That "all architecture evolved from roads" is a wild hypothesis, but neverthless one which I personally find not without a considerable appeal and potential. In fact, on reflection, many of the projects my atelier has been involved in over the past few years have been closely related to this idea. And the strange, shorthand term we use for this is "circulation bodies".
More than anything else, roads are "links", not "things to be linked". That is why when we say "all architecture evolved from roads", we are speaking first and foremost of the dominance and antecedence of "links". This is a kind of inversion because we live in a world which basically gives precedence to "things to be linked"
Takes cities, for example. Why were roads created? Cities have many places people have to visit. "Things to be linked" like markets, theatres, temples, and so on. Roads were built in order to "link" these. In other words, the means was chosen only when there was an objecive (destination). If that is so, the hypothesis that "all architecture evolved from roads" is not true because it is quite clear that "it was only when buildings existed that roads became necessary". This statement is probably the closest approximation of today's common perception.
But circulation bodies requires a different approach, namely roads developed so that people could circulate. And in order to make that circulation more dynamic, or to structure that movement into a more organized rather than sporadic pattern, roads began to take on a more specific nature. Isn't that architecture? First, people move about. Then, from that process places which can only be turned objectives (destinations) asuume a physical shape.
Rather than walking towards pre-determined destinations, I believe we ambled around and came across palaces that we liked, places which on reflection were destinations. Isn't that, after all, what life is like in both a metaphorical and actual sense? Rather than setting our sights on something, we circulate. Not "things to be linked" but "links". It is in this way that architecture returns to its roots.
It is not only in our daily perceptions that "links" have basically been confined to a subordinate role. The history of modern architecture is one where "things to be linked" have taken a firm upper hand. A "culture hall", for example, consists of two distinct architecural components: "links" such as an entrance hall, foyer, corridor, elevator and stairs and "things to be linked" such as a concert hall or stage. There is, however, a very clear sequential relationship between these two groups, where the building's functions, namely "things to be linked", take precedence and are followed by the "links" themselves. It would be rather unusual for an architect to say, "There's no room for the music hall because we're making the foyer like this."
One example of giving precedevce to "links" is Le Corbusier's promenade architecturale. To promenade is essentially to walk without a fixed destination or "things to be linked", and the promenade's value lies in walking along a footpath which is a "link". Le Corbusier thought the promenade could take a dwelling beyond its functinal meaning to the dimension of a "phsically embodied poem". Looking back today, I believe there was an opportunity to take this idea one small step further and to reconstitute entire dwelling as a whole into "links" = "circulation", not "things to be linked" = "function-driven space allocation". With the exception of a few isolated examples, however, "things to be linked" have been considered an a priori existence and based on this premise, we have continued to pursue the issue of how to link them. There was a time when "composition" was the main theme, but "composition" is really focussed on how to link the "things to be linked". It is precisely because the way things were linked was critical issue that the term "circulation" has been irritatingly used.
The downfall of this approach is that it attempts to revise all architectural space into "circulation bodies".
But what exactly is the significance of this downfall?
Firstly, it provides us with an opportunity to redefine the various elements which go to make up a city. What is a school? What is a museum? What is a park? What is a Plaza? What is a bridge? Such building types are hardly pre-determined. (And yet, almost in spite of ourselves, we are slaves to set notions of how things should be.) Goals (destinations) are not provided a priori. Rather, they can be constantly redefined by concrete examples. This is the first and foremost role of design = planning, and if the term building type is to be restored to sound usage, we must stand by acknowlegement that there are no stereotypes.
My position is that, when redefining individual building types, circulation bodies correspond to "people moving about".
As with parks, plazas started out as "links" but have become "something to be linked" today. They are perceived unconditionnally as destinations, or "something to be linked", there is a Field of Dreams school of thought that "if you build it, they will come". As a result, Japan is littered with lifeless plazas.
The Underground Crossing Body in N City started out as attempt to create an attractive "underground plaza", bringing people underground on daily basis and making them cross there. The concept itself was, however, totally untenable and the plan was revised by abandoning the "plaza" as the point of departure and focussing on the most appropriate "link" = crossing. In other words, it was an attempt to redefine the plaza as a result of single-minded focus on the "link".
Leaving the road and underground piping intact, a U-shaped slit was excavated, opposite sides of the road being linked by an unbroken, smooth surface. The initial, steep decent is sliced with criss-cross stairs similar to downhill skiing. Here and there flat, round horizontal surfaces protrude on the slope in three-on-three formation, acting as a catalyst for the "crossing body" to evolve into a "plaza".
We tend to give precedence to "things to be linked" rather than "links" precisely because we live in a modern age. It is as if we name organically interwoven totalities by dissecting them. It is at this point that "things to be linked" emerge. Much in the way we dissect the body with this being the esophagus, this the stomach and this the intestines. This leads to an expectatoin of each "thing to be linked" performing given roles (the occurrence of function), and the perception of the whole as a combination of its parts (the occurrence of structure). This is the foundation of science, an approach ostensibly premised on "functionalism". The machine aethetic also originates here. It seems that there is no easy escape for us from this underlying approach, but is it true?
For example, people may well be perceived in terms of their diffrent organs but is it not ultimately possible to think in terms of a single "link", merely the digestive tract? After all, the space between the respective oragans is smooth, an unbroken continuity devoid of clear partitions. In fact, it has recently been found that our immunity structure, which, of course, is also a science, is virtually an indivisible system. Even if divisions exist, they would not be of a layered tree-like nature, but most likely a differential structure which can be broken down into minute units at a stroke. Although there are certain rules in its relations with the surrounding environment, the details are not determined by overall directives.
This ability to separate into tiny units at a bound is a property of fluids. Fluids are not "a compound of A and B". From any aspect, they are simultaneously both A and B. I feel an enormous sympathy with things of this nature, which probably lies behind my interest in "links" and "circulation bodies".
From what direction do you design a bridge? As a combination of a "link" and "a place for people"? No. As a body which is simulataneously a "link" and "a place for people". The "body" in circulation bodies is an attempt to express the complex totality and inherent simultaneity of architecture.
 |
 |
