EVOLVED TYPOLOGY : BLUEPRINT AND PRIMER FOR A SUSTAINABLE ARCHITECTURAL WORK

[sypnopsis of lecture delivered for the Ong Siew May Distinguished Lecture Series, 12th September 2008, National University Singapore]

Building typology has always been of interest and as a study for architecture, because it begs the question of whether works of architecture need for classification and grouping to serve its their purpose or if types are necessary in order to validate their functions. So we ask, what is type? Are private houses a building type and do typifying shapes and built forms add any value to buildings? Indeed none whatsoever. By conforming it to any one type of building does not make the work any different or better in any way, let alone give it any more meaning or validation to its functions.

For a long time we always have visual representation for many of the buildings familiar to us hospitals, schools and restaurants, etc. to each we emphasize visual interpretation. now it is more difficult to differentiate between two buildings simply by type. We think the visual representation of architectural works has evolved greatly, houses are of myriad shapes and forms, they defy classification. We can no longer rely on typological sets to differentiate one work from another. Perhaps definitions of buildings or their classification has become totally defunct and unnecessary. We conclude at this juncture typology is no longer a means for us to define a building. How do we proceed then to define a building if at all, and why do we chose to give building definitions in the first place, often one is asks, what is it for? How does all this relate to their sustainability.

By examining typological sets, or typology we gain a deeper insight if not appreciation of how buildings are perceived, and how their rapidly changing forms and articulation and evolving character has given us the means to comprehend them, or perceive them. Our own evolving needs have given buildings their new typology strain, and with this we propose they have become more sustainable today as a type then they have ever been before. How is this? We propose that it does not matter if what a building is meant to do has nothing to do with how it looks. There is little to find in the shape or fenestration of an iconic tower to suggest that it is a commercial building or a residential tower. It has become increasingly more difficult to predict the look and shape of the new museum. Hospitals are so advanced today, their designs warrant the same planning principles as a four star restaurant or a boutique hotel in many instances. Therein lies the question of typology and how their relevance has become very questionable in defining the ideal building, the sustainable built form.

There are no apparent parallels between Farnsworth House and a Palladian Villa, none whatsoever to say they belong to the same set. Both may well be exemplary models of sustainable architecture simply because thye both have their own infinite 'sustain' ability to deal with change, from their original residential use to the new commercial renovations without need for major alteration of its parts, let alone the envelope. Yet another way to cut back energy, waste and pollution of our natural environment.

Fortunately we have come a long way to accept these models as infinitely superior works of architecture simply because they don't actually bear any resemblance to each other and therefore attest to possibility that there is perhaps no such thing as an ideal house type. Surely at this point we see that the correlation between building function and its representation has been completely severed over recent times? These thoughts, derived from an appreciation and study of building typology, and the necessary classification of buildings in order that we can begin to appreciate them or better understand their qualities are examined and put forth here for development of our idea, that a sustainable work is necessarily one that has no need for a specific definition of its type nor its generic functions. It should merely be derived from ones awareness of its durability in terms of its long term use, and its inherent ability to change, adapt, redefine and replace or restore itself to suit the current need.

Flexibility, on the other hand, and open plan, are concepts of the late eighties for office designs, IBM Cosham for one and the new B1- type offices in the UK has indeed brought about successful applications and introduction of new and refreshing planning guidelines. The workplace has evolved to become a new typology for comfort, and productivity rolled into one. No longer is the office environment stale and devoid of the familiar pleasures of the home, like the kitchen [pantry], and the living room [the reception and lounge]. Break out areas, yet another concept has seen their implementation in many an organisations' interior plan. These are concepts that have slowly eroded the meaning of offices, and their outdated typological sets. Modern day workplaces and home spas are the new typological sets, and the are inevitably more sustainable than their forebears. They have evolved and become hybrid buildings in many ways. Herein the new research and proposition. We can examine why this hybrid typology have become infinitely more durable than their earlier examples. Indeed if we remove the need to typify or classify buildings we almost immediately make them less specific and therefore more responsive and future proof and hence more sustainable than if we confine them to a very specific brief.

Often a house is demolished after a new owner moves in. This is the problem we want to address. Often the lifespan of poorly designed buildings, like many hotels and offices built in the 70's have seen irresponsible demolition and extensive refurbishment. This is largely a very energy intensive activity, totally irresponsible and has contributed to great destruction of built environments and added much to the destabilisation of neighbourhoods and demography. Not only is such acitivity pollution to the natural environment it also brings about the need to re-instate new energies into what was already displaced in the first intervention. Put back what we take from the environment is what we think all buildings must do. A built work must put back into its development more than what has been taken out from it, whether there be trees or the use of natural materials. herein lies the next set of investigations.

©2008.huatlim