Professional Documents
Culture Documents
INTRODUCTION
Architecture over the past several centuries
has been defined by relatively rigid, static and
immutable approaches to the conception and
construction of form and space. Even with the
arrival of industrial and then information
technologies, many of the methods of building
design and production have been narrowly
prescribed and conservatively developed.
While there have been numerous attempts to
introduce more malleable and inter-connected
systems, they have often seen minimal uptake
and have resided at the periphery of the
profession and practice.
In the mid 20th
century some provocative designers and
unconventional thinkers, such as Kisho
Kurokawa, Cedric Price, Yona Friedman,
Gordon Pask and Constant Nieuwenhuys,
critically explored the need for greater
mutability of environments and encouraged
greater responsiveness to user needs, desires,
actions & activities.
Unfortunately their
progressive ideas were well ahead of the
capacity and readiness of their times. Today a
number of pioneering theoreticians and bold
practitioners are rekindling such innovative
agendas, with an understanding that modern
technology can now more effectively address
and support more interactive + symbiotic
relationships
between
environments
and
people. The present paper builds upon a series
of investigations and theories developed by the
author, with an overarching concern around
more holistic, integrated, responsive and
responsible ways to develop an Architecture of
the 21st Century. Such solutions must be far
CONTEMPLATING CHANGE
AMPLIFYING AGILITY IN
ARCHITECTURE
Flexible buildings are intended to respond to
changing situations in their use, operation or
location. That is architecture that adapts,
rather than stagnates; transforms, rather than
restricts; is motive, rather than static;
interacts with its users, rather than inhibits.
Robert Kronenburg
Open Building and Agile Architecture have
been almost exclusively focused on the
tangible qualities of design and construction
perhaps best illustrated by attention to support
and infill.
The author, an architect and
psychologist, argues that other less tangible
parts of the equation now warrant our serious
attention from a research perspective, from a
testing viewpoint, and from an application
outlook. Moving beyond concentration on the
physical,
also
key
to
conceiving
and
constructing
more
flexible,
adaptable,
responsive and responsible architecture are
heightened
awareness
of
regulatory
considerations, individual concerns, and group
expectations.
CONTEMPLATING CHANGE
Physical
Legal
Psychological
Sociological
Physical:
The
construction
of
agile
architecture
encourages great mutability and adjustability
across all realms of the building (and beyond).
Such flexibility includes not only moveable
walls, fixtures, and fittings, but also structure,
infrastructure and envelope.
As noted the
author has written extensively on the more
tangible aspects of agility, most recently
exploring the limits that the faade can be
dynamically configurable, and the unique roles
of the envelope as part of the building shell but
also part of the urban sphere. In this instance
many questions arise concerning opportunities
and obligations from both a private citizen and
public entity point of view. From a physical
perspective, the provision of changeable
components is tied to technical capacity.
However, as will be discussed later in the
paper, physical mutability is only one part of a
relatively rich equation equaling truly agile
architecture.
Legal:
There has been some research conducted,
within the academy as well as in practice,
CONTEMPLATING CHANGE
resistance.
For designers considering the
introduction
of
more
mutability
into
environments it is helpful to understand
resistance to change. Oreg (2006), noted that
resistance can be understood as a negative
attitude towards change comprised of the
three dimensions of affective, behavioral and
cognitive. The affective component refers to
an individuals feelings regarding the change,
the behavioral refers to actions and intentions
responding to the change, and the cognitive
component refers to what the individual thinks
of the change. To consider these dimensions
from a design perspective, the architect needs
to strive to grasp how a user might feel about
a proposed level of flexibility, how they might
act when faced with executing a change, and
how they might think of this feature of their
dwelling or workplace. While it can be argued
that providing choice is generally positive, it is
important for the designer to comprehend the
real implications, both positive and negative, of
heightened choice. With no choices users can
experience a condition known as learned
helplessness whereby users give up efforts to
impact the environment due to its futility. On
the other hand, truly flexible environments
remain quite novel and generally untested. It
is likely the case that too much openendedness may cause anxiety, fear and
resistance. The architect needs to find the
most appropriate path, and balanced solution,
based on evidence (i.e., existing literature), on
research (i.e., with the actual user groups for a
given project), and on professional judgment
(which, in the authors view, by necessity must
include serious attention to local knowledge,
user desires, etc.).
It is useful to consider resistance to change in
greater detail. With a growing interest and
application of flexibility in architecture comes
increasing responsibility for architects to
understand the mindset of users of these novel
environments. Oreg (2003) notes six main
sources of resistance to change, all driven to
varying degrees by individual personality
traits:
1. Reluctance to lose control; 2.
Cognitive rigidity (i.e., close-mindedness); 3.
Lack of psychological resilience (i.e., inability
to cope with stress); 4. Intolerance to required
adjustment period; 5. Preference for low levels
of novelty and stimulation; and, 6. Reluctance
to give up old habits (i.e., familiarity breeds
comfort). If architects are aware of such
factors contributing to resistance to change
they have a better chance of creating and
CONTEMPLATING CHANGE
Figure 3.
Artist Yuki Sinclair, Architect Kisho
Kurosawa and the Author. Tokyo, Japan.
10
Note:
photographs & diagrams by dr. brian r. sinclair
reproduction with permission only | 2012