UIA 2017 Seoul World Architects Congress

UIA 2017 Seoul World Architects Congress 1

O- 0601

Push Away the Building, Long Live, the Plants!

Saginatari, Diandra Pandu*1, Apti, Astidira2 and Atmodiwirjo, Paramita3

1 Lecturer, Department of Architecture, Universitas Indonesia, Indonesia 2Resarch Assistant, Department of Architecture, Universitas Indonesia, Indonesia

3Professor, Department of Architecture, Universitas Indonesia, Indonesia

Abstract This paper intends to demonstrate the tactics of nature in finding its way to exist among urban fabric as man-made settings. It questions the dominant paradigm of our control towards nature in urban context that is reflected through our tendency to be defensive toward nature. In particular, this paper will discuss about plants as a form of nature that has become an indicator of the nature’s existence among us. As man-made physical entity that exist in natural setting, building is always under the course of time and nature that eventually will decay and degenerate its materiality. This could be the beginning of the plant’s tactics as it slowly decays and degenerate man-made materials and turns them into potential living medium for plants. Then, plants start inhabiting building and being dominant over building while the buildings turn into ruins. These tactics will be revealed through the narrative and poetic reading of photographs of real settings in Old town of Jakarta that illustrates a glimpse of the plant’s tactics in inhabiting building, from occupied building, unoccupied building, and up to ruins. This paper believes that in the occurrence of the plant’s tactics among our built settings lies a process of understanding each other’s position which will be beneficial as basis of design thinking. Keywords: nature; plants; living tactics; building materiality; decay

1. Introduction

Urban setting has been the symbol of human civilization. It is a synthetic construct and nothing is more ‘man-made’ than a city (Tonkiss 2013). In this setting we replace natural setting that once was there with man-made material for the purpose oriented toward human needs. In the process of this replacement we do not do justice to nature. We disturb the environmental equilibrium through this action. It is a fact that the nature of nature is to seek for this equilibrium. Regardless what we do to the environment, to nature, nature will find its way to claim its right to live among man-made settings. This phenomena of the nature’s tactics in

*Contact Author: Diandra Pandu Saginatari, Lecturer, Universitas Indonesia

Department of Architecture, Faculty of Engineering, Kampus UI Depok 16424 Tel: +62217863512 e-mail: diandrasaginatari@gmail.com (The publisher will insert here: received, accepted)

2 UIA 2017 Seoul World Architects Congress

reclaiming its right among man-made settings is often missed from our reading because this phenomenon always appears as disorder for us. If you see a small tree starts growing in a crack of your wall, you definitely will remove it and fix the crack. This common response shows two things, first, we do not realize that our building will flaw in time as it should, and second, we do not realize that the nature uses its tactic to reclaim its right among us this way.

This paper will present a provoking arguments about the nature’s existence among man-made setting. The arguments are built through the case study of the nature’s tactics toward man-made setting in different stages: the construction, when the construction is finished, and when the setting turns into ruin. These stages will be discussed by referring to the photographs of the man-made setting around The Old Town of Jakarta. This setting was chosen because it presents diverse peculiar phenomena on the nature’s tactics, particularly plants, to live among different stages of man-made setting. The photographs were analyzed through poetic and narrative reading from the point of view of the nature. This reading will naively reveal how nature sees our man-made setting as a living medium, by referring both the spatial composition and the level of decay or flaw.

2. Our view on nature

We create a paradigm that we are dominant toward nature. “Every act of building betrays environment, as it requires the displacement of ‘natural’ relationship.” (Ingersoll 2012, p.787). In designing man-made setting we replace nature with man-made material in a blink and always put nature last on our list of priority. Our needs always come first. After we take and replace everything to get what we need, we start thinking of giving space for nature to be. Giving space for nature after we take a lot seems to be a form of redemption, showing how we treat nature as secondary or even tertiary elements that we can actually control. Decarlo (1993) stated that it is a foolish ambition for us to dominate nature to affirm our superiority because, referring to him, this ambition will be translated to a violent architecture (man-made setting). This violent man-made setting has been the one that we always create.

Our action against nature seems to happen in any stages of building, from clearing the site for building, construction, to the service that we have to provide for what we built (Ingersoll, 2012). Apparently, we continue doing it, putting our needs first before nature, this as if we never realize that we are alive because we live among nature, while nature is not alive because we give them space to live. Nature will live regardless what we do. Then, we consider ecology in our design, to show that we are being responsible. But the action is still trying to control the nature better, not letting the nature to become nature.

The thing is, we seem always misinterpreting which one is nature in man-made settings. As we talk about

nature in man-made setting, we, most of the time, talk about the landscape instead of the real nature. Is landscape a nature? It is probably the nature that lives under our control, as we give space for them to grow as a form of redemption.

“A landscape is not a natural feature of the environment but a synthetic space, a man made system of spaces superimposed on the face of the land, functioning and evolving according to natural law but to serve a community.” (Jackson 1984 cited in Herrington 2009, p.7). Landscape is a man-made setting that grows with the natural law. It is often become our attempt to incorporate the nature in our setting, which based on Jackson, missed the point completely. It reveals that our effort is never sincerely for nature. We expect nature to give benefit to us, and we are talking about benefit always as in the value of money. We always consider the solids, the man-made, are more interesting because they can be sold (Decarlo, 1993). It’s more valuable than the voids, the ‘left over’ nature, which has always been perceived as thing with no intrinsic value. This is why we tend to give less for nature, and even if we give more, we demand it to have functional

UIA 2017 Seoul World Architects Congress 3

benefit for us. Actually, what benefit could nature offer more for us than the fact that it gives us our life?

This is the paradigm that we create. We always try to dominate nature especially when we design our man-made setting. Our domination offends the nature’s existence. As we offend, nature will defend. The way nature defends is through the offensive living tactics to survive among our domination.

3. From build to cracks

Most of our man-made setting, including buildings, will exists surrounded by nature. Our architects live in the conception that their buildings are complete when the construction is finished (Handa, 2015). This expresses expectation that building will remain perfect forever. We have to realize that just like any other physical objects, building is under the influence of time (Handa, 2015). By the time a building stands, time will begin to degenerate it. The process starts with weather, the first form of nature to encounter the building. A weather has the ability to effect and influence the condition of any physical entities. After all, the weather is one of the reasons we build in the first place, when we build a shelter to avoid and survive the weather. We build then sacrifice the building to get confronted by the weather. The moment our building stands, we actually set it to die eventually.

Leatherbarrow and Mustafavi (1993) uses a mathematical term to explain weathering. It is a subtraction, a process of taken something away. All parts of newly finished building, any surfaces, colors, etc, will be “taken away” by rain, wind and sun. Colors will fade, surface will degenerate. Decay and deformation is inevitable for any kind of built form (Cairns and Jacobs 2014). Ever since building engages with weather, it will start deforming and decaying. It forces us to do regular maintenance, up to sometime, we have to maintain it just to literally keep everything hold together (Cairns and Jacobs 2014). It is simply because the building will degenerate and will never be perfect forever.

Degeneration of building and our intention to always regenerate it really exposed the temporality of nature (Leatherbarrow and Mustafavi 1993). It shows how the building is in the temporary cycle of nature, the beginning and ending, life and death. As building slowly dies, life will somehow arise. Weather forces the building to decay and deform. Decay and deformation is a natural process that will turn any physical forms to return to their organic states once more. Decay and deformation of building are actually a spatial creation by the weather in a form of cracks. As the building turns into cracks, it will somehow give space for nature to inhabit the building. 4. From cracks to living ruins

Inhabiting the building through cracks shows the plants’ tactics in operation. It demonstrates the

relationship between the qualities of cracks, both spatiality and materiality, and the nature of plants, both physiology and morphology. It also reflects how the plants see the potential of materiality and spatiality of the building cracks as a suitable living medium. This discourse will be elaborated through the narrative and poetic readings of cases that will reveal the sequential experience of plants in inhabiting the building. “The viewers who are freed from the usual concerns like the building’s purpose, event, or history and are enticed to relate directly and immediately to the building’s physical properties seem to have some additional opportunities. The viewers seem able to engage with the building deeper than its surface, that is, its appearance. Because of this, the viewers seem able to employ more than their visual faculty and engage their imagination. And, because they employ their imagination, they seem able to involve the entirety of their existence.” (Handa 2015, p.175)

4 UIA 2017 Seoul World Architects Congress

The statement above suggests that ‘the viewers’ refers to human. Now, if we try to refer ‘the viewer’ to plants, there will be a different reading of that statement. As something that violates nature, the building will be perceived by those who are violated. Plants, who are violated, will not concern about the purpose, event, and history of the building. With their imagination, their nature, and their urge to reach equilibrium, plants will immediately relate to the physical properties of building. They will see how the building could become the form of inhabitation after the weather and time team up to create the decay on its surface. Plants will engage deeper into the surface of the building literally, as they will puncture the surface and grow. This is how plants as nature really starts showing their existence among buildings as man-made setting. This is the beginning of ruination.

Ruination is a process that happen even when buildings are still occupied, “Ruination does not only occur after a building no longer has function.” (Hill 2006, p. 141). It happens at different speeds and in different parts, but it continuously happens ever since the buildings stood. Any maintenance that we do as our responses toward ruination will probably delay the process, but they can not really stop it. Then plants begin to show their existence among this ruination.

Fig.1. Plants show their existence on the occupied building (1) “Behind a coat of paint lies stacks of bricks made out of clay, as weather degenerates the coat’s condition it exposes the porous bricks within. You may try to re-apply these coats, trying to repel weathering, but our friend weather is strong enough to crack the surface. You can’t avoid it as you can’t always keep up with the mother nature. Something that you see as a flaw, we see as an opportunity. You see a crack that needs to be filled in with your new substance, we see a porous material to grow, to latch on to. We don’t care about your intention. We grow as if these surfaces are built for us. Your effort in trying to get rid of any traces of us seems to be futile as we can grow out of your reach. This is our way to survive among your man-made environment. We are on our way to claim our right!”

Fig.2. Plants show their existence on the occupied building (2) “We got your surfaces to dwell; our friends sun and rain help us to grow. Sun sure is always there everyday. But rain, we never know. We are not worried. Somehow, your pipes across the surface, they are leaking as predicted. That’s our water supply if rains don’t

UIA 2017 Seoul World Architects Congress 5

come. We feel comfortable, we feel at home. No matter what you do, our nature is to grow, so growing we will be.”

All buildings will be eventually obsolete; “Obduracy in obsolescence is the peculiar condition of

architecture.” (Cairns and Jacobs 2014, p.111). When they become obsolete and abandoned, they often stay where they stood. In some cases, the abandoned building will be regenerated to add new value, but sometime they will face demolition. Plants as nature can see abandoned building as a potential inhabitation. Since human no longer involved, there will be no maintenance. The Plants could grow as they please without any worries of being removed.

Fig.3. Plants spreading throughout the unoccupied building “At first, it may begin with one of us in a corner, but since the building loses its guardian, you, it’s defenseless. We continue to grow on its surfaces, taking advantage of its decaying materials. We spread across surfaces where the cracks grow. We start taking over all of its walls, windows, doors, and pipes. Our existence will indicate and define its state. We give it a sense of time, of how long it has been abandoned by you. When it’s decaying and finally fall, we will be grateful and will salute it as it has found its place and be meaningful for others.”

The narratives present the dialogue between plants and us human about their tactics in inhabiting the building. Cracks, as the initial potential, usually happen on the exterior part of the building that is exposed directly to the weather. With cracks and exposure of the sun, plants will keep growing. In several cases that we find, the spot where plants grow on a building always have the traces of water. This shows that the circumstance of how plants could grow is influenced by the positon of the cracks, whether or not the cracks are exposed by the sun and whether the building provides water source near the cracks. Plants will grow and spread to every part, up until the building itself starts falling apart. Eventually, the plants will take over the building and reinforced its remain by becoming its structure.

Fig.4. Plants taking over the building ruins “When we take over a building, we become its structure. We give it strength. Since it’s no longer being used, what remains can survive because of our roots and branches. As it looks stronger, somehow the remains become relevant to you again. As we are taking over, your building becomes more approachable to you once more. We create structures. We shape boundaries. We paint light and shadow. We become your shelter. We are intertwined with your building, with you.”

Building stands valiantly as the monument of man domination towards the environment. It shelters us

from nature. As it transforms into ruins, it becomes an expression of how man-made creation is defeated by time and nature. It is the calibrated artifacts of the struggle between architectural agency and the nature’s agency (Cairns and Jacobs, 2014). The remaining structure records the layers of time portraying the process

6 UIA 2017 Seoul World Architects Congress

of decay. It is probably dead for us. Valueless. Useless. But as ruins, man-made structure has find their new meanings among the environment. It is now a new ecosystem full of life and diversity. 5. Conclusion

The readings above show how the life cycle of buildings and plants intertwine, and in between the cycle our intervention occurs. It starts with our design and building process that most of the time ignores the existence of the nature. Nature then reacts regarding our actions and starts showing its living tactics to survive among us. The process begins with weathering that slowly decays and degenerates the building, followed by the plants inhabiting the decay, and ended up by the nature taking over the whole building.

The tactics of plants to live among us has to be considered as an order that will occur in any man-made settings. This awareness is important in design thinking since it will be the basis of a design process that will allow us to respond natural setting thoroughly. We need to begin to develop the perspective of seeing our man-made creation, building, as a physical entity with a life span that will eventually end. We always consider the death of a building is when it is no longer functional for us. Then, we start abandoning it and it becomes a waste. If we realize that building have a life span and we are aware of nature’s tactics, particularly plants, it will be relevant to synchronize and intertwine their cycles that would generate a mutual symbiosis between building and plants. We have to see the potential of our man-made setting as inhabitation for nature, from the spatial quality and the materiality. Then, we build man-made setting, not just for us, but for nature as well. This shows how we are moving toward paradigm where nature should be treated equal and above us as it always deserved. Maybe it is time to push away the building and long live, the plants!

References 1) Cairns, S. and Jacobs, J.M. (2014). Buildings must die: a perverse view of architecture. Cambridge: The MIT Press.

2) De Carlo, G. (1993) The Tree of Life. In: Reading and Designing the Physical Environment 2 (Internasional Laboratory of Architecture and

Urban Design) pp. 128-133

3) Handa, R. (2015) Allure of the Incomplete, Imperfect, and Impermanent: Designing and appreciating architecture as nature. Oxon: Routledge.

4) Herrington, S. (2009) On landscapes, Thinking in action. New York: Routledge.

5) Hill, J. (2006) Immaterial architecture. In: Löschke, S.K. (Ed.), (2016) Materiality and architecture. Oxon: Routledge. pp. 129-147

6) Ingersoll, R. (2012) The Ecology Question and Architecture. In: Cattaneo, E., Ardesio, G., and Andolina, M. (2013) Loaded void: city theory

since 1956 : falling modernism and arising landscape urbanism. Santarcangelo di Romagna: Maggioli. pp. 786-802

7) Mostafavi, M. and Leatherbarrow, D. (1993) On weathering: the life of buildings in time. Cambridge: MIT Press.

8) Tonkiss, F. (2013) Cities by design: the social life of urban form. Cambridge: Polity Press.