01 philosophy

03 moving examples

Relocatable, flexible, portable or moving architecture is a subject that has intrigued many people. From a very big to a small scale, from moving cities to small portable dwellings. This chapter will try to give a general overview of all these different interpretations and designs of all the different scales; the global and the local.

Cities on the move_ Cities are constantly changing for example in East Asia, urban landscapes have been more radically and more visibly transformed than their Western Counterparts. This can be attributed largely to East Asia’s embrace of various processes of modernization […] In Hong Kong, the congestion of bodies in space makes the crowds in London seem almost sparse by comparison. […] This unbalanced increase of population brings a lot of problems; poverty, a cling to agricultural products, inefficient primitive husbandry, primitive industries, low-level living standard and an unstable political/social situation. This made a huge city like Tokyo for example worn out with bad sickness. She has lost the proper control of city because of her mammoth like scale. [2]
To overcome these problems Kikutake proposes a very strictly designed floating city, the design is not just based upon densities but also on economic and social issues. This city has a machine-like organization and is able to move all around the earth to enforce local industry. [See Pict. 6&7] The city for him was like an organism, a living being, or in his own words:

This means that each has a pride on his own city as a unit of his community. […] The "space for living" should be imaged from this point, and the approach to the city where he is able to "live, work and enjoy" should be considered from the various situations. […] In order to control this growth [...] [6A]

Kikutake [6A] proposed a floating city because of the malfunctioning and overcrowded situation of the current city. People weren’t able to exist properly anymore; they couldn’t refer to the natural anymore and the moving city was born. This seems to interfere with the theories of Heidegger [5A], in which he pleads for the dwelling to be in balance between the natural and the supernatural, the dwelling should be derived from appropriate poetry. In this case however, the appropriateness of poetry is questionable and therefore the functional and practical approach could be legitimate. Kikutake’s city reacts to global functional demands, it moves over the earth to provide for needs of different places for certain labour or people in general. Still the fact that the design required this kind of miserable circumstances is interesting. When poetry becomes inappropriate, the floating city comes into being. To me the design loses its validness because of this. How could a city designed under these circumstances ever be more then just a temporary solution? Poetry will become appropriate again sometime in the future, but how can this poetry ever relate to the city, the environment and more important can it even exist within this environment?
In making cities, therefore, we must return Nature her original order. We should stimulate the metabolism of Nature. Cities in the future should be capable of promoting the dynamic development of Nature by way of civil engineering. Cities should coexist with the dramatic features of Nature with mountains, lakes, rivers, plains, and oceans; with showers, typhoons, ocean currents, and volcanoes. Future cities would include Nature on a super human-scale together with Nature on the human scale such as trees and streams. At the same time, individual houses must have individual shapes. If a city can be metabolized, it contains various kinds of houses without losing its order. [According to Kawazoe [6B]]
Kawazoe [6C] on the other hand refers to nature and her order; the metabolism of Nature. His utopian approach is to a certain extent parallel to the theories of Heidegger [5A]. Nature is supposed to be the essential element the individual dwelling should refer to. Of course the theories do not match hundred percent but Kawazoe [6C] does imply a reference, nature. The main difference is not the reference but the function it has. Kawazoe [6C] takes the reference very literally like a metaphor and approaches the problem more directly, more simplistic. This doesn’t say anything about final result; it can be either way cause no higher level of direction is given. However the separation between Kawazoe [6C] and Heidegger [5A] goes even further, since Kawazoe [6C] proposes a machinelike approach and the machine was the primary force, which transformed the human being into a blasé individual [6B].

Utopian view of the sixties_ Evolutive housing conditions or moving architecture, the question of the mobility drove the architectural research of the sixties. Architects like; Pascal Haüsermann [7] [see Pict. 17, 18, 19, 21, 24, 25], Guy Rottier [7] [see Pict. 12, 14, 20], Ionel Schein [7] [see Pict. 16, 22, 23], all searched the possibilities of architecture on the particular plane of the dwelling unit. These three people were all architects; Pascal Haüsermann [7] was born in 1926 in Bern [Switzerland] and lives and works in Geneva [Switzerland]. He was one of the first architects in Europe to develop an architecture based on modularity and the free expression of the individual. Guy Rottier [7] was born in 1922; he worked in Le Corbusier's office from 1947 until 1949, and acted as technical director for the Marseilles Unité d’Habitation. Ionel Schein [7] born in 1927 in Bucharest [Romania] lives and works in Paris [France]. He was an architect, town planner and architectural historian and played a major role in the architectural evolution that took place in the cultural climate of post-war France.
All the dwellings they designed are interpreted as movable units, powered by itself or depending on some kind of sub system [see Pict. 12 - 21]. Haüsermann even introduced some kind of town, built up by these kinds of units [see Picture 24]. These designs were all based upon the utopian idealistic point of view that technology would solve all problems. An idealistic approach does not necessarily create invalid architecture, most great architects were very idealistic, but all solving power of technology is nowadays seen as somewhat outdated and therefore invalid. The question is if this kind of architecture that was born among these circumstances is also invalid. Every particular kind of expression [like beauty] is only legitimate in its own time. Some ideas or theories however do not apply to this, because their nature is rooted in impression rather than expression. They are e.g. based on human truths, which are more indifferent to time. If this is the case with the designs of the sixties is highly doubtful, not meaning that it’s worthless. Maybe technology owns part of the answer in which direction the future should evolve.

movable dwellings_ This kind of conservative building, derived from nostalgia or practical issues, does not really trigger the mind. Still it is the most generally known form of movable “architecture” and therefore worthwhile to discuss. Why is this form of building generally the most accepted one? Is there a general lack of intelligence? Or is there a form of high intellect underneath its simple appearance? Surely to pick up a dwelling and relocate it elsewhere is the simplest form of relocatable architecture one could imagine. Are there other reasons besides the nostalgic, functional practical or economic? In other words, does this form react on a higher level of intelligence to the present society? According to Heidegger [5A] the dwelling is the intermediate between the divine and the earthly, the supernatural and the natural. If someone relocates his dwelling, the person maintains the place of reference [the dwelling]. On an urban scale the environment is changing, but on a smaller scale the dwelling is static. The dwelling is referring to a void [the dynamic], but not the individual; he is only becoming more indifferent [blasé] to the urban. Thanks to the development of communication, individuality will be pursued to the highest degree. When everyone can express his individuality freely, then everyone will lose his individuality. The emancipation of self results in the loss of self-consciousness. The individual is conscious only of being a part of living entity; he finds himself to be fastened in with all the mankind. [2] Is relocatable architecture related to this tendency [described in the former quote]? The real or true relation between architecture and society is far too complex to discuss here. Still to clarify it somewhat, it would be a misinterpretation to regard the lost of individuality or identity caused by relocatable architecture, since to relocate is both to join and to divide. I am inclined to regard the position of architecture towards the individualistic as more discrete; maybe apathetic but not indifferent. Relocatable architecture is nowadays very valid since it can easily attempt to the demands of society. This however could just as easy be said about the Nomads or the Indians; it is not a justification, rather an observation. This form of relocatable architecture is more individualistic than the one discussed in chapter 3.2, it’s a choice of an individual. And maybe that’s even better related to society than the uniform, utopian and massive approach of the sixties.

Portable dwellings_ Krzysztof Wodiczko designed a mobile dwelling, not much bigger than a usual trolley. This almost portable house is not designed for the average Jack; it is meant to be a movable shelter place for homeless people in New York. Besides a shelter place it is also a compiler for cans and bottles. The transients used to gather all the empty cans and bottles on the street to earn some money. With this "vehicle" it would be much easier for the homeless people to collect. Homeless people do not dwell, they don't have a static home or one place, which gives them shelter. So why would you even bother to discuss a design for homeless people in an essay over dwelling? According to Heidegger [5A] dwelling is what connects us to the earth. And as long as there is gravity there is no doubt that homeless people are connected to the earth. They dwell on the public areas; the streets, tunnels, bridges, parks, sidewalks, plazas, squares. Whether they are able to refer to the supernatural and thus to live humanly is still very questionable. From a more practical point of view the mobile home is very logic, since their "dwelling" inhabits a large area. This "vehicle" gave the homeless some shelter and improved their way of "dwelling". More important than answering the question whether the homeless people dwell humanly or not is the connection to dwelling in general. Does is tells us anything about mobile dwelling at all, since is seems so specific? On a conceptual level it does apply to the theories of Berkel [1], in which architecture is a compilation of time & construction, approached multi-facetted and engaging the public space. Unlike other people transients are not just engaging the public, they are part of the public space. And this specific group of people require a mobile "dwelling". This is only another argument in favor of the dynamic nature of the urban space.

Digital dwellings_ The computer is becoming a substantial part of society; in a few decades it probably is society. Also within the field of architecture the computer is gaining territory and not only for visual effects. Besides a visual presentation tool the computer is beginning to be used as a design tool. The architect describes the limiting conditions [multiple forces], which the computer uses to create [complex] forms or deform geometry. Mostly the computer generates simulations of movements instead of a static model. The architect of course still dominates the entire process; he can endlessly manipulate the form, limiting conditions and geometry. Different designs have been made this way e.g. the Möbius House by Berkel [1] [see Pict. 30, 31]. The architectural program, routing or conceptual expressions mostly determine the movement, the deformation of the static, these are the basics of the designs. The ideal is to have architecture that is really physically moving, but up till now only static buildings have been erected. The Digital House by Hariri & Hariri [See Pict. 27, 28, 29] is slightly different since the architecture is not based upon the computer as a design tool. Nevertheless the design is not less digital or valid. Hariri & Hariri are projecting images, which determine the space [the penetrating public].

Digital media have imploded distances and enfolded the inhabitant's perception into an endless barrage of electronic images. [8]

The endless barrage of electronic images that Perella [8] is suggesting is a reaction to the image, instead of a counter reaction, which was presumed in Chapter 2.2. Perella [8] and Hariri & Hariri embrace the image in his designs and I am not sure if that is the right direction. The complex and intense designs [overflow of stimuli] are supporting the image and therefore the public. Some designs even combine video projections [See Pict. 27, 28, 29] and complex space [see Pict. 30], 31, besides the private & the publics also the virtual & the real starts to blur.