
Japanese architects who treated buildings like living organisms - 80mph
https://www.artsy.net/article/artsy-editorial-japanese-architects-treated-buildings-living-organisms
======
9214
The title immediately reminded me of Alexander's "Nature of Order" [1]; HN
audience might know him as the proto-father of software patterns who,
allegedly, inspired GoF (although he himself is an architect).

First part of Gabriel's book [2] offers an interesting perspective on that
matter, from software engineering point of view.

[1]:
[http://www.natureoforder.com/overview.htm](http://www.natureoforder.com/overview.htm)

[2]:
[http://dreamsongs.com/Files/PatternsOfSoftware.pdf](http://dreamsongs.com/Files/PatternsOfSoftware.pdf)

~~~
siegecraft
First thing I thought of as well as I know one of the projects that Alexander
wrote an entire book chronicling was the Eishin campus
([http://www.livingneighborhoods.org/ht-0/eishincampus.htm](http://www.livingneighborhoods.org/ht-0/eishincampus.htm)).
These architects don't seem to have the same values as Alexander, though, for
anyone hoping to find similar work.

~~~
9214
He covers Eishin campus at great length in 2nd volume IIRC. And indeed,
metabolists are on the opposite side of the spectrum.

------
mncharity
I talked with an architect years ago, as they photographed a newly completed
space for their portfolio. They said they didn't like visiting their work once
it was in use, because people were never using it the way they had envisioned.
Architecture as sculptural staged photography.

~~~
notfashion
This is a problem that architects are aware of. It's bad to build with
photography and media exposure in mind. But I'm not sure the architect you met
was guilty of that. New buildings tend to be documented and published in an
unoccupied state. It's the same for most products like cars or furnishings,
and you could also argue that the way clothes are advertised has nothing to do
with "use".

There's not much architects can do about what happens to buildings after
completion. They no longer have a role in the life of the building. I don't
think it's necessarily a very bad sign that they sometimes express
disappointment or frustration or indifference about the way the building
actually ends up being used. They aren't responsible for maintaining it,
unlike the authors of software. It is out of their hands.

Every sane architect is OK with the fact that users will adapt their work.

"You know, it is life that is right and the architect who is wrong"—Le
Corbusier.

~~~
PhasmaFelis
That seems like the best approach.

I recall reading about some large business that commissioned an office tower
on a large plaza. The architect (and presumably someone with approval power)
instead went with two office towers at opposite corners of the plaza, which
meant visiting a coworker often meant a long journey down to the ground,
across the plaza, and back up. The surrounding structures funneled powerful
winds across the plaza, and this was in a cold climate.

People were unhappy, obviously. When informed, the architect was angry that
they didn't appreciate his vision. I was irrationally annoyed about that. I
love beautiful architecture, but if you put anything _above_ functionality,
you have no business designing functional buildings.

------
neilv
Stewart Brand's book seems related:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_Buildings_Learn](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_Buildings_Learn)

~~~
paloaltokid
That's a SUPER book. Everyone in software should read it. The primary expense
in software is long-term maintenance, not initial construction.

Stewart Brand also made a video series:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AvEqfg2sIH0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AvEqfg2sIH0)

------
devoply
We need to genetically engineer trees and the like to produce houses. We
should be living with life rather than a cancer against it.

~~~
pushpop
I agree with you to an extent but genetically engineering life to suit us
doesn’t strike me as any less cancerous.

~~~
natpalmer1776
To provide what I feel is a more accurate analogy than the one given by GP:

We currently have a destructive parasitic relationship with our ecosystem in
which we consume resources without replenishing them, whereas the goal GP
described is to pursue a more symbiotic parasitic relationship in which we
give back resources that allow for the continuation of the ecosystem, even if
in an altered form.

Depending on your interpretation of 'symbiotic' the proposal by the GP may
better be described as 'disadvantageous' as by engineering our environment we
put it in a relatively inferior state compared to its' natural one.

~~~
transreal
For more on this topic, I can't recommend this book more highly:
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cradle_to_Cradle:_Remaking_t...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cradle_to_Cradle:_Remaking_the_Way_We_Make_Things)

------
raleighm
I rent one of the capsules in Nakagin Capsule Tower. I love it. Perfect size
for focusing (10m2).

~~~
contingencies
If not too personal, can you show us the interior in a 360 or wide angle? Feel
free to censor anything, just interested in the structure, eg. ceiling height,
built-in features, position of window relative to floor, any window sill, etc.
Are they all the same? I admit to feeling reviled when reading about the
presumed artifice of using a Japanese teahouse dimension as an arbitrarily
attested design aesthetic.

~~~
raleighm
Not going into Nakagin today after all so will share these images, which give
a sense of the interior space.

[https://duckduckgo.com/?q=nakagin+capsule+tower+interior&iar...](https://duckduckgo.com/?q=nakagin+capsule+tower+interior&iar=images&ia=images&iax=images)

------
wwwpatrick
Super cool

