NATURE-ENVIRONMENT-HUMAN TRADITIONAL SOLUTIONS IN A MODERN WORLD
Reviewer: Mgr. Filip Šenk, Ph.D.
Author: Ing. Arch. Maksym Izotov FUA TUL 2024
Western cultures and religions, which play a significant role in shaping human society, inherently carry the idea of humanity's dominance over nature, seen as a form of divine determination. Humanity must subjugate nature and become the leader of all activities and processes within the natural ecosystem. However, times have changed, as has humanity, which has gained the ability to phenomenally influence nature and introduce sometimes irreversible changes. Despite all this, the perception of the natural world by modern humans remains at a pre-Copernican level.
The technological advancements brought about by the scientific and technological revolution at the end of the XX and the beginning of the XXI century enabled the implementation of bioclimatic architecture principles. Still, the tendency to create a microclimate inside buildings, disregarding external conditions, persisted. Technical redevelopment of buildings has led to enormous energy costs, waste, discomfort, and pollution. The bioclimatic approach to building design can serve as a means to establish a relative ecological balance between the natural and anthropogenic environment, providing conditions for the sustainable development of urban planning systems. It is defined as a system of methods and means for organizing human activity spaces, transforming the influence of negative natural and anthropogenic factors into positive properties of the building and its surroundings. Bioclimatic architecture, in this context, can be described as a materially organized environment that provides comfortable and healthy conditions for human existence within the building while minimizing harmful emissions, waste production, and environmental impact.
For instance, Vitruvius sets requirements for selecting land for house construction, organizing plots, ensuring accessibility and orientation of buildings, planning spaces, using construction materials, and applying technological solutions in the architecture of ancient low-rise structures, considering the natural and climatic conditions of the area. The relationship of ancient societies with nature was characterized by a utilitarian approach, fulfilling human needs for comfort in life processes using renewable primary natural resources. This anthropogenic impact on the environment led to local ecological issues and ecosystem destruction in areas with maximum population concentration. Such a confrontation between nature and humanity in subsequent epochs made the environment increasingly aggressive and destructive to the habitat, becoming less favorable for humans.
Unlike antiquity, during the industrialization era, nature ceased to be a subject of knowledge and became exclusively an object of consumption, characterized by a utilitarian global concept of society's relationship with nature. This anthropogenic impact on the environment resulted in reduced spatial comfort levels in human living conditions under low technological development. In this phase of humanity, a new "traditional" type of housing emerges in Europe. The influence of natural-climatic factors on architecture becomes more pronounced, and humanity gradually returns to the "embrace of nature," eventually abandoning its cozy spacesuit.
«It is not that man has produced evidence for his exclusive divinity, but only that he hasdeveloped those powersthatpermitthe fulfillmentofhis aggressive destructive dreams. He now can extirpate great realms of life: he is the single agent of evolutionary regression.»
Jan
L. McHarg – Design With Nature. Wiley 1992, 26
The modern approach is seemingly nothing new, still manifesting itself in very simple solutions. An ideal solution, for example, would be a squat or recessed dwelling in areas with strong winds; a compact, unified space with a central fireplace in a cold climate; stilted, open, transparent facades and multi-level structures in regions with scorching summer sun..
- Villa Savoye | Le Corbusier (1928 - 1931);
Modern sustainable architecture is based on the harmony of living spaces with their natural environment. These tendencies gradually emerged in the works of masters such as F. L. Wright, Le Corbusier, and Alvar Aalto. They were linked to the continuity of traditions and bioclimatic methods of organizing living environments from previous eras, but they only came to the forefront at the turn of the XXI century.
- Aalto House a Villa Mairea | Alvar Aalto (1938-39 а 1935-36);
The most prominent representative of modern sustainable architecture is the Australian architect and philosopher Glenn Murcutt, born in 1936 in London. He spent his early childhood in New Guinea and moved to Sydney with his family in 1941. There, he graduated from Sydney Technical College (now the University of New South Wales) in 1961. Glenn Murcutt was awarded the Pritzker Prize in 2002. His early focus on the sustainability of the natural environment placed him at the forefront of modern architecture. Murcutt's designs are distinguished by rare formal expressiveness and meticulous attention to detail. Their aim is to bring environmental quality into everyday life. Murcutt Studio has completed more than 500 projects, all built under the blazing sun of the Australian continent. Glenn Murcutt's architecture can be characterized as relatively localized, lacking interaction between nature and humanity.
- My work is built on the principle of "not a gram of extra fat. I don't have much equipment in my office - not even a big printer. I am not against computers, I like all kinds of equipment. I'm just suggesting that we think about how much equipment we really need. I generally think a lot about the "bare minimum". It applies to my aesthetics, too. "No fat" is a great design principle. A building should be light.
Fragment from the interview with G. Murcutt for AD Magazine, E. Farrelly
The architecture of Glenn Murcutt is simple and local, with all designs seemingly derived from traditional forms dictated not by creative inspiration but by the deeply rooted knowledge of generations. A key feature of each such project is ecological "smartness," which conserves resources and utilizes rainwater, wind, sunlight, and shade natural resources surrounding the house within its environment. Murcutt inherited his ecological sensitivity from his father. Murcutt's father was born in Sydney but left the city as a teenager. He sheared sheep on his own farm, was a gold prospector, adventurer, musician, boat builder, naturalist, and philosopher. He was also a builder of houses, which he constructed "the old-fashioned way."
Murcutt primarily adopted his father’s ecological, almost “homely” philosophy: always striving to be close to the wind, the sun, and his roots. Perhaps that is why, despite all his travels around the world, Murcutt resolutely refuses to build outside of Australia. Many of Murcutt’s structures are non-air-conditioned, resembling open verandas. They hint at the simplicity of Farnsworth House by Mies van der Rohe, while also embodying the pragmatism of a shepherd’s hut.
sketch of the floor plan Fredericks / White House | Glenn Murcutt (1981 82);
The philosophy of Murcutt's architecture is fundamentally simple – achieving maximum interaction with the surroundings, even if the interior and exterior do not physically touch. This connection takes place on a visual and emotional level. The success of this approach undoubtedly lies in specific climatic parameters and the historical traditions of housing construction in warm climate regions.
While Western culture tends to separate people as much as possible from the surrounding world and physically define the boundaries of their property, Eastern culture regards housing as a form of social division of space. In traditional Japanese homes, the dividing barrier was not solid stone walls but thin, translucent partitions made of rice paper. These partitions did not contribute to mechanical spatial division but simultaneously set very clear boundaries, separating both interior spaces and the interior from the exterior. The modern Japanese architect Sou Fujimoto applies this principle of space organization.
Sou Fujimoto, born in 1971 on the Japanese island of Hokkaido, is a renowned contemporary architect, the author of many groundbreaking projects, and a creator of architecture that maintains a quiet dialogue with nature rather than attempting to overpower it. Whether for public or residential buildings, Fujimoto strives to integrate his architectural designs into the environment so that those inside appear surrounded by nature, while those outside seem part of the landscape. The structures and pavilions of this Japanese architect are inspired by natural forms and shapes, resembling forests, bird nests, or clouds.
One of Sou Fujimoto’s most interesting and well-known projects is the NA House. In this project, Fujimoto pushes the tradition of separating living spaces to the extreme. Thin partitions within the house have completely disappeared, and the façade blends seamlessly into its surroundings, serving only as a barrier between the home’s internal climate and external atmospheric influences. During its construction, this project sparked extensive discussions among architects. It is easy to imagine such a house standing on a green meadow with no passersby within a kilometer, but in a densely populated city, such architecture appears provocative, a manifesto clearly rejecting accepted norms. It is evident that creating such structures requires several crucial factors to align: cultural characteristics, climatic conditions, and the client’s willingness to embark on entirely bold experiments.
"The Japanese don't care about the price and resale value of buildings."
- by architect Sou Fujimoto
According to him, this very trait allows him to create futuristic and innovative projects in Japan’s capital. In this project, Sou Fujimoto sought to completely transcend the traditional concept of a residential house. The architect describes such a house as an exploration of "primitive future." Primitive future involves removing all boundaries and conventions, simplifying functions to the greatest extent possible, and breaking long-standing traditions. The arrangement of windows maximizes airflow, providing a natural and sole source of ventilation and cooling during the summer; the constant flow of natural light throughout the day helps save energy costs.
- scheme of the house NA od Sou Fujimoto;
And even after undergoing such radical transformations and almost entirely shedding its walls, human habitation still operates within the boundaries it has created for itself. Whether a return of humanity to nature will be impossible without further construction, where these boundaries lie, and how to erase them are questions that future architects have yet to answer.
EX TERMINUS
Safe and comfortable housing is something everyone desires and deserves. It is one of the most basic human rights, alongside food and clean water. Although the structure, materials, and composition of basic building materials have evolved over time, the result remains the same: secure shelter. From caves and huts to modern high-rise buildings, we witness how construction transforms landscapes in every region.
Building nests isn’t exclusive to humans; some birds create the most elaborate and beautiful nests using branches, leaves, clay, and similar materials. In early civilizations, and even earlier periods, humans also relied on naturally found materials for construction: mud, clay bamboo, stones, wood, etc.
When talking about the housing of the future, it seems fitting to consider modern composite building materials. With the advent of revolutions and industrialization, buildings modernized along with the materials used for construction: concrete, steel, glass, and even aluminum became standard contemporary building materials. But are they truly ideal? While many of today’s materials address structural stability issues and expand possibilities, do they offer sustainability? Do we really need to mine aluminum from Bahrain or transport logs from the western coast of Canada to build a house in northern Mexico?
When discussing human homes, we must first determine which housing criteria are irreplaceable the axioms to which there are no alternatives. Based on the projects of Glenn Murcutt, Sou Fujimoto, and many others, we can see that the boundaries defining human habitation in space are not unstable; rather, they are a subject of ongoing debate in the modern world. Concepts like boundary walls separating vulnerable humans from predatory nature belong to the distant past. Humans have changed over many millennia, and with them, the principles of housing have undergone metamorphoses. For example, anthropological studies of "traditional cultures," such as Pierre Bourdieu's early research focusing on housing organization in Kabylia (a region in northern Algeria), highlight symbolic oppositions inherent in modern dwellings "man/woman," "human/animal," "public/private," "light/dark" which structure daily life as reflected in housing and shape the image presented to researchers. The materials and conditions in which these housing structures originated are no longer part of urban inhabitants' lives, but the principles and emotional foundations remain strong in society’s consciousness. These principles can serve as the basis for new ideas and architectural solutions.
From Murcutt's ideas about the omnipresence of nature in homes to complete integration of the exterior with the interior, and finally, to Fujimoto’s unapologetic breaking of societal boundaries and conventions, such as “living room straight ahead, kitchen at the end of the hall, and toilet on the right.”
«In times long past, when man represented no significant power to change nature, it mattered little to the world what views he held. Today, when he has emerged as potentially the most destructive force in nature and its greatest exploiter, it matters very much indeed.»
Jan L. McHarg – Design With Nature. Wiley 1992, 28
Humanity has become the ruling force over nature, overcoming the long journey from creator to master/owner of nature. A new era, the era of fusion, has already begun. All conventions and boundaries that bind our hands and lead us down the same familiar path, where the divide between the anthropogenic and the natural is clear, were devised by humanity itself. Perhaps it is precisely this illusion that needs reconsideration.
This approach emphasizes the gentle integration of nature into cities, enabling interaction between natural processes and the built environment. Nature's strongest function manifests as a connected organism. If so, where lies the problem? Often, it is the form of growth. Urbanization involves increasing density within and expanding the periphery, always at the expense of open spaces. As a result, unlike other areas, there is more open space where there are fewer people. As stated in the book Design With Nature, such growth does not respond to natural processes or their values. Ideally, metropolitan areas should consist of two systems: one representing natural processes preserved within open spaces, and the other exemplifying urban development. Their combination can meet the population's needs for open space. The current growth model continuously compresses edges and pushes open spaces out of the center, resulting in what is called "urban sprawl." While artificial geometric solutions are not unimaginable for addressing these challenges, they remain part of a natural humanistic approach to metropolitan development. The dominant principle should be "Nature is the best designer" empirical ecology requiring the observation of nature above all.
Unchecked growth is inevitably destructive, and urbanization principles need substantial reevaluation. Development is inevitable, as is population growth in metropolitan areas. However, it must align with rational goals. Adhering to principles of nature conservation can prevent destruction and even secure better living conditions. The development of modern cities should be viewed across various dimensions, encompassing both global processes and private and social structures. Sustainability, as the foundation of technical and design solutions, can enable a new level of interaction between nature and humanity.
“…fundamental view of the world. It says that when you build a thing you cannot merely build thatthinginisolation,butmustalsorepairtheworldaroundit,andwithinit,sothatthelarger world at that one place becomes more coherent, and more whole; and the thing which you make takes its place in the web of nature, as you make it.”
C. W. Alexander, A Pattern Language: Towns, Buildings, Construction
As humanity progresses, the convergence between architecture and nature defines a new era of thoughtful coexistence. Visionaries like Glenn Murcutt and Sou Fujimotohavedemonstratedhowdesigncanembraceandelevatenature'sessence while addressing modern challenges. By breaking conventional boundaries, integratingsustainability,andfosteringharmonybetweenurbanspacesandnatural processes, their works inspire a future where humanity and nature are no longer adversaries but collaborators. Through rethinking growth and respecting ecological principles, architecture becomes a bridge to a sustainable and enriching future, ensuringnotjustshelterbutaprofound connection with the environment.
List of References:
1.Alexander,C.(1977).*APatternLanguage:Towns,Buildings,Construction.* Oxford University Press.
2. Bourdieu, P. (1970). *The Berber House or the World Reversed.* In *Social Science Information* (Vol. 9, No. 2).
3.McHarg,I.L.(1969).*DesignWithNature.*Wiley.
4.Murcutt,G.(2002).*TouchingtheEarthLightly.*ArchitectureMedia.
5.Fujimoto,S.(2013).*SouFujimoto:ArchitectureWorks1995-2011.* El Croquis.
6. Wright, F. L.(1932).*TheDisappearingCity.*W.F.Payson.
7.Zevi,B.(1957).*Architecture asSpace:How to LookatArchitecture.*HorizonPress.
8. Wallace-Wells,D.(2017).*TheUninhabitableEarth.*Originallypublishedin *New YorkMagazine*(laterexpandedintoabookbyPenguinRandom Housein2019).