ENVIRONMENTAL ADAPTABILITY
I agree wtih the definition of 'flexibility' in design that Lynch has elaborated on in this reading. He defines three types of design flexibility. 1:variety of types within something (different styles of pots to choose from) 2: the plastic environment (a blank piece of paper,'plastic' design, the clay to mould the pot from) 3: which is the focus of this reading, generalized adjustability of environment (leave the clay in the ground for the future to mould how they want it, or a tent of which the user adjusts the environment to their comfort).
We don't know what the future holds. We can predict, or make educated guesses but you will never truly know. The 1st type of flexible doesnt take this into account, it offers variety for then and there with no concern for the future. The 2nd type is too ambiguos...in the end, it creates chaos because it is too blank and the lack of strucure than hinders future spaces. The 3rd type is based on the notion of adaptation. Lynch goes into the basis for this theory of design - the human body. Support and communication are fixed - these things do not change/slightly change where other parts are fluid and are relegated to growth and change. In building terms: cores and/or zones for the supporting actions and the rest remains fluid.
You could say that additive structures embody this theory, but in the end additive structures become too big and therefore not functional. (if you look at Brisbane as a prime example, or any city for that matter - whole areas need to be torn down in order to cater for the addition of more roads, more public transport, more 'things' to make it functional for the growing population.) The basic brick is a prime example of something that embodies the flexibility that Lynch is promoting. Its basic form is restrictive and highly rigid, but the complexity and variety of the layouts and structures that one can create from this form is endless.
We don't know what the future holds. We can predict, or make educated guesses but you will never truly know. The 1st type of flexible doesnt take this into account, it offers variety for then and there with no concern for the future. The 2nd type is too ambiguos...in the end, it creates chaos because it is too blank and the lack of strucure than hinders future spaces. The 3rd type is based on the notion of adaptation. Lynch goes into the basis for this theory of design - the human body. Support and communication are fixed - these things do not change/slightly change where other parts are fluid and are relegated to growth and change. In building terms: cores and/or zones for the supporting actions and the rest remains fluid.
You could say that additive structures embody this theory, but in the end additive structures become too big and therefore not functional. (if you look at Brisbane as a prime example, or any city for that matter - whole areas need to be torn down in order to cater for the addition of more roads, more public transport, more 'things' to make it functional for the growing population.) The basic brick is a prime example of something that embodies the flexibility that Lynch is promoting. Its basic form is restrictive and highly rigid, but the complexity and variety of the layouts and structures that one can create from this form is endless.
Lynch, K., 1990. Environmental Adaptability (1958). In T. Banerjee & M. Southworth, eds. City sense and city design: writings and projects of Kevin Lynch. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, pp. 380-395
No comments:
Post a Comment