the new spatial revolution

[andrew82]

As more employees use - piece of junk - and emails there is less need for office space, and the space needed requires a new design process, i.e. Space for computers and cables, etc, and maybe more open plan. Retail is affected by cyber-shops and the music and movie industry is affected by easily downloaded, free options.

How does this effect the way we design buildings and spaces? Will architecture simply become a 'container' for technology and the function of the building have less importance? Will people start isolating themselves from others? Should architects and designers begin a new architectural era with technology in mind?

Face-to-face interaction still is [and will always be] important and instead of designing ‘containers’ for technology, architecture needs to adapt to these changes and respond by encouraging both the use of technology and human interaction simultaneously.

ANYONE HAS A SUGGESTION OR COMMENT? I AM ALSO INTERESTED IN OTHER WORKS RELEVANT TO THE ABOVE

[usarender]

There is a need to place emphasis again on the spaces of architecture, rather then on the technology.

HUMAN PERCEPTIONS OF SPACE and the creation of Architectural Theory and it's relation to design practice.

We need new architectural theory and ways to design our environment, based on the human experience of space.

In our architecture, we must create a humanizing implant of forms that allow the space to be bound by the human experience.

Thus, we see the role of architecture in the ordering and articulation of space.

The Po MO plastic surface architecture we see in many of our cities is ordered by developers rather then by a true architectural sense of spatial responsibility and human experience. Thus, we must lay for the future a new path, one of the destruction of the old cold de-humanizing space, and for a re-creation of architecture according to the relationship it has to space and the experiencing of space. So, when we speak of culturally and humanly relevant architecture, rather then speak of "Experiencing Architecture", we must speak of "Experiencing Architecturally Humanizing Space".

Some Important spatial concepts we must consider are -->>

1. The importance of Localized spaces.

2. The ideas of Spatial extension and movement.

3. Articulate human space versus the space of movement.

4. The Ecstasy of Infinity.

5. Vastness and narrowness in architectural definition.

6. How networks of mobility influence our perceptions of space.

7. The road and movement of cars leads to a defacing of the cities, and lack of local spatial definition!

8. The street is ex-centrically related to dwelling space.

So in architecture, how we articulate our space becomes important.

Thus, how we create a sense of community in contrast to the path of the vehicle, which exerts a dehumanizing experience of space. Architecture thus also becomes culturally influenced by the cosmic connection or lack of cosmic connection to the universe around us. Thus, the practice of architects outside the confines of their own culture can be a risky business, in other words. The cultural values placed on different conceptions of space becomes thus relevant.

Further, our architecture can define whichever conception of space we wish to project. Our architecture can thus better relate to how we define, experience and view the space around us. In a localized statement, there is thus room for architecture to create a human mood definition of how to relate to space. In creating an architectural mood, and a connection to various conceptions and human experiences of space, our architectural space can be thus treated in a multitude of ways, depending on the spatial relationship and experience we wish to high-light, as defined by a program of spaces. Thus, our architecture can be treated as "ground space", elevated or suspended space, floating space, ceiling space, pathway space, enclosed space, open space, directional space, fluid space, articulated space with open and closed voids, which define the human experience as localized spatial experiences. Thus, our buildings can open up to the cosmic space at times, to create a sense of insecurity, or even of ecstasy of infinity, or feeling of vastness, or can close into personalized space at times, to allow for a feeling of definition. Our architecture can be "floating" and create a sense of fluid light spaces, or can be, according to the hierarchy of architectural spaces, be created as primary or secondary space.

We can use the concept of ground space to relate to the home, and elevated space, in connection to the sky, as the place to dream and view the world below. We thus have a new sense and meaning to the exploration of space, and to the idea of building cities in space, as we will be experience the cosmos and world around us in a completely new way.

We can thus formulate a new vocabulary and language of architecture, using this new conception of space. Space no longer is universal, endless, it becomes defined by the human experience! Thus, we can create buildings or spaces as pathways, such as museums, or as fluid space, where the changing nature of the functions allows for a fluidity of definition. We can thus associate this fluidity of space with a fluid, movement oriented architecture and translate this into fluid forms.

We can design our architecture along new networks of mobility and allow it in a sense to communicate in a different way from localized architecture which maintains a greater connection to the community. Thus, the future networks of mobility, both earth-bound, and celestial bound, become the new ordering and organizing elements, as they create new ways to perceive space around us, and thus will directly influence our views of the city, of civilization, of how to live in the cosmos and planet earth. The degree or facility of our mobility in these systems will determine also how we value our spatial experiences and thus also call for a new architecture.

In the community sense, we can re-design our ordinances in such a way that we take into account the spatial definitions in the ordering of space. Thus, when we see our cities by following old traditional zoning laws, create a narrowness of space and do not allow man to expand into space as they should, we end up with new zoning laws that call for new ordering principles. Thus, in some cases, more stepping back of buildings, for example. This implies organizing our architecture according to the governing predominant beneficial spatial definitions that exist in the cities. Thus, culturally relevant landmarks become important in establishing zoning laws, points of reference, axial transitions, the relationships of volumes becomes important, as well as the architecture to be defined along paths of movement. The zoning laws can call for a different architecture along zones of movement, where the spatial perception is modified, versus localized neighborhood architecture. Both in essence call for a more localized humanizing spatial experience. Further, all these principles of space call for new urban re-development efforts, new city designs, and new ways to view the interplay of spatial definitions in our architecture.

Further, an "anthromorphic" view of space defines that man in essence creates and defines his own conception of space, based on his localized experience. So taking this into account, we now realize the modern call to allow space, of infinite quality, to simply flow through our architecture is completely wrong. In doing this, we end up with architecture that lacks in spatial quality. Thus, our new architecture should deal with every aspect of space and our experience of space, and not organize itself based on external organizational principles, but based on the human experience of space as defined by a local context of our architecture. There is no more room, in this vision, for badly articulated space, for geometries and shapes which do not enhance the human experience. In effect, we learn how to better rid ourselves of the architectural trash of geometric spaces and shapes that maintain no relevancy to an experience of space. If the geometry and shapes create a human addition to space and help us better to create a mood of spatial experience, they become justified. If they do not, they are destroying and de-humanizing our spatial experience. We thus have a filter to use in our design practice.

In Summary, we end up with a new vocabulary for architecture, a new vocabulary for the cities of the future and a new vision on how we perceive and influence the space around us, as Architects.