Photo: Photo by Whitney Browne, courtesy of No Longer EmptyРеволюция in the urban studies that we are experiencing, is that the building is understood as part of the urban fabric. It’s no longer a house, but the house plus those who live in it. The city, therefore, ceases to be a collection of material structures and becomes a connecting space with ludmil 2010, David Adjaye, an architect known to us by the business school in SKOLKOVO, built an apartment building in new York called Sugar Hill. This is one house, but he made six of ten-storey buildings joined together, each of which consists of two five-pieces set on each other. And delivered and they are connected with shifts, like a child laid down their tower of cubes clumsily, inaccurately, without a mother. There are four types of Windows, all with shifted axes, so that in General, it appears quarter of the favelas, where everyone built their apartment over the head of another is not something that is not consistent with the neighbor, but all the same a bit as necessary. I should add that this somewhat impoverished view of the dowry is very expensive, upmarket housing — the paradoxes of society, unostentatious consumption.This is a common technique. From REM Koolhaas is a well-known building — a multifunctional complex De Rotterdam Development on the waterfront in Rotterdam. Four skyscrapers, each of which consists of two stacked on top of each other. They are placed so that the soles don’t match the upper with the lower. The building is finished in 2013, but the project is old, even in 1997. Koolhaas tried to repeat the same action in the competition for Gazprom in St. Petersburg, but twice to build a tower of cubes dancing did not happen.Why is that? The building behaves as a quarter in which some structure is imposed on other. In elementary geometry introduces two disturbing its factor. First, chaos: part behave as a house in crooked lane, not knowing how to hold the red line. Second, the time: if the place was built not simultaneously, but through several real estate invasions. In the city, and both the usual case, it consists entirely of such disturbances against the correct geometry, and the architecture of the individual building looks sharp. Buildings are now going to a special relationship with the city: the city enters into their bodies and mangles them.Photo: courtesy of Unset decoration, nothing more than a picture on the front of the building. But it’s part of the overall process of the wide occurrence of the city on their buildings.The most obvious example is a commercial building. You all know them well, great store today it is a city block under roof. In on certain areas, streets, alleys, located, of course, but apart from them — 30% of the area — cafes, restaurants, playgrounds, cinemas, carrousels and winter gardens. Now it’s standard, but even some 30 years ago, the efficiency of the trading ��Denmark archaic was determined via the amount of retail space in it. There was only open space with goods, even the counters were removed, leaving only the cashier on the way out— it was a symbol of the consumer society of the 1970s. Take offices. There was a curious revolution. By the end of the 1980s on the wave of a conservative turn of Reagan and Thatcher set the standard of the office world of the company, which boils down to “my office — my fortress.” The offices were created the maximum obstacles between those who in them works, and the city. It was a factory of the global economy — the muscular solidity of the wealth, the smell of futures and loans — among the dirty world of the streets where still using cash, and women allow themselves to appear in public with bare legs. Unfortunately, the offices, which are currently built in the centre of Moscow, just like that, but it sucks for pozavcherashny, wasniewski yourself an idea of the respectability of the series about the FBI. Today’s office is a building in which the town joins as the market square, there is trade, cafes and restaurants not only on the first floor, there is still inside theaters, bars and discos on the roof and the internal courtyard is an urban event venue.Moreover, as shown by Jeremy Myerson and Philip Ross in the book “Office of the XXI century”, changing the internal structure of the office. He’s starting to remind rethought Adjaye quarter of the favela, where along the current arbitrarily on the floor of the passages of alleys once freely build rooms of different shapes and contours with large Windows which are at odd angles are tables and chairs, of course, incomplete, and even some urban area where the buffets. And all self-respecting office worker today has not one, but two or three jobs in it — at the table, shapeless poof in the cupboard and some bunks near the ceiling, where he analyzes financial flows in the reclining state. It’s not a special installation by the avant-garde masters, but accepted the civilizational standard of work advanced (often, however, IT-companies) in the global economy.Well, large offices perhaps it is obsolescent format, and what we see is not a new stage of their development, and just agony. But take the building of hospitals. Treatment is to a certain extent the production process, involving the separation of patients and healthy among themselves, the constant sorting of defective products, repairs, transfer to another group, until finally not get a suitable instance. The essence of the class has to master the logic factory. Especially today, when the treatment requires sophisticated instruments, vividly reminiscent of the instrumental lines. However, if you look at the current projects of hospitals, factory theme adds a kind of contrary, even at first glance malicious. ��ability doctors have now separated that matches the name of the “Cabinet”, but not in the medical sense — it looks like the office of a lawyer, financial Advisor, and if the doctor, the psychoanalyst, and most likely the lab where they give you the opportunity to feel like a drug, an IDP in a test tube. It all comes out in the large lobby with Seating areas reception, cafe, Lounges, winter gardens and all that more expect to find in the lobby of the hotel. Just impossible to imagine that somewhere behind this are warehouses, where you’re lying, processed and packaged, waiting for translation from the first group of products defective, the other group undergone primary repair.I explained that all this medical history, changing the concept of medicine. Now is it right to not treat patients to improve, and healthy — so they don’t spoil. And what a comfortable, pleasant atmosphere that makes you acutely appreciate what you already have. However, in my experience, yet entering the hospital most regret lost — and I think it is still not in medicine, and in the change of the architectural paradigm.Not just hospitals, and even factories themselves are changing in the same direction. They also have public spaces, allowing you to experience the pleasure of mutual communication and hanging out at the fact that the factory produces — there sews or assembles cars.The first and obvious what strongly changes is the invasion of the city in the building— tearing down the walls of this building. The larger the building today reveals the city than to a lesser extent, its walls are its borders, the more effective it is. The border is yesterday, the future is transparency. The second is the destruction of the idea that a function calls itself Autonomous space. In any case. At the time, Richard Nixon said about Gerald Ford that he can’t do two things at once, for example to walk and chew gum, now the opposite is true, people have forgotten how to do one thing in one space. All spaces should be multi-functional — like a city street or town square.But that simple, basic changes that do not affect the architecture itself. And there are more significant. We are accustomed to the fact that the world of things around us is changing rapidly, computers, navigation devices, smartphones have created a new reality, and it is even a shame to say, to such an extent that corny. We don’t quite cognizant of how changing the structure of the buildings. But it is changing.Photo: Photo by Susanne SchindlerСуществуют two fundamentally different understanding of the city’s buildings. From the point of view of architecture — is the material of the structure. They can be created as tools for function, may work and��of Costa function with or without, but with a certain cultural program, they may have a different typology and a different story, but anyway we are dealing with devices for something. Something like pliers or piano, that is utilitarian physical object, which itself lives and works. From the point of view of urbanism, it’s different. The city is not a collection of physical structures, the connection of the space with the people who live here, it’s not an inanimate object, but a subject-object phenomenon. This can be done so that the building receives some interface to demonstrate what happens to him, a kind of stage and space for audience. The city is the auditorium for the play of life in buildings, all this delaying of the city inside the building is the competition of the theatres for the audience. Residential house shows that he really is — a lot of houses supplied at each other. Factory, hospital, office plant inside auditoriums in order to show us the production of a drama on the subject of your own functions. These drama window dressing, like any art of this kind. They replace the facade. The building is now interesting not for how it looks, and what social process around it accumulates. A model of the city for the construction of the building is the openness, the permeability of borders, the imposition of geometries and temporal layers, the multi-functionality of spaces, plus the transformation of the building into the theatre itself.In 1981, the architect Mikhail Belov won first prize at the conceptual international competition “House exhibit in the Museum of the XXI century”, and, in my opinion, it was a remarkably clever project. The point was that all the functions of a house — bedroom, dining room, living room were kept, but were duplicated spaces from which you can observe them from the street as from the audience. All except the bathrooms. This is a space for observations, creating a second skin of the house, was also a living space: it is not the external viewer watched you as the doctor in the test tube, it was the structure of your life, you have inside of your living space, there is a place where you could rate how you look on the stage of your life. This is the earliest I know of examples of the transformation of the house of paradigm city. Housing is immensely complicated, in it there is a paradoxical connection and transitions, overlay, and chaos, the space becomes a way of understanding themselves in the same space. This spatial deployment of human consciousness in the city, the ideal machine to answer the question of why we live in cities that we like about them.Having said all this, it is possible for a second to squint and ask yourself, does it make any sense. In the end, it’s just fashion, fashion for urbanism, which is no Lou��neck of fashion on the environment or on a smart city. She’ll just pass and remain Mehta time. But a certain sense this is beyond the boundaries of fashion.Today, when you discuss with the customer the project of the building, his first and most important requirement is a desire to make it “flexible”. Life changes so quickly and options to predict so hard that the wall you painted today and built over three years, will begin to interfere with already six. Knowing this in advance you would like to be able to move, rotate, remove, demolish — only do not build tightly. This, alas, is so bad that it is better to say — does not work. Therefore, today’s buildings short-lived, and in decent countries in the project are budgeted KPIs at their disposal — who is cheaper and cleaner, and a better project.Against this background somehow confuse cities like Rome, Venice or Bruges, who live centuries, but not only that, live, and even thrive, despite the fact that not only is there the building can not be demolished, but the walls inside moving into them are not allowed. How is it that we build buildings that can’t stand for 30 years, but this is underdeveloped by our today’s standards predecessors were able to build homes that change owners and functions — and it all fits in there?There is an interesting pattern. If you transform an old building to new tasks, you, unfortunately, need to prepare for the fact that approximately 30% of the area it will be used inefficiently. No, there are virtuosos that can reduce this figure to 27%, and in some cases even 25%, but still a quarter of your space — some corridors, storage rooms, light wells and so on — actually will not fit. And you them to clean, to heat, the word to pay.But when, in offices, hospitals, stores, factories, hotels, etc. is part of the city, as I described, that too is not for nothing. Of course, if you have a commercial hospital, pay the school when you consider the price of rent in the office, you can build a business plan on the expectation that whacks the thread. But, for starters, you need to be prepared for the fact that 30% of the area is built beneath that is unclear.And when Mikhail Belov made his “House exhibit”, duplicating all areas of the house where the life of the house, spaces to monitor them, he has dramatically increased the area of housing. 30%, although I think that, like a virtuoso, he could reduce this figure to 27% or even 25% .30% — this is the space that allows historic cities do not demolish and easily to accommodate any function. This maneuver space. This is the space that remains for the future, this is the place to make this future was able to accommodate our tracks. This is the space of the city, which is included in the building because ��orod is a mechanism of imposing traces of generations.
