A dispute is currently raging between the UK Department for Education and the architecture profession. Famous architects such as Lord Rogers are demanding the right to design fancy schools, appealing to studies indicating that a well-designed environment can improve learning outcomes for schoolchildren. However, Michael Gove claims that school building costs can be reduced by 30% by reducing unnecessary space and eliminating "frills". A spokesman for the Department for Education said: "There is no convincing evidence that spending enormous sums of money on school
buildings leads to increased attainment. An excellent curriculum, great
leadership and inspirational teaching are the keys to driving up
standards."
I haven't studied the detailed evidence myself, but I suspect the truth is somewhere between these two positions. The study identifies such factors as lighting, circulation, acoustics, individuality and colour. Politicians who spent their own childhood in stuffy or draughty classrooms with flickering flourescent lighting may imagine these factors to be character-building, but surely most people will think that children and teachers deserve a decent environment.
But surely a decent environment doesn't need to cost an extra 40%. Is white paint so much cheaper than a nice colour? Does poor lighting and inefficient air conditioning really save money? Or does the 30% saving really come from cramming more pupils into less space?
And to what extent is Lord Rogers's complaint really about these factors? Perhaps it is more about the architecture profession's desire to create exciting and iconic buildings, with lots of curves. Can a curve be cost-justified in terms of educational attainment? Conversely, is the banning of curves merely a symbolic gesture on Gove's part?
There are several problems with this kind of debate. Firstly, the people who have the greatest knowledge and expertise are seen as having a vested interest in expensive solutions. Secondly, other stakeholders sceptical that the expense can be justified (in terms of ROI) and tending to regard good architecture (whatever that means) as an expensive luxury. Thirdly, a tiny amount of genuine evidence gets stretched very thinly, through rival interpretations and extrapolations and opinions. And finally, the complex relationship between cost and benefit gets overlaid with politically motivated simplicities.
Well, that's architecture for you.
Showing posts with label physical architecture. Show all posts
Showing posts with label physical architecture. Show all posts
Tuesday, January 01, 2013
Thursday, October 14, 2004
Adaptation and Adaptability
Adam Brown from John McAslan and Partners gave a talk recently about his restoration/renovation work with Swiss Cottage Library. Dan Hill has some notes on his blog.
Interesting aside on how difficult it is to work with modernist buildings given their focus on functionality - if the function changes over time, the building can resist change. With the library, Brown kept alluding to how difficult it was to work with certain layers, given the amount of change required (not just in contemporary services etc, but in building in the modern notion of what a library is (internet access, coffee shops, DVD lending - as well as books).
This leads to a discussion about the adaptability of a modernist architecture.
1. Basil Spence is undoubtedly a great architect in many ways, and the Swiss Cottage Library remains beautiful, even if its functionality is now somewhat dated.
2. Functionalism involves a high degree of adaptation (to a given conception of function/functionality).
3. Adaptation conflicts with adaptability. The more you optimize to the present, the more you close off alternative futures.
4. Great buildings should be able to accommodate change, age gracefully. Perhaps one of the errors of modernism was to imagine that change would no longer be necessary.
The modernist attitude is widespread in software engineering. Model-driven architecture represents a type of modernism: form should follow function.
Stewart Brand's book on How Buildings Learn contains the notion of Shearing Layers - functional layers that have a different natural rate of change. A flexible structure allows each layer to be changed independently. But where the layers are too tightly coupled, the differential rates of change tear the structure apart.
The Shearing Layers concept is highly relevant to SOA.
Update: Stewart Brand has now introduced the term pace layering for the principle that stratification should be based on the differential rate of change. The term "shearing layers" refers to what happens when this principle is not followed.
Interesting aside on how difficult it is to work with modernist buildings given their focus on functionality - if the function changes over time, the building can resist change. With the library, Brown kept alluding to how difficult it was to work with certain layers, given the amount of change required (not just in contemporary services etc, but in building in the modern notion of what a library is (internet access, coffee shops, DVD lending - as well as books).
This leads to a discussion about the adaptability of a modernist architecture.
1. Basil Spence is undoubtedly a great architect in many ways, and the Swiss Cottage Library remains beautiful, even if its functionality is now somewhat dated.
2. Functionalism involves a high degree of adaptation (to a given conception of function/functionality).
3. Adaptation conflicts with adaptability. The more you optimize to the present, the more you close off alternative futures.
4. Great buildings should be able to accommodate change, age gracefully. Perhaps one of the errors of modernism was to imagine that change would no longer be necessary.
The modernist attitude is widespread in software engineering. Model-driven architecture represents a type of modernism: form should follow function.
Stewart Brand's book on How Buildings Learn contains the notion of Shearing Layers - functional layers that have a different natural rate of change. A flexible structure allows each layer to be changed independently. But where the layers are too tightly coupled, the differential rates of change tear the structure apart.
The Shearing Layers concept is highly relevant to SOA.
Update: Stewart Brand has now introduced the term pace layering for the principle that stratification should be based on the differential rate of change. The term "shearing layers" refers to what happens when this principle is not followed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)