Architecture as a device of speculation

Architecture as a device of speculation Veerasu Sae-Tae Graduation Studio: The Why Factory 4511727 Keywords: roles of an architect, design methodology, research-based design, case studies: OMA, MVRDV, BIG. Advisor: Prof. Piero Medici (during draft session)

Lecture Series Research Methods, Q1 2016-2017 Faculty of Architecture, Delft University of Technology

Table of Contents Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 3 Part I: Architect as a speculator ................................................................................................. 6 1.1. The pioneer ..................................................................................................................... 6 1.2. Roles of an architect ........................................................................................................ 7 Part II: Design methodology as speculation .............................................................................. 9 2.1 Design iterations .............................................................................................................. 9 2.2 Computation and design iterations................................................................................ 10 Part III: Speculative architecture for tomorrow ...................................................................... 12 3.1 Types and Architecture .................................................................................................. 12 3.2 Speculation and Collaboration ....................................................................................... 14 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................ 15 Bibliography ............................................................................................................................. 17 List of figures ............................................................................................................................ 18

2

Introduction Architecture has always been continuously progressing and evolving by itself. It has been developed from the legacy of the past architectural history. In the mid-twentieth century, due to the trauma of World War II, many cities had to rebuilt, people urgently needed hospitality.

Architecture responded to this situation; by stripped down ornaments and decorations of buildings, keeping only essential parts of living. Through their reduction and simplification in architectural design, they allowed architects to mass-produce building components as well as construct taller and bigger buildings. This modular construction system led to the globalisation and urbanisation in architecture. Today architecture has situated itself in the middle of the chaos of theories and context. Hence, this is the legacy of the twentieth century that we are currently built upon.

In general, today we are facing with issues of globalisation, economic crisis, political conflicts, ecological and cultural problems. The growing of complexity in today program requirements and constraints in architectural design has affected the role of architects, the episteme of designing, and the performance quality of buildings. In this research, the selected projects and design methodology of three architectural firms, namely: The Office for Metropolitan Architecture (OMA), MVRDV and Bjarke Ingels Group (BIG) will be the president studies of this research.

These three offices are interesting because they are an incremental development of one another.

First, OMA’s works during its early establishment from 1978-1989, marked the period when Rem Koolhaas, one of the OMA founders, fully took a role as an architect, instead of a writer or a researcher. In many of the early projects, the firm demonstrated an approach of borrowing typology from classical architecture in their design proposal. However, later on, OMA had started to adapt their design methodology by inventing a new architectural typology by merging programs together. This innovation has influenced the next generation of architects, such as MVRDV and BIG. Both firms were branching out from OMA, Winy Maas and Jacob van Rijs, the founders of MVRDV, were working at OMA during its second decade, from 1989 to 1993, before established their firm later in 1993. On the other hand, BIG is the third generation branching out of OMA, Bjarke Ingels worked with OMA from 1998 to 2001. Then, he founded his firm in 2005. Lastly, these offices operate based on a research-based approach in the field of architecture, urbanism and landscape. They use architecture as a tool of speculation providing them for generating an optimised design solution. Their projects are often challenging the concept of typology in architecture, by articulating, transforming and redefining it.

3

Figure 1: Kochstrasse/Friedrichstrasse Housing, OMA,1980

4

Figure 2: Koepel Panopticon Prison, OMA, 1979

5

Part I: Architect as a speculator

Figure3: Très Grande Bibliothèque, OMA,1989

1.1. The pioneer 1 Office for Metropolitan Architecture was founded on 1st January 1975. It focused on the

research on Metropolis, accepting and designing from its conditions. The firm was established in the period where modern city was highly criticised on its lacking ability to generate a quality public space. In Collage City (1978), the figure ground map of Colin Rowe, revealing the mass and void diagram of a city. Rowe pointed that the freestanding plan of a modern city was “unable to sustain 2 a public space where people will congregate.” Moreover, in the Architecture of the City (1966)

by Aldo Rossi, stated the modern archetypes lost a relationship with the existing city. From these arguments, we can observe Koolhaas’s design methodology in the early projects that he was working against those criticisms. For example, in one of the drawings in the project: Friedrichstrasse Housing, in Berlin 1980 (figure1), demonstrates an axonometric drawing that reveals the ground floor of the building filled with domestic activities. In contrast to Rowe’s drawing revealed an open and empty public space. As Rem later said: “I think we are still stuck with this idea of the street and the plaza as a public domain, but 3 the public domain is radically changing.”

However, the first decade of OMA was also a phase of experiment towards its current design methodology. The design of Koeppel Panopticon Prison (figure 2) in 1979 which OMA had been commissioned, illustrated the use of pure forms and history references. The cylinder and the dome resemble those of the classical architecture elements. Later on, in1989, Rem Koolhaas had finally found his framework, ended the era of copy and paste. In Tres Grande Bibliotheque (figure 3) competition in Paris marked an evolution of OMA’s design process. As the appearance of the building was no longer referring to history references but emerging from the program 1 2 3

Gargiani, 2008, p.25 Office for Metropolitan Architecture., Gerrewey, & Patteeuw, 2015, p.21 Koolhaas, Kwinter, & Rice University. School of Architecture., 1996, p.45 6

requirements. The voids carved out based on the program distribution and arrangement.

Moreover, it was the ambition of the project to “liberated from its former obligations, architecture’s last function will be the creation of the symbolic spaces…”4 His exploration, after 1989 onwards, had continuously developed and innovated along this line. Indeed the “program 5 destroys the typology.”

1.2. Roles of an architect

Figure 4: BERLIN VOIDS EUROPAN, MVRDV, 1991 Undoubtedly, Koolhaas‘s research on the metropolis phenomenon in architecture has been carried out by MVRDV. This can be seen in MVRDV’s first project, the Berlin Voids in 1991. The ambition of the project was to break away from the modernist dogma of standardisation, introducing liveliness to the skyscraper of the metropolitan life. Another dominant feature of the project is an idea of concentration and differentiation of these thirty-four formal types of housing volumes intrigued in 6 this residential block, which is visible from the section drawing. This puzzle-like blocks can accommodate 284 residential units with proposed 30,000m2 of commercial area. This methodology resembles the program configuration approach of the Tres Grande Bibliotheque of the OMA, where the programs drive the form of the building. This first project has set a formal

4 5 6

Koolhaas, Mau, & Office for Metropolitan Architecture., 1995, p.604 Ibid, p.296 Costanzo, M. (2006), p.16 7

framework for MVRDV that it has been continuing to explore and extend this notion of density and desire.

Moreover, in its first publication FARMAX, the excursion on density in 1998, MVRDV has 7 introduced a terminology called “Datascapes” which is a research on space and context in term of data and information. These data will influence the design process and determined the form of buildings. In their manifesto stated that architecture practice has merged with urban development and spreading to regional planning. Architecture is facing unorganised patterns of events in the city. The research will be the key solution to understand these emergent patterns of activities.

Architects would be able to parametrize a scope of problems and later to formulate a hypothesis of a solution. This become MVRDV’s design methodology that is going “beyond artistic intuition or 8 known geometry and replaced it with research.” Hence, through research, architects can take a role of a speculator who offers a new perspective and innovation to the urban context.

7 8

Maas, Rijs, Koek, & MVRDV (Firm), 2006, FARMAX, p.103 Ibid, p.103 8

Part II: Design methodology as speculation 2.1 Design iterations

Figure 5: De Rotterdam, OMA, 1997-2013 Towards the 21st century, through their professional practice operating on research-based design, OMA and MVRDV have constructed their pattern of design methodology. Design by the configuration of programs through Iteration of physical models is one of the methods that both MVRDV and OMA employ in their design process to generate a logical series of choices. This tool helps architects to select their most optimal design solution.

Furthermore, In 1995 OMA had published, a theoretical book, SMLXL: it has introduced the theory of Bigness, and the impact of sizes in architecture. Bigness in architecture has pros and cons.

Bigness has created a new paradigm of context that enriches the reorganisation of programs in architecture through its enormity. “Bigness transforms architecture; its accumulation generates a 9 new kind of city” However, at the same time, Bigness destroys the honesty between the interior and exterior in that what is on the façade no longer reveals the space inside the building. Indeed, an enormous building occupied a vast amount of space, where the context is no longer relevance 10 to its scale, as Rem put it ”fuck the context” This ideology is also presented in MVRDV’s first publication, FARMAX, as the term ‘Massiveness’.

This approach in architecture generates a bigger building, such as De Rotterdam in 1997 the CCTV in 2002. For De Rotterdam, the building is a city within itself; it is a highly mixed-use tower with different clusters of programs including offices, apartments, hotels and commercial spaces.

These clusters of programs are resisted to align with its structural core, which is a didactic quality that goes against those of the Modernism movement.

9

Koolhaas, Mau, & Office for Metropolitan Architecture., 1995, p.514

10

Ibid, p.499 9

2.2 Computation and design iterations

Figure 6 (left): MIRADOR, MVRDV, 2001-2005 Figure 7 (right): The Ego City, The Why Factory, 2014 In the development of their design methodology, MVRDV has been experimenting with their very first concept of customisation in architecture from the Berlin voids dated back in 1991. Finally, this concept was realised in 2001 in the project, Mirador, a 22 story residential building in Madrid Spain. It is a mini continuation of their concept of customization and combination of different types of residential clusters in more subtle action. In this project, MVRDV has introduced a notion of lifted public space on the 14th floor, in which in the original proposal has an escalator connects from the ground floor to the lifted open space. It was not realised due to a monetary issue.

Furthermore, at the why factory, the MVRDV‘s independent research studio within the Delft University of Technology, has continued and extended this exploration in a software-operated approach. For example, in the Ego city’s design studio in 2014, the why factory together with students have developed a software-like gaming. It is a space fighter game that negotiates the spaces in relation to individual desires and needs of the different egoistic residents. The final product of the project has created different individual masses that are combined into one building.

This studio indeed resembles the ideology of MVRDV’s first projects, but from a bottom-up approach where the results are different each time the software ran its scripts.

The computational and automation as a design tool has been addressed by MVRDV in its second publication in 2005, the KM3: excursion on capacity, which is 16 years after the FARMAX, was published. Winy Maas stated in his book that “architecture is a device... architecture is now able to move into the development of devices that can combine top-down, large-scale issues with bottom-up, individualised 11 input: a combination of analyses of proposals.”

Moreover, in Km3, MVRDV started to define its design intervention in a catalogue of operations of spatial verbs. For instance, bend, connect, cover, dig, extrude, flip, ground, hang, interiorize, lift, stack, split, tilt and so on. Some of these operations are similar to software‘s operations which architects use to generate a form. In addition, this direction towards the development of software in architecture, reveals MVRDV attempts to research for a potential solution for its hypothesis of architecture on demand. In their research book in 2009, The Vertical Village suggested an opensource software that helps the inhabitants to collectively realise their dream houses and villages without an architect or an urban planner. It proposed the housemaker and the villagemaker, which are “scripted Rhinoceros Grasshopper model, with a user-friendly interface that directly transforms 11

Dean, P., & Joseph, V. (2005). MVRDV KM3, p.45 10

12 desires into a 3d model of a village.� The software will be embedded with parameters, rules, regulations that one’s desires should not harm one another, in term of quality in sunlight, views, air.

Once again, the role of architects in this era has shifted to become a software architect providing a framework and structure which is a top-down approach and creating an enormous space for inhabitants to engage in the design process, which is a bottom-up approach. Undoubtedly, this research touched an idea of engaging users in the design process. It might be a solution for an architect to truly handle the chaotic and complex social behaviour and endless individual desires.

Figure 8: The Housemaker and The Village maker, T?F and MVRDV, 2009

12

MVRDV (Firm), Why Factory., & Museum of Tomorrow (Taipei Taiwan), 2012, p.419 11

Part III: Speculative architecture for tomorrow 3.1 Types and Architecture Perhaps, to be able to connect this web of architectural evolution, the third generation branching of OMA, Bjarke Ingels Group or BIG has developed a new approach in its architectural practice.The firm was established in 2005. After four years of practice, it launched its first publication called Yes is more, an archicomic on architecture evolution. BIG positions itself between a visionary architect and a service provider. Adopting Charles Darwin’s evolutionary theory, BIG considered architecture as species and announced the architecture of the past as 13 that today architecture should be a hybrid of crossing breeding species of “outdated leftovers” multiple groups of interests.

“Rather revolution, we are interested in evolution. Like Darwin describes creation as a process of excess and selection, we propose to let the forces of society, the multiple interests of everyone, 14 decide which of our idea can live and which must die.”

Therefore, BIG applied its design methodology through the evolution of iterations of forms, in another word, each form affects the next development of its design, this can be seen in the image bellows in x and y-direction.

Figure 9: Design iteration through evolution of series of forms, BIG, 2009 13 14

Ingels & BIG Bjarke Ingels Group., 2009, p.13 Ibid, p.13 12

All in all, from the 21st century to the present, the development of the architecture of OMA, MVRDV and BIG are going towards constructing a design framework that uses quantitative data inputs from its site surrounding. They question, manipulate and transform the traditional typology. Their designs create a new type of architecture. Then, the question is whether generic types still matter in today's practice? The answer is yes, the generic types of architecture help these architects to react to and to form their hypothesis as a speculator. It helps architectural design comparable and traceable to define the origin of innovation.

Figure 10: An illustration comparison of different types of architecture, 2016

13

3.2 Speculation and Collaboration Rem Koolhaas advocated architecture to extend its boundaries of discussion to other professions.

He said: “As an architect, we are intellectuals, but we are operating strictly within architecture. If I am completely honest, I would say that we’d tried to become in our office is not 15 architectural intellectuals but rather public intellectuals.”

Winy Maas also shared his views in urging architects to take a position in the public debate to push forward a new idea of architecture. To be a better communicator, as he put “the collaboration demands a communicative architecture and an architectural language that is direct, 16 Enlarging the demystified, understandable and transferable between other domains.” collaboration between parties is the key for architects to realise their speculations. To illustrate, one of MVRDV recent projects, the Stairs to Kriterion in Rotterdam in May 2016, is a collaboration between architect and Rotterdam municipality to construct a temporary 29-metre tall and 57-meter long staircase connecting to the rooftop of Rotterdam historical building to celebrate its 75 years of rebuilding the city. MVRDV had this vision of reactivating the public space long since 2001 in the Mirador project, as the original proposal was to construct a long escalator to the lifted public space on the 14 floor. This action extends the traditional definition of public space, which limits to courtyard or square to rooftop spaces as a public space. Finally, this vision has been realised with great contributions from private and public sectors. th

Figure 11: The original proposal for the Mirador with an outside escalator, 2001

15 16

Eisenman, Koolhaas, Steele, & Architectural Association (Great Britain), 2010, p.13 Dean & Joseph, 2005;KM3, p.43 14

Figure 12: THE STAIRS TO KRITERION, MVRDV, 2016

15

Conclusion From these studies, my position towards architecture practice has become clearer. I am positioning myself as a branching of the Why Factory, research think-tank of MVRDV. Their methodology inspired my position as an architect to be curious, clear and critical in developing my hypothesis and research. Design through research helps architects to transform their creativity to create an objective reality. I am aware of the impact of today advance in technology that indeed has transformed the role of an architect, design methodology and qualities of building performances. Indeed, this approach is evidential in MVRDV’s research on the housemaker and the villagemaker; these design tools transform anyone into an architect who designs their house. One of the vacant openings for architects might be in the possibility to engage in software or application development team, which would totally change the methodology of architecture practice as well as how clients would approach the design process. Possibly in the future, a software would assist the architect in the process of selection of design iterations through a system of evaluation and grading of building’s performances and qualities.

For sure, the changes of social, cultural and technology will keep reinvent its needs and constantly affect architecture’s intervention. As BIG advocate architects to cope with this evolutionary, the roles of the architect does not always remain the creator of buildings, “but rather the midwives of the continuous birth of architectural species shaped by the 17 countless criteria of multiple interests.” Moreover, architects need to extend their collaborations to other circles of professions, for instance, an entrepreneur, a software developer, a structural engineer and even a scientist. The involvement of these professional in the design process would truly generate innovation.

To sum up, I believe that the architects of today need to have flexibility in their thinking of their roles, design process and post evaluation of their building performance. It is essential to keep analysing our design methodology and always find a room to improve our process and not to label ourselves as to particular style or a specific type of architect.

Also, architects should build upon the legacy of the existing architecture. Indeed, architects should extend their circle of collaborations and embrace new knowledge and technologies. Architects should prompt to mutate their position according to social and culture tectonics.

17

Ingels & BIG Bjarke Ingels Group., 2009, p13 16

Bibliography 1. Costanzo, M. (2006). MVRDV: works and projects 1991-2006. Milano: Skira.

2. Dean, P., & Joseph, V. (2005). MVRDV KM3: excursions on capacities. Barcelona: Actar.

3. Eisenman, P., Koolhaas, R., Steele, B., & Architectural Association (Great Britain).

(2010). Supercritical. London: AA Publications.

4. Futagawa, Y. (2012). OMA recent project. Tokyo: A.D.A. Edita Tokyo.

5. Gargiani, R. (2008). Rem Koolhaas/OMA: the construction of merveilles. Lausanne, Switzerland: EPFL Press.

6. Ingels, B., & BIG Bjarke Ingels Group. (2009). Yes is more: an archicomic on architectural evolution. Kรถln: Evergreen.

7. Koolhaas, R., Kwinter, S., & Rice University. School of Architecture. (1996). Rem Koolhaas: conversations with students (2nd ed.). Houston, Tex.New York: Rice University, Princeton Architectural Preess.

8. Koolhaas, R., Mau, B., & Office for Metropolitan Architecture. (1995). Small, medium, large, extra-large. New York: Monacelli.

9. Maas, W., Rijs, J. v., Koek, R., & MVRDV (Firm). (2006). FARMAX: excursions on density (3. ed.). Rotterdam: 010 Publishers.

10. MVRDV (Firm), Why Factory., & Museum of Tomorrow (Taipei Taiwan). (2012). The Vertical village : Individual, Informal, Intense. Rotterdam: NAI Publishers.

11. Office for Metropolitan Architecture., Gerrewey, C. V., & Patteeuw, V. (2015). OMA: the first decade = OMA: de eerste tien jaar: journal for architecture = tijdschrift voor architectuur.

Rotterdam: nai010 publishers.

17

List of figures Figure 1: Kochstrasse/Friedrichstrasse Housing, OMA,1980……………………………p.00 Source: SMLXL, p.259 Figure 2: Koepel Panopticon Prison, OMA, 1979 Source: http://oma.eu/projects/koepel-panopticon-prison Figure 3: Très Grande Bibliothèque, OMA,1989 Source: http://socks-studio.com/2012/05/20/omas-tres-grande-bibliotheque-more/ Figure 4: BERLIN VOIDS EUROPAN, MVRDV,1991 Source: https://www.mvrdv.nl/projects/berlin-voids Figure 5: De Rotterdam, OMA, 1997-2013 Source: http://oma.eu/projects/de-rotterdam Figure 6: MIRADOR, MVRDV, 2001-2005 Source: https://www.mvrdv.nl/projects/mirador Figure 7: The Ego City, The Why Factory, 2014 Source: http://thewhyfactory.com/news/egocity-the-exhibition/ Figure 8: The Housemaker and The Villagemaker, T?F and MVRDV, 2009 Source: http://thewhyfactory.com/news/egocity-the-exhibition/ Figure 9: Design iteration through evolution of series of forms, BIG, 2009 Source: Yes is more, pp.15-16 Figure 10: An illustration comparison of different types of architecture, 2016 Source: Drawing by Veerasu Saetae 2016 Figure 11: The original proposal for the Mirador with an outside escalator, 2001 Source: KM3: Excursion on capacity, p722 Figure 12: THE STAIRS TO KRITERION, MVRDV, 2016 Source: https://www.mvrdv.nl/projects/the-stairs-to-kriterion

18