This will eventually develop into a much more substantial essay, but I just wanted to make some early observations about material choice in the design of modern structures.
Architects in the 21st century have the largest palette of materials of any builders before them, and yet we often find ourselves fixated on an alarmingly bland spectrum of mediocrity. While some may attribute this to cost, in that the cheapest materials available on the market necessitate cookie-cutter suburbia and the corporate jungle, the real problem is market paralysis inflicted by status-quo manufacturers and basic consumer psychology. Perhaps the average household would like to have a house that looks and feels different than average, but doesn’t know where to find it. Just off the top of my head here are some materials architects have the choice to use:
- Wood
- Brick
- Stone
- Adobe
- Marble
- Sandstone
- Metal
- Concrete
- Steel
- Glass
- Plastic
- Bamboo
- Foam
- Carbon Fiber
- Canvas
And the list goes on and on. Yet almost 99% of buildings are created with 1% of possible material choices (Yep, I just went there).
To depart from politics and look more closely at design applications, I wanted to stress how incredibly important material choice is in any kind of building. Let’s say we’re stuck with just the three most common materials today: wood, concrete, and steel (in that order of strength and cost). These don’t just represent chemical and structural properties of matter. They represent emotions, thoughts and ideas, a collective memory. To illustrate:
- Wood is the lightest and most alive of all materials. It is strange to think of trees being knocked down to salvage wooden planks, which are shipped horizontally by truck to a new site where they are once again staked vertically out of the ground. I would suggest that wood be used in its Vitruvian idealism, first and foremost as post-lintel or roof rafters, to connect most to its original existence as trees and branches. I am not a fan of wood as walls, because it was never meant to separate two spaces as a barrier. Wood is most triumphant when it supports and invites, when it can be circumambulated or climbed. Wood buildings are proud, yet humble.
- Concrete is, I would argue, the most natural of all materials. Even though it is made through artificial mixing and pouring technologies, it evokes the most ancient of human living, even before Vitruvian architecture. It brings to mind caves in mountains, or the hollow of earth in which no greater feeling of security and comfort can be attained. My most intimate experiences with the built environment have been laying on concrete and feeling its thermal mass, synonymous to laying out on solid rock after a tiring hike in the mountains. This is the architect as sculptor of rock, mover of mountains and valleys, Mother Nature herself.
- Steel is taking over rapidly for very good reasons, often hidden within concrete and secretly providing structural support for engineering feats, but I am disappointed in the lack of really innovative applications of steel. Steel buildings are not forests or caves; they’re machines. They should look and feel like the product of human imagination, not Mother Nature but Machine Man. I want to see more buildings tout their complexity and flexibility. I want to see more buildings come alive and interact with their users. I want to see buildings that look like they built themselves.
If the application in design is not relevant to you, then at least you can take upon the role of an architectural critic, examine the buildings and spaces around you, the emotions you attach to them, and retroactively imagine whether those feelings and memories could have been better contained (or kept out) by a different choice in material.