Layered architecture by Maikel Scholten

Layered architecture A position paper on building layers and on circular thinking as a typology.

Our current economy relies on cheap easily available resources and fossil energy. We take, make, use, and dispose. Generating a lot of waste and eating of a finite supply of materials. Natural resources are struggling to keep up with the demand of the ever growing needs of humans.

Buildings, building elements, and materials are not designed to be demounted and reused. Due to this, waste is piling up and polluting nature. Resources are depleting, and the CO2 footprint of materials/elements is huge. Within the building industry there are attempts to reduce this problem, but these innovations have little to no market success.

Architects are often ignorant of how much waste a building generates, especially when it is at the end of its life cycle and it is being torn down. As said before architects usually do not make a design to be taken apart again.

Elements and materials are poured, fused, or welded together. This creates a highly

inflexible building and it will requires a lot of labour to disassemble all the components or elements for reuse or recycling.

In his book How building learn: What happens after they’re built Stewart Brand is critical about the so called “magazine architecture�. Especially nowadays the fashionable architecture is popular with architects. A good looking building is more important than a well-functioning building.

Art, style, and illusion in architecture often obfuscate the initial needs of the user, therefore making a building not well suited for this same user. These kind of buildings do not last long in the market. Within ten or fifteen years it is out of fashion, out dated, and non-functional. And no one wants to move into an unusable building; demolition is the answer. This is an example of linear thinking in architecture; we take, make, use, and dispose. There has to be a switch from this linear thinking towards circular thinking;

1

take, make, use, retake, remake, reuse, etc.

We need to design to disassemble. This paper will elaborate on a model or typology with which the step can be made towards circular thinking in the design process. And towards a higher flexibility in architecture. The layer model can give the designer a guideline how to design for disassembly.

same problem we already have; non-functional architecture.

Around 1994 Frank Duffy divided a building into more than two layers. He divided the building into four layers: the shell, services, scenery, and set. Every layer has a different lifespan, descending from shell to set. Due to this separation of elements the functionality of a building environment can be adapted layer by layer. The shell is a combination of the structure and the façade. It has the longest lifespan and will need to keep its functionality the longest, so it must be designed in a way that is will last.

The shell defines the final lifespan. If the shell needs replacement the building is at the end of its lifespan. Services are all the installation inside a building. Scenery includes the interior plan. Lastly, set, the daily, weekly, or monthly changing elements inside.

This model was expanded by Steward Brand. Brands Shearing Layers Model divides the architecture into six categories. This model is also called the Six S’ Model. First there is the site, which is everlasting. Second, structure, the structure can last up to 300 years but it usually does not make it beyond sixty. Thirdly there is the skin. The skin has a lifespan of roughly twenty years. After this time the skin is usually replaced to keep up with fashion, technological improvements, or repair works. The fourth layer is services. These are the mechanical components inside a building. All the wiring, ventilation, heating, air conditioning, plumbing, but also moving parts like the elevators fit in this category. The services need to be replaced after seven to fifteen years. The fifth S is space. All the elements that form a space fit in this layer. Think of dividing walls, ceiling, doors; the entire interior layout. The lifespan of these elements may vary depending on the function of the building. For example a house can have the same spatial plan for up to thirty years or more. Whereas an office may change their spatial plan every three year to keep up with their needs. The last layer, number six, is stuff. All the objects and furniture that fit into the space. These elements move around on a daily, weekly, or monthly basis. Of course it depends on the object, building type, and the intensity of usage how long an object can last.

Layered Architecture In the nineteen sixties John Habraken came up with the idea to divided a building into two parts, the permanent carrier and the changeable interior. In 1961 he published De drager en de mensen, het einde van de massawoningbouw (translated: de carrier and the people). In his paper he stated that the architect should take care of the communal structure (the carrier).

These are the façades, front doors, communal areas, public spaces, etc. In this communal structure the occupants could assemble a house (the interior) to their own liking. The houses would be assembled with standardized (catalogue) elements. This way the separate houses could be demolished without having to demolish them all. The houses would be cheap, the elements could be made in advance, and the elements are interchangeable because of the standardization. In this concept it was important that the carrier could adapt to all the changes that the future would bring. This does not mean that the both layers are completely separated from each other. In 2011 Klaske Havik and Hans Teerds interviewed Habraken for the Oase journal. In the process of the interview Habraken said: “A support cannot be neutral, because then you are doing a disservice to the process… You mustn’t take in hand the things that are better left to other people. You must do what is good for the community – that is our domain. By this I’m not saying that an architect provides solely the structure… Quite the contrary.”

Of course there will always be an overlap when separating the built environment or architecture into layers. Without this overlap the functionality would drastically decrease and create the

2

On average it is possible to say that stuff lasts about one to three years.

Bernard Leupen took the basics of Brands model and changed it in his publication in 2002 Kader en generieke ruimte. Leupen did not look at the layer model from the lifespan perspective but from a functional perspective. He removed the site and stuff layers because he was purely focused on the building itself and not the built environment as a whole. He adds a routing layer for this adds to the functionality of the building.

Adaptable Futures (AF) took the same basics from Brand as Leupen did. They added a social aspect to the model with the layer social. AF did not change the model to their own likings. They worked with it and added where needed.

make changes in architecture happen the layers must be mounted separately from each other.

Mounted in a specific way so that elements can be removed without much problems. This is a part of the flexibility of architecture. If every layer is kept separate from the other, or is at least demountable, consequently all the layers are individually adaptable. This prevents demolition of elements which can still last another twenty years. This method also makes it easier to swap elements between building projects. Something that might be outdated on one project could still suffice on the other.

It is difficult to say if the layers model is a typology within architecture for Habraken states in his book The Appearance of the Form that:

These five versions of the layer model have built upon each other and expanded the model according to their own perspective and words.

Habrakens goal was to make the community more efficient by assigning the right job to the right person. And looking at the competence of people. This model might not be the solution but it was a good basis to build upon. Duffy was the first one who linked the lifespan to the model. This makes it more concrete towards the building market. Brand wanted to encourage designing for future adaptations. That is why he added the extra layers to his shearing layers model. Brand said “buildings excel at improving with time, if they are given a chance” . And that is what it is all about. We need to give this chance to architecture and change our way of thinking.

The problem with Brands way of thinking is that he does not consider engagements with history.

He is fanatically looking forward, looking into preservation of materials, that he forgets the point of history, memory, and community.

Leupen tries to correct this by adding the routing layer. He also looks from a different perspective i.e. from the functionality of architecture.

“The concept of type…is much more than a means for classification… It is a complex form that lives within a social body: a knowledge, familiar to a group of people by common experience. Types come and go within societies and their cultures.

They are, to a large extent, those cultures.”

The Shearing layers model contributes to a more durable and sustainable architecture and future. It is a tool to simplify the transition towards circular thinking and designing. But something is still missing. We need to shift to another mindset. To become a ‘real’ typology the layers model has to gain more awareness in society. Its concept and the idea behind it needs to be embedded into the culture of, at least, the designers but preferably the entire building sector or even better, everyone. It is up to the new (young) architects to look at these models that already exist and adapt them to what is needed in modern day society. Architecture has to change now more than ever.

Conclusion The layers model provides a set of starting points or rules for the design process. But still one of the questions with layered architecture is the integration of the separate layers. To

3

Image I. Shearing layers model by Stewart Brand. A picture from his book “ How Buildings Learn� (1994).

Image II. The layers model by Brand rethought by Adaptable Futures.

4

Bibliography Bluestone, D. (1995). How Buildings Learn: What Happens After They’re Built by Stewart Brand.

Review by: Daniel Bluestone. Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, 54(2), 235236. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/990971 Brand, S. (1994). How Buildings Learn: What Happens to Buildings After They’re Built. New York: Viking Penguin.

Cleton, I. (2013). Bouwen voor de toekomst. Graduation Report, Technische Universiteit Delft, Architecture, Delft.

Djoegan, C. (2014). The way towards circular economy. Graduation P1, Delft.

Habraken, N. (1985). The Appearance of the Form (Second ed. 1988 ed.). Cambridge: Awater Press.

Havik, K., & Teerds, H. (2011). Define and Let Go: An Interview with John Habraken. Oase(85), 8-16.

Leupen, B. (2002). Kader en generieke ruimte: Een onderzoek naar de veranderbare woning op basis van het permanente. Technische Universiteit Delft, Architecture. Rotterdam: Uitgeverij 010.