BUILDING FLEXIBILITY

In Herman Hertzberger’s interpretation of flexibility he argued that it represented a set of all incompatible solutions to a problem and did not contribute to any better functioning (1967). He further explained in his book ‘Lessons for Students in Architecture’ (1991, pg.146), ‘in flexible design there is no single solution which is preferable to others’ and fashioned another concept called polyvalence. He reasoned that the fame of flexibility made it the remedy to cure all the ills of architecture. As long as the buildings were designed to be neutral, they thought that it could be put to different use and therefore could adapt to the changing situations. But neutrality created a lack of identity, in Herman’s words, “the lack of distinctive features”. Hence flexibility displayed denial of basic perspective. He claimed that though a flexible plan adapts itself to the changes, it is never the most suitable solution because it is kept flexible for the sake of alteration.

Hence he moulded the concept of polyvalence where a form can be put to different use without undergoing any change so that the minimal flexibility can still produce an optimal solution. On the contrary, adaptability according to him is based on the planning and layout of a building and includes the size of a room and its relation to other rooms.

In Steven Groak’s book ‘The Idea of Building’ (1992), he pointed out that buildings are unstable systems in the dynamic environments. When it is usually conceived by all that buildings are basically constant, unchanging, and eternal; in reality buildings have to be comprehended to undergo changes with time. One of the aspect Groak discusses is while considering the social utility, where he claims that the configuration of internal spaces are appropriate only for limited uses and he differentiates between flexibility and adaptability as: flexible designs are capable of different physical arrangements and adaptable designs are capable of different social uses. “The building’s capacity for accommodating changed uses will depend on the extent to which it is adaptable and/or flexible”- Groak (1992, pg.17).

In his book ‘Words and Buildings: A Vocabulary for Modern Architecture’ (2000) Adrian Forty implied that, ‘the incorporation of flexibility into the design allowed architects the illusion of projecting their control over the building into the future, beyond the period of actual responsibility for it’. Such beliefs created controversies and suggested that flexibility can be achieved by making the work incomplete and unfinished in specific areas thereby leaving it to the future to decide. An example of incomplete work of architecture on the basis of large institutions like airports or hospitals was proposed by architect John Weeks where he mentioned that due to the impracticality to predict 4| page