Future buildings and underground habitats - architect Dominique Perrault.
Ewha Womans University Seoul University Campus, South Korea - Dominique Perrault
The future for humanity, at this point faces grim realizations of how precarious our civilization is within this Galaxy i.e meteorites, comets, gamma rays or a slow death from climate change, nuclear war - the solution could be underground living. The mega city idea, of high density structures works on the premise of containing and storing energy use, rather than spread out cities. Which are a stress on resources and infrastructure. The city sprawl is an urban planning nightmare. So it will be inevitable that we move back into high density living. Which is more beneficial than detrimental to human welfare (close to essential services, health, community etc). However the current trend of high rise design is equally a disaster to sprawled urban planning. This has occurred on a global scale because in a crony capitalist system, such as the one we are living in, there is a wealth divide, with an attempt to create the illusion of prosperity via cheaply constructed, poorly designed buildings that will be ghost towers in the near future. Which, in some cases, is already happening as money (usually pensions funds and the like) buy property as a capital gain offset against profits made elsewhere (the stock market). The apartments are left empty, held on vast portfolios. Regardless, at some-point in unsustainable systems such as the one we are living in, wake up calls will either come from our selfs or elsewhere. Either way, urban planning and architecture will need to look at sustainable living that encompasses all facets of human existence.
Interview with Dominique Perrault from worldcrunch.com
When we are talking about underground architecture, it sounds
like it’s better to talk about a concrete discipline, not a utopian
vision?You could push it to utopia, but it’s really a very
pragmatic discipline. By building underground, the Women’s University in
Seoul was able reduce its energy use by 60 percent compared to a
traditional building, thanks to the insulation provided by the soil and
Canadian well technology that allows the building to use natural heating
and air conditioning. That’s the ecological advantage
of this type of construction. The other major advantage is to free up
surface space to prevent the built world from expanding to infinity.
The Lausanne Institute of Technology has also developed the concept of a “Deep City” to take advantage of buildable spaces underground. Are these two components of the same discipline?They complement each other. There has barely been any coherent theoretical development regarding the subterranean, just very fragmented approaches. The “above” and “below” camps are quite separate today, but that was not the case in 19th century cities. Haussmanian Paris developed a harmonious relationship between the services above ground and the networks in the basement. Cities need to re-discover that harmony. We can create more density by building up, but also by building underground. Underground density has the advantage of being invisible and not causing the city to lose breathing room. Quite the opposite — it creates empty space.
What should be put in the basement?At the base of buildings, at a depth of up to 10 or 20 meters, we can put complementary services. Or storage facilities — for example for packages for an e-business — for whom the current delivery system requires intense traffic from polluting trucks. We could get the merchandise closer to its destination.
You also envision applying subterranean building to residential buildings, but how exactly?In our project in the industrial region of Geneva, we are developing a web of apartment blocks with a central garden that is one floor below street level. That is already underground! The apartments will look out on the garden from one floor higher than they will look out on the street, which will make for very handsome residences. We’re on even terrain, but it doesn’t create a feeling of vertigo. It’s not about creating anxiety. We have lost our relationship with the ground by building everything totally flat. The ground has become a part of the landscape that is reserved for cars and machines. But we come from the earth and we shouldn’t be afraid of it. We celebrate our reunion with the ground!
Should cities develop a plan for underground urban development as opposed to piecemeal underground construction?Absolutely! Osaka and Montreal both know how to build an underground city, undoubtedly because of the cold. Here, we are learning to transform subway stations into urban environments. That’s what we are doing at the moment at the Naples train station, making natural light penetrate 40 meters below ground. The underground network is too frequently developed in isolation.
What specifically are you going to teach at the Lausanne Institute of Technology?I would like to allow young architects to widen the field of their discipline, to invest in the subterranean as an element of urban life, of architecture and as an element of environmental quality. Perhaps the basement, which is often a rejected space, can be brought to the forefront.
The Lausanne Institute of Technology has just completed a sprawling extension, called the Learning Center, that is not exactly an example of an economic use of the ground. Would you have built it differently?No. It’s important to have visible connections between the fields of instruction on a campus. In addition, the building plays with the terrain as well, because you can walk underneath it. But my students and I are working on subterranean spaces on campus meant for common use. I am going to invite civil engineers, doctors and biologists to holistically address the underground city and its viability.
The Lausanne Institute of Technology has also developed the concept of a “Deep City” to take advantage of buildable spaces underground. Are these two components of the same discipline?They complement each other. There has barely been any coherent theoretical development regarding the subterranean, just very fragmented approaches. The “above” and “below” camps are quite separate today, but that was not the case in 19th century cities. Haussmanian Paris developed a harmonious relationship between the services above ground and the networks in the basement. Cities need to re-discover that harmony. We can create more density by building up, but also by building underground. Underground density has the advantage of being invisible and not causing the city to lose breathing room. Quite the opposite — it creates empty space.
What should be put in the basement?At the base of buildings, at a depth of up to 10 or 20 meters, we can put complementary services. Or storage facilities — for example for packages for an e-business — for whom the current delivery system requires intense traffic from polluting trucks. We could get the merchandise closer to its destination.
You also envision applying subterranean building to residential buildings, but how exactly?In our project in the industrial region of Geneva, we are developing a web of apartment blocks with a central garden that is one floor below street level. That is already underground! The apartments will look out on the garden from one floor higher than they will look out on the street, which will make for very handsome residences. We’re on even terrain, but it doesn’t create a feeling of vertigo. It’s not about creating anxiety. We have lost our relationship with the ground by building everything totally flat. The ground has become a part of the landscape that is reserved for cars and machines. But we come from the earth and we shouldn’t be afraid of it. We celebrate our reunion with the ground!
Should cities develop a plan for underground urban development as opposed to piecemeal underground construction?Absolutely! Osaka and Montreal both know how to build an underground city, undoubtedly because of the cold. Here, we are learning to transform subway stations into urban environments. That’s what we are doing at the moment at the Naples train station, making natural light penetrate 40 meters below ground. The underground network is too frequently developed in isolation.
What specifically are you going to teach at the Lausanne Institute of Technology?I would like to allow young architects to widen the field of their discipline, to invest in the subterranean as an element of urban life, of architecture and as an element of environmental quality. Perhaps the basement, which is often a rejected space, can be brought to the forefront.
The Lausanne Institute of Technology has just completed a sprawling extension, called the Learning Center, that is not exactly an example of an economic use of the ground. Would you have built it differently?No. It’s important to have visible connections between the fields of instruction on a campus. In addition, the building plays with the terrain as well, because you can walk underneath it. But my students and I are working on subterranean spaces on campus meant for common use. I am going to invite civil engineers, doctors and biologists to holistically address the underground city and its viability.
Comments
Post a Comment