 |
| http://www.evolo.us/architecture/icon-square-houses- peace-center-community-center-and-eco-hotel/ |
If we fix the façade system and structure of the building,
we limit the waste of resources in the fix part of the design, but by then
creating fixed sized modules inside the skin, we still have a universal system
to fitting out the building. Then
modules of smaller size can be transported up and down using the lift system,
and the leaser’s of the spaces can decide on one, two or more modules for their
use. So if they want to be economical,
one pod for living is enough, whereas if they want a café business, maybe two
is required, where a manufacturing or design company/firm might need anything
from one to 10 modules, and because the dividing walls are made of thin
elements that can be removed or switched off, not only the visual separation is
an impermanent idea, but so is the physical separation.
And because there is 66 levels offering very similar space,
there is no real difference in living or working on the first floor or the top
level, except for physical views, but as technology becomes more integrated, a
virtual view could be offered, so there is no advantage in what level you live
on, there-by equalizing the price of space to a purely volume related price
rather than a speculative, further reducing the cost of housing.
I wonder if this would be a good thing. We would then solely rely on size rather than quality for determining status so would this then encourage more waste of this space and therefore materials as we do now? I guess there is always a potential.
References:
http://www.evolo.us/architecture/city-like-supertall-skyscraper-in-beijing-china/
http://www.evolo.us/architecture/icon-square-houses-peace-center-community-center-and-eco-hotel/
No comments:
Post a Comment