Urban planning community

+ Reply to thread
Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Benifit of kinetic architecture over conventional architecture

  1. #1

    Benifit of kinetic architecture over conventional architecture

    ..can any one help me with this... why use kinetic architecture rather conventional?

  2. #2
    Cyburbia Administrator Dan's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 1996
    Location
    Upstate New York
    Posts
    14,608
    Blog entries
    3
    Moderator note:
    For the planners here not familiar with kinetic architecture, a description from the Harvard Design School.

    In architecture, the notion of motion is often represented as an abstract formal configuration that implies relationships of cause and effect. Deformation, juxtaposition, superimposition, absence, disturbance, and repetition, are just few of the techniques used by architects to express virtual motion and change. These approaches are based on the idea that perpetual succession is not only conceived directly through physical motion but also indirectly through formal expression.

    Physical motion, other than in doors, windows, elevators, or escalators, is not commonly present in buildings. In fact, the form and structure of the average building suggests stability, steadiness, sturdiness, and immobility. Yet, while motion may suggest agility, unpredictability, or uncertainty it may also suggest change, anticipation, and liveliness.

    Challenging past practices, architecture today finds itself in a position to revisit its traditional kinetic aesthetics with new technological innovations. Through the use of sensors, actuators, and micro-controllers, actual controlled motion can be designed, integrated, and implemented in, on, or across buildings. The traditional problematics of motion, stasis, and order are challenged, redefined, and transformed by new spatio-temporal possibilities and strategies opened up through technological innovation, particularly robotic technologies and new approaches to mobility, portability, and nomadic culture.


    [snip]

    The area of kinetic architecture, i.e. the integration of motion into the built environment, and the impact such results has upon the aesthetics, design, and performance of buildings may be of great importance to the field of architecture. While the aesthetic value of virtual motion may always be a source of inspiration, its physical implementation in buildings and structures may challenge the very nature of what architecture really is.


    My answer is going to be quite limited. Most kinetic architecture I've seen serves one of two purposes:

    1) The building is in an area of scenic interest, and portions of the building move to allow those who are seated to enjoy a 360 degree view of the surrounding landscape. These are are mainly observation towers, and rotating rooftop restaurants perched on some skyscrapers.

    2) The building is designed to take advantage of, or protect itself from a force of nature. Examples include windmills and buildings designed to rise above floodwaters yet stay fixed in one location and not float away - the Netherlands has many examples of both.

  3. #3
    Cyburbian silentvoice's avatar
    Registered
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    63
    There's this water museum which i cannot recall its name. The whole thing looks like a worm from the outside. The walls on the inside turn with water moving all around.

  4. #4
    hmmm.... .. but how can a specific kinetic design be justified in any urban context.. like... if i design a residential space incorporating kinetic architecture..like micro compact home or the suitcase house by edge design inst. ; which are a bit different as micro compact is transportable but suitcase is not.....so.. how can a single unit be justified rather making a bunch of in a master planned site.. if i don want a transportable unit....?..

  5. #5
    Cyburbia Administrator Dan's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 1996
    Location
    Upstate New York
    Posts
    14,608
    Blog entries
    3
    hmmm.... .. but how can a specific kinetic design be justified in any urban context.. like... if i design a residential space incorporating kinetic architecture..like micro compact home or the suitcase house by edge design inst. ; which are a bit different as micro compact is transportable but suitcase is not.....so.. how can a single unit be justified rather making a bunch of in a master planned site.. if i don want a transportable unit....?..
    I wouldn't call portable buildings a form of kinetic architecture, because it's the location of the building that chances, not the form.

    Otherwise, in an urban environment, the only advantage I would see to kinetic architecture is that some element of the building moves to take advantage of the environment, like the orientation of solar panels to capture the maximum amount of light, or external shades open and close to block or admit light.

    More thoughts:

    In an urban context, could a building with a green roof or ivy-covered wall be considered kinetic? Changes to the building exterior would be gradual, but still, it is changing, designed to respond to an external stimulus.

    Is Wright's Fallingwater kinetic? In my opinion, no, because it's not the building that changes form, but rather the waterfal it frames. The flow of the waterfall is no different than the foliage of the trees around my house. (Bud, if you're around, what do you think?)

    With new materials and coatings that can change color in response to the outdoor temperature or the angle of light, it may be possible to create a building that will change color through the day. Still, why? What advantage would this have over a building with a static color? Is it really kinetic?

    Here's a rather proletarian form of kinetic architecture in the working-class eastern suburbs of Buffalo, New York - the "Polish patio." (Buffalo's eastern suburbs, where the garage door screens are most common, have a very large Polish-American population.)





    During the winter, these are garages covered with a solid door, used to protect vehicles from Buffalo's harsh winter climate. During the summer, the solid garage door is replaced with a screen, the car is parked outdoors, and the garage serves becomes an informal living area.

    Here's a regular garage door and a "Polish patio" screen side-by-side.


  6. #6
    so.. a building which changes its form and its spaces...is catagorized within kinetic architecture..right? .. so wt if this kin of building can be moved arround?

  7. #7
    Cyburbian jordanb's avatar
    Registered
    May 2003
    Location
    City of Low Low Wages!
    Posts
    3,236
    ^-- A "mobile home?"
    Reality does not conform to your ideology.
    http://neighborhoods.chicago.il.us Photographs of Life in the Neighborhoods of Chicago
    http://hafd.org/~jordanb/ Pretentious Weblog.

  8. #8
    he he... yeah..

  9. #9
    One of the most beautiful kinetic buildings I have ever seen is the Arab Institute in Paris. One whol side of the building is sheathed with a dense pattern of shutters that open and close as the light changes. The shutters form an Arabic like tapastry patterm. Very very nice. Check it out here.

    http://www.geocities.com/darthdusan/arabworldinst.JPG
    http://archiguide.free.fr/PH/FRA/Par...NouAStud07.jpg

    From what I understand it is hard to keep the shutters working

  10. #10
    BANNED
    Registered
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Mobile, Alabama
    Posts
    194

    Water as art

    Quote Originally posted by Dan View post
    Is Wright's Fallingwater kinetic? In my opinion, no, because it's not the building that changes form, but rather the waterfall it frames. The flow of the waterfall is no different than the foliage of the trees around my house. (bud, if you're around, what do you think?)
    Art is what distinguishes a building as architecture. Water has always been used to make buildings beautiful (as with pools and fountains); so water in motion could be called, in terms of science, kinetic art; but Wright was not too fond of efforts at Harvard and in all of Academia to reduce architecture (i.e., art) to a science. so, as for Edgar Kaufman's house on Bear Run in Pennsylvania, there is no better example of water being used - in the nature of materials native to the site - to make a building beautiful. It is part of the form and function of the building, it gives utility and delight, all of which goes to make a building worthy to be called, architecture. Wright was not ashamed to admit of what you call the supernatural, paranormal (seemingly "pseudoscientific" or occult) sources of inspirations of art and creative thinking - I got it from Wright at Taliesin - what is the problem, really?

    It may be that kinetic architecture is the consequence of the impoverishment of art by the overemphasis of science; art being the spiritual, life giving quality of architecture - so that something had to be done to give buildings some semblance of life or energy.
    Last edited by bud; 06 Sep 2006 at 2:14 PM. Reason: elucidate

+ Reply to thread

More at Cyburbia

  1. Replies: 2
    Last post: 24 Aug 2012, 12:03 PM
  2. Replies: 8
    Last post: 03 May 2007, 4:06 PM
  3. Kinetic architecture
    Design, Space, and Place
    Replies: 7
    Last post: 20 Sep 2001, 7:18 AM
  4. Kinetic architecture
    Design, Space, and Place
    Replies: 0
    Last post: 21 Sep 1999, 1:51 AM