Heidegger Reading

I hope I’m posting to the right place….

1. I agree with the other posts that our personal interactions do affect the building.  One point I would like to add to the discussion is that over time, a building can become obsolete because of changes with the users.  The way we live and work changes, so buildings must be designed with flexibility.  A humorous example is a hostel I recently stayed in, in France.  This building was built during the 1200s, so all of the doorways and ceiling heights were shorter than today’s standards.  I had trouble getting in and out of rooms because I am larger than the average medieval-age European.  A more modern example is Portland’s City Hall.  This building has long and thin floor plates that surround a central atrium.  The spaces were built for private offices, however, there is a greater need for open office workstations now.  The bay depth is not properly suited for industry standard workstation sizes.  As such, the building is overcrowded yet has a lot of wasted space.  What worked at one point in time, now does not function well because the user needs have changed.

2. I think that as architects and designers we do search for authenticity or the esoteric meaning that creates a universally powerful/beautiful/functional space.  One post mentioned the St. Ignatius Chapel on Seattle University’s Campus.  I thought Tadao Ando’s chapel spaces also had this sense of authenticity.  However, I think that authenticity can have many interpretations and is subjective.  Modern architecture eschews decoration to express structural and form authenticity.  Deconstructivists express material authenticity.  As someone with an architectural background I can appreciate the authenticity of form and spatial composition with the FBI building in Washington, DC, however most non-architects I’ve spoken to who have experienced this building think it is a concrete monstrosity, cold and dehumanizing.

3. I think it was Danielle that mentioned the impossibility of designing with permanence due to changing natural forces: earthquakes, storms, climate shift etc.  Jackie brought up the point that current construction standards only build to a lifespan of 25 years.  While designing with permanence on a global timescale is impractical, I do think that we should build with permanence of at least 50 years, if not 100 or more.  The sustainable building movement is pushing for creating permanence with living buildings and to conserve resources.  I think that this trend can help us move towards a more respectful building practice that creates permanence for the sake of conservation.

 

Sermin