Discourse
There is much additional literature surrounding responsive architecture and the importance of realising the crucial factor of time. Pallasmaa writes about materiality and time, stating: ‘buildings of this technological age usually deliberately aim at ageless perfection, and they do not incorporate the dimension of time’ (Smith, 2012, p.128). Here additional evidence is revealed where architects do not prioritise longevity of design and responsive design at the conceptual drawing out stages of a project. Throughout much of architectural history, architects focused on qualities of solidity, permanence and heaviness (Smith, 2012, p.107).
To understand how buildings behave, Duffy's time-layered perspective is a fundamental reference: ‘the 6-S sequence is precisely followed in both design and construction'. As the architect proceeds from drawing to drawing - layer after layer of tracing paper - "what stays fixed in the drawings will stay fixed in the building over time" (Brand, 1995, p.17). ‘An adaptive building has to allow slippage between the differently-paced systems of Site, Structure, Skin, Services, Space plan, and Stuff’ (Brand, 1995, p.20). Christopher Alexander notes how inspiration is drawn from how design occurs in the natural world: "you can't get that structure except dynamically... in nature you've got a continuous very-small-feedback-loop adaptation going on, which is why things get to be harmonious. If it wasn't for the time dimension, it wouldn't happen" (Brand, 1995, p.21).
Brand references the ample photo documentation of existing buildings since the 1860s and how ‘sequential photography’ should be ‘more systematic and revealing’; John Ruskin’s fondness of this ‘Daguerreotype’ method is mentioned (Brand, 1995, p.212). Lars Spuybroek references the topic of ‘organic movement’ in relation to the work of John Ruskin and the nature of Gothic architecture, this also holds relevance for the drawings developed as part of the research project that aims to ‘captivate site and sense in passionately vital movement’ (Spuybroek, 2019, p.11). In addition, this way of thinking could be linked to the artwork of artist Idris Kahn and the sequential photography undertaken by scientists and photographers Eadward Muybridge and Etienne Jules Maray. Drawings using these techniques are utilised and discussed further when testing the research.
Regarding the aforementioned references, Alexander’s ‘natural world’, Latour’s ‘earthly account of buildings’ and Spuybroek’s ‘organic movement’ parallels are drawn with the existing natural landscape and site context of the building. When thinking about trees in particular, they: ‘are victims of their own immobility, they are anchored in place… they grab onto the planet… unshakeable and strong and able to regenerate, and begin again’ (Leonardi, 2019, p.16). The study and consideration of the tree also ensures we are cognisant of the importance of time. In ‘The Secret Life of Trees’, science writer and broadcaster, Colin Tudge states: ‘trees do not respond simply to the here and now… they remember the past… and they anticipate the future’ (Tudge, 2006, p.267). |
Chronophotograph, 1894 by Etienne Jules Maray (The Met, 2021). (layered sequential freeze-frame)
St. Paul’s, London 2012, by Idris Kahn (Victoria Miro, 2021). (time layered drawing technique).
|
In more current discourse, additional studies seek a laying out of a framework for design of responsive systems’ (Matheou, 2020). Bridgens maintains that ‘the key to appropriate building design is an understanding of time, a predisposition towards buildings in continuous flux rather than static lumps’ (Bridgens, 2021). It could be questioned whether this idea could positively influence the design project; a situation where the building could ‘grow’ in some capacity rather than being made to be fixed. One is reminded of Aldo Rossi’s ‘propelling permanence’ and it ‘has two corollaries: continuance without change is impossible in architecture, and individual buildings like places are co-defined by the once was and might be of their history’ (Leatherbarrow, 2021, p.12). Tree and building are ‘co-defined’, building and tree inherently respond to one another and the ‘continuance’ of landscape make this so. Such an example of this, is ever-growing roots, coming into conflict with the building’s subterranean structure: ‘the problems that builders often raise - roots undermine foundations – are all there to be solved…for example, by growing the trees in containers, sunk in the ground’ (Tudge, 2006, p.385).