Mapping human and urban 2

Man and the natural environment

             “In ecosystems, species’ cooperation and competition are interlinked and held in balance so that the system permits independent activity on the part of each individual of a species, yet cooperatively meshes the activity patterns of all species.”                                                                       (Yang, Ken 2006:51)

As Ken Yang (2008) has mentioned, species of the ecosystem are interlinked by their individual patterns. The individual patterns are linking the community of organisms in their physical environment, in this case, the ecosystem.

The differences between communities define the activity patterns of each individual where interactions take place. The mesh is the representation of the projected image of the ecosystem.

Eco – Grid

FIG.2 – Smart grid Ecosystem  Carbon Pross (2009)

 

The projected image of the ecosystem is exploration the visual memory as David Gissen (2009) has mentioned, is the projected image of the projected environment in which individual is situated.  The individual, as David Gissen (2009) has mentioned, is processing the nature of architecture from caves; ‘the subnature in the dark, wet and cool spaces that mark the origins of architecture’ (Gissen, David, 2009:30).

The architectural image which these spaced had to offer has placed the individual receptors of the architectural partitions in ‘elegant composition’ as Patrick Schumacher (2007) points out.

            ‘Just like natural systems, elegant compositions are so highly integrated that they cannot be easily decomposed into independent subsystems – a major point of  difference in comparison with the modern design paradigm of clear separation of  functional subsystems. In fact the exploitation of natural forms like landscape  formations or organic morphologies as a source domain for analogical transference  into architecture makes a constructive contribution to the development of this new paradigm and language of architecture.’  (Patrick Schumacher, 2007)

As Patrick Schumacher (2007) points here, he places the elegant compositions into another realm of integration, which in terms of their complexity, would be harder to be decomposed into individual subsystems.

If the decomposition is finding its interactions, this could create and drive the individual through realisation of functional subsystems.

The decomposition of natural systems should be made progressively through the partitions of elegant composition in order to understand their structure which would create the ‘new paradigm and language of architecture’ (Patrick Scumacker, 2007).

Architectural space has been modulated through inertia between physical production and philosophical context as Derrick de Kerchove (2001) points out, which had the bases in exploitation and understanding of the natural forms as David Gissen (2009) points out.

The ‘elegant compositions’ (Patrick Scumacher, 2007) are the product of exploiting the physical and philosophical context of the natural form. Exploitations in which architecture has been with natural environment and technology as the ‘practical application of scientific discoveries’ (Philip’s, 2008), has been able to provide the physical endurance to join all the developing organisms into one system, forwarding the joined communities towards new mutations, a joined understanding, always at the barrier between old generated systems and new implemented behaviours developed in connections, articulations, links.

            “On top of the power grid, the wiring of the planet’s information system was accomplished with three integrated but technically superposed ‘webs’, the telegraph cables, the telephone switchboard and the world wide web.”                                                                                     (De Kerchove, Derrick 2001:26)

Just as natural systems architecture is interlinked and held in balance between ‘elegant composition’ (Patrick Scumacher, 2007) and integrated independent components which make architecture to fully integrate into environment.

Man creatively adapts to the constructive contribution as Peter Eisenman (2003) points out,  making the connection of the architecture to transfer the information of organic morphologies into development of built subsystems, separated by exploitation of social context in which the system differentiates.

            “A new continuity, or electromagnetic webness between subjects that are all spatially distant and qualitatively different such as bodies things and the overall whole, the  new constructed environment that surrounds us.” (de Kerchove, Derrick, 2001:88)

The integration of the subsystems in development of architecture would engage with the built environment through digital integration. The complexity is balanced between systems, and thinking the natural environment as a natural system, the power to empower equilibrium as Kim Dovey (1999) points out, should create the needed interaction to generate ‘transcultural systems’ (de Kerchove, Derrick, 2001:88), within the digital and the natural systems.

The new created system and distinction between technological environments and the natural environment would create a seamless extensive high-density landscape incorporating both sides, as Ken Yang (2006) mentioned, the environment and the dwell should be regarded as a dynamic continuum acting together as a whole.

Leave a Reply