DEGREE PROJECT: HEAVEN MACHINE

heaven is a mindstate...

Heaven Machine

Zeynep Akgol

Partner: Fabiana Villani

Degree Project Seminar: Things Change

Faculty: Anne Nixon + Rychiee Espinosa

HMS: Monica Datta Spring 2024

what is heaven? 6

Why Float? 9

10 Rules of Floating 11

Proposition 12

Floating Cloud 16

Suspended Tulle 19

On-deformation 24

Burning Tension 26

Tiber River 34

Around the World 66

Heaven Machine Film 68

What is Heaven Machine? 70

Postcards from Heaven 72

Plans 74

Section 76

“Jigs” in Change 78

Jig Prototype 82

Photographs 84

what is the machine? 40

De-Balancing the Grid 42 Balance & Attraction 44

Mesh Models 46

Computized flexibility

Bosphorus 36 Galata, Istanbul 38 Essay: Dynamic Public Space 50 Machine 60 “Jigs” 62

what is heaven ?

Heaven is a mindset. Heaven is a place. Heaven is space…

“Heaven Machine” presents a new kind of urban public architecture, focused on creating a dynamic higher ground above cities. Our project aims to defy traditional architectural norms and traditional ‘public park typologies’ by suspending structures above ground level.These ideas come from material explorations in floating, tension, balance, and suspension. Our concept for “Heaven Machine” is based on promoting unity, community, adaptability, and transformation, drawing inspiration from the concept of heaven as a mind state and a physical space.

Our project suggests a new type of ‘park’ that goes beyond geographic and cultural limits, and above the earth, providing spaces that promote personal participation and social interactions. “Heaven Machine” aims to assess and adapt to the various activities of individuals in urban settings globally, by utilizing flexible structures and dynamic public areas. Our goal is to create urban areas as elevated sanctuaries, ‘heavens’ for the well-being and social expression of communities.

floating I.

Hans Haacke Blue Sail, 1965

Why Float?

We want to create architecture that does not touch the ground, that floats, that sits in tension between buoyancy and the medium. Floating is ephemeral, it inherently holds a change due to being dependent on the medium of floating. In the case of water bodies, the salinity, rainfall, tides, waves all affect the conditions and qualities of floating. There is free-floating which is about fully letting the medium carry you, drift you, to move with its movement. Then there is floating but being anchored where the movement is limited vertically and horizontally while still allowing for the feedback of the water, and if on pile structures floating is more like hovering over, the change in water level creating new conditions of the space between the floating object and the water surface. These all different ways of floating help to define sectional/elevational relationships and offer varying experiences as well as varying levels of change. There are many more ways of floating, and as we are looking to create architecture that floats on water, it doesn’t always mean the architecture floats by touching the surface of the water, it can be floating in the air over the water, which is possible through suspension

If wind blows into a light piece of material, it flutters like a flag or it swells like a sail, depending on the way in which it is suspended... None of these movements is without an echo from all the others. The swelling on one side makes the other side recede; tensions arise and decrease. (Hans Haacke on Blue Sail)

Jacqueline Bradley Boat Dress, 2017

10 Rules of Floating

1. Liberate from gravity

2. Levitate from the ground

3. Be light

4. Touch with less surface if you are not light enough

5. Embrace the void, have purposeful void as much as solid

6. Let go off sharp boundaries, be in the constant flux of submerging and floating

7. Celebrate the ephemeral, the transient

8. Be in a state of balance, anchor if you need to

9. Learn about your medium, know its qualities and behavior

10. Collaborate with the medium, let it carry you,

Floating even though independent of the ground, is dependent on the mediums of floating, specifically air and water.

Cities are built on the ground, urban planning is often about the ground, about the land. For example, a figure-ground map as in Nolli’s map can give you a good idea on the urban city of Rome and how its medieval urban fabric works. We are arguing that architecture should not touch the ground, in an aim to create new floating urban spaces that create experiences that you normally do not have in the city. We want the architecture to respond to the environmental changes to create spaces and systems for making these environmental factors of light, water and air apparent and the people in the space experience change. This will create unique experiences for the public, making the architecture an experiential artwork on its own.

By creating transformative and floating architecture we hope to foster a more harmonious and ephemeral connection of architecture and the environment, people and the environment…

Speculative proposal series derived from suspended physical model (on left)

I. No gravity

In this conceptual architectural proposal, there is no gravity. Tensile structures and platforms float in space, connecting to each other, intricately woven like ephemeral sculptures. The ethereal nature of these designs exists solely in the realm of abstraction, and formal play of architectural elements. It aims to challenge the conventional purpose of architecture, embracing formal expression, contemplation and speculation.

II. Tidal Change

This architectural proposal advocates for the installation of tensile floating structures along urban water edges, designed to dynamically respond to lunar movements and tidal fluctuations. They adapt their forms, creating a symbiotic relationship between architecture and the lunar cycle. As tides rise and fall, the structures respond with undulations, purposefully submerge or reemerge, forging a poetic connection between the built, the people and the water. Such a responsive design aims to establish a nuanced and harmonious relationship between the built environment and natural forces of tidal dynamics.

How to create a floating ground in the sky?

Our idea of “heaven” takes on the feeling of ascending to heaven, and aims to create a higher ground floating above... like a cloud... the heaven machine reveals the public space that can exist above.

No architect can design heaven but we can create

Floating in the Sky

the “cloud”

This idea initiated from exploring concepts of floating with material model explorations starting fall semester about tension, suspension, balance and floating.

We became very interested in the idea of suspending things so that nothing would ever touch the ground, in a way we wanted to create architecture that would not touch the ground, a heaven cloud... Initial material explorations in tension and suspension involved models of suspended tulle with thread in a wireframe, representing etheral quality of floating landscape. I documented the successive change of form of the tulle as more threads tensioned it, but it also revealed the tension force acting on the wireframe and deforming it. The later iterations tested tension causing deformation to both the interior object (tulle) and to its context (the exterior wire frame). The interplay of the two deforming and changing one another explored the idea of individuals forming and de-forming their environment. The delicate network of thread connections were subjected to fire, to document the release of tension as the connections burned, this change was irreversible, promting reflections on impermenance of force and materiality and permenance of change.

We further explored the concepts of flexibility and balance by using flexibility in the materiality of elastic mesh and suspended weights that pull or push the mesh. These dynamic models act as ‘instruments of change’, exploring concepts from fall semester such as tension and suspension with the addition of balance and counterbalance. The systems are made up of three factors: surface/grid, thread connections and force (weights). The grid of wires or the elastic mesh or the surface of magnetic powder ‘change’ and deform through the forces of weight and tension. Systems that we experiment do not break or fail but rather shapeshift or deform temporarily with changes in balance (in which tensile and gravitational forces inform this balance). We explored mechanized systems to trigger tension and pull of the fabric by using electrical motors. In our architectural proposal people would be able to create ‘change’ by pulling, or pushing a button, there would also be motorized and calculated elements of the machine that react to changes in the environment such as sunlight and rain.

The environmental conditions were also important to define the inherent changes in the site and what could trigger changes and adaptations in architecture. Our proposed design creates a dynamic public space that reacts to these environmental conditions and is flexible to change. The concept of floating has evolved from floating on water to floating in the sky as a cloud, a mist or vapor, revealing the space that exists and that is occupiable above the cities.

create an environment that encourages people to form and shape their own heavens.

Design Method

tension II.

Suspended Tulle

My material transthesis explores tension through suspended layers of tulle inside a metal frame, connected by threads and in tension. The model deals with the transformative power of tension as it influences the structure, form and translucency of the elements. For things to be in tension there needs to be pulling force from opposite sides and an axial transmitter of force such as rope, wire or thread. In this case, for the suspended tulle pieces to be in tension, the thread needed to pull the tulle at its points of connection so an exterior frame was needed to create that “pull” or tension between. However, the first iteration using a rectangular basswood frame (I) set up too rigid of a framework that limited the tensile exploration. Already the rigidity of the wooden frame was challenged by the tense thread connection that ended up slightly shearing the rectangular frame.

For the next iteration (II) piano wire was used for its rigidity to stand up on its own but also the possibility of bending. Already the initial metal frame is not made perfectly rectangular and the side edges of the metal frame are pre-bent to allow for more bending and easier shearing while putting the model under tension via the threads.

For third iteration (III) thinner piano wire was used to create a frame that is able to deform in tension easily. The accumulation of threads suspending the tulle layers converged the sheared box frame, squeezing it inwards, the tensioning threads going out of the frame boundary, becoming an exterior frame itself.

As explored via my model, tension can be an agent for change, adaptation and transformation. Architecture itself can be transformative as well, already the occupation of a space can transform the function of the architecture, why not tension being the transformative force?

The threads create a web-like structure that not only supports the tulle but also generates a complex pattern that extends their use from being agents of tension to a materiality with form and depth itself - an interplay between tension and materiality. The tulle layers transform in tension: they stretch, fold, wrinkle, and undulate, taking on new forms and new translucencies.

Timeline of the tulles’ form change, tension points and thread lines added for model II

on-de formation

A frame or a boundary is the easiest way to begin setting something, and an easy way to define a “space” can be a box. A box boundary was often the way we started some formal architectural exercises, an imaginary context to fill in, but the fun part of these formal exercises is starting with a box but not ending up with a box.

For my tension models I firstly started with a wooden rectangular box frame, and started suspending the tulle pieces by the regular four corners of the box. It was an easy way to set up, set a boundary, set a simple rule. But with the threads in pulling the tulle the box ended up shearing, still a box but not indifferent to the forces of tension in it. So the second model was piano wire, still a “boxlike” frame but deformed by bending from the beginning. The bent nature of the frame allowed some threads and tulle to be outside of the frame’s imaginary boundary, changing the limits of this boundary, and its shape. The deformed nature also emphasized the pulling force of the threads more, when a corner was pointier, with the accumulation of the threads going in that direction, it made the tension force appear more. I guess in a way the frame condition changed the way you see, the wooden box seeming still and balanced whereas the bent wire frame seeming more in tension and in constant pull (even though the threads were looser than they seemed). In this case, the inherent frame condition changes the way you see, focusing your gaze and look to the more intense tension points, the accumulation of threads also works in the same effect.

The third iteration was to limit the power of the frame-boundary condition and allow it to deform. It involved using a thinner and looser wire that by the pull of the threads started to deform and bend. The frame started to curve and pull inwards, collapsing the volume. While the wires were bending the interior tulle was also being reshaped, flat to volumetric bowl. It shows a dialect between the outer frame and the interior form, container changing the contained and contained changing the container. The deformation of both the boundary and the contained form is consequential, and dependent, and the tension between the two creates the condition.

How can tension be a tool of a symbiotic relationship and a generator of reshaping and deformation?

“Space” is the container for all these masses, it is in theory infinite but it keeps changing, stretching, deforming through time and by the forces.

How can you visualize forces? Is it by apparent deformation?

Burning Tension

Above: Burning holes when the thread was knotted to the tulle, releasing tension, overlapping of layers of tulle and openings

Right: Collage of the burned model, layering of translucencies with burned openings

Four timelines of the model

I. the frame deformation

II. shadows and translucency

III. release of tension from burning of threads

IV. openings on the tulle created by burning

earth III.

The Environment

We analyze the environmental factors that trigger change.

Our initial analysis included changes in the medium of water and environment in two urban waterfront where the water acts as a force and the tension between land and water, or the urban and the water can be explored. These two are Tiber River in Rome and Bosporus Strait in Istanbul.

They are drastically different sites of water, Tiber is freshwater while Bosphorus is saltwater which affects the floating quality. Different in scale as well, Tiber is very small in width scale compared to Bosphorus one can walk over the bridge in less than a minute on Tiber, while in Istanbul you cross to the other side with ferries and the bridge is reserved for cars. Both cities also have completely different relationships with the water; the Tiber River is constantly changing in elevation, affected by rainfall and the risk of flooding, whereas the Bosphorus is a site of leisure and travel, affected by tides and currents. The reason to choose two different sites was to know about different floating characteristics and needs and also to be able to later design adaptable structures.

The environmental conditions were important to define the inherent changes in the site and what could trigger changes and adaptations in architecture. Our proposed design creates a dynamic public space that reacts to these environmental conditions and is flexible to change. However, the concept of floating has evolved from floating on water to floating in the sky as a cloud, a mist or vapor, revealing the space that exists and that is occupiable above the cities.

Tiber River, Rome

Source

• location Mount Fumaiolo

• elevation 1,268 m (4,160 ft)

Looking at Tiber River in three scales:

1- in relation to its source Mount Fumaiolo and mouth to Tyrrhenian Sea

2- the river going through Rome

3- the river turn next to old Rome, Campus Martius, and the Tiber Island

Mouth

• location Tyrrhenian Sea

Length 406 km (252 mi)

Basin size 17,375 km2 (6,709 sq mi)

Discharge

• average 239 m3/s (8,400 cu ft/s)

CAMPUS MARTIUS PANTHEON

PIAZZA NAVONA

TRASTEVERE

TIBER ISLAND

TIBER ISLAND VATICAN

II. Water level change from meters above sea level (in blue) and precipitation (in grey)

III. Wind direction and speed throughout the year, on the right extruding the common wind directions

I. Sundial

I.

III. II.

Bosphorus Strait, Istanbul

Looking at Bosphorus Strait in three scales:

1- in relation to the seas of Black Sea and the Mediterranean

2- the strait with ends to Black Sea and Marmara Sea

3- the width above the Bosphorus

Connects

• Black Sea (North)

• Marmara Sea (South) (that connects to Mediterranean Sea)

Max. length 31 km (19 mi)

Min. width 700 m (2,300 ft)

Max. depth 110 m (360 ft)

BLACK SEA

MEDITERRANEAN SEA

BLACK SEA

GALATASARAY ISLAND

BOSPORUSBRIDGE

MARMARA SEA

EUROPE

ASIA

II. Temperature and salinity in upper layer and lower layer of Bosphorus

III. Wind direction and speed throughout the year, on the right extruding the common wind directions

IV. Change in currents

I. Sundial

I.

a glimpse from Google Earth

a heaven above a heaven connecting a heaven suspended

Galata, Istanbul

GIS

We decided to test the Heaven Machine in Istanbul, in the historic neighborhood of Galata.

In our mind Heaven Machine can be anyhwhere you want, but Istanbul was tempting with its “otherness”, layers of history, cultures and beliefs, dense urban fabric, and population.

The hilly topography and the stacked built fabric provided opportunity to explore the space above and interstial.

Google Earth

what is the machine how to create the machine ? ?

machine changes... change is by the people... machine is the mesh.. machine is the jig.. machine is the interaction...

Our idea of machine comes from wanting people to participate and engage in this space. The mesh landscape with the programmatic jigs get activated with the people. The human bodies trigger the change by their movement and weight, by pulling, by standing, by walking. The environmental conditions of sunlight, rain and wind trigger change in the machine as well.

The machine is the interaction of the mesh with the jig and with the people and the environment. It is the dynamic whole.

We aim to create a dynamic public space, flexible and adaptable to change through the materiality of mesh, adaptability of the jigs and activation by forces of the people.

balance IV.

gradual change: addition of weights converging

change of weight distribution

balanced left right

De-Balancing the Grid

These models explored the cause and effect relationships of weight and balance. Starting from a regular grid of wires, the addition of threads laid the potential connections in which the suspension of weights de-balanced the grid, a different form and ‘bend’ of the grid in each formation.

Balance & Attraction

For this model, counter-balancing of weights were tested, the addition of a heavy weight to a hook would trigger the lift of a lighter weight on a different side. These counterbalancing relationships were sometimes between two (so an opposite reaction) and sometimes three (one triggering the other two opposing).

Magnetic powder was utilized at the ground in an aim to visualize the effects of balance and counter-balance. We were interested in documenting the change and causal effects and also visualizing them. With a magnet attached to the tip of the weights, when one weight fell to the ground it would attract the magnetic powder, leaving a mark of its change. When it was lifted the mark would be still there, a tiny puddle of powder at a point. As the weights were lifted and dropped, the magnetic powder created a landscape on the ground, a landscape that changed and marked the change.

mesh V.

In order to create a dynamic public space we decided to use the materiality of the mesh fabric. By being flexible it became adaptable to change. We tested different systems of weight, pulleys, counter-weights, and motors, to look at the effects weight and force have on the mesh fabric, and how it can change in form and create spatial conditions.

I. Canopies: Mesh canopies suspended from wood columns, with weights and counterweights

I.

II. Attraction: Single Mesh roof, suspended counterweights with magnets, and magnetic powder ground

III. Mechanical: Mesh ground and roof with mechanized pulley systems with motors

III.

II.

Computized Flexibility

We used Grasshopper software to generate mesh forms using attraction and pulling points. It was an exercise in form generation and testing what can be achieved spatially with the computer generated mesh. We later added more ‘pulls’ of vertices or lines of edges to create more conditions of divisions, rooms and entries.

people VI.

Research Essay: Event Architecture of Dynamic Urban Spaces

In the dynamic fabric of cities, there exists a subset of architectural endeavors that transcend mere physicality, actively curating spaces where encounters flourish, and in which events take center stage. This essay delves into the realm of "event architecture," a paradigm that redefines urban spaces as more than static entities, but as dynamic platforms designed to foster social interaction, cultural exchange, and collective engagement. These public spaces offer a sense of escape and leisure. Whether a park offering a green escape in the busy city, or waterfront boardwalks, or a piazza at intersections in the middle of the city and buildings, these spaces catalyze events, activities and scales of gathering. By examining the principles, design strategies, and socio-cultural impacts of event architecture, this research essay aims to look into the relationship between urban built environments and human experiences and the transformative potential of public spaces. This essay will examine this concept through case studies that include two urban park projects: Bernard Tschumi’s Parc de la Villette and the High Line in New York designed by Diller Scofidio and Renfro (DS+R) with James Corner Field Operations and Piet Oudolf, as well as two public projects about flexibility: Cedric Price’s Fun Palace and OMA’s Prada Transformer.

Public Space / Social Space:

Before a discussion of some of the case studies it is important to understand the inherent potential of public space to be transformative. Henri Lefebvre and Michel de Certeau have relevant theories on urban and public space, challenging the notion that these are fixed spaces and arguing that they are social constructs.

Henri Lefebvre in The Production of Space argues that space is not merely a neutral backdrop for human activities but a “social product” that it is actively produced and shaped by social practices, power relations, and historical contexts (Lefebvre, 1974, 26). He introduces that the space produced is “ a tool for thought and action… a means of production… and also a means of control” (lbid). “The form of social space is encounter, assembly, simultaneity” the interrelations of these functions, their order and disorder create and shape the space (lbid). His concept of "lived space," emphasizes the fact that the space gains meaning through ‘living’ subjective experiences and everyday practices. He argues that public spaces are places of continuous negotiation and contestation, in which different social groups assert their identities, values, and desires. “Spaces are continually being transformed, because the acts which invest and change them are ceaselessly repeated" (Lefebvre, 1974). There is a temporal dimension to this space, and it is in constant transformation. Public spaces, therefore, are not fixed entities but evolve in response to changing social, cultural, economic and political conditions.

Similarly, Michel de Certeau's The Practice of Everyday Life explores the agency of individuals in navigating and appropriating urban spaces. He introduces the concept of "tactics," which define everyday strategies and actions of people to subvert and resist the given or dominant spatial order. De Certeau emphasizes the temporality of urban life, the transient nature of everyday practices and social interactions in public spaces. Thus, public spaces would not be passive spaces but gain dynamic character through people that act their everyday practices, but also desires, aspirations, and social bonds in these spaces.

Theoretical perspectives such as those of Lefebvre and de Certeau highlight the dynamic and temporal nature of urban public spaces, emphasizing the ways in which they evolve over time and accommodate activities, events, and temporal rhythms. They advocate for a more nuanced understanding of public spaces as sites of ongoing production, emphasizing the importance of user experiences and interactions in defining spatial meaning. Public spaces become activated by the circulation and interaction of the “public”. This is why, for example, the notion of a “piazza” is super successful in creating intimate intersections out of the residual space leftover from the for people to gather, marked by features like fountains. The public appropriate the space and its components, such as using the fountain steps as a space to sit down and to gather. This understanding underscores the significance of designing flexible and adaptable architectural frameworks that can respond to changing social dynamics and cultural practices.

Part I: Event-Architecture

To be able to achieve this kind of flexible and adaptable architectural framework that responds to the public, the concept of “event-architecture” becomes apparent. Event architecture encompasses a dynamic approach to urban design. Bernard Tschumi has shaped the discourse surrounding “event architecture" through his Manhattan Transcripts and later winning competition design for Parc de la Villette which will be discussed later in this essay.

Tschumi's conception of event architecture challenges traditional notions of architectural form and function by emphasizing the role of events as generators of spatial configurations and experiences. In Event-Cities, Tschumi argues that architecture should not be limited to static, functional forms but should instead serve as a framework for the unfolding of dynamic events. He introduces the concept of "event space," which he defines as spaces designed to accommodate temporary, programmatic activities rather than fixed functions, emphasizing the integration of movement, action, and temporality within architectural form. He suggests that architecture should not only provide physical shelter but also serve as a stage for social interaction and cultural exchange. According to Tschumi, event spaces are characterized by their flexibility, adaptability, and capacity to host a wide variety of events, ranging from performances and exhibitions to festivals and gatherings. Indeterminate program is the basis of event architecture, which Tschumi believes to allow for the creation of spaces that can be appropriated and activated by people in non predetermined ways. Tschumi's approach to event architecture requires it to be adaptable, to foster spontaneous interactions, encounters, and cultural exchanges within the urban environment.

Manhattan Transcripts

Parc de la Villette

Parc de la Villette

Case Study 1: Parc de la Villette, Paris, Bernard Tschumi

The first main project where Tschumi’s ideas of event architecture were realized in built form was his competition entry for Parc de la Villette in Paris. “The competition brief, Urban Park for the 21st Century, set out a highly complex program that attempted to redefine the public park as an urban cultural, entertainment, educational, sports, and social "field" for contemporary Paris”. The park was to remain a park, but its role in the city was to be re-invented (Dagenhart, 1989, 86).

Bernard Tschumi had already presented his ideas for the contemporary city in The Manhattan Transcripts, first published in 1982. The drawings aimed to transcribe realities that are "normally removed from conventional architectural representation, namely the complex relationship between spaces and use; between the (stage) set and the script; between 'type' and 'program'; between objects and events” (Dagenhart, 1989, 87). The drawings were sequential, inspired by film strips, consisting of three part mode of notation: space, movement and events. By creating these modes of notation he aimed “to introduce the order of experience, the order of time - moments, intervals, sequences - for all inevitably intervene in the reading of the city.” (Tschumi, 1994, 48)

In his design for Parc de la Villette, Tschumi approached the organization in a three part system of point grid, lines and surfaces. “The point, line, surface construction is the architectural projection for La Villette with these three autonomous layers transformed from the tripartite space, movement, event reading of the Transcripts” (Dagenhart, 1989, 88). On the ‘point-grid’ he placed a series of architectural follies without a specific use which he describes as “interior spaces of the program as now required or as the future dictates” (Tschumi, 2015, 14). Rather than prescribing specific uses for these elements, Tschumi intentionally leaves their program open to interpretation by the visitors and open to transformation over time. They become vessels for ‘events’ to occur, according to the interaction and movement of the people with the follies. The ideas of sequence and movement are fundamental to the design of the system of surfaces, which was made up of the two axes that connect the proposed park to the city and the ‘Cinematic Promenade’ which is like a random piece of string dropped on the site. Tschumi had said [or written] “The follies themselves were about a discontinuous set of transformational sequences while the Cinematic Promenade had more continuity… (it) was organized as a sequence of frames.”(Dwyre, 2015,14). The point grid of follies act as the urban structure on which the sequences and programs of the park operate. “The points of the follies become the focus of this dissociated space; it acts as a common denominator, constituting itself as a system of relations between objects, events and people.” (Tschumi, 1983, 209)

Tschumi's Parc de la Villette shows the transformative potential of event architecture in redefining the concept of urban park. Through its programmatic flexibility of the follies, ‘cinematic promenade’ that is sequential and the disruptions in the sequence, La Villette offers a dynamic and inclusive environment where the city's inhabitants can gather, connect, and engage with one another and their surroundings in meaningful and transformative ways.

Case Study 2: The High Line, New York, DS+R (with James Corner Field Operations and Piet Oudolf)

Another important, more recent, urban park project to discuss is the High Line, located in the Chelsea neighborhood of New York. Not used since 1980, the High Line was left to its destiny or being not occupied by transportation or people but plants. A group called Friends of the High Line was formed to save it, and “the movement was galvanized after photographs taken by Joel Sternfeld revealed how extraordinary this ruin was—how many little ecosystems of urban nature had flourished there, how many views it might open up, how many activities it might entertain.” (Foster, 2011, 178). DS+R were commissioned along with the landscape studio James Corner Field Operations, to develop it as a new kind of urban park.

One principle of the design was to maintain its unruly nature, the ecosystems that were created over the ruin, and to protect it from too much design. DS+R came up with the notion of “agritecture,” a hybrid of agriculture and architecture, that has helped them to shape [the scheme]. Thus, the High Line weaves the systems of green planted areas with concrete surfaced walkways and benches with the ruin of the rail tracks–all in a stratified merging. On the High Line, one passes linearly through a range of micro-environments from wetland to mossland to meadows, with sites along the way for sitting, talking, and observing. It is “a machine for generating three types of urban social activity: looking, moving, and gathering.” (Shapiro, 2011). There are many moments that ‘frame’ the city along the path, as well as site-specific artworks, encouraging visitors to pause and stop and look along the way. The park is not monotone in nature, the micro-landscapes change as well as the activities with different tempos and densities, from quiet strolling to gathering on a seating to voyeuristic viewing. The park also due to its street-like and levitated nature becomes a hybrid of a public park and street. The park thus extends the city's multi-layered density that Rem Koolhaas called, "the culture of congestion." The High Line is no antidote to city life; on the contrary, it fuels city life. (Shapiro, 2011) Thus, as more than a leisurely space, the urban park ‘fuels’ and adds onto the public space of the city, creating transformative and sequential experiences in itself but also being in a dialogue with the city that fosters a connection between the public, the city and the architecture.

Side note: Blur Building, DS+R

DS+R had been interested in creating experiential spaces for the public since their inception. One of their earlier projects, the ‘Blur Building,’ was an ephemeral pavilion of cloud mist designed for the Swiss EXPO in 2002. The site was on the Lake Neuchâtel, where, through a high-tech system of pumps, nozzles, and computer programs, the structure produced an immersive cloud of mist into which visitors were invited to wander. “On the one hand, its lightweight framework represented an extreme of structural transparency; on the other hand, the Blur Building was “devoted to obscurity” in a way that sought to challenge the usual spectacles of such expositions with literally “nothing to see.” (Foster, 2011, 175).

Elizabeth Diller describes the building as “a low-res environment in which there was nothing to see and nothing to do but confront our dependence on vision as the master sense.” it is “nothing but structure and plumbing, with no walls and no space” (Davidson, 2016, 50). Thus, the pavilion building is a non-building, it exists only in the ephemeral medium of water mist. It is a very high-tech building with computer software that “collected live meteorological data, like wind speed and direction, temperature, humidity, and dew point, and responded in real time by constantly adjusting pressures to distribute the atomized water evenly”, adapting to the environmental conditions (Davidson, 2016, 50). Its program also denies the usual program and function of a pavilion, by making it ‘low-res’ so that looking and viewing is no longer a function, but rather the experience of the space; the mist and of the obscurity are the program. Still, it gathered the public to come to this structure and experience this space together. It creates a new kind of cultural space where experience (or the lack of visual experience) is the main attraction and its form and existence are transient and ephemeral in nature and flexible to the changing environmental conditions.

Part II: Flexibility & Transformation

Flexibility in architecture rose to prominence especially in the urban projects of the 1960s and 70s when postwar utopias were designed, including futuristic megastructures like Archigram’s Plug-in City in 1964 and Japanese Metabolist cities. One of the architects that became the prominent influence and inspiration for flexible architecture was Cedric Price. Elizabeth Diller of DS+R even mentions Price as “our touchstone” (Wainwright, 2019, 78). The dreams of flexible and adaptable spaces and cities of the 1960s still continue to inspire the contemporaries of Renzo Piano, Rem Koolhaas (and OMA) and DS+R.

Case Study 3: Fun Palace, London, Cedric Price

Joan Littlewood describes the project as “ a university of the streets–not a gracious park, but a foretaste of the pleasures of the future. It will be a laboratory of pleasure, providing room for many kinds of action. . . the essence of the place will be informality–nothing obligatory–anything goes. There will be no permanent structures. Nothing is to last more than ten years, some things not even ten days.” (Littlewood, 1968, 130)

Fun Palace is a dream project that Cedric Price designed with radical theater director Joan Littlewood in 1961, for a ‘laboratory of fun’ in east London. “It was to be an open, democratic place of learning and entertainment, a museum, school, theater and funfair all at once, designed as a continuously evolving organism” (Wainwright, 2019, 78). Price called it ‘a kit of parts, not a building;’ it is basically an infrastructure upon which spaces and rooms can be disassembled and assembled constantly according to people’s needs and desires. It also touches on ideas about British society in the 1960s, changes it is facing and the democratic and social ideals of the time. The project was designed for the East London workers with few leisure hours each week, to escape from their routine and the monotony and embark on an exciting journey of creativity and learning, while assembling their own learning and leisure environments (thus it is a ‘laboratory of fun’ or a ‘university of the streets’). The project also takes on elements from the more common leisure space of parks; “The whole plan is open, but on many levels. So the greatest pleasure of traditional parks is preserved–the pleasure of strolling casually, looking in at one or another or settling down for several hours of work-play” (Littlewood, 1968,130). “An unspecified program and indeterminate form, such as Price envisioned for the Fun Palace, are antithetical to normative architectural practice, which requires specificity of program and physical configuration. However, Price insisted that since no one could know in advance the constantly shifting needs and desires of the users (and indeed, the future direction of British society), the Fun Palace had to be continuously adaptable to a fluid program” (Matthews, 2006, 40).

Price and Littlewood imagined a new kind of public social space for the 1960s, one that is based on flexibility and adaptability, working symbiotically with the creativity and desires of the people that use it. Price’s almost built but never realized project inspired many contemporary architects discussed in this paper including DS+R and OMA to incorporate ideas of flexibility and adaptability to their architecture.

Case Study 4: Prada Transformer, Seoul, OMA

OMA’s first built project to explore a transformable building was the pavilion they designed for Prada in Seoul in 2008. Located in front of 16th century Gyeonghui Palace, the architects designed four pavilions in one, each of four faces consisting of a different basic geometrical shape: a circle, a cross, a hexagon, a rectangle. These four faces are leaned towards each other, wrapped by a translucent ‘cocoon membrane’ which is normally used to wrap and protect large pieces of machinery which will remain idle for extended periods of time. The transformer would roll on its four sides, each time transforming for a different art event, these included a fashion exhibition, runway, film screening and an art exhibition. The object would have to be lifted and turned on its footprint by three cranes that prepared the pavilion for the next cultural event. The need for transformation came from the client, Miuccia Prada. She said, “the starting point was the idea of movement, something like mobile architecture . . . I would say a series of activities in different places. We wanted to have a flexible space, something that could exist anywhere we think could be right for it.” (Vezzoli, 2009) Koolhaas said that “in the beginning we had many versions that were pavilion-like, and somehow they were never satisfying. So we concentrated on four different purposes that Prada wanted the site used for, and for each one we designed a perfect, almost utopian, condition. Rather than having one average condition that met every possibility, we ended up conceiving a pavilion that, simply by rotating it, acquires a different character and accommodates different needs.” (Vezzoli, 2009). By a simple concept of rotating the building for each purpose (although it is mechanically not that simple) OMA shows there is a possibility of change and transformation according to programmatic needs without complete disassembly. It is again an example of “event architecture” where even the final form is not designed but the result of the programmatic needs to have four pavilions (four grounds) in one pavilion. It offers flexibility to hold different events, an ability to restage, in form and in content, certain aspects of our visual culture. Of course the Prada Transformer was a temporary project that was dismantled in 2009.

OMA later realized a permanent building of transformative event space with Lafayette Anticipations, a new space for Fondation Galeries Lafayette in Paris. It is a steel and glass structure with four platforms suspended, allowing them to move up and down and be reconfigured. The foundation’s director François Quintin described the building as a ‘curatorial machine’, a ‘tool’ that artists could experiment with’ (Wainwright, 2019, 79).

It is interesting to see that many examples of flexible and transformative architecture are often for cultural and artistic programs. Perhaps the inherent creativity and possibility of evolution of arts and performance and their future spatial needs fosters a connection between cultural space and flexible space. Starting from Fun Palace, more recent other examples include the discussed OMA’s Prada transformer, and also Fondation Galeries Lafayette, DS+R’s The Shed, Richard Rogers and Renzo Piano’s initial concept for the Pompidou Centre.

An opposing view on flexibility is argued by Oliver Wainwright in his article titled “Flexibility”. He gives examples like DS+R’s The Shed that was built on the premise of flexibility but which was not as flexible in application; Peter Cook’s scheme for a temporary Olympic stadium that proved more expensive (spending mor public money), thus the idea abandoned, Bjarke Ingels and Thomas Heatherwick’s new headquarters for Google that imagined an ever-changing office landscape but in which the reality of working at a desk culture still existed. He argues that “we might like to think that inhabitants shape their adaptable environments, but, more often than not, it is the constricting intransigence of the promised flexible containers that ends up shaping them” (Wainwright, 2019, 79). In fact, he writes: “ironically, the buildings that have proved most capable of adaptation over time are the ones that were originally designed to fit a permanent single use. From Victorian schools, to New York lofts, to ancient hippodromes, it is the infinitely flexible background fabric of our cities that can best accommodate change – not the architectural gadgets explicitly designed to do so.” (Wainwright, 2019, 82).

If we build upon the theories of Lefebvre and De Certeau, public space is already constantly evolving and being transformed so the idea of a designed public architecture being ‘flexible’ doesn’t seem far-fetched or solely a utopian idea of the 1960s. In my opinion, flexibility in architecture does not have to only consist of mechanical gadgets and modular architecture, because then, as Wainwright suggested, one is limited to the mechanics of the gadget. Flexibility can be considered in bigger terms, as in “event-architecture” distinguished by programmatic flexibility like La Villette and Prada Transformer, or by sequential flexibility and transformation, or by experiential flexibility like the High Line and the Blur Building. Maybe one flexibility triggers another, programs trigger experiences, events trigger different sequences and so on. Already, architecture and space itself are shaped by people’s experiences; they are constantly being appropriated by the inhabitants of the space–often some architectural design features become used by the public in ways never imagined or designed by the architects. Flexibility can be in materiality as well, thus creating a playground for the public one might say (or a ‘fun palace’). The design of urban spaces for the public can be interactive, it can be in dialogue with both the city and experiences of the public, it can be flexible and it is already flexible – an urban architecture that is all of this, wouldn’t that be a heaven in the city?

Machine

The Mesh becomes a machine with the interaction of the people.

Pulling at points create partitions that creates divisions, pulling a hole creates private rooms.

Pulling an edge can create a ramp, an access or entry.

The mesh can be pulled up to create openings, to bring sunlight or rain inside.

The inherent weight of the people also act on the mesh, more density of people close to each other means the mesh would sag and create a space of gathering.

All of these actions and effects are possible by the flexibility of the mesh and the participation of the people.

I. Jigs first iterations: bent plywood and bristol

II. Jigs second iterations: bent plywood with addition of ‘ribs’

III. Jigs on mesh model: conversation, viewing and garden

Jigs

To the mesh landscape and roof that started to form the ‘machine’ by adding pulleys and weights we introduced ‘jigs’ as programmatic elements for the public to use.

They are called jigs because they are inherently not fully enclosed and their program and spatial conditions get activated by the people. The jigs are for people to use, to form the mesh and to create space.

They react and change according to people’s wants and needs, they interact with the flexibility of the mesh to be partitioned, to be enclosed or opened, and to be bent to create different scales and functions of space.

Jigs are non conditioned, partial rooms and spaces that become whole with the input of the people. The jigs along with the mesh and the people create this heavenly playground.

They can become private rooms by pulling the mesh or become gathering space, they can enclose a view or reveal one...

The Machine is essentially the human bodies that interact with the flexibility of the mesh and the adaptability of the jigs. This is what heaven machine is about.

Heaven Machine

heaven is a mindstate...

Heavens around the

Architecture must not touch in historic cities like Rome over buildings, over piers, to make a floating, tensile there will be a public space These temporary structures people. In our idea of heaven wishes, their needs of privacy scales of gathering, people is a new kind of public space, environment.

We imagine many ‘heaven grammatic needs and vistas adaptable, flexible and scalable.

the mysterious ancient watchtower Istanbul is a city of layers buildings in close proximity. lective site for the public. raphy of Istanbul is key towards the Galata Tower, In our site we explore various Tower, would take you up dential buildings. Another stone streets, therefore there would be the possibility concept of hanging down have temporary connections

The exploration of architecture sionary pursuit to imbue we still have unlimited spaces input from the people something

SKY MAP OF HEAVENS

WORLD MAP OF HEAVEN MACHINES

WORLD MAP OF HEAVEN MACHINES

TURKEY MAP OF HEAVEN MACHINE

ISTANBUL MAP OF HEAVEN MACHINE

touch the ground. When building in over populated cities like New York and Istanbul the land is scarce; or even Rome where the land is too precious to touch or excavate, a new layer, a new ground can be found at a higher level, piers, over water. We want to explore this new higher layer, and touch the ground as lightly as possible. Our idea is tensile landscape, a ‘mesh cloud’ that will provoke a sense of escape and heavenly feel. In the cities’ chaos and noise space high above that will bring you peace. structures would be adaptable to change and react to external factors like rain and sunlight as well as input from heaven people are able to shape their own spaces. The flexible architecture would change according to people’s privacy or need of gathering. With the insertion of programmatic ‘jigs’ that are half enclosed rooms in various people can turn spaces into private rooms, for one or for two, or spaces of gathering and interacting. Our heaven space, based on union, gathering and the transformation of the public space from the input of people and the ‘heaven machines’ around the world, each would be different and conform to the site conditions as well as the provistas of the city it is in. It is not a utopian or universalized approach but a new typology of public space that is scalable. To test our ideas we focused on locating our project in a historic neighborhood of Istanbul, Galata, near watchtower over the hill: Galata Tower. Istanbul was chosen as our first site of exploration due to the fact that layers and history, there are architectures from many different religions; even in our site we have different religious proximity. Heaven Machine is not based on one religion, it is open to everyone, therefore acting as a unifying and colpublic. It also conforms to both the natural topography and the tectonics of the built environment. The hilly topogto our design of a higher ground that layers in the interstitial spaces between the buildings, and rises upwards Tower, connoting the feeling of clouds and ascending to heaven. various conditions of entry to this higher level of the heaven machine. The entry from the tower itself, Galata up so that you would make your slow descent to the space of Heaven Machine over the street and roofs of resiAnother entry would be from the street; this historic neighborhood of Istanbul is marked by its narrow uphill cobblethere are narrow pockets of space from which to see the sky where the architecture would be located. Lastly, there of entries from private balconies of nearby apartments within this narrow pocket of space, rooting from the old down a basket from the balcony to get groceries or simply bread in these neighborhoods. These balconies would connections that people can ‘pull’ and make their way into the space of heaven machine. architecture detached from the ground emerges not only as a practical solution to spatial limitations but also as a viimbue urban landscapes with elements of serenity and transcendence. If the architecture must not touch the ground, spaces to use, we can create small utopias over cities all over the world. No architect can design heaven, but with something close enough can be created.

Heaven Machine Film

The Film

what is Heaven Machine?

Heaven Machine is a new kind of public space, suspended above cities, inspired by notions of heaven as a space of union, gathering, flexibility, and transformation. It is about architecture that transcends the constraints of gravity, inviting individuals to shape their own heavens within a dynamic, participatory environment. Heaven Machine is a speculative project aimed at fostering engagement and interaction within urban spaces. Flexibility in social interactions is based on the materiality of a mesh landscape, chosen for its adaptability and responsiveness to human movement and interaction.

In the Heaven Machine, human bodies serve as the catalysts for space formation. As individuals navigate this mesh landscape, their movements and weight interact with the mesh fabric and programmatic elements, creating a constantly evolving spatial experience. There is also a sense of counter-balance, one pull affects another, a lift at one point affects not just a point but a parameter. Each interaction creates more interactions, and the interplay of forces generates a sense of interconnectedness, transforming the environment into a truly dynamic space of activity and exploration.

Through our material exploration of loads and pulls on the mesh fabric and wires, we have discovered the transformative potential of space. Divisions, rooms, openings, and connections emerge organically, blurring the boundaries between architecture and user agency. This symbiotic relationship between public and space defines the essence of the Heaven Machine.

In selecting a site for our project, we turned to Istanbul, Turkey, specifically the historic Galata Tower area. This site embodies the notion of ascending to higher ground both physically due to its topography and spiritually due to its rich layering of history and culture. Our design strategy is to integrate the Heaven Machine into the existing urban fabric, above the fabric and in the interstitial spaces, by utilizing large steel poles and tensile cables to suspend the structure above ground. Access to this higher ground happens both from the street level, and from the elevated tower of Galata, from public areas, but also from personal spaces of the neighboring apartment buildings, from individual balconies and windows, blurring the boundary of what it means to be public space and how “public” or “private” its access can be.

To activate the mesh landscape and insert programmatic elements, we introduce “jigs” – interactive elements that adapt and respond to user interaction. These structures, aptly named for their role in shaping space, serve as catalysts for spatial transformation, accommodating a range of functions and activities. From private rooms to communal gathering spaces, the jigs offer endless possibilities for spatial configuration and user engagement.

In essence, the Heaven Machine is more than just a physical structure; it is a testament to the dynamic potential of architecture and public space to inspire, engage, and elevate the human experience. By challenging preconceived notions of space and interaction, we strive to create a paradigm shift in urban design, one that empowers individuals to shape their own heavens within the fabric of the city.

Postcards from Heaven Machines...

qual è il tuo paradiso? o céu é espaço...

Venezia, Italia

Rio De Janeiro, Brasil

Istanbul,

New York, New York

heaven is a state of mind... durma göge bakalım...

Turkiye

Above: Site Plan in Galata, Istanbul

Right: Roof and Mesh Ground Plans

Above: Sky View

Right: Section

Conversation / Confession

Instrument Ramp Viewing: Blue Mosque

Water Collector

Private Entrance: Apartment Balcony

"Jig" Prototype: Confession

Foam chair, hardboard mesh fabric, fishing line, hook & carabiner, projector

Pull the mesh to “hide”

I.

II.

I. “Heaven is a mindstate” at the door

II. Postcards from Heaven

III. Jigs in Change Installations

IV. Overview

V. Partial Site Model with Jigs

V.

bibliography

Davidson, Cynthia. “Moving Parts: A Conversation with Elizabeth Diller.” Log, no. 36, 2016: 48–59. http://www.jstor.org/stable/26323692.

De Certeau, Michel. The Practice of Everyday Life. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1984.

Lefebvre, Henri. The Production of Space. 1974. Translated by Donald Nicholson-Smith, Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2009.

Dagenhart, Richard. “Urban Architectural Theory and the Contemporary City: Tschumi and Koolhaas at the Parc de La Villette.” Ekistics 56, no. 334/335 (1989): 84–92. http://www.jstor.org/ stable/43622106.

Dwyre, Cathryn, Chris Perry, and Bernard Tschumi. “Architecture Beyond Architecture.” PAJ: A Journal of Performance and Art 37, no. 1 (2015): 8–15. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26386736.

Foster, Hal. 2011. The Art and Architecture Complex. Verso.

Mathews, Stanley. “The Fun Palace as Virtual Architecture: Cedric Price and the Practices of Indeterminacy.” Journal of Architectural Education (1984-) 59, no. 3 (2006): 39–48. http://www.jstor. org/stable/40480644.

Price, Cedric, and Joan Littlewood. “The Fun Palace.” The Drama Review: TDR 12, no. 3 (1968): 127–34. https://doi.org/10.2307/1144360.

Shapiro, Gideon Fink. “Looking, Moving, Gathering: Functions of the High Line.” Domus, 2011. www.domusweb.it/en/architecture/2011/06/10/looking-moving-gathering-functions-of-the-highline.html.

Tschumi, Bernard. Event-Cities. MIT Press, 2000.

Tschumi, Bernard. “Manhattan Transcripts.” ANY: Architecture New York, no. 5 (1994): 48–49. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41845644.

Tschumi, Bernard. "The La Villette Park competition," Princeton Architectural Review, no. 2 1983. Vezzoli, Francesco. “Prada Transformer.” 2009. Interview Magazine. March 4, 2009. https://www. interviewmagazine.com/culture/prada-transformer.

Wainwright, Oliver. “Flexibility.” AA Files, no. 76 (2019): 77–82. https://www.jstor.org/ stable/27124578.