Comparing architectural use of materials

When comparing the two steel structures ICP Brunton Central and The Museum of Art and Photography (MAP)—with the concrete House of Stories, the differences in material choice become a focal point in understanding their architectural identities. Steel, as used in ICP Brunton Central and MAP, is celebrated for its lightness, and flexibility, allowing for open, adaptable spaces with minimal structural intrusion. In ICP Brunton Central, steel’s properties enable large, uninterrupted office spaces, fostering a dynamic and flexible working environment. Similarly, MAP’s steel frame supports expansive gallery areas, balancing the need for openness with the structural integrity required to protect delicate artifacts. 

Argumentative statement: What about those who claim that concrete structures offer better protection against noise pollution and ensure a quieter, more peaceful environment compared to steel structures?

When comparing the materials used in the projects—ICP Brunton Central, The Museum of Art and Photography (MAP), and the House of Stories—the differences between steel and concrete become evident, particularly in their acoustic properties. Concrete, as used in the House of Stories, is renowned for its density and mass, which make it highly effective at blocking and absorbing sound, thus providing a quieter and more serene environment. 

This quality is crucial in residential spaces where peace and privacy are paramount. In contrast, steel, which is the primary structural material for both ICP Brunton Central and MAP, is lighter and less dense than concrete, allowing sound to travel more easily through the structure. This can lead to increased noise levels, particularly in busy, urban environments where external noise is a significant concern. However, steel structures offer other advantages, such as greater flexibility in design and the ability to create open, expansive spaces, which are essential in commercial and public buildings like ICP Brunton Central and MAP. Thus, while steel structures might prioritize openness and adaptability, concrete structures like the House of Stories excel in providing a more controlled and acoustically comfortable environment, reflecting the different priorities and functions of these buildings.

Have you considered the perspective that the use of steel in architectural design may contribute to a sense of impermanence and transience, which could be at odds with the intended emotional experience of the space?

 The space is more temporary. In contrast, concrete, with its solid, monolithic presence, as used in the House of Stories, can create a sense of permanence, stability, and grounding. Concrete’s density and mass not only provide acoustic insulation but also convey an emotional weight that can be comforting and reassuring, contributing to a sense of continuity and lasting significance in the built environment.

 In spaces where the emotional experience is meant to evoke a sense of security, belonging, or long-term connection—such as in residential settings or institutions meant to endure for generations—concrete may be more aligned with these goals than steel. The contrast between how material choices in architecture are deeply intertwined with the emotional and psychological impacts of space on its occupants.