 |
| Zurich West skyline |
- The clearly articulate and clarify the focus’ and principles of Open Building (OB)
- And to explore further the possibilities of Open Building within the 21st century.
“How can we design large projects without necessarily imposing uniformity and rigidity where variety and adaptability over time are desirable?- Habraken N.J. 1967. The control of complexity. Places 4 (2) 3 (Conference “theme” question)
What took place
In the 3 days of the conference, there were a number of interesting
and thought provoking key note
presentations, panel discussions, parallel
paper presentation sessions, case studies as well as informal conversations
set on the above objectives.
With the many lessons learnt and thoughts gathered, I will
only consider a few highlights from the experience.
Panel discussions and Key note presentations
The panel discussions and presentations were joint sessions
on a variety of topics related to open building. The various speakers gave very
interesting insights and approaches to open building applied to various
scenarios.
 |
| Day 3 Panel discussion: (Left to right) Prof. Yung Ho Chang, Hiromi Hosaya, Marin Denn, Prof. Renee Chow |
With the broad spectrum of speakers, many of the panelists spoke
on the ideas of “openness” in various (sometimes disconnected) interpretations.
I noted the slightly varying ideas around the concept of “Open Building” (verb
and noun). There is however quite an opportunity in this regard though,
especially looking at the second objective of the conference.
The panel discussions, in considering the idea of “openness”
stimulated quite a bit of discussion outside the sessions.
Key note presentation - Frank Bijdendijk
The key note presentations gave strong insights on the
relevance of OB in various applications: from economics to environmental
concerns, real estate to designing for openness.
I was impressed with how OB can play a key role in not just
architecture, but in the built environment as a whole. OB’s consideration of
the BE as a whole brings the benefits the economic and politics into the
picture. A number of the keynote presentations noted the idea of distributed control,
levels and openness within defined restrictions.
“Openness without rules doesn’t work”
Parallel paper sessions
On the first day of the conference attendees split up to
listen to a number of short presentations based on submitted papers showcasing
various case studies, research projects and perspectives on the principles of
Open Building.
The session I attended involved papers covering various
projects at an urban and architectural scale. I chose it in particular because of
the relevance of the various papers to my current thesis process.
I enjoyed was seeing practical applications of OB principles
in various complex circumstances and contexts around the world. The
presentations tied together well from themes such as Designed Self-Help, Urban
Infill Spaces, to Transformations of Territorial Structures.
 |
| Paper presentation_ Comparing Levels of Urban form and culture in the city China |
What I enjoy about the principles of Open Building is that
they are based on the understanding of the built environment as a system with
specific principles and behaviors that are present in every context.
Recognizing levels and distributing control with a focus on designing for
change over time is relevant in every field.
“Participation
doesn’t necessarily mean consensus… Conflict can also play a generative role
for creativity in design” - Nelson Mota
Taking into consideration the 3 orders of the built
environment (discussed in the Structure of the Ordinary by Habraken) brought to
view the economic and social influences on the various case studies.
Informal discussions and networking sessions
Getting to meet and discuss with a number of various thinkers,
academics and fellow students from around the world was among the most fruitful
and informative part of the conference.
One gathered that the movement is broad yet made up of few: which
I see as an opportunity. Discussing “The Future of Open Building” based on the
various presentations offered very interesting ideas in advancing the ideals of
a systemic approach to design.
It also became clear to me that the definition of what is OB
is not necessarily fixed. Like myself, some of the attendees discussed with are
also developing their own grasp on OB.
 |
| Networking and informal discussions |
A number of various people met also had similar reflections
form the panel discussions and key note addresses. It was quite refreshing
however to gain insights from others with a similar approach to architecture.
Transformations of East Zurich tour
An interesting part of the conference included a walk around
the previously industrial context of Zurich West. It was interesting to see the urban renewal
projects that took place in the area, including high end residential
developments, retail and transforming old industrial space to market spaces.
 |
| Transformed brewery to new art gallery, high-end residential and commercial development. |
Zurich West remindend me a lot of the Maboneng Precinct in
South Africa. There were many similarities in old industrial buildings being
converted to art galleries, retail spaces and high-end residential developments
with excessive rates.
 |
| Viaduct transformation_New Life in Old Viaduct Arches |
 |
| Underside of Railway Bridge transformed to accommodate various mixed retail developments; generating economic opportunities within the new precinct. |
 |
Frietag Flagship Store_ The Smallest "High-rise" in town. Prime tower in the background
|
 |
| Prime tower_The second tallest sky scraper in Switzerland (previously the tallest from 2011-2014) |
Other personal reflections
The” Open” of Open Building
From the various presentations, I found that the term “Open”
can be a somewhat limited term in getting across the various principles of OB especially
because of its parallel relation to the “Open design” movement. As both consider the
idea of users being part of the design decision making process, Open Building
considers the restrictions of various levels in the built environment. OB, as I
currently understand it, recognizes the hierarchy (for lack of better words) of
levels, whereas the Open design movement almost seeks to put everyone on an equal level.
I left the conference with an understanding of the term
“open” in OB as referring to openness of decision making and agency within the
constraints of a specific level of the built environment: the idea of
flexibility and freedom within a fixed framework.
“Perhaps one of the greatest dangers as we discuss the future of open Building is the term “openness” – Dietmar Eberle (Closing Address)
Slight disparity between old and new
Both among the presenters as well as attendees there were younger
academics & practitioners as well as those older who had been involved with
open building for a longer time. To a
number of us newly attending the conference, the idea of OB was relatively new.
I would say this is evidence of progress.
From the various presentations and panel discussions, I saw
the pattern of a somewhat “traditional” view of open building (especially among
those who had seemed to be acquainted with OB for much longer) and another,
perhaps more forward-thinking perspective which paid much attention to the idea
of openness.
In the various informal discussions however, I noted the
similar ideas around the concepts of time based design, levels of the built
environment and agency.
Communication
and
(mis)understanding
I would say that one of the difficulties faced in discussing
the idea of OB is that it is widely misunderstood (As with the example of an
empty structure). I would say this has
much to do with how the various concepts of OB are communicated.
At the conference I really I appreciated the power of
language (visual and otherwise) to get across ideas. This is where I think
opportunity lies for getting across the very misunderstood principles of OB. Clearly
documented and represented projects, may be of great help in this regard.
 |
| Panel Presentation_Ute Schneider |
Frans vd Werf presented a well-illustrated paper session on
A Thematic Designed District after 35years. It gave a clear depiction of the
idea of “the Urban Tissue” related to OB.
In considering “The Future of Open Building”, communication
and language is where I see opportunity for growth in various OB projects and
practices. Various terms seem to be understood mainly within the OB circles.
OB and its far reaching influence
OB brings to view the far reaching impacts of architecture
in the built environment, and its influence on various agents. I currently see
my role as an (aspiring) architect as being to contribute to the built
environment as a spatial practitioner.
As much as I think architecture must take into consideration
economic, political and social factors, I still believe that the role of the
architect is not to try and control these fields. OB brings to my view the
possibilities of influencing and contributing to the various agents of the
built environment through negotiation and design.
Lessons to take into thesis
Got to share my thesis project with various people I met at
the conference and I was challenged and encouraged by the discussions to take
some of the lessons learnt further and push forward my ideas as they develop
from the experience at the conference.
I look forward to seeing what future Open Building will hold
in the architectural industry and how the lessons learnt may apply personally.
