Programme : Morphosis. How can spatial adaptability in architecture be improved using kinetic design strategies?
View fulltext online
Permanent link to Research Bank record:https://hdl.handle.net/10652/1840
Architecture is commonly designed with the aim of providing a fixed, ideal solution based upon the assumption of future situations being certain, invariable and at a particular moment in time.(1) Traditionally, architecture portrays a static stance with qualities such as permanence, sturdiness, and solidity. Conversely, it is pertinent to assume uncertainties in future building uses with evolution and time. Constant innovation and transformation in related disciplines should be embraced and buildings designed to reflect this. This project attempts to challenge and provoke New Zealand’s current architectural stance (Appendix 1). Introducing movement addresses the issue of spatial adaptability by allowing more flexibility and control over the building environment. Movement is used as a tool that empowers and allows varying spatial characteristics to occur than a static version may permit. A morphing architecture provides users’ with new spatial experiences as well as improving and inspiring everyday lives. Motion has been explored in terms of anticipation, future change, and technology and material advancements. As technology evolves it is fundamentally altering the way in which we design buildings. Technology and digitally driven devices - from sensors receiving real-time information from the world, to output devices which convert input data into motion, have the potential to develop architecture from its static stance to a transforming response reacting to emerging situations. In this era, we need to consider how the integration of computing and ubiquitous devices can co-exist with architecture. This research project explores the possibilities of a future architecture utilizing movement; ultimately investigating the way a space can fit a programme in order to improve spatial adaptability. Research by design was employed to formulate a provocative bespoke solution which was largely determined by the site, immmediate context, and a relationship with programme. More flexibility and control over spaces occupied for a short duration is ideal as opposed to the current mentality of ‘one size fits all.’(2) 1 Daniel Rosenberg, “Indeterminate Architecture: Scissor-Pair Transformable Structures,” Footprint, Digitally Driven Architecture, no.6 (2010): 19, http://www.footprintjournal.org/issues/show/digi¬tally-driven-architecture. (accessed March 25, 2011). 2 Michael Fox and Miles Kemp, Interactive Architecture (New York, New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 2009), 40.