As argued by Matthew Pullinger of Hassell, intelligently increasing urban density is an essential move to creating a sustainable city. With the implementation of a few simple strategies - intelligently measuring urban density (as mentioned), linking main city centres with an orbital rail network, and integrating mixed use zoning rather than compartmentalised zoning to reduce transit distances (ie, the failing of the garden city strategy) - a sustainable city can very likely be realised. One concern voiced by Matthew was that of amenity in urban density. Density can be increased, but often at the cost of amenity.
One idea that's stuck with me over time is that of a space which can physically transform to suit its function. Such a space could be argued as being active, alive, and adaptive. As an extended phenotype of its inhabitants, a building capable of physical transformations can effectively coadapt with humans through adjusting its amenity to survive.
Some quick examples of compact living achieved through a dynamic space design (there are plenty of examples online, but these two stood out to me for being a clever renovation of a space with existing dimensions rather than a compact design with a freer range of dimensions being plonked in the middle of a field or other open space):
Such spaces require active, able-bodied occupants. As suggested by Christian in the second video, such a space provides physical exercise whole also addressing the issue of intelligently increasing urban density. However, it's obvious that some living spaces would have to meet the physical capacity of less fit occupants. In this sense, a new, lighter degree of disability would implicitly be established in creating these apartments - the disability to live in such a dense, active environment.
Choosing Bemes to Include in Evolutionary Form Generation
In the final critique last week, it was suggested by two of the guest critics that I should narrow down the range of bemes (click for a definition of "beme") I am looking at so that I can specifically use two or three of them - for example, the increasingly popular beme for homes having a living space dividing the front door, kitchen, and bedrooms. A further suggestion was to choose bemes that can have their fitness in a given context measured. This gives the opportunity to actually test my design to see if it meets given performance criteria (eg, sun access, living space dimensions, etc).
A method I've found useful for planning work is to set two goals for myself. One that's realistic to achieve, and another that's far harder and thus more unlikely for me to achieve in the same timeframe.
The first goal, in this instance, will be the integration of two bemes into form generation that relies on the process of evolution. Since I'm aiming to improve amenity while intelligently increasing urban density, the bemes I've chosen are:
- Optimal Sun Access for as many apartments (and offices) as possible, typically in the form of north-facing windows.
- Optimal Apartment Dimensions for functions typically contained within them, while also considering compact apartment living types and prototypes I'll continue to research.
The second goal will be:
- Automatic Space Arrangement within apartments and / or offices. This is something I've been wanting to do for several years, but until now I haven't really had the support to attempt it in a design studio. It'd be great to achieve this aim, because many projects in the real world could stand to have some automation to save manually designing each parametrically repetitive space in a large complex.
