I think it's fair to say that many people, architects included, have a preference for "durable" buildings. For fundamental structural considerations, this preference is well justified. We don't want the handrail we are holding to come of the wall while we are descending some Victorian stair. The Bangladesh Factory Disaster demonstrates the need for building codes and basic life-safety procedures.
However, we often confuse durability with permanence. I contend that durable architecture need not last more than a 100 years, particularly for buildings that accommodate diverse and frequent uses. Our methods of living and working are evolving, and at some point, the architecture for those activities doesn't work. Some buildings can be designed for multiple renovations, and this is a good thing, but we shouldn't obsess over preservation when a better solution can be had by starting fresh.
Also, our bias towards long lasting masonry buildings obscures the fact that most structures throughout history have been temporary: i.e, in the range of 10-50 years, through a conscious decision. Masonry architecture is seen as defining the "great" cultures of history, but it could easily point to a misappropriation of resources by an elite minority. Case in point: Pyramids--Egyptian, Mayan, or Cambodian.
No comments:
Post a Comment