THE concept of a porous building might
seem like an invitation to disaster. Imagine a gigantic, inverted
colander housing the forlorn and sodden who squish-step around moldy
desks and couches in a slow motion waltz to a darkling dirge.
Certainly stranger experimental building envelopes have been
conceived and even built. Architectural porosity should describe a
passage through a membrane from unenclosed to enclosed space
to avoid the confusion inherent in attempting to redefine a term well
established in the language; this essay will focus on the movement of
people, rather than rainwater, through a membrane.
Both non-temporal or physically
sensible membranes, and temporal, or imagined, intuited or
inferred membranes will be considered here. Membranes we can see,
touch, hear, smell and taste are physically sensible and include
building envelopes of any material, no matter how fantastic,
including fabric, water curtain, brick, vegetation, and gingerbread.
Membranes that do not register on the five senses include boundaries
in the social, imaginative and presumed realms.
Brasiliana Library by Rodrigo Mindlin Loeb +
Eduardo de Almeida
|
Kevin Lynch, author of the seminal work
The Image of the City, wrote about architectural porosity from
an oblique perspective under the subheading Designing the Paths in
his book. He defined the path thus, " . . . the network
of habitual or potential lines of movement . . . are the most potent
means by which the whole can be ordered." A path orders, and
therefore has the capacity to categorize, create hierarchy, define
edges and enclose. These capacities and characteristics manifest in
three dimensions with the application of a little imagination; for
example, the concept of a path as a two dimensional walking surface
needs virtually no imagination to present an obvious line between
that to be walked upon and and that not to be walked upon. But if we
want to assert that the path creates enclosure, it requires
imagination to extrude the two dimensional line upward into an
imaginary boundary or membrane.
So, for the sake of coherence, let's
limit our discussion to the piercing of membranes by paths.
Architectural porosity can also be illustrated by describing what it
is not. For example, this discussion of porosity purposely separates
itself from Richard Goodwin's notions of porosity; there are two
reasons for this: one, the non-temporal scope of this discussion
exceeds the scope of his proposed public space versus private space
experiments, and two, the temporal scope of this discussion is much
narrower than his attempt to define invagination and chiastic
space.1 This discussion will also make a distinction
between porosity and transparency to further illustrate the working
definition proposed above.
A descriptive contrast between two
existing buildings can serve as a case study to illustrate the basis
upon which we can build our definition of porosity. The Brasiliana
Library by Rodrigo Mindlin Loeb + Eduardo de Almeida, will be
used to illustrate one side of the contrast; the other side of the
polemic will be revealed in the next installment of this article.