7D

p.42

Fig. 5.4

7HH79A -JH;;J N9>7D=; =HEKD: VEEH FB7D

p.43

Fig. 5.5

Site plan and dimensions; existing.

p.44

Fig. 5.6

Site extrusion to zoning height restriction.

p.44

?=

Summary of zones and development rules.

p.45

Fig. 5.8

Functionally essential servitudes; isometric and plan.

p.45

?=

Existing site contents.

F Fig. 5.10

Sunlight penetration plans.

F Fig. 5.11

Proportion ratio triangulations.

p.48

Fig. 5.12

Site panorama; longitudinal.

p.48

Fig. 5.13

Site thresholds.

p.50

Fig. 5.14

Neighbouring structures; isometrics.

p.51

Fig. 5.15

Structural isometric.

p.52

Fig. 5.16

Rainwater, solar and crane systems; isometric.

p.54

?=

Programmatic massing; isometric.

p.58

Fig. 5.18

Project isometric.

5

1. Introduction

The leftover space is not detached from the urban mainstream... Quite to the contrary, it is embedded within,

or just steps away from the urban mainstream space... As the emblematic leftover space the downtown back

alley... stands for a potential of place. (Akkerman and Cornfeld, 2010, pp.33-34)

Thesis Top-down regulation in the built environment has resulted in the common occurrence of leftover, awkward, and constrained spaces between adjacent city buildings. They are the outcome of various bureaucratic spatial FH;I9H?FJ?EDI 7FFB?;: M?J> 7 8HE7: 8HKI> 7D: M?J>EKJ FH;@K:?9; =H;7JBO ?DVK;D9?D= J>; <EHC E< 8K?B:?D=I 7D: KH87D <78H?9 *EJ=?;J;H -F;9?U9 JE IF79;I 8;JM;;D 7:@79;DJ 8K?B:?D=I 7H; J>EI; 9ED9;HD?D= I;HL?JK:;I 7D: M?J>?D J>7J IF>;H; J>; H;=KB7J?ED E< IF79; FHEL?I?ED <EH B?=>J F;D;JH7J?ED L;DJ?B7J?ED UH; I7<;JO :H7?D7=; 7D: KJ?B?J?;I 7D: C79>?D; 799;II -EKJ> <H?97D KH;7K E< -J7D:7H:I -EC; E< J>;I; FH;I9H?FJ?EDI 7H; undoubtably well placed, though their legislative foundations may be shaping the way space is considered in material terms. In this sense they might constitute in the mind of the architect a set of indomitable values that can cause the presupposition of certain formal and spatial validities and invalidities. The thesis of this project is that such presuppositions are unfounded, and it aims to demonstrate that these spaces can be occupied while adequately tending to the concerns on which building codes are based. Additionally it will advocate the architectural occupation of these ‘cracks’ in the city in urban and spatial terms as well as in those of resource optimisation.

6

Project The project aims to illustrate the extent of opportunities on offer by tackling the extremities of the ‘in between’ condition in a way that can be generalised. With this in mind a chasmic site was chosen between two buildings straddling the Fringe and Parliamentary Districts of Cape Town. It is an irregular volume expansive in height and length but slight in breadth and bound to serve many of the regulated functions of a servitude. It is also largely inaccessible by construction machinery. The complexities of these factors afforded the necessary architectural explorations in form and circulation, programme, ways of making, urbanism, use of nature, and utilities. #D<EHC?D= J>; ;NFBEH7J?EDI ?I 7 :;I?=D 7JJ?JK:; 9EDIJ?JKJ;: E< 7 JH?E E< ?DJ;HFH;J?L; ?:;7I .>; UHIJ ?I SJ>; ?DUBJH7J?ED E< J>; 9EDIJHK9J;: 9?JOT 9ED9;HD;: M?J> J>; IJ 9;DJKHO 7FFHEFH?7J?ED E< J>; J> 9;DJKHO 9?JO The second is ‘the ecology of buildings’ which looks at architecture as part of a dynamic built environment. The third is ‘ergonomics and exaggerated spatialities’ interested in the various ergonomics relevant to constrained spaces such as those physio-kinetic, circulatory and situational. Thus the project is located in three corresponding theoretical spheres. Respectively, that of a post-industrial KH87D >KC7D?IC H;B7J?L; JE J>; MEHA E< -E@7 $79E8I 7D: H?IC7D .>7J E< ;9EBE=?97B H;B7J?ED7B?IC H;B7J?L; JE J>; MEHA E< 1EE:I ?DKH 7D: ;D@7C?D D: J>7J E< DEJ?ED7B 8E:O 7D: IF79; 7D: IF79; 7D: E8@;9J H;B7J?L; JE J>; MEHA E< 0?:B;H ";?:;==;H 7D: &;7J>;H87HHEM The design was concluded as a collection of buildings housing a collection of programmes - a vertical electric 97H BEJ H;I?:;DJ?7B 7F7HJC;DJI E<U9;I 7 H;IJ7KH7DJ 7 9E<<;; I>EF 7 M?D: 7D: IEB7H ;D;H=O <7HC 7 H7?DM7J;H harvesting system, and various peripheral programmatic elements that tap their adjacent buildings for certain resources. All elements of programme are studied as a function of the dimensions of the spaces they occupy. They are drawn together by an interconnected circulatory and void system, while an integrated gantry system makes provision for heavy lifting to the hard-to-access areas of the site. Aspects of light, air, water, and earth and vegetation are used as datums in the project, along with an aspiration to extend the city through the site.

7

Process Driven by the above mentioned ideas, a three tiered design process that emphasised investigations across scales was followed. It started with the abstract, progressed to mediations of the abstract and the real, and UD7BBO JE J>; H;IEBKJ?ED E< 7 :;I?=D .>; UHIJ J?;H M7I ?D?J?7J;: 8O 7D ?DJK?J?L; 7D: =;IJKH7B ;NFH;II?ED E< ?JI J>H;; 9;DJH7B CEJ?<I C;DJ?ED;: 78EL; U=KH; I;H?;I E< F>EJE=H7F>?9 ;NFBEH7J?EDI J>7J BEEA;: 7J J>; urban spaces under study followed, focussing on proportion, scale, light, penetration of nature, occupation 7D: 7FFHEFH?7J?ED 7D: 78IJH79J?ED U=KH; DEJ>;H =H7F>?97BBO ?DL;IJ?=7J;: >KC7D F>OI?E A?D;J?9I U=KH; H7M?D= <HEC J>;I; J>H;; ;N;H9?I;I 7 FH;B?C?D7HO <EHC7B IJK:O M7I KD:;HJ7A;D 7?C;: 7J C7D?<;IJ?D= 7 KD?JO E< J>; FHE@;9JTI J>H;; J>;C;I U=KH; .?;H JME 8;=7D M?J> J>; I;B;9J?ED E< 7 I?J; U=KH; 7D: 7 I>?<J JE ;NF;H?C;DJ7B MEHA ?D ?J #J M7I IJK:?;: 7I 7 LEBKC; H7J>;H J>7D 7 IKH<79; 7D: 7 CE:;B M7I 8K?BJ 9EDIJHK9J?D= ?J 7I 7 FEI?J?L; IF79; U=KH; M>?B; ?JTI BE97J?ED ?D J>; KH87D <78H?9 M7I 9EDI?:;H;: U=KH; 7D: -;9J?ED7B 9KJI C7FF?D= ?JI ?HH;=KB7H?JO M;H; =7K=;: ?D I97B; FHEFEHJ?ED 7D: C7J;H?7B 9ED:?J?ED J>; B7JJ;H :ED; J>HEK=> =H7F>?9 EL;HB7OI U=KH; #D site formal and spatial explorations began with the study of spatialised objects constrained in one dimension U=KH; 7D:

.>; <EHCI M;H; J>;D 78IJH79J;: 7D: FB79;: ?D J>; I?J; U=KH; .>; IJK:O M7I developed further to include the project’s initial circulatory, constructive and energy generation gestures U=KH; .>; UD7B IJ7=; ?D J>; FHE9;II 8;=7D M?J> 7 I;H?;I E< ;B;C;DJ7B IJK:?;I J>7J ?IEB7J;: 9;HJ7?D :;I?=D 7IF;9JI form, circulation, programme, urban strategy and edge conditions, light penetration, energy and water IOIJ;CI 7D: I?J; 799;II 7D: BE==;: J>;C U=KH; .>;O ?D<EHC;: 7 C7II?D= 7D: PED?D= 9ED9;FJ M>?9> <EBBEM;: JE M>?9> B7O;HI E< 9ECFB;N?JO M;H; J>;D 7::;: U=KH; KHL;: <EHCI M;H; KI;: ?D IF79; FB7DD?D= JE EFJ?C?I; >KC7D <KD9J?ED7B?JO U=KH; #D F7H7BB;B M7OI E< C7A?D= M;H; ;NFBEH;: UHIJ ?D terms of structure, construction and utilities and the related tapping of resources in adjacent buildings, second in terms of high performing envelopes that are light and occupy little space, and third in terms of a C7J;H?7B ;NFH;II?ED E< KH87D F;D;JH7J?ED U=KH; 7D:

8

FIGURE 1.1 (Author, 2013, Sculptural study) Above

FIGURE 1.2 (Author, 2013, Photographic studies; extracts) Below. Three images. Each image is taken from one of the studies. From left to right, the studies of spatial character, occupation and abstraction. 9

FIGURE 1.3 (Author, 2013, Graphic physio-kinetic study; extracts) Right. Three images.

FIGURE 1.4 (Author, 2013, Initial conceptual formal study; sectional isometric) Page opposite. Drawn at scale 1:50. Reproduced at scale 1:100.

FIGURE 1.5 (Author, 2013, Site photographs) Overleaf, above. Three images, From left to right, they depict the site’s southern extremity, interior, and northern extremity.

FIGURE 1.6 (Author, 2013, Site void inversion model) Overleaf, below. Built at scale 1:200.

10

11

FIGURE 1.7 (Chief Directorate Surveys and Mapping Cape Town, 2001, Cropped orthophoto 3318 CD 19&14) Page opposite. Left. Original Scale 1:10 000. Reproduced at original scale.

FIGURE 1.8 (Author, 2013, Site and context; exploded isometric) Page opposite. Right. Drawn at scale 1:2000. Reproduced at scale 1:5000. The study area is indicated by the outer circle in figure 1.7.

The site is indicated by the inner circle, aligned with the boundary of the Fringe and Parliamentary Districts of Cape Town (Creative Cape Town, 2011).

12

13

FIGURE 1.9 (Author, 2013, Site proportion, scale and material study) Above. Plan drawn at scale 1:200, sectional profiles at scale 1:500. The former is reproduced at scale 1:500 and the latter at scale 1:1000. Human scaling element at ground level adjacent profiles.

FIGURE 1.10 (Kennedy Rankin, 1905, Knight-Daimler engine, side-section) Left, above.

FIGURE 1.11 (Dz3w, 2013, Printed circuit board silk-screen diagram) Left, below.

14

FIGURE 1.12 (Author, 2013, Sectional formal study) Above. Drawn at scale 1:200. Reproduced at scale 1:500.

FIGURE 1.13 (Author, 2013, Concept model) Below. Built at scale 1:200.

15

FIGURE 1.14 (Author, 2013, Elemental study; extracts) Left. At scale 1:2000. Three images. From top to bottom: One of numerous porosity studies. A study inserting a gantry crane system into the site to negotiate the site’s hard-to-access areas. A study of the maximum number of parking bays the site can accommode using vertical lots.

16

FIGURE 1.15 (Author, 2013, Massing and zoning studies) Right. Two images.

17

FIGURE 1.16 (Author, 2013, Curved space sketch) Above left.

FIGURE 1.17 (Author, 2013, Structural study) Above right. Drawn at scale 1:20. Reproduced at scale 1:50.

FIGURE 1.18 (Author, 2013, Construction study) Right. Drawn at scale 1:200. Reproduced at scale 1:500.

18

FIGURE 1.19 (Author, 2013, Utility study) Right. Drawn at scale 1:50. Reproduced at scale 1:500.

FIGURE 1.20 (Author, 2013, Early material study) Below right. Drawn at scales 1:100 and 1:200. Reproduced at scales 1:250 and 1:500.

19

Report This design report will present an integrated argument that aims to unify aspects of theory, design, making and technology across its focal areas. The report will be structured around the project’s three central motifs, >;D9; ?JI D;NJ J>H;; I;9J?EDI 7H; ;DJ?JB;: S.>; ?DUBJH7J?ED E< J>; 9EDIJHK9J;: 9?JOT S.>; 9EBE=O E< K?B:?D=IT and ‘Ergonomics and Exaggerated Spatialities’. The report will consider each in turn, starting at the scale of the city in section two, progressing to that of 7H9>?J;9JKH; ?D I;9J?ED J>H;; 7D: UD7BBO JE J>7J E< J>; >KC7D 8E:O ?D I;9J?ED <EKH "7L?D= B7?: J>; J>;EH;J?97B 7D: J;9>D?97B <EKD:7J?EDI E< J>; :;I?=D FHE@;9J ?J M?BB 8; :;9EDIJHK9J;: ?D J>; U<J> 7D: UD7B I;9J?ED E< J>; F7F;H ;DJ?JB;: S&?<; ?D J>; H79AIT .>; H;FEHJ M?BB 9ED9BK:; M?J> 7 IKCC7HO 7D: 9EDIEB?:7J?ED IJ7J;C;DJ 7 H;V;9J?ED ED J>; EKJ9EC; E< J>; FHE@;9J 7D: ?JI =;D;H7B?I78?B?JO 7D: M?J>?D J>; FHE@;9JTI U;B: E< ;DGK?HO 7 speculation of the future.

20

) %# % ! ! % ! $%#& % %(

Periodically, over time, the cities around the d eveloped world almost simultaneously become unstable, basically

9H;7J?D= 7 I?JK7J?ED J>7J DE BED=;H UJI 7 F;H?E: E< ;NF7DI?ED .>?I B;7:I JE 7 F;H?E: E< ;NF;H?C;DJ7J?ED 7D:

new trends of development, which begin to transform the city into something completely different... a

:;9EDIJHK9J?ED 7D: H;9EDIJ?JKJ?ED -E@7 FF

Global trends in urbanisation and population growth suggest that humanity has only scratched the surface of 7D KH87D ;H7 ?J?;I ;IF;9?7BBO ?D J>; =BE87B IEKJ> 7H; =;JJ?D= B7H=;H CEH; :?L;HI; 7D: CEH; VK?: ,K8B; I 7 H;IKBJ KH87D?JO >7I 8;;D IK8@;9J JE ?D9H;7I?D= VKN 7D: 9>7D=; FH;II?D= J7IA <EH 7H9>?J;9JI 7D: designers in the built environment is to consider the city in these morphological terms. A further challenge is JE FHEFEI; >EM ;DL?HEDC;DJI IE 9ECFB;J;BO 9EDIJHK9J;: C7O 8; 7FFHEFH?7J;: JE <KBUB FH;I;DJ D;;:I -E@7 2002) $79E8I ?:;DJ?U;: <79JEHI E< J> 9;DJKHO 9?J?;I J>7J MEKB: :;UD; J>?I 9>7BB;D=; CEH; J>7D U<JO O;7HI ago. She noted that visual order does not necessarily correspond with experienced and functional order; that functional segregation is inferior to spatial cross-use and complexity; that authoritarian planning fails to make FHEL?I?ED <EH J>; I;B< :?L;HI?U97J?ED 7D: VK?:?JO E< J>; 9?JO 7D: J>7J J>; 9?JO ?I 9EDI?:;H;: 7D ;L;DJ H7J>;H than an ever unraveling outcome, its suitability to adaption overlooked.

I?J; EKJ E< C?D: ?I <7C?B?7H J;HH?JEHO JE C7DO 9?JO H;I?:;DJI 8KJ KDI;;D 7D: KD?D>78?J;: ?D I?=D?U97DJ M7OI

The resulting interstice, ‘a space that intervenes between one thing and another’ often generates seemingly

uninhabitable zones... may also be understood as fortuitous seams that offer ‘found’ land in apparently built-

EKJ KH87D 7H;7I H?IC7D F7H7

With the above in mind, there are various architectural movements gaining traction that embody an impetus for the change described by Soja (2002). They tend to begin with a paradigm shift that renders the complete and constructed city he describes as not so complete or constructed anymore, making provision for CEHF>EBE=?97B V;N?8?B?JO .>; I>?<J ?I ED; ?D M>?9> E:: IF79;I B;<JEL;H ?D =H?::;: IOIJ;CI 7H; I;;D 7I legitimate real estate, in which infrastructural excesses lay foundations for higher urban strata, and in which the magnitude of space necessary for human comfort and occupational function are tested.

21

Pet architecture, stenotic architecture and parasitic architecture - not mutually exclusive - are perhaps the CEIJ FHEC?D;DJ E< J>; 7<EH;C;DJ?ED;: CEL;C;DJI .EAOE 87I;: 7H9>?J;9JI J;B?;H EM 1EM 9E?D;: J>; term ‘pet architecture’. With it they refer to the quirky and extremely compact buildings that occupy the tiny 7D: 7MAM7H: B;<JEL;H IF79;I E< KH87D .EAOE U=KH; 7D: :EC;IJ?9 F;JI E< J>; B7H=;H 9EDL;DJ?ED7B buildings that surround them (Tsukamoto, 2003). Stenotic Architecture describes buildings that occupy deep 7D: D7HHEM LE?:I H;C7?D?D= ?D 7BB 8KJ I7JKH7J;: 9?JO =H?:I U=KH; SIJ;DEI?IT ?I 7 C;:?97B J;HC :;H?L;: from Greek meaning ‘narrow‘ or ‘narrowing’ (Gausa, 2003). Parasitic architecture capitalises on the excess IJHK9JKH7B 7D: KJ?B?JO 97F78?B?J?;I E< ;N?IJ?D= 8K?B:?D=I '7A?D= H;<;H;D9; JE J>; :OD7C?9I E< 8?EBE=?97B F7H7I?J?IC J>;?H I?J; ?I 7 >EIJ 8K?B:?D= <HEC M>?9> J>;O :H7M J>; H;IEKH9;I JE <K;B J>;?H ;N?IJ;D9; U=KH; 2.5 and 2.6). (Taylor, 2006) All three architectures mentioned indicate a propensity for change. In the context of this report the case of pet architecture in Tokyo is particularly interesting as it is not designed by architects nor built with bureaucratic sanction. In this sense it offers insight into the unhindered civic imagination of a parallel society facing the aforementioned universal urban challenges. With it the residents of Tokyo express a vision of their city and how it should be lived in (Tsukamoto, 2003). Collectively the movements indicate how a concrete KH87D?JO 97D 8; FB7IJ?9?I;: 8O FHE9;II;I E< 7H9>?J;9JKH7B ?DUBJH7J?ED 7D: F;HC;7J?ED JE 799ECCE:7J; J>; 9>7D=; 7D: VKN 9>7H79J;H?IJ?9 E< J>; 9EDJ;CFEH7HO KH87D 9ED:?J?ED As an aspect of her thesis on pet architecture, Potgieter (2008) measured the area of leftover sites in central 7F; .EMD ";H IJK:O IF7DD;: 7D 7H;7 K?J;DA7DJ JE K?J;D=H7=J -JH;;J ?D ED; :?C;DI?ED 7D: )H7D=; JE -JH7D: -JH;;J ?D J>; EJ>;H U=KH; ";H H;IKBJI ?D:?97J;: C2 of unused space - the equivalent of eight city blocks in that part of the city - constituted of servitudes, space remaining from severe setback prescriptions, apparent no-man’s-land and others. If thought about in the ways described above, these spaces may well prove invaluable in Cape Town’s scope to accommodate the changing needs of its inhabitants.

22

FIGURE 2.1 (Atelier Bow-Wow, 2002, Pet architecture typologies) Left.

FIGURE 2.2 (Atelier Bow-Wow, 2002, Pet architectures) Left, below. Orthographic three dimensional inserts at scale 1:200. Two images.

23

FIGURE 2.3 (Centrala, 2012, Keret House, Warsaw) Above.Three images. Centrala’s Keret House, sandwiched between two medium-rise city blocks is stenotic. It is narrow and elongated to fit its site which is 1520mm wide at its widest, tapering to 920mm. (Rosenfield, 2013)

FIGURE 2.4 (Korteknie Stuhlmacher Architecten, 2001, Parasite Las Palmas, Rotterdam) Page opposite. Top left. The Parasite Las Palmas is attached to the service core of the Las Palmas building - an old industrial building now exhibition space - from which it gains structural support and access to utilities. (Korteknie and Sthulmacher Architecten, 2001)

24

FIGURE 2.5 (flickr, 2011, Las Palmas Building 1955, Rotterdam) Above.

FIGURE 2.6 (Korteknie Stuhlmacher Architecten, 2001, Parasite Las Palmas plans and cross section) Right. Reproduced at scale 1:200.

25

FIGURE 2.7 (Potgieter, 2008, Mapping of leftover land in central Cape Town) Left. Reproduced at scale 1:2000.

26

3. ! ! ( ! & $

Surely it is possible, even necessary, that after a century of the failure of grand designs new principles for the

reconstruction of damaged buildings and cities can be devised. Such principles, it would seem, cannot emerge

from conceptions of either pasts or futures, but rather from the present, from conditions existing...

1EE:I F

As a theory of making, two parallel strands of investigation apply to the ecology of buildings. One is theoretical and interrogates what ecology - a notion borrowed from the organic sciences - means in an architectural context. The other is practical and involves technical mimesis, modelled on certain ecologies that occur in nature. What is interesting in regard to section two is how the underpinnings of architectural ;9EBE=O 7H; UHCBO HEEJ;: I?CKBJ7D;EKIBO ?D J>; 9EDIJHK9J;: 9?JO 7D: ?D J>; VK?:?JO E< J>; KH87D 9ED:?J?ED ?DKH MH?J?D= ED ;9EBE=?97B H;B7J?ED7B?IC ?D 7H9>?J;9JKH; ;NFB7?DI J>7J S;9EBE=OT ?I 9ED9;HD;: M?J> J>; ?DJ;HH;B7J?EDI>?F E< B?L?D= IOIJ;CI O >;H :;UD?J?EDI B?L?D= IOIJ;CI 7H; 9>7H79J;H?I;: 7I ?DJ;=H7J;: M>EB;I whose properties emerge from the interaction of their constituent parts. Inversely, non-living systems are componentially structured - as buildings are, conventionally conceived - and function as a result of specialised parts. Their interactions serve the whole, but the whole does not emerge from interactions between the components. Further, she describes non-living systems as ‘objects’ and living systems as ‘processes’ and ?:;DJ?U;I J>H;; FH?D9?FB;I J>7J :?IJ?D=K?I> J>; <EHC;H <HEC J>; B7JJ;H .>7J E< VK9JK7J?EDI IJH7J?U97J?ED 7D: interdependence. &?L?D= IOIJ;CI 7H; DED IJ7J?9 7D: H;C7?D ?D 7 IJ7J; E< ED =E?D= JH7DI?J?ED 7D: VKN ?D H;IFEDI; JE 9>7D=?D= internal and external factors. They continually adapt to maintain their homeostasis - their equilibrium KD:;H J>;I; :OD7C?9 9ED:?J?EDI 7 97F79?JO <EH I;B< H;D;M7B 97BB;: S7KJEFE?;I?IT &?L?D= IOIJ;CI 7H; 7BIE hierarchical. Ordered from the bottom up, their smallest parts interact and generate properties that are the building blocks of the next strata of organisation. In addition, different strata of the system can self-organise without an external agent acting upon them. Finally, the strata of living systems are interdependant. A living IOIJ;C H;IFED:I JE VK9JK7J?EDI ?D ?JI ;DL?HEDC;DJ 8O EF;H7J?D= 7I 7 KD?U;: M>EB; =;D;H7J?D= D;M 9ECFB;N 97F78?B?J?;I 7I 7 H;IKBJ E< J>; 9KCKB7J?L; L7BK; E< J>;?H IJH7J7 ?DKH 1?J> H;IF;9J JE >;H J>H;; FH?D9?FB;I E< B?L?D= IOIJ;CI ?DKH 7IAI GK;IJ?EDI E< 7H9>?J;9JKH; J>7J ?D IEC; ways echo the second section of this report. Can buildings respond autopoietically to dynamic contexts? Can a building’s order emerge from the interaction of various strata, rather than be imposed? Can a building be a complex system in which feedback loops enable autopoietic responses? These questions are valid with regard to any of the dynamic areas to which architecture is subjected such as culture, nature, technology or urban fabric. 27

The parasite as that which lives on, though equally as that which lives alongside, reworks the city, the block

and building by incorporating them within an ecology of relations. Relations and connections allow for the

H;B;7I; E< FEJ;DJ?7B?J?;I ;D@7C?D F7H7

Attempts have been made to bring architecture into the realm of living systems. The ecology that has perhaps been most prominently focussed on by architects is that of parasitism, mentioned with regard to urbanity in section two. ‘Parasitism’ - usually used to describe relationships between organisms - describes an association in which a parasite depends on a host for various aspects of its survival (Rohde, 2012). ,;7B?I;: FHE@;9JI ?D J>; U;B: >7L; J;D:;: JEM7H:I 7 <KD9J?ED7B C?C;I?I H7J>;H J>7D J>; B7O;H;: ?DJ;HFH;J7J?EDI E< ?DKH IKFFEHJ;: 8O ;D@7C?D .>EK=> J>; B7JJ;H 7H; DEJ ;DJ?H;BO 78I;DJ ?D J>; ;NFBEH7J?EDI the parasitic movement is still proving itself in practical terms and much of its built work remains expositionary. Thus it has predominantly considered material aspects - the siting of a parasite on a host, the I9EF; E< 7 F7H7I?J; JE 7:@KIJ JE J>; IF;9?U9 ?D<H7IJHK9JKH7B 97F79?J?;I E< ?JI >EIJ JE 8; I;HL?9;78BO 9ECF7J?8B; M?J> ?JI >EIJ 7D: JE <EHC 7 KD?U;: 7D: ;<U9?;DJ IOIJ;C M?J> ?JI >EIJ Key issues have been spatial compaction, lightness of structural and formal systems capable of attachment to a host, and the infrastructural mediation of old and new. In this vein, light timber, steel, tension, and even FD;KC7J?9 7D: FB7IJ?9 <EHCI 7D: IJHK9JKH;I 7H; FHEC?D;DJ U=KH; 7D: #D<H7IJHK9JKH7B C;:?7J?ED ?I E<J;D H;V;9J;: ?D I?J?D= ED 7 I;HL?9; 9EH; <EH ;N7CFB; IE J>7J I?CFB; ;NJ;DI?EDI E< ;N?IJ?D= services can meet the needs of the parasite. In addition, prefabrication and computer modelling - in this case not limited to formal concerns - are also commonly used to negotiate unorthodox construction constraints U=KH; Despite the youth of parasitic architecture in built terms, its theoretical basis is better established. Woods GKEJ;: 7J J>; 8;=?DD?D= E< J>?I I;9J?ED ?I H;IFEDI?8B; <EH J>?I JE 7 I?=D?U97DJ :;=H;; 7I M;BB 7I <EH :;UD?D= J>; ?C7=;HO 7IIE9?7J;: M?J> ?J "?I MEHA <E9KII;I ED H?=?: 7D: ?CF;HIED7B KH87D?J?;I ?D IJ7J;I E< acute change and expresses spatial departures from the mechanisms of control that have made it so. He ?D@;9JI J>; 9?JO M?J> 78IJH79J IF7J?7B?I7J?EDI E< 7D ;C7D9?F7J;: >KC7D?JO J>7J 9EBED?I; 7D: H;:;UD; ;N?IJ?D= IF7J?7B EH:;HI U=KH; 1EE:IT MEHA J?;I ?DJE J>7J E< ?DKH 7KJEFE?;I?I ;C;H=;DJ EH:;H 7D: <;;:879A =HEMJ> BEEFI when he contemplates the motivation behind his forms, the way he constructs them, and the occupation of his spaces. Designed to facilitate reinvention in the wake of change they are alien so that space may be H;:?I9EL;H;: M?J>EKJ FH;9ED9;?L;: DEJ?EDI E< >78?J7J?ED K?BJ M?J> ;L;HOC7D J;9>DEBE=?;I M?J> J>; :;8H?I E< KH87D VKN J>; FB7IJ?9 ?DUBJH7J?ED E< J>; ;N?IJ?D= 97D IFEDJ7D;EKIBO E99KH ?D F7H7BB;B JE J>; H;:?I9EL;HO E< space. 28

FIGURE 3.1 (Za Bor Architects, 2011, Parasite Office, Moscow) Left. Parasite Office is a single lightweight steel structural unit fixed to the structures of its adjacent buildings (ArchDaily, 2011).

FIGURE 3.2 (Za Bor Architects, 2011, Parasite Office 2nd floor plan and cross section) Left. Reproduced at scale 1:200.

29

FIGURE 3.3 (De Luca, 2012, Excrescent Utopia; extracts) Below. Three images

FIGURE 3.4 (Rakowitz, 2000, paraSITE) Below. Three images,

Excrescent Utopia was a conceptual project by Milo Ayden De Luca. It proposes parasitic structures to house the homeless. Volumes are wrapped around street lamps and supported in tension, attached to nearby structures (Dezeen, 2013).

In his various paraSITE iterations Michael Rakowitz uses pneumatic structures that inflate via a connection to buildings’ HVAC exhausts. The structures are given greater integrity by partitioning structural pneumatic ribs (Rakowitz, 2000).

30

FIGURE 3.5 (Korteknie Stuhlmacher Architecten, 2001, Parasite Las Palmas construction series) Above. Nine images. Parasite Las Palmas was prefabricated off-site and delivered to site in pieces where it was assembled. This was done so as not to exceed the loading capacity of the Las Palmas Building during construction. As a result the only significant construction loads besides the building itself were a single light articulated boom crane and scaffolding (Korteknie Stuhlmacher Architecten, 2001).

31

Realised works that have rooted their attitude to making in architectural ecology are not developed to the ;NJ;DJ J>7J J>; U;B:TI J>;EHO ?I J>;H; 7H; 7BIE EJ>;H JOF;I ;9EBE=?97B H;B7J?EDI>?F 8;I?:;I F7H7I?J?IC IK9> 7I mutualism, that might also be experimented with). Having said that, the two trajectories do however deviate at a point as theoretical extremes - including those graphic - are surely not reconcilable with practical 7FFB?97J?ED J B;7IJ DEJ :?H;9JBO L7BK78B; FHE=H;II?ED ?D J>; U;B: C7O 8; JE H;9ED9?B; 7 J;9>D?97B C?C;J?9 ecology with generalisable principles distilled from its body of theory: the autopoiesis, emergent order, and <;;:879A =HEMJ> BEEFI E< ?DKH J>; KH87D ?DUBJH7J?ED 7D: FB7IJ?9?JO E< 1EE:I 7D: J>; technical mimesis of practical parasitic buildings.

FIGURE 3.6 (Lebbeus Woods, 1991, Berlin Free Zone; extract) Above.

32

4. Ergonomics and Exaggerated Spatialities

One must build for the human being, that he might rediscover in the architectural construction the joys of

<KBUBC;DJ ?D 7 M>EB; J>7J ;NJ;D:I 7D: 9ECFB;J;I >?C

!H7O 7D: 7:EL?9? GKEJ;: ?D &;7J>;H87HHEM F

#D9H;7I;: IF7J?7B 9EDIJH7?DJ >7I 8;;D H7?I;: ?D J>; JME FH;9;:?D= I;9J?EDI ?D J>; UHIJ J>; C7=D?JK:; E< IF79; necessary for human comfort and occupational function, and in the second that associated with architectural ecology in the city. A third case can be made - in the light of those preceding - advocating the experiential opportunities afforded by exaggerated spatial relationships. It begins with conceptions of body and space, FHE9;;:I JE ;H=EDEC?9I 7D: 7C8?=K?J?;I E< <EHC 7D: IF79; 7D: UD7BBO JE J>; FHEN?C7J; ;DL?HEDC;DJ E:O 7D: IF79; 7H; CKJK7BBO 7<UHC?D= 79> ?CFB?;I J>; EJ>;HTI ;N?IJ;D9; #DI;F7H78B; ?D J>?I I;DI; 0?:B;H DEJ;I J>7J J>;O 7H; 78IJH79J 9ED9;FJI IF;9?U9 JE J?C; 7D: FB79; 7D: J>7J 7H9>?J;9JKH7B <EHC ?I J>;?H <E?B ?D H;7B?JO *H?C7H?BO JME FH?EH 9ED9;FJ?EDI J>; 0?JHKL?7D E< J>; ,;D7?II7D9; 7D: J>; DED F>OI?97B E< J>; nineteenth and twentieth centuries - shaped the current conception, the haptic body-space. 0?:B;H ;NFB7?DI J>7J J>; 8E:O ?D ,;D7?II7D9; IF79; >7I ?JI HEEJI ?D 0?JHKL?7D BEH; M>?9> QFEHJH7OI J>; 8E:O 7I 7 F>OI?97B E8@;9J 9BEI;: 7D: 9ECFB;J; ?D ?JI;B< 47D:5 ?D:;F;D:;DJ E< EJ>;H E8@;9JIR H7D9A F '?HHEH?D= J>; 0?JHKL?7D ?C7=; U=KH; ?J M7I 9;DJH7B?I;: ?D ,;D7?II7D9; IF79; M>?9> M7I 9ED9;?L;: for the body to situate itself in and perform in. The resulting architecture was humanistic, analogous to the body’s proportions and centrality, conceived as a microcosm for and of the body. The conception lost traction 7I ?J 8;97C; 9B;7H J>7J CE:;HD B?<; 9EKB: DEJ Q8; ?DI9H?8;: M?J>?D J>; 9?H9B; EH J>; IGK7H;R 0?:B;H F 132). 0?JHKL?7D J>;EH?;I >;B: IM7O KDJ?B ?JI ?:;7B?I;: 9ECFB;J;D;II M7I :?IJEHJ;: 8O J>; ;C;H=;D9; E< H;K:TI J>;EH?;I ?D J>; U;B:I E< FIO9>EBE=O 7D: FIO9>E7D7BOI?I .>;I; J>;EH?;I B7?: J>; 87I?I <EH M>7J MEKB: 8; J>; seminal body-space formulation associated with modernism. It focussed on ‘experiential vision’: an image of H;7B?JO C;:?7J;: 8O J>; KD9EDI9?EKI C?D: U=KH; #J M7I ?D J>?I I;DI; J>7J ?J M7I 7 DED F>OI?97B formulation. The body’s faculties of experience were reason-based on optical perception and the IK89EDI9?EKI :?IHKFJ?ED J>;H;E< .>;H; M;H; L7H?EKI ?J;H7J?L; 8H7D9>;I 8KJ J>; 8;IJ ADEMD ?I J>7J E< &; Corbusier who’s ‘machine’s for living in’ aspired physiologically to be mere tools, but psychologically powerful I;DI7J?ED =;D;H7JEHI 0?:B;H

33

In post-Freudian design, the physical was reintroduced in the formulation of the haptic body-space, the 9KHH;DJ 9ED9;FJ?ED E< 8E:O 7D: IF79; 0?:B;H The very essence of the lived experience is moulded by hapticity and peripheral unfocused vision... All the

senses, including vision, are extensions of the tactile sense; the senses are specialisations of skin tissue, and

all sensory experiences are modes of touching and thus related to tactility. (Pallasmaa, 2005, p.10).

.>; B?DA 8;JM;;D >7FJ?9 F;H9;FJ?ED 7D: CEL;C;DJ M7I ;CF>7I?I;: 'EL?D= 8;OED: H;K: FIO9>EBE=?IJ $7C;I !?8IED F :;UD;I J>; >7FJ?9 IOIJ;C 7I J>; QI;DI?8?B?JO E< J>; ?D:?L?:K7B JE J>; MEHB: 7:@79;DJ to his body by use of his body�. As in the non-physical formulation, notions of a reality mediated by the psychological are retained in the haptic. The critical development is from Freudian opticality to the hapticity E< 17BJ;H ;D@7C?D QM>;D >; IFEA; E< J>; 7<<;9J 7I EFFEI;: JE J>; ;<<;9J E< J>?D=IR 0?:B;H F When considering the experience of exaggerated spatialities like small spaces, the haptic formulation of body and space is of great consequence. In exaggerated spatialities movement-based and tactile experience is 7CFB?U;: M?J> J>; 8E:OTI H;B7J?EDI>?F JE IF79; 7D: E8@;9J U=KH; H=EDEC?9I 799ECE:7J;I J>; A?D;J?9 haptic body in constrained spaces and has three specialised areas - physical, cognitive and organisational. In 7D 7H9>?J;9JKH7B 9EDJ;NJ J>; UHIJ ?CFB?;I F>OI?97B 79J?L?J?;I H7D=;I E< CEJ?ED 7D: IF7J?7B 9?H9KB7J?ED J>; second, perception; and the third, situational dynamics, behaviour, and performance (IEA, 2011; &;7J>;H87HHEM .>;O 7H; >EM;L;H CKJK7BBO :;F;D:7DJ 7D: 97DDEJ 8; I;F7H7J;: ?D FH79J?9; 7I ?D J;NJ 7H; ;NFH;II;: 7I 7 <EHC7B KD?JO U=KH; At the heart of the matter - drawing on the thoughts Heidegger expresses in The Thing ?I <EHC7B ambiguity. Composite spaces designed to be ergonomic in all three senses distort the literal forms of any one. .>;O 8;9EC; 7D 78IJH79J;: H;V;9J?ED E< B?L;: B?<; 7LE?:?D= ";?:;==;H?7D E8@;9J?U97J?ED 8BKHH?D= J>; 8EKD:7H?;I E< IF79; <EHC 7D: J>?D= Q L;HOJ>?D= ?I M?J>?D 7HCTI H;79> 7D: DEJ>?D= ?I ?D J>; M7O DEJ ;L;D IF79; ?JI;B< R ->7<;H F #D J>?I I;DI; 8E:?;I ;D=7=; M?J> 7D: ?D9EHFEH7J; <EHCI 7I F;HC;78B; 7D: VK?: IK8@;9JI .>;H; ?I 7 H;9?FHE9?JO 8;JM;;D 8E:O 7D: IF79; U=KH; 7D: H7D9A 1?J> H;IF;9J JE J>; J79J?B?JO E< >7FJ?9 8E:O IF79; ;NF;H?;D9; ?I C7=D?U;: 7I 7 <KD9J?ED E< ;DL?HEDC;DJ7B proximity in powerful senses of containment and ‘closeness’. The power of the former is in sensations of EH?;DJ7J?ED H7D9A F ;NFB7?DI J>7J QBE97J?EDI E< ?DI?:; 7D: EKJI?:; =;D;H7J; :?<<;H;DJ IF7J?7B experiences and, by association, suggest different mental orientations towards the world�. In context, powerful micro-journeys across thresholds of immersion and emergence, and disappearance and H;7FF;7H7D9; E99KH U=KH; 7D: D ?DJ;H?EH ;NF;H?;D9; E< <E;J7B ?CC;HI?ED C?=>J 87BBEED JE accommodate the outside world in an experience of cathartic emergence - from a state of disappearance to ED; E< H;7FF;7H7D9; H7D9A 34

FIGURE 4.1 (da Vinci, c.1490, The Vitruvian Man) Above. Top left.

FIGURE 4.2 (Keisler, 1937-41, Vision Machine) Above. Top right.

FIGURE 4.3 (Masayo Ave, 2012, Haptic Design Interface) Above.

Graphic representations of the Vitruvian man are derived from De Architectu-

With his ‘vision machine’, Frederick Kiesler attempted to intersect the

An architect and designer, Ave studies interfaces for the haptic body

ra - a canonical text written by Roman writer and architect Vitruvious - in which the proportions of the human body are described. The workings of the body are considered an analogy to the workings of the universe due to their correlating geometries. In this vein it was considered a reflection of the divine in the Renaissance and form was derived from man’s proportions as it was thought to embody a divine and cosmic order. (Clabaugh and Santamaria, 2002)

physical conditions of a subject’s perception with its psychological blockages and interruptions. It was to portray the flow of sight while demonstrating the origin and progression of constructed images (Vidler, 2006). He aimed to prove that “vision is not a separate faculty but deformed and determined by total experience which, in turn, sees not a real object but rather an invented or symbolic image (Vidler, 2006, 133).

so that digital, artificial space may be understood through the use of the body in the manner that contemporary space is conceived. To this end she is cataloguing movement-perception associations in systems of her own design (TakeOut, 2013).

35

36

FIGURE 4.4 (Alles Wird Gut, 2010, TurnOn) Page opposite. Top. Designed as an experiment in spatial optimisation, Alles Wird Gut attempted to reciprocate the body in form and space. By combining and abstracting the forms associated with human life a cross-functioning and organic formal ambiguity emerges. In addition, as it rotates around the horizontal axis space is reclaimed by the blurred boundaries of floor, wall, ceiling, and programme (Pilar, 2005).

FIGURE 4.5 (Bo Bardi, 1984, Theatro Oficina, Sao Paulo; ground floor plan and longitudinal section) Page opposite. Centre. Reproduced at scale 1:200. Lina Bo Bardi’s Theatro Oficina is noteworthy in terms of situational and programmatic ergonomics. Its site - a long and narrow derelict building, trafficked as an urban through-route - is not conducive to established theatre typologies. A richness emerged as the theatre type was reconceived to include the pedestrians walking through it, creating reciprocal and ambiguous relationships of performer and audience, publicity and privacy, and performance and life. (Elito, 2012)

FIGURE 4.6 (Positive Dialogues, 1984, Theatro Oficina, photographs) Page opposite. Bottom.

FIGURE 4.7 (Mount Fuji Architects, 2010, Near House, Tokyo) Top of page. Two images.

FIGURE 4.8 (The Hull Truth, 2008, USS North Carolina through-hatch) Above.

The entrance to Near House embodies contrasts of interior immersion and exterior emergence, confinement and the infinite, and disappearance and reappearance. In haptic terms, as little of the interior can be understood from the exterior, its spaces needs to be understood from the inside out, understood through the use of the body, embedding experience therein.

The photograph taken looking out of a through-hatch of a submarine is representative of the relationships of body, space, and experience that figure 3.7 is. In this image they are framed from the reverse position, from the interior to the exterior.

37

The power in the latter - ‘closeness’ in tactility - is in the proximity of space and form to the haptic body. The S7<<;9JT E< J>?D=I 9>7D=;I M?J> :;9H;7I?D= H7D=; 7I ;NF;H?;D9;I 7IIE9?7J;: M?J> J>;C 8;9EC; CEH; IF;9?U9 and more personal. In addition, the secondary spatial senses (aural and olfactory, secondary to the visual and tactile) come into play. Where a brick wall may make a powerful planar gesture at large, it might make nonplanar gestures of peaks, recesses and shadows at close range. If it happens to be damp it might be wrapped ?D 7 U;B: E< 9EEB >KC?:?JO ED 7 >EJ :7O >7L; 7D ;7HJ>;D 7HEC7 EH 8; IJ?J9>;: 8O CEII;I ?D ?JI CEHJ7H @E?DJI Small spaces and exaggerated spatialities are necessarily associated with the contemporary permeation of 9EDIJHK9J;: 9?J?;I 7D: 7H9>?J;9JKH7B ;9EBE=O .>;I; J;HCI 7BH;7:O IK==;IJ J>;?H FEJ;DJ?7B JE FEI?J?L;BO ?DVK;D9; the form of the built environment. The opportunities may even extend further to termination at the most acute and intimate scales of human experience. They become clear in the haptic formulation of body and space - in the experiential potentials of constrained spatialites mediated by movement and tactility, namely ergonomics, containment, and ‘closeness’.

38

5. Life in the Cracks

In order to keep anything cultural, logical, or ideological, you have to reinvent the reality of it.

(DiFranco, n.d.; quoted by Think Exist, 2013, para.1)

A design project was undertaken aimed at demonstrating that the chasmic spaces leftover between adjacent buildings in a constructed city should be considered valid building space. The report’s three preceding I;9J?EDI S?DUBJH7J?ED E< J>; 9EDIJHK9J;: 9?JOT SJ>; ;9EBE=O E< 8K?B:?D=IT 7D: S;H=EDEC?9I 7D: ;N7==;H7J;: spatialities’ - outline attitudes to space and making on which the project was to be based. In this section its site will be considered and then its architecture: the former quantitatively, qualitatively and legislatively; the latter as a consolidated formal manifestation of its three base motifs. The issues that have emerged and that the design project investigates begin with the appropriation of a static KH87D?JO JE C;;J VK?: KH87D D;;:I )D; M7O J>; FHE@;9J J79AB;I J>; C7JJ;H ?I J>HEK=> C;9>7D?ICI E< 9EDJHEB I;B;9J?L;BO 9>7BB;D=?D= H;=KB7J?EDI =EL;HD?D= J>; 8K?BJ ;DL?HEDC;DJ -F;9?U97BBO ?IIK;I E< S<EKD: B7D:T between buildings and infrastructural sharing are relevant. Another is to view architecture as a dynamic system both part of and responding to this dynamic context. The project architecture responds by relating to its context in mimetic bio-functionality and by embedding the means of constant change. In the sense of the latter, the occupant and building together constitute an 7KJEFE?;J?9 8;?D= IK?J;: JE VK9JK7J?ED KHJ>;H J>HEK=> 7D 7H9>?J;9JKH; E< IJH7J?U97J?ED 7D: ?DJ;H:;F;D:;D9; it seeks a complexity that will allow the city to be drawn through and reclaim the site. 99ECF7DO?D= J>; 78EL; 7IF;9JI E< J>; :;I?=D IF;9?U9 IF7J?7B?J?;I 97C; JE J>; <EH; %;O JE >EM J>; architecture responds are formal/spatial ambiguity and reciprocity and a multi-dimensional ergonomics that operates from body to building to void to site to city and to nature. In an integrated argument each aspect is discussed in turn.

39

Site I?J; M7I 9>EI;D J>7J ;C8E:?;I J>; ;NJH;C;I E< J>; 9ED:?J?EDI KD:;H IJK:O &E97J;: ?D 9;DJH7B 7F; .EMD on the border of the Fringe and Parliamentary districts, it is a crack between buildings made up of three I;HL?JK:;I HKDD?D= J>HEK=> 7 9?JO 8BE9A <HEC ECC;H9?7B JE 7HH79A -JH;;J U=KH; .>; 8KBA ?I F7HJ E< ;H<

7 J;B;9ECCKD?97J?EDI ;N9>7D=; 8K?B:?D= EMD;: 8O .;BAEC M?J> J>; H;C7?D:;H IFB?J 8;JM;;D ;HL;D 7D: 7 ;F7HJC;DJ E< "EC; <<7?HI 8H7D9> 7D: 7 8K?B:?D= EMD;: 8O !;DEF ";7BJ>97H; 7 IKFFB?;H ?D J>; >;7BJ>97H; ?D:KIJHO H;IF;9J?L;BO U=KH; 7D: .>; I?J; ?I C BED= 7D: <7BBI 7 :?IJ7D9; E< C JEM7H:I 7HH79A -JH;;J .>; >;?=>JI E< ?JI 7:@79;DJ 8K?B:?D=I L7HO 8;JM;;D 7D: C J ECC;H9?7B -JH;;J J>; I;HL?JK:; ?I C M?:; 7D: M?:;DI 7<J;H

C JE C EF;D?D= ?DJE ;H< #J H;C7?DI C M?:; <EH 7 <KHJ>;H C 8;<EH; J7F;H?D= JE CC EL;H C 7J M>?9> FE?DJ ?J 9EDD;9JI M?J> 7HH79A -JH;;J U=KH; BB J>; ;HL;D 7H; PED;: 7I SC?N;: KI; T 7D: >7L; 7 8K?BJ >;?=>J H;IJH?9J?ED E< C U=KH; 7D: .>; 9EDD;9J?ED JE ECC;H9?7B IJH;;J 7 F7HJ E< ;H<

M7I ED9; KI;: <EH L;>?9KB7H 799;II JE 7 BE7:?D= bay in the Telkom building, but the bay has since been sealed off, as has access to vehicles. It is currently compartmentalised with fences, used to naturally ventilate a stairwell in the building, and house a large "0 ;N>7KIJ 7D: 7D ;B;9JH?9?JO 7D: 7 M7J;H IKFFBO B?D; 1?D:EMI BEEA EDJE J>; EJ>;H JME FEHJ?EDI E< J>; servitude from Home Affairs and Genop Healthcare. Around them are areas that cannot be infringed upon 7I J>;O 7H; 8K?BJ JE H;=KB7J?ED D7JKH7B B?=>J L;DJ?B7J?ED 7D: UH; I7<;JO :?C;DI?EDI U=KH; .>7J F7HJ E< ;H< ?I 8H?9A;: KF ED J>; FHEF;HJO B?D; JE J>; 8K?B:?D=TI IKCC?J 7D: M7I ;N9BK:;: <HEC J>; FHEFEI7B 7I 7 H;IKBJ H< ?I 8H?9A;: KF ED J>; FHEF;HJO B?D; <EH JME VEEHI ;D9BEI?D= 7D ?D<EHC7B :KCF 99;II JE ?J ?I <HEC 7 =HEKD: VEEH F7HA?D= B;L;B 7D: :E;I DEJ I;HL; 7I F7HJ E< 7D ;I97F; HEKJ; U=KH;

40

BA

RR

CO

M

M

ER

CI

AL

ST

FIGURE 5.1 (City of Cape Town, 2013, Land use and zoning diagram) Above. Scale 1:500 Site shaded. 41

AC

K

ST

FIGURE 5.2 (Kreiner, 1961, Barrack House 5th floor plan) Top left. Drawn at scale 1:100. Reproduced at scale 1:500. Currently occupied by a Department of Home Affairs branch.

FIGURE 5.3 (Mane Protze Architects, 1975, The Fashion Workshop 1st floor plan) Bottom left. Drawn at scale 1:100. Reproduced at scale 1:500.

FIGURE 5.4 (Telkom, 2013, Barrack Street exchange ground floor plan) Right. Drawn at scale 1:200. Reproduced at scale 1:500.

Currently occupied by Genop Healthcare.

A Telkom exchange building. 42

FIGURE 5.5 (Author, 2013, Site plan and dimensions, existing) Above. Drawn at scale 1:100. Reproduced at scale 1:500. 43

FIGURE 5.6 (Author, 2013, Site extrusion to zoning height restriction) Right. Scale 1:1000.

FIGURE 5.7 (City of Cape Town, 2012, Summary of zones and development rules) Below.

44

FIGURE 5.8 (Author, 2013, Functionally essential servitudes; isometric and plan) Above and above right. Scale 1:1000.

FIGURE 5.9 (Author, 2013, Existing site contents) Below. Three images.

45

The site has a microclimate distinct from that of its surroundings. Almost perpendicular to Cape Town’s notorious south easterly wind, it is cool and humid in the shade and warm in sunlight, the oscillations causing air movement through the space. In addition nature penetrates the site at various points as plants latch on to leaking pipes and damp brickwork, and populate a rainwater drainage channel on the ground. Direct light penetration is limited at certain times of the day, though due to its northern orientation sunlight does reach ground level all year round and meaningful ambient light is present during working hours, increasing with >;?=>J M?J>?D J>; I?J; U=KH; The most prominent spatial characteristic of the site is a dichotomy of expanse and constraint caused by its I97B; :;J7?B;: 78EL; 7D: FHEFEHJ?EDI ?D I;9J?ED M>?9> L7HO 8;JM;;D 7FFHEN?C7J;BO 7D: U=KH; 5.11). The juxtaposition contrasts the human with the divine as intimate widths are are played off against expansive lengths and heights. This is expressed most clearly by the relationship of sky to the site, capping it ?D 7 B?D;7H >7BE E< 8BK; =EB: =H;O EH M>?J; U=KH; The dichotomy of expanse and constraint also occurs between the site and the city where the characteristics E< J>; I?J; :;I9H?8;: 7H; 97IJ ?DJE H;B?;< 8O J>; 79J?L?JO ?D J>; IJH;;JI 7J J>;?H ;NJH;C?J?;I 7HH79A IJH;;J ?D particular is a hive of pedestrian activity. Connected to them by extremely tall and narrow gaps in the urban fabric, the condition speaks of further dichotomies - presence and absence, familiarity and otherworldliness, 7D: L?I?8?B?JO 7D: ?DL?I?8?B?JO U=KH; Though it is plain to see, the site does not exist in administrative terms. It sits on the boundaries of three erven and serves the buildings that sit on them in the manners mentioned above. Only portions of the servitude however serve in practical terms and much of the remainder is of occupiable dimensions and serviceable. Considering the site ‘found land’ severs the completeness and rigidity of the constructed city and allows it some plasticity.

46

FIGURE 5.10 (Author, 2013, Sunlight penetration plans) Adjacent right. Scale 1:1000. Two images. The upper image shows the maximum amount of sunlight to reach the ground level of the site during the summer solstice. The lower image shows the maximum amount during the winter solstice.

FIGURE 5.11 (Author, 2013, Proportion/ratio triangulations) Far right. Scale 1:500. Two images. The upper image represents the minimum ratio and the lower the maximum.

47

FIGURE 5.12 (Author, 2013, Site panorama; longitudional) Left. Site ‘halo’.

FIGURE 5.13 (Author, 2013, Site thresholds) Above. Four images. The images show the thresholds of the site from the site and from the street. The upper images show the Commercial Street threshold, and the lower two show the Barrack Street threshold.

48

Architecture ED9;?L?D= J>; I?J; 7I <EKD: B7D: ?I J>; FHE@;9JTI UHIJ 79J JE ?DUBJH7J; J>; 9EDIJHK9J;: 9?JO .>; D;NJ 8;=?DI with parasitic functional mimesis. The design extends laterally to tap the structural and spatial surpluses of its neighbours. All three have bulky reinforced concrete framed structures - particularly the Telkom exchange building - potentially with the integrity for shared use. In addition, both the Genop Healthcare and Telkom ;N9>7D=; 8K?B:?D=I >7L; B7H=; KDE99KF?;: 9ED9H;J; HEE<I J>; <EHC;HTI V7J 7D: 7D: J>; B7JJ;HTI J?;H;: With this in mind, all but one structure in the collection of buildings inserted (the vertical electric car lot) 9EDD;9J JE J>; 9EBKCDI E< J>; J>; 7:@79;DJ 8K?B:?D=I U=KH; 7D: .>; @KD9J?EDI 8;JM;;D J>; structural systems are minimally invasive. Only external access to the host systems is required for the bolted connections, and their envelopes are never breached. Performance to weight ratios of members in the parasitic structures are seminal to fully capitalise on the loading capacities of their hosts. Steel I-sections are used to withstand compression and combined 9ECFH;II?ED 7D: J;DI?ED BE7:I M>?B; IJ;;B 978B;I 7H; KI;: JE M?J>IJ7D: FKH;BO J;DI?B; BE7:I ;97KI; IJ;;B performance is better in tension, loads are carried in tension as far as is possible and appropriate. .>; L797DJ V7J 9ED9H;J; HEE<I 7H; KI;: JEE ,7?DM7J;H ?I >7HL;IJ;: <HEC 9EBB;9JEHI IFH;7: 79HEII J>; B7H=; Genop Healthcare roof and stored in tanks on the lower tier of the Telkom exchange roof. A photovoltaic solar panel array is located on the Telkom exchange building’s upper concrete roof that charge batteries 7BED= M?J> <EKH M?D: JKH8?D;I BE97J;: 7J J>; ;N9>7D=;TI C IKCC?J .>;I; M7J;H 7D: ;D;H=O =;D;H7J?D= measures strategically serve only certain buildings in the design. Two crane systems also make use of the adjacent building’s structures and roof space. They are permanent features of the design included to serve the hard-to-access site and the buildings it contains as required. In 7::?J?ED L;=;J7J?ED B?D;I HEE< ;:=;I 9EDD;9J?D= J>; I?J; M?J> S;7HJ>T 7D: 97KI?D= 7 H?I?D= U;B: E< >KC?:?JO J>7J :H7MI 7?H J>HEK=> J>; I?J; U=KH;

49

50

FIGURE 5.14 (Author, 2013, Neighbouring structures; isometrics) Page Opposite. Scale 1:1000. Two images.

FIGURE 5.15 (Author, 2013, Structural isometric) Above. Scale 1:500. Western structures removed.

51

FIGURE 5.16 (Author, 2013, Rainwater, solar and crane systems; isometric) Above. Scale 1:1000.

52

In an attempt to draw city life through the site, the collection of buildings house a collection of programmes U=KH; KHJ>;H J>; FHE@;9JTI J>HEK=> HEKJ;I 7D: M7BAM7OI J>7J VEM 7HEKD: J>;C 7H; FK8B?9 7D: I;HL; as a metaphorical network of streets and civic spaces that lead to the buildings. In this vein the programmes were selected to represent a generalisable city life composed of working, eating and drinking, residing, FB7O?D= I>EFF?D= 7D: F7HA?D= .>;O ?D9BK:; E<U9;I 7 L;HJ?97B ;B;9JH?9 97H BEJ 7 H;IJ7KH7DJ 7D: 9E<<;; I>EF residences, outdoor space, and small retail accomodation. #D J>; C?9HE9EIC E< J>; I?J; J>; 9EC8?D7J?ED H;V;9JI J>; FHE=H7CC7J?9 IJH7J?U97J?ED E< 7F; .EMDTI H?D=; and Parliamentary District. The common programmatic denominator affords a fusion with the surrounding KH87D?JO @E?D?D= ?J 7J 7HH79A -JH;;J ?D J>; DEHJ> 7D: ECC;H9?7B -JH;;J ?D J>; -EKJ> ;NJ;D:?D= ?J B?A; 7 sinew through the site, its public through-routes and walkways its metaphorical network of streets. #D <EHC7B 7D: C7J;H?7B J;HCI SJ>; 9EDIJHK9J;: 9?JOT M7I ;CF>7I?I;: ED J>; ED; >7D: 7D: S?DUBJH7J?EDT ED J>; other. A language of forms attached, and material distinction, to the existing was used to express 7FFHEFH?7J?ED E< J>; EB: 7D: 7 IJH7J?U;: CEHF>EBE=O .>; KI; E< JH7DIF7H;D9O 7D: JH7DIBK9;D9O <KHJ>;H layers the two conditions exposing the human penetration of the site by outwardly celebrating human 79J?L?J?;I 7D: B?<; .>; H;IKBJ7DJ B?=>J ;C?JJ;: 7J D?=>J H;V;9J?D= J>; 79J?L?JO M?J>?D 9B7?CI J>; IF79; ?D J>; same way while illuminating the site. #D H;IFEDI; JE KH87D VK?:?JO J>; :;I?=D ?D KD?ED M?J> ?JI E99KF7DJI ?I 7KJEFE?;J?9 <;;:879A BEEF ?I 9H;7J;: where human will drives morphology and morphology drives human will. Architectural order is considered relative to time and place and these embedded processes allow it to continuously emerge. In this sense the project is a dynamic microcosm of a dynamic macrocosm and collective imagination. .E 7KJEFE?;J?9 ;D:I J>; FHE@;9J ?I :;I?=D;: <EH 7II;C8BO :?I7II;C8BO 7:@KIJC;DJ 7D: H;7II;C8BO K?BJ ?DJE the architecture are a gantry crane servicing the northern half of the site and an articulated boom crane serving the southern half. Despite the constraints of the site they render all areas of the site and its building accessible to abnormal loads including construction post occupation (available to occupants though requiring 7 GK7B?U;: F;HIED JE EF;H7J; J>;C ?:;7BBO J>; 8K?B:?D= IKF;HL?IEH Structural steel members are bolted together and - as each structural level depends on the concrete structures adjacent for their integrity - can be singularly removed to make room for construction before being returned 7D: EH H;FB79;: K?B:?D= ;DL;BEF;I 7D: ?DJ;H?EH <EHCI 7H; 9EDIJHK9J;: JE C7A; 9>7D=;I FEII?8B; 7D: accessible and are made of standard light building materials practical to modify or replace without specialised machinery. In addition the interior architecture involves curved geometries for spatial reasons. In adherence to the autopoietic strategies outlined above, bending is only used in one plane per application. The limitation affords simple facetted construction from simple rectilinear components. 53

FIGURE 5.17 (Author, 2013, Programmatic massing; isometric) Right. Scale 1:500,

54

55

Given the spatial limitations of site and structure, ergonomic challenges manifest in various areas of the project and at different scales. As a result, ambiguities and reciprocities of form and space are recurring motifs. At the scale of site they inform the volumetric relationships of void and mass. In this case the former informs the latter; the form is the inverse of trajectories of light, air, human passage, orientation and experience. At a smaller scale, form is derived from void for reciprocity with the human body, its movements and situational dynamics in and through space. The curve is used to reciprocate its radial motion as well as to ;NFH;II 7D ?DUD?JO 7 9KHL; >7L?D= DE 9B;7H 8;=?DD?D= EH ;D: E< IF79; 7D: CEL;C;DJ ?D IJH?D=;DJBO UD?J; space. Working with the geometries, spatial depth is expressed through binary spatial structures of exclusion and reclamation. ‘Space in the sky’ is also claimed through small protrusions from building masses into the ether. The suitability of radial motion extends to circulation. Direct vertical movement through occupancies allows IF79;I JE 8; 799;II;: <HEC 7D ?DJ;HD7B FE?DJ H7J>;H J>7D B?D;7HBO <HEC 7 9EHH?:EH O 7LE?:?D= J>; IF7J?7B demands of the latter, spaces that would otherwise be too small are occupiable. For this reason, the project’s most constrained occupancies expand vertically rather than horizontally to afford a radial structure. Further, in spaces so structured the dynamism of situation can operate in various upward, downward or lateral ambits. The diversity accommodates an extended spectrum of interactions between the animate and/or inanimate. The exaggerated spatialities of the site and the architecture it informed prompted emphasis on certain ;NF;H?;DJ?7B 7H;7I 0;HJ?97B?JO ?I ED; 8EHD; E< FHEFEHJ?ED 7D: J>; ?DJ;HFB7O E< I?J; <EHC LE?: 7D: D7JKH; &?D; 7D: <797:; IJH;J9> L;HJ?97BBO JEM7H: J>; IAO J;DI?ED E< B7J;H7B 9ECFH;II?ED 7D: L;HJ?97B ;NF7DI?ED ?I expressed, then relieved at the junction of the rigid Euclidean perspective and the natural expanse of the sky. The inclusion of a glass elevator allows a spectral experience of the relationship as a function of time and place. A tension between site, form/void and city operates in the same way. Another experiential sphere is the trio of immersion and emergence, disappearance and reappearance, and L?I?8?B?JO 7D: ?DL?I?8?B?JO J J>;?H HEEJ 7H; J>H;I>EB:I 8H?:=?D= L7H?EKI I97B;I E< ?DJ;H?EHI 7D: ;NJ;H?EHI &?A; the junction of geometry and sky or city mentioned above, they are the points of instantaneous change between powerful mutually reinforcing experiences - one of compression, the other of expanse. Small apertures are a device used to exaggerate the threshold condition. The small portals create distance between interiors and exteriors further ascribing the quality of ‘bridging the divide’ to threshold moments.

56

The project has selectively transgressed building regulations. Those transgressed include those of servitude reservation, the sovereignty of neighbouring structures, and limitations on spatial dimensions (South African KH;7K E< -J7D:7H:I #J :?: >EM;L;H I;;A JE >EDEKH J>; H7J?ED7B; ED M>?9> J>;O 7H; 87I;: QJE ;DIKH; that buildings will be designed and built in such a way that persons may live and work in a healthy and safe ;DL?HEDC;DJR -EKJ> <H?97D KH;7K E< -J7D:7H:I F In doing so it aimed on the one hand to illustrate a positive and relevant architecture the letter of regulation prevents, and on the other to illustrate a range of architectural opportunities present in the leftover spaces 8;JM;;D 7:@79;DJ 9?JO 8K?B:?D=I .>; J>H;; J>;C;I 7HEKD: M>?9> J>; FHE@;9J ?I 87I;: J>; ?DUBJH7J?ED E< J>; constructed city , the ecology of buildings and ergonomics and exaggerated spatialities - are relevant to both aspirations and permeate all scales of the project. .>; FHE@;9J M7I FHECFJ;: 8O 7 D;;: <EH J>; 7FFHEFH?7J?ED E< 7 IJ7J?9 KH87D?JO JE C;;J VK?: KH87D D;;:I .>;I; D;;:I M;H; C;J 7J L7H?EKI I97B;I ED9;HD?D= I?J; J>; FHE@;9J J79AB;I C;9>7D?ICI E< 9EDJHEB O IE doing so it capitalises on and optimises ‘found land’ and shared infrastructural opportunities - vectors to the urbanity contemporary society demands. KHJ>;H VK?:?JO ?I ;C8H79;: ?D J>; FHE@;9J 7H9>?J;9JKH; 9ED9;?L;: 7I 7 :OD7C?9 IOIJ;C F7HJ E< 7D: responding to, its dynamic context. In these terms it relates to its context bio-functionality on the one hand 7D: 8O 7KJEFE?;I?I ED J>; EJ>;H BIE J>HEK=> 7D 7H9>?J;9JKH; E< IJH7J?U97J?ED 7D: ?DJ;H:;F;D:;D9; ?J I;;AI 7 complexity that will allow the city to be drawn through and reclaim the site. 99ECF7DO?D= J>; 78EL; 7IF;9JI E< J>; :;I?=D IF;9?U9 IF7J?7B?J?;I 9EC; JE J>; <EH; %;O JE >EM J>; architecture responds are formal/spatial ambiguity and reciprocity and a multi-dimensional ergonomics that operates from body to building to void to site to city and to nature.

57

FIGURE 5.18 (Author, 2013, Project isometric) Right. Scale 1:500.

58

59

6. Conclusion

This project is rooted in a concern that legislation governing the built environment is shaping the way space is considered in material terms; that in the mind of the architect their prescriptions might constitute a set of indomitable values that cause the presupposition of certain formal and spatial validities and invalidities. In this vein the focus of the project is the commonly occurring leftover, awkward and constrained spaces between adjacent city buildings borne of such regulation. Its thesis is that such presuppositions are unfounded. Its purpose is to demonstrate that the spaces can be occupied while adequately tending to the concerns on which building codes are based. It also makes a case for their occupation by man and architecture in spatial and infrastructural terms. It illustrates the extent of opportunities on offer by tackling a site representative of the extremities of the ‘in-between’ condition. A trio E< ?DJ;HFH;J?L; ?:;7I ?D<EHC J>; ?DL;IJ?=7J?ED D7C;BO SJ>; ?DUBJH7J?ED E< J>; 9EDIJHK9J;: 9?JOT SJ>; ;9EBE=O E< buildings’, and ‘ergonomics and exaggerated spatialities’. (EJ?ED7BBO J>; UHIJ ?I 9ED9;HD;: M?J> J>; CEHF>EBE=O E< 9?J?;I F7HJ?9KB7HBO >EM J> 9;DJKHO 9?J?;I C7O 8; 7FFHEFH?7J;: JE I;HL; IJ 9;DJKHO B?<; H7M?D= ED J>; MEHA E< -E@7 $79E8I 7D: H?IC7D ?JI <E97B ?IIK; ?I J>; H;GK?H;C;DJ E< 7 IJ7J?9 KH87D <78H?9 JE C;;J J>; D;;:I E< 7 VK?: KH87D 9ED:?J?ED In response, the second seeks to conceive architecture as a dynamic system in a dynamic context. Prompted 8O J>; J>;EHO E< 1EE:I ?DKH 7D: ;D@7C?D 7H9>?J;9JKH;I E< 8?E <KD9J?ED7B C?C;I?I VK9JK7J?ED IJH7J?U97J?ED 7D: ?DJ;H:;F;D:;D9; 7H; 7:LE97J;: ?D C;;J?D= J>; D;;:I E< J>; 7<EH;C;DJ?ED;: KH87D 9ED:?J?ED .>; J>?H: ?:;7 F?9AI KF ED J>; ?CFEHJ7D9; E< 9EDIJH7?D;: IF79; ?D J>; FH;9;:?D= JME &;: 8O J>; MH?J?D= E< 0?:B;H ";?:;==;H 7D: &;7J>;H87HHEM ?J ?I 9EDI?:;H;: ?D J;HCI E< body-space, formal/spatial ambiguity and reciprocity, and the proximate environment. '7D?<;IJBO J>; FHE@;9J 7H9>?J;9JKH; ?I 9ED9;HD;: M?J> S<EKD: B7D:T H?IC7D J>; ;NJ;DI?ED E< J>; 9?JO into said ‘found’ space and the capability of an architecture to appropriate dated urbanity and to reorientate ?J IE J>7J ?J C7O ;LEBL; M?J> ?JI VK9JK7J?D= 9EDJ;NJ .>; I;9ED: M?J> J;9>DEBE=O E< F7H7I?J?9 C?C;I?I JE optimise the infrastructural capital of ‘found land’; and an autopoietic attitude to making to instil perpetual 7H9>?J;9JKH7B VK?:?JO 7I 7 C?9HE9EIC E< ?JI KH87D C79HE9EIC .>; J>?H: M?J> :;L?9;I J>7J ;C8H79; J>; IF7J?7B?J?;I J>7J H;IKBJ <HEC J>; 78EL; 79J?EDI IF;9?U97BBO J>; ;H=EDEC?9I E< 9EDIJH7?D;: IF79;I 7D: J>; framing of compressive/expansive threshold experiences.

60

Space left over between adjacent city buildings constitutes a universal condition borne of a long and broadly practiced urban tradition - one this project argues is dated. The spaces have the potential to play an ?CFEHJ7DJ HEB; ?D IKF;HI;:?D= J>; JH7:?J?ED 7D: C7A?D= M7O <EH 7D 7H9>?J;9JKH; E< VK?:?JO JE C7J9> J>; contemporary urban condition. The opportunities they provide can only be capitalised if regulations are 7FFB?;: ?D CEH; 97I; IF;9?U9 J;HCI ;97KI; E< ?JI KD?L;HI7B?JO ?J I;HL;I 7I J>; FB7J<EHC <HEC M>?9> J>; J>;I?I 7D: FEI?J?EDI >;B: 8O J>?I FHE@;9J can be generalised. Spanning the scales of city, architecture and body, the project’s three spheres of study advocate shifts in the built environment to better suit the human condition echoing Schumacher’s statement quoted below.

I have no doubt that it is possible to give a new direction to... development, a direction that shall lead it back to

the real needs of man, and that also means JE J>; 79JK7B I?P; E< C7D '7D ?I IC7BB 7D: J>;H;<EH; IC7BB ?I

8;7KJ?<KB -9>KC79>;H F

61

Reference List

AA;HC7D EHD<;B: !H;;D?D= 7I 7D /H87D ;I?=D ';J7F>EH &EEA?D= <EH J>; 9?JOTI IEKB ?D B;<JEL;H Spaces. The Structurist FF ArchDaily. (2011) #-=->5?1 "2G/1 ,- ;= =/45?1/?> 4#DJ;HD;J5 *B7J7<EHC7 (;JMEHAI HE7:97IJ?D= H9>?J;9JKH; Worldwide. Available from <http://www.archdaily.com/138151/> [Accessed 13 October 2013]. ;D@7C?D ;9<81C (=.-:5>9 4#DJ;HD;J5 (;'; OFHKI L7?B78B; <HEC >JJF

MMM D;C; EH=

9ECFB;N KH87D?IC 4 99;II;: '7O 5 Cape Water Solutions. (2010) 'D<5/-8 ;@>14;80 *-?1= ;:>@9<?5;: [Internet]. Wordpress and Atahualpa, Cape Town. Available from <http://capewatersolutions.co.za/2010/02/06/typical-household-water-consumption/> 4 99;II;: )9JE8;H 5 Clabaugh, C. Santamaria, J. (2002) 1;:-=0; &/51:/1 '1/4:;8;3D -:0 =?. Stanford University, California. Available from <http://leonardodavinci.stanford.edu.html>. [Accessed 26 April 2013]. Creative Cape Town, (2011). '41 =5:31 -<1 ';B:F> 01>53: -:0 5::;A-?5;: 05>?=5/? [Internet]. Creative Cape Town, Cape Town. Available from <http://www.creativecapetown.com> [Accessed 13 October 2013]. H?IC7D * :4-.5?5:3 ?41 : .1?B11: =/45?1/?@=1 -:0 :2=->?=@/?@=1 :?1=?B5:10. Academia.edu, San H7D9?I9E L7?B78B; <HEC >JJF

MMM 797:;C?7 ;:K

#D>78?J?D=6J>;6#D 8;JM;;D67H9>?J;9JKH;67D:6 infrastructure_intertwined> [Accessed 08 September 2013] Dezeen. (2013) C/=1>/1:? (?;<5- .D 58; D01: 1 @/- 4#DJ;HD;J5 ;P;;D &?C?J;: &ED:ED L7?B78B; <HEC >JJF

MMM :;P;;D 9EC

;N9H;I9;DJ KJEF?7 F7H7I?J?9 7H9>?J;9JKH; <EH >EC;B;II 8O C?BE 7O:;D :; luca/> [Accessed 13 October 2013]. ?DKH %18-?5;:-8 =/45?1/?@=1 ;B /-: 1/;8;35/-8 =18-?5;:-8 <=5:/5<81> 5:2;=9 -=/45?1/?@=1. PhD .>;I?I .>; /D?L;HI?JO E< ->;<U;B: Elito, E. (2012) '41-?=; "G/5:- 5:- ; -=05 =-E58 >?=11? /-8810 '41-?1= 4#DJ;HD;:5 -9>EEB &ED:ED L7?B78B; <HEC >JJF

FEI?J?L;:?7BE=K;I 77I9>EEB 79 KA F 4 99;II;: '7O 5 H7D9A % #DI?:; )KJI?:; 7D: #DI?:; )KJ #D H7D9A &;FEH? , ;:I =/45?1/?@=1 2=;9 ?41 :>501 "@? =;9 ?41 ;0D ?41 &1:>1> ?41 &5?1 -:0 ?41 ;99@:5?D D: ;: 1?B;O 97:;CO !H;7J H?J7?D FF !7KI7 ' -J;DEI?I #D HEI - ;: '41 1?;<;85> 5/?5;:-=D ;2 0A-:/10 =/45?1/?@=1 9J7H 7H9;BED7 !?8IED $ '41 &1:>1> ;:>501=10 -> #1=/1<?@-8 &D>?19> ,;FH?DJ !H;;DMEE: *H;II EDD;9J?9KJ

62

";?:;==;H ' .>; .>?D= 4EH?=?D7BBO :;B?L;H;: 7I 7 B;9JKH; JE J>; 7O;H?I9>;D A7:;C?; :;H -9>ED;D %KDIJ;

5 .H7DIB7J;: <HEC J>; !;HC7D 8O "E<IJ7:;H ?D #;1?=D -:3@-31 '4;@34?. Harper and Row, New York, pp. 161-184. IEA: International Ergonomics Association. (2011) 1G:5?5;: ;2 =3;:;95/> [Internet]. IEA Webmaster, Hsinchu. L7?B78B; <HEC >JJF

?;7 99 6M>7J 1>7J ?I H=EDEC?9I >JCB 4 99;II;: FH?B 5 $79E8I $ '41 1-?4 -:0 521 ;2 91=5/-: 5?51>. New York, Random House. Korteknie and Stuhlmacher Architecten. (2001) #-=->5?1 -> #-89-> [Internet]. Korteknie and Stuhlmacher H9>?J;9J;D 1;8I?J; ,EJJ;H:7C L7?B78B; <HEC >JJF

MMM AEHJ;AD?;IJK>BC79>;H DB G DE:; 4 99;II;: '7O 5 &;7J>;H87HHEM =/45?1/?@=1 "=51:?-?10 "?41=B5>1. New York, Princeton Architectural Press. Pallasmaa, J. (2005) '41 D1> ;2 ?41 &75: =/45?1/?@=1 -:0 ?41 &1:>1> 1?B;O 97:;CO !H;7J H?J7?D Pilar, E. (2005) #;=?-.81 =/45?1/?@=1 -:0 (:<=105/?-.81 &@==;@:05:3> &?DAI #DJ;HD7J?ED7B 7H9;BED7 Potgieter, S. (2008) =/45 <1? @=1 #1? =/45?1/?@=1 ;: ?5:D 812?;A1= ><-/1> 5: -<1 ';B: ' H9> *HE< .>;I?I The University of Cape Town. ,7AEM?JP ' <-=-& ' [Internet]. michaelrakowitz.com, Chicago. Available from <http:// michaelrakowitz.com/projects/parasite/> [Accessed 13 October 2013]. Rohde, K. (2012) #-=->5?5>9 : :?=;0@/?5;: ?; #-=->5?;8;3D ;B 9-:D -:59-8 -:0 <8-:? ><1/51> <-=->5?5>1 4;>?> -:0 4;B 4#DJ;HD;J5 0;HI?ED %B7KI ,E>:; (;M D=B7D: L7?B78B; <HEC >JJF

AHE>:; MEH:FH;II 9EC 7HJ?9B; F7H7I?J?IC 7D ?DJHE:K9J?ED JE NA 89 =F

4 99;II;: FH?B 5 ,EI;DU;B: % :>501 ?41 1=1? ;@>1 ?41 *;=80F> &75::51>? ;@>1 .D -7@. &E/E1>:D [Internet]. ArchDaily, Available from <>JJF

MMM 7H9>:7?BO 9EC 4 99;II;: '7O 5 ,K8B; '41 4-881:31> ;2 ?41 >? 1:?@=D 5?D. The Wilson Centre, Washington. -9>KC79>;H &9-88 5> 1-@?52@8 /;:;95/> -> 52 #1;<81 -??1=10 H;FH?DJ "7HF;H 7D: ,EM (;M York. ->7<;H $ '41 &9-88 ;@>1 ;;7. California. Tumbleweed Tiny House Company. -E@7 ,;IJHK9JKH?D= J>; 7F?J7B?IJ #D:KIJH?7B ?JO #D HEKM;H $ 'KB:;H '7HJP & ;:I '=-:>(=.-:5>9. 0 *K8B?I>?D= ( # *K8B?I>?D= ,EJJ;H:7C -EKJ> <H?97D KH;7K E< -J7D:7H:I & & '41 <<85/-?5;: ;2 ?41 !-?5;:-8 @5805:3 %13@8-?5;:> .>; EKD9?B E< J>; -EKJ> <H?97D KH;7K E< -J7D:7H:I *H;JEH?7

63

TakeOut. (2013). -<?5/ 1>53: :?1=2-/1 [Internet]. WordPress.com, San Francisco. Available from<http:// researchfacility.wordpress.com/workshops/haptic-design-interface-with-masayo-ave/> [Accessed 13 October 2013]. Think Exist. (2013) :5 52=-:/; $@;?1> [Internet]. ThinkExist.com, USA. Available from <http://thinkexist.com/ quotation/in_order_to_keep_anything_cultural-logical-or/221188.html> [Accessed 10 October 2013]. Taylor, C. (2006) #-=->5?5/ =/45?1/4?@=1 4#DJ;HD;J5 1;8I '7HOB7D: L7?B78B; <HEC >JJF

F7H7I?J?9 7H9>?J;9JKH; M;8I 9EC 4 99;II;: '7O 5 .IKA7CEJE 2 *;J H9>?J;9JKH; 7D: >EM JE KI; ?J #D 07IK:;L7D , -KD:7H7C , 7=9>? $ (7HKB7 ' ;J 7B (eds.) &-=-5 %1-01= -7H7? ;B>? FF 1EE:I & %-05/-8 %1/;:>?=@/?5;:. Princeton Architectural Press, New York. World Weather Online. (2013) -<1 ';B: +1-=8D *1-?41= &@99-=D [Internet]. World Weather Online. USA, UK 7D: #D:?7 L7?B78B; <HEC >JJF

MMM MEHB:M;7J>;HEDB?D; 9EC 4 99;II;: )9JE8;H 5 0?:B;H 8 8 8 E:O BE9A BE8 BKH #D "7KFJC7DD ;: '41 ;0D 5: =/45?1/?@=1. 010 Publishers, Rotterdam.

64

Figure References

Fig. 1.1

Author. (2013) &/@8<?@=-8 >?@0D.

Fig. 1.2

Author. (2013) #4;?;3=-<45/ >?@051> 1C?=-/?>

Fig. 1.3

Author. (2013) =-<45/ <4D>5; 75:1?5/ >?@051>.

Fig. 1.4

Author. (2013) #=18595:-=D 2;=9-8 1C<8;=-?5;:. 1:50.

Fig. 1.5

Author. (2013) '4=11 >5?1 <4;?;3=-<4>.

Fig. 1.6

Author. (2013) &5?1 A;50 5:A1=>5;: 9;018. 1:200.

?= Fig. 1.8 ?=

>?;< ?H;9JEH7J; -KHL;OI 7D: '7FF?D= 7F; .EMD "=?4;<4;?;

. 1:10 000. Author. (2013) &5?1 -:0 /;:?1C? 1C<8;010 5>;91?=5/. 1:200. Author. (2013) &5?1 <=;<;=?5;: >/-81 -:0 9-?1=5-8 >?@0D. 1:200.

Fig. 1.10

Dz3w. (2013) # >587 >/=11: 05-3=-9 [Online Image]. Available from

>JJF

MMM :P M 9EC I9> A=:O

>JCB 4 99;II;: )9JE8;H 5

Fig. 1.11

,7DA?D % :534? -5981= 1:35:1 >501 >1/?5;: [Online Image]. Available form: <http://

tractors.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Sleeve_valve_engines> Accessed [13 October 2013].

Fig. 1.12

Author. (2013) &1/?5;:-8 2;=9-8 >?@0D. 1:200

Fig. 1.13

Author. (2013) ;:/1<? 9;018. 1:200

Fig. 1.14

Author. (2013) 5A1 18191:?-8 >?@051>. 1:1000/1:2000.

Fig. 1.15

Author. (2013) 'B; 9->>5:3 E;:5:3 >?@051>. 1:1000.

Fig. 1.16

Author. (2013) @=A10 ><-/1 >71?/4.

?=

Author. (2013) &?=@/?@=-8 >?@0D. 1:20.

Fig. 1.18

Author. (2013) ;:>?=@/?5;:. 1:200.

?=

Author. (2013) (?585?51> >?@0D. 1:200.

Fig. 1.20

Author. (2013) D<;?41?5/ 9-?1=5-85>-?5;:>. 1:100/200.

Fig. 2.1

J;B?;H EM 1EM #1? =/45?1/?@=1 'D<;8;351> [Online Image]. Available from <http://

MMM 8EEAI7D:7H9>?J;9JKH; EH= 9ECF7H?IEDI 9ECF7H?IED

?IJH?8KJ?ED7D:H;79> '#.

[Accessed 31 April 2013].

Fig. 2.2

J;B?;H EM 1EM #1? =/45?1/?@=1 -:0 4;B ?; @>1 5? [Online Images]. Available from

<http://www.forgemind.net/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=333> [Accessed 31 April 2013].

Fig. 2.3

Centrala. (2012) 1=1? ;@>1 [Online Images]. Available from <http://www.dezeen.com/

2012/10/31/worlds-narrowest-house-by-jakub-szczesny/> [Accessed 31 April 2013].

Fig. 2.4

-> #-89-> @5805:3 4)DB?D; ?C7=;5 L7?B78B; <HEC >JJF

MMM V?9AH 9EC F>EJEI

EL=H;:;L;BEF;HI 4 99;II;: '7O 5

Fig. 2.5

Korteknie Stuhlmacher Architecten. (2001) #-=->5?1 -> #-89-> [Online Image]. Available from

>JJF

MMM AEHJ;AD?;IJK>BC79>;H DB 4 99;II;: '7O 5

Fig. 2.6

Korteknie Stuhlmacher Architecten. (2001) #-=->5?1 -> #-89-> <8-:> -:0 >1/?5;: [Online

#C7=;I5 L7?B78B; <HEC >JJF

MMM AEHJ;AD?;IJK>BC79>;H DB 4 99;II;: '7O 5

?=

Potgieter, S. (2008) =/45 <1? @=1 #1? -=/45?1/?@=1 ;: ?5:D 812?;A1= ><-/1> 5: -<1 ';B:.

' H9> *HE< J>;I?I FH79J?97B 9ECFED;DJ /D?L;HI?JO E< 7F; .EMD '7FF?D= E< B;<JEL;H B7D: ?D

Central Cape Town illus.

65

Fig. 3.1

37 EH H9>?J;9JI

#-=->5?1 "2G/1 [Online Image]. Available from

<http://www.archdaily.com/138151/ 4 99;II;: '7O 5

Fig 3.2

37 EH H9>?J;9JI

#-=->5?1 "2G/1 :0 H;;= <8-: -:0 /=;>> >1/?5;: [Online Image].

Available from <http://www.archdaily.com/138151/ 4 99;II;: '7O 5

Fig. 3.3

; &K97 ' C/=1>/1:? (?;<5- [Online images]. Available from <http://

MMM :;P;;D 9EC

;N9H;I9;DJ KJEF?7 F7H7I?J?9 7H9>?J;9JKH; <EH >EC;B;II 8O C?BE 7O:;D

de-luca/> [Accessed 13 October 2013].

Fig. 3.4

,7AEM?JP ' <-=-& ' [Online Images]. Available from <http://michaelrakowitz.com/

projects/parasite/> [Accessed 13 October 2013].

Fig. 3.5

Korteknie Stuhlmacher Architecten. (2001) #-=->5?1 -> #-89-> ->>19.8D [Online Images].

L7?B78B; <HEC >JJF

MMM AEHJ;AD?;IJK>BC79>;H DB 4 99;II;: '7O 5

Fig. 3.6

1EE:I & 1=85: =11 ,;:1 1C?=-/? [Online Image]. Available from <http://

B?<;M?J>EKJ8K?B:?D=I D;J 6 6 67H9>?L; >JCB 4 99;II;: '7O 5

Fig. 4.1

:7 0?D9? & 9 '41 )5?=@A5-: -: [Online Image]. Available from

<http://stigdragholm.wordpress.com/the-vitruvian-man/> [Accessed 31 April 2013].

Fig. 4.2

%;?IB;H )5>5;: -/45:1 [Online Image]. Available from

<>JJF

MMM A?;IB;H EH= 9CI ?D:;N F>F B7D= ?:97J > [Accessed 31 April 2013].

Fig. 4.3

L; ' -<?5/ 1>53: :?1=2-/1 [Online image]. Available from

<http://researchfacility.wordpress.com/workshops/haptic-design-interface-with-masayo-ave/>

[Accessed 13 October 2013].

Fig. 4.4

Alles Wird Gut. (2010) '@=: ": [Online Image]. Available from <http://thefunambulist.net/

2010/12/22/small-turnon-de-alles-wird-gut/> [Accessed 31 April 2013].

Fig. 4.5

E 7H: & '41-?=; "G/5:- <8-: -:0 >1/?5;: [Online Images]. Available from

<http://positivedialogues.aaschool.ac.uk/?p=1842> [Accessed 31 April 2013].

Fig. 4.6

E 7H: & '41-?=; "G/5:- [Online Images]. Available from

<http://positivedialogues.aaschool.ac.uk/?p=1842> [Accessed 31 April 2013].

?=

'EKDJ K@? H9>?J;9JI !1-= ;@>1 [Online Images]. Available from

<http://www.designboom.com/architecture/mount-fuji-architects-studio-near-house/>

[Accessed 31 April 2013].

Fig. 4.8

The Hull Truth. (2008) (&& !;=?4 -=;85:- ?4=;@34 4-?/4 [Online Image]. Available from

>JJF

MMM J>;>KBBJHKJ> 9EC 8E7J?D= EKJ:EEH F>EJEI ? I7M IK8C7H?D; >JCB 8

[Accessed 13 October 2013].

66

Fig. 5.1

City of Cape Town. (2013) -:0 @>1 -:0 E;:5:3 05-3=-9. 1:500.

Fig. 5.2

%H;?D;H & -==-/7 ;@>1 ?4 H;;= <8-:. 1:100. [Acquired from City of Cape Town, 2013]

Fig. 5.3

'7D; *HEJP; H9>?J;9JI '41 ->45;: *;=7>4;< >? H;;= <8-:. 1:100. [Acquired from City

of Cape Town, 2013]

Fig. 5.4

Telkom. (2013) -==-/7 &?=11? 1C/4-:31 3=;@:0 H;;= <8-:. 1:200.

Fig. 5.5

Author. (2013) &5?1 <8-: -:0 0591:>5;:> 1C5>?5:3. 1:100.

Fig. 5.6

Author. (2013) &5?1 1C?=@>5;: ?; E;:5:3 41534? =1>?=5/?5;:. 1:1000.

?= Fig. 5.8 ?=

City of Cape Town. (2013) &@99-=D ;2 E;:1> -:0 01A18;<91:? =@81>. Author. (2013) @:/?5;:-88D 1>>1:?5-8 >1=A5?@01> 5>;91?=5/ -:0 <8-:. 1:1000. Author. (2013) C5>?5:3 >5?1 /;:?1:?>.

Fig. 5.10

Author. (2013) &@:8534? <1:1?=-?5;: <8-:>. 1:1000.

Fig. 5.11

Author. (2013) #=;<;=?5;: =-?5; ?=5-:3@8-?5;:>. 1:500.

Fig. 5.12

Author. (2013) &5?1 #-:;=-9- 8;:35?@05:-8.

Fig. 5.13

Author. (2013) &5?1 ?4=1>4;80>.

Fig. 5.14

Author. (2013) !1534.;@=5:3 >?=@/?@=1> 5>;91?=5/>. 1:1000.

Fig. 5.15

Author. (2013) &?=@/?@=-8 5>;91?=5/. 1:500.

Fig. 5.16

Author. (2013) %-5:B-?1= >;8-= -:0 /=-:1 >D>?19>. 1:1000.

?= Fig. 5.18

Author. (2013) #=;3=-99-?5/ 9->>5:3 5>;91?=5/. 1:500. Author. (2013) #=;61/? 5>;91?=5/. 1:500.

67

68

Design Presentation 11-11-2013

1.

5.

6.

7.

9.

11.

13.

15.

18.

19.

2. 10. 3.

4. 8.

12. 16.

17.

20. 14.

21.

69

1.

70

2.

71

3.

72

4. Original sheet size 420x594mm.

73

5. Original sheet size 502x710mm.

74

6.

7.

75

76

8. Model scale 1:200.

9. Original sheet size 210x594mm.

77

78

10. Original sheet size 1188x420mm.

11. Original sheet size 420x297mm.

79

80

81

12. Model scale 1:200.

82

13. Original sheet size 594x841mm.

MAX. BUILDABLE VOLUME

INFLEXIBLE SERVITUDE ALLOWANCES

83

LIGHT PENETRATION SUMMER SOLSTICE

GANTRY ACCESSIBILITY

SCALE 1:500

LIGHT PENETRATION WINTER SOLSTICE

MAX. PARKING

84

85

14. Model scale 1:200.

15. Original sheet size 841x594mm.

86

PROGRAMMATIC ISOMETRIC MASSING - SCALE 1:200

87

16. Original sheet size 1188x420mm.

17. Original sheet size 1188x420mm. 88

89

90

18. Original sheet size 594x841mm.

91

ADJACENT STRUCTURE EAST - SCALE 1:500

ADJACENT STRUCTURE WEST - SCALE 1:500

PROJECT STRUCTURE - SCALE 1:200

92

19. Original sheet size 594x841mm.

93

20. Model scale 1:100.

94

95

96

97

21.

98

99

100

101

Turn static files into dynamic content formats.

Create a flipbook
Issuu converts static files into: digital portfolios, online yearbooks, online catalogs, digital photo albums and more. Sign up and create your flipbook.