Tectonics & disassembly
(2022) AAHM01 20221Department of Architecture and Built Environment
- Abstract
- The construction of a building does not always work the way
it appears to work. Within a theoretical framework rooted in
writings by Eduard Sekler, Karl Bötticher and Martin Heidegger,
this thesis presents a discussion on the importance of the tectonic
expression when designing a building with the intent that it should
be easy to disassemble. Is it enough to make a building dismountable,
or does the building also need to appear to be dismountable?
I have designed a dismountable art gallery. With the help of a
list of four core principles of design for disassembly, I try to
navigate the process of purposely trying to emphasize specific
construction aspects. Quickly, it becomes apparent that the
tectonic expression should in... (More) - The construction of a building does not always work the way
it appears to work. Within a theoretical framework rooted in
writings by Eduard Sekler, Karl Bötticher and Martin Heidegger,
this thesis presents a discussion on the importance of the tectonic
expression when designing a building with the intent that it should
be easy to disassemble. Is it enough to make a building dismountable,
or does the building also need to appear to be dismountable?
I have designed a dismountable art gallery. With the help of a
list of four core principles of design for disassembly, I try to
navigate the process of purposely trying to emphasize specific
construction aspects. Quickly, it becomes apparent that the
tectonic expression should in fact be able to make a building easier
to disassemble. The easier it is to understand how forces act on the
building, and how different building elements can be taken apart, the
easier it will be to disassemble it. But are these practical uses for tectonics
all there is? What about “impractical” values, such as expressing moods
and creating atmosphere?
Sekler, whose definition of the word tectonics lays the foundation
of the thesis, argues that the most successful architecture cannot be
designed through conscious control. Is trying to express disassembly
not an attempt at taking conscious control? Can it be guaranteed that
the building ends up expressing what it needs to express for it to be
easy to disassemble?
In conculsion, it appears as though the value of tectonics for design
for disassembly depends on which core principle the particular design
desicions are referring to, and what part of the building is being
designed. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/9101149
- author
- Blohm, Augusta LU
- supervisor
- organization
- course
- AAHM01 20221
- year
- 2022
- type
- H2 - Master's Degree (Two Years)
- subject
- language
- English
- id
- 9101149
- date added to LUP
- 2022-10-03 08:28:34
- date last changed
- 2022-10-03 08:28:34
@misc{9101149,
abstract = {{The construction of a building does not always work the way
it appears to work. Within a theoretical framework rooted in
writings by Eduard Sekler, Karl Bötticher and Martin Heidegger,
this thesis presents a discussion on the importance of the tectonic
expression when designing a building with the intent that it should
be easy to disassemble. Is it enough to make a building dismountable,
or does the building also need to appear to be dismountable?
I have designed a dismountable art gallery. With the help of a
list of four core principles of design for disassembly, I try to
navigate the process of purposely trying to emphasize specific
construction aspects. Quickly, it becomes apparent that the
tectonic expression should in fact be able to make a building easier
to disassemble. The easier it is to understand how forces act on the
building, and how different building elements can be taken apart, the
easier it will be to disassemble it. But are these practical uses for tectonics
all there is? What about “impractical” values, such as expressing moods
and creating atmosphere?
Sekler, whose definition of the word tectonics lays the foundation
of the thesis, argues that the most successful architecture cannot be
designed through conscious control. Is trying to express disassembly
not an attempt at taking conscious control? Can it be guaranteed that
the building ends up expressing what it needs to express for it to be
easy to disassemble?
In conculsion, it appears as though the value of tectonics for design
for disassembly depends on which core principle the particular design
desicions are referring to, and what part of the building is being
designed.}},
author = {{Blohm, Augusta}},
language = {{eng}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Tectonics & disassembly}},
year = {{2022}},
}