W13 - FINAL REFLECTION ( TE2.3, CC3.4, C4.2 , C4.4)

Final Reflection on Advanced Building Technology

"The relationship between building technology and design can be traced back to the Enlightenment and the industrial revolution, period when advances in technology and science were seen as the way forward, and times of solid faith in progress [...] As technologies multiply in number and complexity the building profession started to fragment. Increases in building activities brought about social and cultural changes" - Stephen Emmitt

I thought it was very apt to start with the quote above to begin my final reflection on my research and experimentation over the preceding assignments of the Advanced Building Technology module. Prior to embarking on this new strain of architecture learning, I was more into the abstraction of form and space as the primary means of architecture while acknowledging technology only as mere instruments for realisation. It was a preconceived position, backed by my overzealous enthusiasm on the derivation of architectonics from human senses and capabilities, which undermines the fact that technology also affects architecture. I was mostly sceptical by the capability of technology to be able to contribute to architecture in satisfying our social and cultural needs.

After learning through this module, I am now aware that technology and form and space have long bounded by a synergy that produces architecture, and that the three elements are intrinsically developed and innovated throughout the architectural evolution for our civilizational progress. However, it has not always been perceived as such, due to the fact that the role of architecture is constantly changing. For example, architecture throughout the nineteenth century refused to have anything to do with industry; it had been concerned solely with monumental projects glorifying the state and giant civic structures expressing the pride of its people through religious, social and cultural values. There was more to the philosophical interpretations through theoretical approaches, and technology was merely an instrument to achieve these aspects.

This however, all changed with the dawn of the twentieth century where Industrial production became an integral part of modern society and a new relationship was forged between man and machine. From the nineteen hundreds on, architecture was viewed in this new light as a result of Modernism and the optimistic belief that architecture could change the future of society through a synthesis of science and technology. It reflected a new ideal for humanity - one that linked man to a new rational culture in tune with mechanization and efficiency. Technology directly affected architecture and the built environment by facilitating the creation of new materials with which to build.

These new materials freed the architect from engineering limitations of the past and allowed for new rational designs based on a building’s function. But most importantly, these designs were given form by a new optimistic ideal, which is that rational design would make for a rational society. Technology transformed architecture into a tool for social and cultural reform. As a result, the industrial revolution gave three new materials to the architect of the 20th century: reinforced concrete, steel and glass. The new materials were inexpensive, mass produced and flexible to use. These affected American cities profoundly by allowing greater density through higher buildings. Imagine the typical office floor plate as we know it: open space with a few columns.

From these understanding, coupled by what I have learned throughout my 7 years as an architecture student, I can separately define architecture and architectural technology. Architecture is the art of building in which human requirements and construction materials are brought to bear in a practical as well as aesthetic solution. It is a form of passion as well as a science and a business that has been described as both a social art and also an artful science. Architects look at the big picture and through Architecture they aim to look at the environment and how this impacts the society in which people live in. It involves the design of buildings, cities and spaces, whilst taking account of culture, history and innovation to produce new architecture as a mark of the society.  Architectural technology, however, focuses on the technical and functional elements of design. In other words, it stresses on the function and buildability with the intention of providing efficient and effective solutions to the design and construction of buildings. Therefore, Architectural technology focuses on the technical aspects and tools involved in the construction of a building whilst Architecture focuses on design and how this fits within the boarder context of society.

But there appears to be a paradoxical understanding on whether architecture is a derivation of technology or vice versa. On one hand, architecture cannot mould the built environment without the limitations of the availability of technology. For example, the typical rigid geometrical essence of the form and space that we are so familiar with is mainly resulted from the constraints of our technological capability from producing flexible organic form and space. On the other hand, certain technologies do not come into existence without the innovative requisites for architecture’s functional optimization of the time. There have always been building designs that are derived from the technologies that were innovated to optimize the intended functionality, more so in this modern age where technology appears to form the fabric of our daily lives.

The advent of Parametric Architecture reconceptualises the relationship between architecture and technology, in a way that technology encompasses almost all of the architectural design process of the building with little human intervention on the design process, as oppose to the conventional architecture approach. It is made possible by the use of computational parameters imposed on the design to identify limitations, and through computer-generated simulation, enables architects to come up with a design solution that enhance functions through quantitative analysis, rather than qualitative. This innovative method in architecture produces the revolutionary architecture movements from Deconstructivism to Parametricism and allows the practitioners to claim their invention as an epochal style for the future. It is a clear indication that technology is capable of deriving architecture by being able to articulate form and space without any structural and constructional limitations in order to achieve functional optimization in terms of social, phenomenological and semiological aspects as Patrik Schumacher, one of the leading Parametricist asserts.

It is constantly argued that the notion of relying fully on technology as a new agent between the configuration of architecture and humanity may result into the neglecting of human values and individuality. Lars Spuybroek, who was once a Parametricism practitioner understood the importance of human association in design and dedicated his time to study on and clarifying the characteristics of Goth Architecture as a product of human imperfection and intuition and the resulting beauty that it projects. By limiting the role of technology from engaging on the human well-being through architecture, he allows both active and passive interactions between the built form and the user in his architecture designs. In one of Spuybroek’s prominent project called the “D-Tower”, he put an emphasis on human reaction and incorporates it in his design through active interaction between the user and his built environment. By allowing human feelings to determine the design character of the structure, he connects the users with their built environment and making the structure represents the locals’ behaviour. The structure itself is designed to subtly resemble a silhouette of an organic being, thus removing the distinction of characters between itself and the human users. Technology in this approach merely contributes towards allowing the man-architecture interaction to be realized without affecting the form and space of the design, as opposed to the style of Parametricism.

Nevertheless, Parametricism has indeed the capacity to be the epochal architecture style of the future and today’s generational technology is undeniably useful to optimize architectural functionality. However, without the consideration of the integration of human values and association within the architectural product, as emphasized by the architecture of the past, future generations may not apprehend the significance of our human existence, nor will they appreciate the meaning and capability of our human skills and intelligence. By perceiving the role of architecture and technology through this argument, it has to be the case that technology is the derivation of architecture, since it is an instrumental response of architecture to fashion form and space and not the other way around. But is this always the case during the evolution of architecture throughout the 20^th century? Have form and space always been the direction of which technology is derived to meet the human needs? By taking on a case in regions where form and space could not be the main justification for the architecture and building designs, such as the ones in the extreme contexts, there is clear evidence that technology is the catalyst of the regional architecture evolution.

The built environment in the Antarctic region has experienced the most consistent change within a short time period, all due to the hostile climatic character of the region that renders the contemporary building design unsustainable. In this context, the configuration of form and space is insufficient to sustain the built environment without any sense of technological innovation in architecture. Moreover, the use of technology as a catalyst from which the design is derived has created the kind of built projects that are only relevant in their respective regions, which makes them a context-related form of architecture. The Halley Research station evolution is a good example because of its location in the region that has more unstable condition compared to other Antarctic region where built environment exist, which is the Brunt ice shelf. As a result, the evolution of Halley research station experienced more substantial changes that led to the award-winning design of Halley VI.

Almost all of the building designs in Antarctica face the same problem throughout the region which is the accumulation of snow that gradually destroys the building structures and eventually bury them. Halley Research Station had to go through 4 types of design products to provide solutions for this issue until finally able to produce the design of Halley V that enables the station to sustain itself on snow for almost 20 years. The innovation that led to this accomplishment is the jackable leg system. While the revolutionary design of Halley V was able to depart the building significantly from the approach of the previous four stations (Halley I, II, III and IV), there was a need of mobility and flexibility, as well as to improve its self-sustenance in terms of producing energy sources by itself.

Three key design criteria have I found most consistent throughout my studies on the evolution of Halley Research Station are the effectiveness of the building's base and foundation to allow it to be on top of the build-up snow, the mobility of the building to allow it to be relocated periodically across distances of many kilometres across the Brunt ice shelf as well as the reduction of environmental footprint of the research station through renewable energy sources and clean burning of waste. By addressing the issues of mobility, flexibility and to minimise the build-up of snow, the Hydraulic Leg Jacking System becomes one of the leading innovation for Antarctic designs since no other buildings like Halley VI has ever been attempted before. In addition to that, the configuration of eight different modules also provide flexibility for the building to be movable by being designed to be separated, towed across the ice shelf by bulldozer, then reconnected again at the new site. Halley VI Research Station is a good example of how technology becomes a vital element in achieving the sustainability of the people through architecture. It is a product of more than half a century of design evolution that had gone through trial and error in the course of architecture innovation.

Given that technology is also capable of deriving architecture, another fundamental question should be raised: to what extent does technology contributes towards good design? If technology assumes the role of fashioning architecture, its improvements have to consider the design aspects that lead to appropriateness in terms of architectural language. By looking at the architecture of today, good design has always been achieved by the concept of “Less is more”, which is the notion that simplicity and clarity lead to good design. Despite the complexity of Parametricism, its approach to convert ornamental configuration into form and space and the minimalist character of its material use are recognizably similar to the concept of less is more. Form and function becomes inherent with each other and the post-modernist ideas are becoming obsolete. The same can be seen in the design of Halley VI where its simplicity in terms of form and mechanism is noticeable if compared to the previous Halley V design. The modern world is highly receptive towards the notion of less is more since it has been proven to be intrinsic with success in design, not just in architecture but also in the industrial and product design.

In conclusion, building technology can be interpreted as a medium that can both derive architecture and be derived from architecture depending on the circumstances in which the built environment is imposed. The term “building technology” can be defined as the knowledge of the technical processes and methods of assembling buildings to achieve its intended function.  Designing built forms requires understanding of building technology and identifying conflicts between the construction and the way things are being built. Knowledge of building technology is an important part of the practice of architecture and it is an area in which I as a master architecture student have to comprehend in order to achieve optimization in design to contribute towards the future of architecture. 

(word count: 2280)