Each of these levels relates to the one below and above it according to certain rules.
For example, an urban street pattern, perhaps centuries old, defines plots of land - territorial claims - of varying sizes on which individual buildings are constructed, demolished and new ones built over a time period during which the street grid remains stable.
Often, several lots are acquired by one party.
In some places and times, economic forces, methods of construction and changes in social patterns results in intensification of the use of spaces between the streets, while in other situations, the opposite is true, and the blocks become more vacant.
The characteristic here is that the street grid - on a higher "public" level - remains stable, while the lots divide and aggregate and buildings come and go - on a lower level - within the spatial and infrastructure capacity of the street level pattern.
Sometimes, the public space on the higher level is invaded by private interests - either by agreement or by force - changing the balance of power and the structure of the levels.
If we look into the level of the individual building, we see the level of intervention we call architecture.
Here, a building offers space for occupancy, offering form, services and safe passage for any of a variety of occupancies over time.
The building is a stable spatial and technical "offering", making itself available to a variety of individual territorial claims, enabling each occupying power their own decisions within the constraints of the base architecture.
The occupants can move in and out, without compromising or disrupting the interests of the entirety.
This is most easily observed in multi-family condominium residential buildings, office buildings, shopping centers and other multi-tenant buildings, even medical facilities.
Sometimes, the entire façade of a building is removed and replaced, revealing yet another technical level, to a certain extent independent of the structure and interior layout.
These form and space behaviors are less visible in monumental buildings such as museums, churches, and auditoria, yet there, too, parts and spaces adjust and change over time within more stable enclosing forms and a supportive infrastructure of services.
At a still lower level, the furniture in a room, the computers and other equipment, can be changed with some degrees of freedom without forcing the partitions of the room to be altered.
These are familiar environmental levels, and there are more of them.
It is the formal recognition of these levels that is a key characteristic of the open building approach.
In conclusion, open building is, according to John Habraken, the term used to indicate a number of different but related ideas about the making of environment.
These include:
The idea of distinct Levels of intervention in the built environment, such as those represented by 'base building*' and 'fit-out*', or by urban design and architecture.
The idea that users / inhabitants may make design decisions as well as professionals.
The idea that, more generally, designing is a process with multiple participants also including different kinds of professionals.
The idea that the interface between technical systems allows the replacement of one system with another performing the same function. (such as different fit-out systems applied in a given base building.)
The idea that built environment is in constant transformation and change must be recognized and understood.
The idea that built environment is the product of an ongoing, never ending design process, in which environment transforms part by part.
Those who subscribe to the Open Building approach seek to formulate theories about the built environment seen in this dynamic way and to develop methods of design and building construction that are compatible with it.
Each of these levels relates to the one below and above it according to certain rules.
For example, an urban street pattern, perhaps centuries old, defines plots of land - territorial claims - of varying sizes on which individual buildings are constructed, demolished and new ones built over a time period during which the street grid remains stable.
Often, several lots are acquired by one party.
In some places and times, economic forces, methods of construction and changes in social patterns results in intensification of the use of spaces between the streets, while in other situations, the opposite is true, and the blocks become more vacant.
The characteristic here is that the street grid - on a higher "public" level - remains stable, while the lots divide and aggregate and buildings come and go - on a lower level - within the spatial and infrastructure capacity of the street level pattern.
Sometimes, the public space on the higher level is invaded by private interests - either by agreement or by force - changing the balance of power and the structure of the levels.
If we look into the level of the individual building, we see the level of intervention we call architecture.
Here, a building offers space for occupancy, offering form, services and safe passage for any of a variety of occupancies over time.
The building is a stable spatial and technical "offering", making itself available to a variety of individual territorial claims, enabling each occupying power their own decisions within the constraints of the base architecture.
The occupants can move in and out, without compromising or disrupting the interests of the entirety.
This is most easily observed in multi-family condominium residential buildings, office buildings, shopping centers and other multi-tenant buildings, even medical facilities.
Sometimes, the entire façade of a building is removed and replaced, revealing yet another technical level, to a certain extent independent of the structure and interior layout.
These form and space behaviors are less visible in monumental buildings such as museums, churches, and auditoria, yet there, too, parts and spaces adjust and change over time within more stable enclosing forms and a supportive infrastructure of services.
At a still lower level, the furniture in a room, the computers and other equipment, can be changed with some degrees of freedom without forcing the partitions of the room to be altered.
These are familiar environmental levels, and there are more of them.
It is the formal recognition of these levels that is a key characteristic of the open building approach.
In conclusion, open building is, according to John Habraken, the term used to indicate a number of different but related ideas about the making of environment.
These include:
The idea of distinct Levels of intervention in the built environment, such as those represented by 'base building*' and 'fit-out*', or by urban design and architecture.
The idea that users / inhabitants may make design decisions as well as professionals.
The idea that, more generally, designing is a process with multiple participants also including different kinds of professionals.
The idea that the interface between technical systems allows the replacement of one system with another performing the same function. (such as different fit-out systems applied in a given base building.)
The idea that built environment is in constant transformation and change must be recognized and understood.
The idea that built environment is the product of an ongoing, never ending design process, in which environment transforms part by part.
Those who subscribe to the Open Building approach seek to formulate theories about the built environment seen in this dynamic way and to develop methods of design and building construction that are compatible with it.
การแปล กรุณารอสักครู่..
