Students
not only study in campus but also live in campus. At present, students keep
traveling between where they live and where they study. Since highly mix-used
building isn’t a new topic for contemporary architecture, how it would be like
if a building were flexible and adjustable for both studying and living,
including apartment, gym and library?
In Dom-Ino House, Le Corbusier firstly shows
the example of “free plan” defined by the floor, column, and stairs. Forty
years later, in S, M, L, XL, Rem
Koolhaas argues that the complexity generated by superimposition and
combination of functions brings architecture opportunities to build new
relations and interactions through reprograming. Adding to Le Corbusier’s “free
plan”, Koolhaas are proposing a “free section,” in which interactions happen in
all available space defined by the overall structure, horizontally but also
vertically.
For
future campus, the school building is not only of inclusivity
to mix different programs, but also of flexibility and
adaptability for the future changes and different needs coming from
the users. On the basis of Corbusier’s “free plan” and koolhaas’s “free section”,
I am proposing a “free space” that is of inclusivity but also flexibility and
adaptability simultaneously, which allows horizontal and vertical interactions
as well.
Dealing
with the conflict between permanence of architecture and the instability of demand,
it is important to identify the permanent part and temporary part within a
building. The less permanent part, the more temporary part, the more flexible
and adaptable the building is. As Koolhaas mentioned, within a building,
available space is defined by the overall structure. For “frees space,” the
“overall structure” is the only permanent part while the left “available space”
is for temporary occupying and open to change. Besides the overall structure,
all the programs are temporary, which allows changing in their size, location,
and form according to demand and time. It finally entails architects to
reconsider the adjacency among these temporary programs and the relationship
between programs and the “overall structure.”
However,
what would be the “overall structure” for the compacted building? On one hand,
the “overall structure” is no longer limited to the structure against gravity
but also an infrastructural structure that realizes the connection and
interaction between different programs. It leads students and faculty into
different programs – learning space, administrating space, living space,
sporting space and collaborate space - and allows them to travel between. It also
contains the program that maintains the building’s operation – the vertical
circulation, the equipment room, the waste and so on. Therefore, the “overall
structure” works as service core that supports and maintains the building.
On
the other hand, to allow changing in the temporary programs, the “overall
structure” organizes these programs within a 3D grid that based on one module. Each program could enclose a
certain number of unit spaces according to the needs. The spaces left could be
landscape terrace as informal activity space, which could also be include to
other program in case of possible changes. Also, the dormitories would be removable
units that could install and remove based on the amount of people that live in
the building.
No comments:
Post a Comment