5.1.5. Self assembly & life

5.2. Time

    5.2.1. Instant architecture
    5.2.2. Human and architecture natural selection
    5.2.3. Architecture of learning 5.2.4 Reversibility

5.3. Social

    5.3.1 Sharing and ideal, Ideal of Sharing
    5.3.2. Design design systems
    5.3.3. People’s demand
    5.3.4. Anarchitecture workshop
    5.3.5. Post optimal


Internal forces of open architecture
Open Architecture as context

Form
Time
Social

Part 1 of the dissertation was focused on the conditions necessary for an open architecture to
arise, mostly social factors.
We have observed different practices that employs the term open architecture, it gave us a sense of what context and external forces
are applied on, or surround what we call open architecture.
Part 2 we are unfolding the internal forces of the concept of open architecture, the constructive forces that deploys in space.
Part 2 has 3 chapters : Form, Time, Social.

Many people still think of open architecture  as a construction archetype. Le plan libre (Le Corbusier 1926) is the most common reference that is brought up. In more recent years, Shigeru Ban built the curtain wall house (1995) : we must go further than that formal openness. Classical formal research has a long tradition at looking at nature as the main source of inspiration : morphogenesis has made major progress over the last years suggesting interesting typologies and natural optimal forms.

Outer space, 0 gravity could supposingly be a natural site of predilection for an open architecture to happen; surprisingly we discover the extreme constraints of building in an overly free space, becoming inhospitable.
If an open space is difficult to construct, maybe there are other ways to construct it, with less tangible mediums : we look at non-visual architecture, an architecture of the senses. Such architecture again, draws inspiration from nature and its capacity to associate the most surprising things together, asking the question about the necessity to have a standard to assemble diversity, making joints.

Even if open architecture is not a style, are there some features, some details, an aesthetic that seems to allow categorization? If such aesthetic is produced, is it always the product of a method, or the absence of one, non planning?