Impermanence, Ignorance or Incompetence?
Incidentally, my research for this article originally stemmed from no particular focus into sustainability. Moreover, my interest was first sparked through reading Edward Ford’s 1997 essay, “The Theory and Practice of Impermanence”, which focused on an examination of what constituted western notions of history and preservation of architecture, comparing it to Japanese practices of ‘ritual rebuilding’, celebrating the “intangible essence within its style [of construction]” (Ford, 1997). While discussing this area of a theory of impermanence within architecture however, I also became very conscious of the undoubtedly unsustainable manner of construction and design in recent architectural history.
Just as with Ford’s argument, I believe architects need “acceptance of the temporality of the physical manifestation of architecture” and that design of buildings requires careful consideration of this fundamental point. Professor of Architecture at Cornell University, Dr. Johnathan Ochshorn cites many examples of ‘failure’ in buildings, suggesting that “further dis-integrating technological considerations from the practice of architecture” (1999) is an acceptable ignorance, given that work in this technical field has already been surrendered to the engineer. I however am prepared to disagree because the architect, as a manager and the visionary overseeing a project, must be aware of his/her own building’s design and construction.
Drawings showing the simplicity and elegance of a repeated system for the Sainsbury Art Centre.
(Foster, 1989)
Norman Foster for example stands as our great fighter in managing architectural obsolescence, designing floor plates and systems which he has argued are ‘future-proof’. However, as Ford points out, even he could not predict that “…ten years after its opening, the entire cladding of Foster’s Sainsbury Centre for Visual Arts was replaced, its aluminium panels having deteriorated beyond repair” (Ford, 1997). It is therefore almost depressing to note that even with the best intentions of combining experimentation with practical, functional architecture, disastrous environmental consequences were unavoidable. Ignorance was pleaded in this case, an argument that a chemical reaction between two plastics in the component led to erosion and the panels’ subsequent failure. Naturally we cannot assume the architect to know of such technical detail but it does force us to ask, should we be more careful in future?
Deceptive sustainability? Foster had the very best of intentions but given the failure of elements in his design, does he also show that architects need to be more careful of technology and materiality? (Foster, 1989)
At the same time though, it is sadly true that even within my own education in architecture; the theme of sustainability is not often discussed. Studio tutors and professors are often more concerned with the ethereal and intangible concepts of abstraction and architectonics. This of course, is not in itself a problem, I am a great believer that architecture, like science and like art must be a continual process of creativity but I feel that I have been, to a certain extent, made deliberately ignorant of material durability and other technical issues. As a result, the profession and education of architecture has generated a form of ‘acceptable ignorance’ resulting from what Dr. Ochshorn identifies as an “antagonism between design and technology” (1999). I find this view unacceptable given that it means an architecturally interesting end; can justify construction by any means, resulting in a hugely ignored system of waste.
If we are to design buildings which we hope will outlive our own mortal careers as architects, we can no longer simply disregard the technical and constructional challenges which confront us. The profession of architecture has become so intrigued with form and ideology that there is a clear neglect of the practicality and of purpose within architecture. While I respect and understand the importance of pursuing idealism, I still believe that we are here to design functional, workable buildings which will improve the life of the user, without damaging the environment and without complicating our society’s future sustainability. Ignorance may be an excuse to find bliss, but incompetence is always unforgivable.
References
Johnathan Ochshorn. (1999). “Dis-Intergrating Technology & Design.” Retrieved Online via:
http://www.ochshorndesign.com/cornell/writings/Tech-design99.html
Edward Ford. (1997). “The Theory & Practice of Impermanence” in Harvard Design Magazine:3 (p. 1-7). Revtrieved Online via: http://edwardrford.com/?portfolio=theory-and-practice-of-impermanence
Images depicting Norman Foster’s Sainsbury Art Centre for Visual Arts were retrieved from:
Norman Foster. (1989). Foster Associates: Buildings & Projects Volume 2 – 1971-1978. Hong Kong: Watermark Publications.