01 philosophy

04 compilation

Compilation_First the examples mentioned before will be remarked and then I will try to project this to a more general point of view including the theory. Do not read this as a preconceived conclusion, the nature of this chapter is more flexible; and written for the reader to make its own conclusion. Therefore it’s called a compilation.

The specific_ The urban movable space, the relocatable dwelling, is probably the most convincing one especially on a smaller scale. The big scale floating cities are too idealistic and the fact that miserable circumstances were required is very questionable. The movable units, which are also an urban concept, are easier to accept the dynamic. It seems that the small and more individual designs are much more valid and viable. The portable dwelling is even not more than logical and this does say something about the dynamics of the urban space. The digital is very interesting but unfortunately only on a theoretical level.

The general_ Will time determine architecture in the future? Surely the private and the public have a different relation to the dynamic, whether they will evolve differently in the future depends on the culture. Maybe they will integrate even more despite their distinctions, since there is a tendency to blur the boundary between the private and the public. Unlike the private the public, the urban space, is already dynamic itself, it changes over time due to politic and economic forces. The introduction of a relocatable dwelling is from this perspective very interesting since it will cause the power to shift to a smaller scale, back to the individual to a non-hierarchic system. The physical built environment will become subjective to improvisation. Probably the effects will be the strongest on a political plane rather than a social scale, the relocatable dwelling can both separate and join. Society holds the answer for the future and since this is more likely to incline the individualistic, which is disproportionately parallel to identity… But how does the individual relate to a movable architecture? The individual wants to dwell, to live, to be in the supernatural as well as in the natural and the dwelling is the best place to measure this out. The private depends on the individual opinion and taste; it is [or should be] based upon the individual, so maybe incidentally movable architecture is viable [the conservative & the portable]. If one regards architecture more generally the strong relation it has to the image is also very interesting. Since movable architecture is not about the image, it does not want to stay in the mind, it is disturbing the mind. In fact it is a counter reaction to the image and therefore to the frantic measuring. But does this legitimate movable, relocatable architecture, which has the potential of the embodying of the ultimate and paradoxa non-style? Maybe it is the best reaction to the image, only from my point of view not for the residential.