Architizer's 13th A+Awards features a suite of sustainability-focused categories recognizing designers that are building a greener industry — and a better future. Start your entry to receive global recognition for your work!
I have always found the concept of a “mood board” quite limiting. The idea behind it is to create a visual presentation that conveys the mood and emotion an architect or designer wants to achieve through their work. It is often comprised of a carefully curated selection of textures, colors, objects, real or imaginary spaces and even writing. Nevertheless, the result, in my opinion, always appears somewhat static and rigid, the opposite of what human emotions usually are.
Emotional architecture, or rather creating architecture that responds to human emotion has been tormenting architects for countless years. It is one thing to design a space in hopes of evoking certain emotional responses, but it is another thing entirely to design a space that responds to the turbulent mood swings of its occupants. What would that look like? Would it be a neutral space filled with sensors that can detect changes in mood by collecting biometric data (facial expression, heart rate or brain activity) and then adjust the spatial form, color or lighting accordingly? Would the people themselves input commands to a central server, thus controlling their environment more effectively?
In truth, there is no architectural project that has been realized so far that shows the way of implementing such an ambition. However, there have been substantial ideas and research that tackle broader questions of inhabitation and participatory design, where a person is viewed as a catalyst in the responsive process of building.
Fun Palace for Joan Littlewood is a visionary project conceived by British architect Cedric Price in the 1960s. The project was characterized as a “laboratory of fun” and “a university of the streets,” designed as a flexible structure in which programmable spaces can be plugged in, thus altering the design according to the user’s needs. The difference between Fun Place and other kinetic structures is that it prioritizes freedom, flexibility and fun, exploring notions of anticipatory architecture rather than an architecture that directs movements, emotions and moments of interaction. It reflects Price’s personal vision of a city that has an obligation to encourage playfulness and spontaneity, serving the general public through the use of inventive technology.
Another example is New Babylon, the anti-capitalist city conceived by visual artist Constant Nieuwenhuys in-between 1959-1974. Comprised of a series of linked transformable structures, New Babylon is home to homo ludens, i.e., man at play, who is free to live his life in any way he wants, liberated from any societal constraints, i.e., the shackles of work, family life, or any civic responsibility. Constant’s philosophy advocates that by letting homo ludens roam free, he himself would seek to explore and transform his environment according to his ever-changing needs. As a result, the Dutch painter made sure to create a world that is equally adaptable and responsive.
Albeit not explicitly or emotionally responsive, these two projects hold one part of the equation to creating a new “breed” of responsive architecture. They both propose spatial systems that prioritize anticipation rather than direction, introducing terms like “fun” and “desire” in their designs. The other part of the equation, however, is creating the necessary technologies in order to be able to externalize and implement the emotional synergies occurring between humans and structures. For instance, smart material developments such as shape-memory alloys, electro-active polymers and even programmable materials can expand, contract or change properties is response to electrical or thermal stimuli, thus making it plausible to physically transform buildings.
The Blur Building by Diller Scofidio + Renfro, Yverdon-les-Bains, Switzerland
Two projects by Diller Scofidio + Renfro have given us a glimpse of what these technologies might look like. The Blur Building, an architecture of atmosphere, is a structure that appears to be a fog mass resulting from both natural and manmade forces. To achieve this effect, water is pumped from Lake Neuchatel, filtered, and shot as a fine mist through 35,000 high-pressure nozzles. It is essentially a smart weather system that reads the surrounding climatological conditions of temperature, humidity, wind speed and direction and regulates water pressure at a variety of zones. Its materiality evades any definition, appearing as formless, featureless, depthless, scaleless, massless, surfaceless, and dimensionless, therefore allowing the visitors to craft their own spatial narrative.
In parallel, the Shed is a project that seems as nothing less than definitive. It is a cultural centre and entertainment hall that accommodates an audience of 1,200 seated or 2,700 standing, since the shell’s entire ceiling operates as an expandable and contractable skin which rolls on custom rails through the use of adapting gantry crane technology. Diller Scofidio + Renfro write, “the Shed takes inspiration, architecturally, from the Fun Palace, the influential but unrealized building-machine conceived by British architect Cedric Price and theatre director Joan Littlewood in the 1960s. Like its precursor, The Shed’s open infrastructure can be permanently flexible for an unknowable future and responsive to variability in scale, media, technology, and the evolving needs of artists.”
The Shed by Diller Scofidio + Renfro, New York City, New York
Going back to the (mood) board, I do wonder whether these projects are outlines for a larger, more groundbreaking proposition: the creation and utilization of “mood systems.” Instead of creating predetermined compositions through a mood board collage, mood systems could be a series of inconclusive scenarios, made of materials, drawings, technological components and narratives that offer the mailable and transformable systems that Cedric Price, Constant Nieuwenhuys and Diller Scofidio + Renfro so passionately preached for. These mood systems would not seek to dictate specific outcomes but instead provide a framework for continuous adaptation and evolution, serving as a blueprint for environments that are as fluid and unpredictable as the lives they aim to support.
Architizer's 13th A+Awards features a suite of sustainability-focused categories recognizing designers that are building a greener industry — and a better future. Start your entry to receive global recognition for your work!
Featured Image: The Shed by Diller Scofidio + Renfro, New York, New York