- citati u SCIndeksu: 0
- citati u CrossRef-u:0
- citati u Google Scholaru:[
]
- posete u poslednjih 30 dana:11
- preuzimanja u poslednjih 30 dana:7
|
|
|
Determinisanje arhitektonskog sklopa prema infrastrukturnim principima
Determining architectural composition through infrastructural tenets
Sažetak
Danas, u okvirima neoliberalnog tržišta 21. veka, arhitektura je postala instrument kapitala, zahtevajući minimalne investicije, a maksimalne prostorne i envajronmentalne performanse. Konstantne društvenoekonomske promene koje prate brzi razvoj informacionog društva iniciraju novi pristup poimanju arhitektonskog sklopa koji, vođen tržištem, postaje programski nestabilna kategorija. Stoga, razumevanje arhitektonskog sklopa koji podrazumeva odnos delova i celine na tri osnovna nivoa: forme, funkcije (programa i njegovog performansa) i strukture, danas možemo posmatrati kroz odnose: volumena, programskog opsega i infrastrukture (koja integriše strukturalne i performativne aspekte). Počevši od hipoteze da se sa društveno-ekonomskim promenama menjaju i koncepcije infrastrukture u procesu projektovanja, kao i razumevanje mogućnosti postizanja promena u arhitektonskom sklopu, uspostavljen je niz istorijskih momenata razvoja: (1)arhitektonskih alata i metoda, (2) normi i preporuka vezanih za prostornu i energetsku efikasnost, (3) razumevanja uloge infrastrukture kao sveprisutnog elementa u arhitektonskom sklopu. U oblastima urbanističkog i arhitektonskog projektovanja uspostavljena su dva pojma: infrastrukturno tlo i infrastrukturni principi. Prvi pojam infrastrukturu približava razmeri arhitekture, dok drugi označava metode u procesu projektovanja - pomoću kojih se vrši evaluacija prostorne efikasnosti i kapaciteta za programske promene u arhitektonskom sklopu, određujući odnos mogućih promena u procesu projektovanja i nakon realizacije projekta. Stoga, neophodan je Nov pristup procesu projektovanja koji bi odredio opsege programskih transformacija prateći različite modele: fleksibilnosti, performativnosti ili procesnog modela, istovremeno održavajući neophodne nivoe prostorne efikasnosti. Istraživanje je pokazalo da strategije transformacije sklopa koje zavise od programskih i volumetrijskih tipologija determinišu projektno specifične infrastrukturne principe - rasporede infrastrukturnih elemenata koji se lociraju i kvantifikuju pomoću osnovnih parametara i indikatora prostorne efikasnosti. Kao polazna tačka za nastavak istraživanja predložena je teoretska matrica sa četiri tipologije opne (volumena) i tri dominantne programske tipologije praćene listama osnovnih parametara prostorne efikasnosti pomoću kojih se mogu okvirno odrediti njihovi infrastrukturni rasporedi.
Abstract
Today, in the 21st century within the context of the neoliberal market, architecture has become a tool of capital, demanding minimal investment with maximum spatial and environmental performance. Permanent changes that follow the rapid development of an information-based society imply an infrastructural take on the architectural composition, which has become increasingly programmatically unstable and market driven. Therefore today, an architectural composition traditionally understood as a set of part to-whole relations on three basic levels: form, function (program and its performance) and structure, can be perceived through the relations between volume, program range and infrastructure (which integrates the structural and performative aspects). Beginning with the hypothesis that socio-economic changes alter the conceptions of infrastructure in the design process, and understanding ways to transform the architectural composition, a set of key historical moments and relations are established between the development of: architectural tools and methodologies, norms and policies of spatial and energy efficiencies, and understanding infrastructure as an omnipresent element within the architectural composition. In urban design and architectural design, two terms can be distinguished: infrastructural ground - a term that brings infrastructure closer to the architecture scale, and infrastructural tenets, which are methods in the design process used to evaluate the spatial efficiency and the capacities for programmatic change, determining the relation between transformations within the design process and those of a completed project. Therefore, a new design approach is needed to define the capacities of programmatic transformations that can follow different models: flexibility, performativity and process, while maintaining the optimal spatial efficiency. The research showed that the choice of a transformational strategy depends on the program and envelope typologies to determine a project-specific infrastructural tenet - the layout of infrastructural elements which is located and quantified using the basic spatial efficiency parameters and indicators. As a launching point for further research, a theoretical matrix is proposed for four envelope typologies and three dominant program typologies, followed by a list of basic spatial efficiency parameters to loosely describe their infrastructural layouts.
|
|
|
Reference
|
|
Allen, S. (1998) Diagram matter: Any 23: Data mechanics for a topological age. New York: ANYcorp
|
|
Allen, S. (1999) Points+lines. New York: Princeton Architectural Press
|
|
Arnheim, R. (1977) The dynamics of architectural form. Berkeley: University of California Press
|
|
Banham, R. (1965) A home is not a house. Art in America, 2: 70-79
|
|
Bishop, C. (2006) Participation: Documents of contemporary art. Cambridge: MIT Press, 9-18
|
|
Busbea, L. (2007) Topologies: The urban utopia in France: 1960-1970. Cambridge: Mit Press
|
|
de Graaf, R. (2017) Four walls and a roof. Cambridge: Harvard University Press
|
|
Delalex, G. (2006) Go with the flow. Helsinki: University of Art and Design
|
1
|
Easterling, K. (2014) Extrastatecraft: The Power of Infrastructure Space. New York: Verso
|
|
Hensel, M. (2010) Performance-oriented architecture: Towards a biological paradigm for architectural design and the built environment. FORMAkademisk, 3(1): 36-56
|
1
|
Hertzberger, H. (1991) Lessons for students in architecture. Rotterdam: 010 Publishers, (I. Rike, Trans.)
|
|
Hertzberger, H. (1991) Diagoon houses. Delft: A&U, 66-71
|
|
International Energy Agency I.E.A. (2008) Energy efficiency requirements in building codes, energy efficiency policies for new buildings
|
|
Jerković-Babović, B., Rakonjac, I., Furundžić, D. (2020) Fluid spaces in a contemporary urban context: Questioning the boundary between architecture and infrastructure. Spatium, (43): 35-43; Belgrade: IAUS
|
|
Kipnis, J. (1996) Recent koolhaas. El Croquis, 83: 26-37
|
|
Koolhaas, R., Mau, B. (2000/1997) SMLXL. Koln: Evergreen, 335-350
|
|
Koolhaas, R. (1978) Delirious New York. New York: The Monacelli press
|
|
Koolhaas, R. (2003) Content. Koln: Tashen, 162-171
|
|
Kwinter, S. (2000) SMLXL. Koln: Evergreen, pp 500
|
|
Latour, B., Yaneva, A. (2005) Give me a gun and I'll make all the buildings move. Oxford: Network theory
|
|
Leatherbarrow, D. (2005) Architectures unscripted performativity. u: Kolarević B. [ur.] Performative architecture beyond instrumentality, Spoon press, 5-19
|
|
Lefebvre, P. (2017) What differences could pragmatism have made?: From architectural effects to architecture's consequences. FOOTPRINT, 23-36
|
3
|
Marx, K. (1859) A contribution to the critique of political economy. Moscow: Progress Publishers
|
|
Rabeneck, A., Sheppard, D., Town, P. (1973) Housing flexibility?. u: Architectural Design, London: Wiley, 43: 698-727
|
|
Remoy, H., van der Voord, T. (2009) Sustainability by adaptable and functionally neutral buildings. u: Schumacher P. [ur.] SASBE 2009, 3rd CIB International Conference on Smart and Sustainable Built Environments, Delft, paper, Delft
|
|
Schneider, T., Till, J. (2005) Flexible housing: Opportunities and limits. Architectural Research Quarterly, 9/2: 157-166
|
|
Schumacher, P. (2013) Free market urbanism: Urbanism beyond planning, masterplanning the adaptive city: Computational urbanism in the twenty-first century. New York
|
|
Smithson, A., Smithson, P. (1968) Urban infrastructure. u: Smithson Alison [ur.] Team 10 Primer, Alison Smithson Cambridge: MIT Press, 48-73
|
|
Space Management Group (2006) Promoting spatial efficiency in building design. UK
|
|
Spencer, D. (2016) The architecture of NEO-liberalism. New York: Bloomsbury Publishing, 106-121
|
|
Steiner, H. (2005) The architecture of the well-serviced environment. Architectural Research Quarterly, 9(2): 133-143
|
|
Tafuri, M. (1980) Theories and history of architecture. New York: Harper & Row
|
|
Till, J., Schneider, T. (2005) Flexible housing: the means to the end. Architectural Research Quarterly, 9(3-4): 287-287
|
|
Zaera, P.A. (2008) The politics of the envelope: A political critique of materialism. Log, 17: 76-105
|
|
|
|