10_senk sigfried giedion

8/20/2019 10_senk Sigfried Giedion

1/14

P R O

S T O R

ZNANSTVENI ÈASOPIS ZA ARHITEKTURU I URBANIZAMA SCHOLARLY JOURNAL OF ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN PLANNING

21 [2013] 2 [46

ISSN 1330-0652CODEN PORREVUDK | UDC 71/7221 [2013] 2 [46]235-4187-12 [2013]

SVEUÈILIŠTEU ZAGREBU,ARHITEKTONSKIFAKULTETUNIVERSITYOF ZAGREB,FACULTYOF ARCHITECTURE

POSEBNI OTISAK / SEPARAT OFFPRINT

350-361 Peter Šenk The Concept of CapsuleArchitecture as Experiment

Origins and Manifestationswith Selected Examples from Sloveniaand Croatia

Subject ReviewUDC 721.013:691.81(497.5:497.4)”19/00”

Koncept arhitektonskekao eksperiment

Podrijetlo i manifestacijes odabranim primjerima u Si Hrvatskoj

Pregledni znanstveni èlanakUDK 721.013:691.81(497.5:497.4

Znanstveni prilozi Scientific Papers


2/14

Fig. 1. Marko Peljhan with collaborators: Makrolab, 1997-2007Sl. 1. Marko Peljhan sa suradnicima: Makrolab, 1997.-2007.


3/14

Peter Šenk

The Concept of Capsule Architecture as ExperimentOrigins and Manifestations with Selected Examples from Slovenia and Cr

Koncept arhitektonske kapsule kao eksperimentPodrijetlo i manifestacije s odabranim primjerima u Sloveniji i Hrvatskoj

capsuleexperimental architecture

megastructureminimum dwellingsmobile architecture

The paper presents the concept of the capsule in architecture in relation tomodernism, social and cultural change after World War II and experimentswith housing typology and construction technology. Based on examples ofgenuine and metaphorical capsule architectures, the vividness and relevanceof the concept is also shown through selected pioneering and contemporaryexamples from the cultural environments of Slovenia and Croatia.

Rad prikazuje koncept kapsule u arhitekturi u odnosu na Modernu ti kulturne promjene nakon Drugoga svjetskog rata kao i eksperimestambene tipologije i tehnologije graðenja. Polazeæi od primjera ametaforiènih arhitektonskih kapsula, u radu se prikazuje vitalnosnost ovoga koncepta na odabranim ranim te suvremenim primjerimstu kulturnih sredina Slovenije i Hrvatske.

kapsulaeksperimentalna arhitektura

megastrukturaminimalni stambeni objektipokretna arhitektura

University of MariborFaculty of Civil EngineeringDepartment of ArchitectureSlovenia - 2000 Maribor, Smetanova 17

Subject Review

UDC 721.013:691.81(497.5:497.4)”19/00”

Technical Sciences / Architecture and Urban Planning

2.01.01. - Architectural DesignArticle Received / Accepted: 19. 2. 2013. / 10. 12. 2013.

Sveuèilište u MariboruGraðevinski fakultetOdsjek za ArhitekturuSlovenija - 2000 Maribor, Smetanova 17

Pregledni znanstveni èlanak

UDK 721.013:691.81(497.5:497.4)”19/00”

Tehnièke znanosti / Arhitektura i urbanizam

2.01.01. - Arhitektonsko projektiranjeÈlanak primljen / prihvaæen: 19. 2. 2013. / 10. 12. 2013.

Scientific Papers | Znanstveni prilozi 21[2013] 2[46] PROS


4/14

352 PROSTOR 2[46] 21[2013] 350-361 P. ŠENK The Concept of Capsule Architecture as Experiment… Scientific Papers | Znanstveni p

INTRODUCTION - THE CONCEPT DEFINITION

U VOD- DEFINICIJA KONCEPTA

The concept of the capsule, explicitly nam-ing compact, minimal, completely furnishedand equipped living units, has generally beenpresented in architectural history in relationto the trend of megastructures and utopian

radical architectural experiments with uncriti-cal faith in technological and scientific prog-ress of the 1960s. Generally known deriva-tions of the concept include capsule hotels,mainly in Japan, as well as prefabricated san-itary facilities, ‘climate capsules’ as structuralprotection from atmospheric agents1 or cap-sules as bordered and/or controlled buildingcomplexes or territories2, which are no longerdirectly related to the original concept.

The origins and development of the capsuleconcept in architecture can be traced throughtheoretical concepts of modernism, the post-World War II contexts and protagonists of adistinctively technological architecture, par-ticularly in Great Britain and Japan. As earlyas before and during World War II, the func-tionalist approach, CIAM, endeavours to-wards prefabrication3 in architecture withearly protagonists - Le Corbusier, Gropius,Wachsmann, Prouvé and others, demandsfor mobility and questions of subsistenceminimum, especially so after the secondCIAM congress in Frankfurt in 19294, encour-aged architects to undertake experimentalpractice to provide answers to questions on

social and cultural change, appropriate hing typology and construction technolowell as economic efficiency, thus servinan important basis for designing radical mal environments such as examples ofsule units.

Setting the mental ground for their e

gence, modernism, which evades a comhensive definition, always meant either iducing something new into the existingtem or completely breaking away from iproviding a basis for experiment.5 As lighted by Tomaž Brejc, although expericarries a different connotation in scienceengineering than in art6 (which can alssaid for architecture), it is in fact both itable and crucial for a critical examinatithe existing and the previous, which isnecessarily absolute and appropriate. Cook, the experimentalist of the ArchiGroup, argues that in the 20th century ”thave been several occasions when scie

technology and human emancipation coincided in a way that has caused archture to explode.”7 Chasing the new inspirit of time, the heterogeneity of moism and open perception of modernitcontemporaneity and progressiveness rsent the experimental field that also allofor the development of the capsule con- not always and exclusively as a comdenial of the past, but also as a complexcritical response to it.

In the context of the post-World War II ernisation process, the Team 10 group, wsprang from within CIAM, sought answesocial and technological questions in a

perimental manner, exploring conceptsstrategies of enabling individual and cotive identity, resident participation in hing development and self-realisation of ety.8 At the beginning of the sixties of thecentury, the highlighted relationship betwthe individual (living) component and thlective infrastructure, which soon becpart of the open design of megastructuremations, manifested itself in the form orelationship between individual living

1 Orig.: von Borries, 20102 Boomkens, 1998; De Cauter, 2004 3 While the modularity of prefabricated elemen

formed larger architectural compositions in fact ofteon traditional construction procedures with an indapproach, the concept of the modular living unit as fabricated whole is revolutionary.

4 The congress was organised at a time when perimental field for new typologies of housing contion for the needs of workers was established in Fraunder the leadership of Ernst May. The theme of thnimum Subsistence Dwelling” (Die Wohnung für distenzminimum) specifically focused on design cosolving the issue of high apartment rent and low saoffering the smallest comfortable dwelling for the price [Mumford, 2000: 27-44; Heynen, 1999: 43-70Mumford points out that the question of minimum


5/14

Scientific Papers | Znanstveni prilozi The Concept of Capsule Architecture as Experiment… P. ŠENK 350-361 21[2013] 2[46] PROS

capsule units and the collective megastruc-ture framework.

Even though the concept of the capsule withmetaphorical dimensions was not clearly de-fined in Japan, it initially represented, similarlyas in Great Britain, a compact, mobile, fullyequipped and ergonomically designed living

unit with a built-in life span, as well as a mono-functional unit (sanitary facility, kitchen unit,furniture element, etc.) with same characteris-tics. The definition of a spatial unit called thecapsule is also underlined with Günther Feuer-stein’s description of it as ”the smallest, stillmoveable and autonomous environment well-equipped with communications.”9

PIONEERING EXAMPLES / TECHNOLOGICAL DERIVATIONS AND EXPERIMENTS WITH HOUSING TYPOLOGIES - THE CONCEPT OF THE CAPSULE IN GREAT BRITAIN AND J APAN

R ANI PRIMJERI / TEHNOLOŠKE

VARIJACIJE I EKSPERIMENTI U OKVIRU STAMBENIH TIPOLOGIJA - K ONCEPT KAPSULE U V ELIKOJ BRITANIJI I J APANU

Based on the work of the Independent Groupand Peter and Alison Smithson’s New Bruta-lism in the second half of the 1950s, the revi-sionist criticism of the modern movement re-veals the starting points, origins and devel-opment as well as first designs of living unitscalled capsules in Great Britain, the latter de-vised by their successors.

Incorporating differences, blurring the bound-aries between popular and high culture andexhibiting an interest for everyday life and

authenticity provided the Independent Groupwith an open mode of action that went be-yond strict modernist principles. This estab-lished the foundations for the developmentof many experimental practices that intro-duced radical reflections on the mode ofdwelling, housing, as well as living in the cityand comprehension of the environment ingeneral. It was the Smithson’s House of theFuture and its logic of incorporation, which ischaracteristic both of the Independent Group

and New Brutalism, that provided the groundsfor merging contemporary technology withpop culture and paved the way for the laterrealisation of Reyner Banham’s architectureautre. The truly other architecture of the Sec-ond Machine Age, un-architecture, consumerand expendable architecture, technologicallyconditioned and mass produced architecture

was brought forth by the swinging sixtiesthrough experimenting with new materials,dwelling patterns and the accordingly adapt-ed new typology of the capsule. In Britain, liv-ing units that were designated as capsuleswere designed in 1964 by members of the Ar-chigram Group, introducing vivid pop light-ness in Warren Chalk’s Capsule Home andthe compatible Plug-in City by Peter Cook,and Cedric Price, who employed an opera-tional, technological and iconoclastic ap-proach in Potteries Thinkbelt .

Archigram’s early capsule units were inspiredby the space capsule, which was founded onan entirely different concept and efficiencythan the traditional building10, the capsule ex-periment employing technology transfer fromspace engineering and car industry to respondto questions regarding construction technolo-gy and economic efficiency. Moreover, ques-tions on social and cultural change and ap-propriate housing typology were dealt withthrough the capsule’s ergonomic design, thepossibility of mass production and integratedexpendability, extendability and interchange-ability of some elements or even the entirecapsule as consumer goods11, as well as thehousing approach that included a series ofhighly sophisticated and designed elementsintegrated into a tailored box, adopting an in-

dustrial design approach and implying a delib-erate or even preferred lifestyle.12

In the first half of the 1960s, capsule livingunits for individualised inhabitants by Archi-gram ( Capsule Home, 1964; Fig. 3), GasketHomes (1965) were generally plugged to ahardware infrastructural core or megastruc-ture frame, similarly as in the case of the fa-mous and paradigmatic Plug-in City (1964;Fig. 4). On the other hand, later designs ( Liv-ing Pod, 1966; Cushicle, 1966-1967; Suital-oon, 1968) break free of this attachment likePrice’s capsules in Potteries Thinkbelt andbecome, as prophesied by Banham in ”AHome is not a House”13, un-houses, com-

pletely furnished and equipped, truly mobile,software and minimal environments for con-temporary nomads and ad hoc spatial inter-ventions, or are radicalised into monofunc-tional spaces or equipment connected to theinfrastructure of living or activity environ-ments ( Control and Choice, 1966; units forthe Monte Carlo project, 1971). In his retro-spective discussion on creating new typolo-gies of minimum dwellings, Peter Cook de-scribes the capsule as ”a convenient term

ing for the working class in France and England had alrea-dy appeared before the congress, roughly in the periodsince the nineteenth century, referring to the example ofParis, which has a smaller residential area than the majo-

rity of proposals presented at the congress.5 Brejc, 1991: 141-150; Lynton, 1994

6 Brejc, 1991: 141

7 Cook, 1970: 11

8 Risselada, van den Heuvel, 2005; Williams Gold-hagen, Legault, 2000

9 Feuerstein, 1996: 61-62

10 Cook, 1999: 44

11 Cook, 1970: 63

12 Cook, 1999: 44

13 Banham, 1969

Fig. 2. Kisho Kurokawa: Nakagin Capsule TTokyo, 1972Sl. 2. Kisho Kurokawa: Nakagin toranj kapTokyo, 1972.

Fig. 3. Warren Chalk, Archigram: Capsule 1964, view of tower and plan of capsule u

1 - service duct, 2 - bathroom, 3 - pneum4 - clip-on appliance wall, 5 - pull-out sc6 - wide service door, 7 - services connec8 - storage unitSl. 3. Warren Chalk, Archigram: Kuæe kapspogled na toranj i tlocrt kapsule: 1 - servertikala, 2 - kupaonica, 3 - hidraulièno d4 - montažni zid s kuhinjskim ureðajima, 5na izvlaèenje, 6 - široka servisna vrata, 7prikljuèci, 8 - spremište


6/14


with which to discuss the perfected industri-ally-designed prototype home - with thespace capsules somewhere in the back-ground, creating the necessary rhetoric but

also calling to mind the concept of totally in-terrelated parts and appliances.”14

Similarly as in the case of the ArchigramGroup and at the same time in an entirely dif-ferent manner, the capsule concept in Japanrelates to the nation’s cultural tradition,though it is reformed under the pressure ofpost-war social reality; founded as a responseto urgent needs in fast-growing big cities inreconstruction and to ineffective spatial plan-ning, it also reflects faith in science, tech-nology and modernity of the newly defining Japan society. With regard to modern tech-nology, Japanese Metabolists15 implementedan architecture concept that encompasses

invisible tradition and enables ceaseless me-tabolist transformation of structures interre-lated with the cycle of changes in human life.The duality of permanence and transitivity ismanifested in durable megastructure forma-tions of ‘artificial land’ - artificial islands ormassive cores with cells - living capsule unitswith a shorter life cycle ‘growing’ out or being‘clipped’ on them. Cellular living units werealready used in projects by Kiyonori Kikutakeand Kisho Kurokawa at the end of the fifties,while they came to be referred to as ‘cap-sules’ mainly in the second half of the sixties,when they became an almost establishedand predictable practice among designers

and at competitions in Japan despite beingbuilt rarely.16 In addition to connective units,for instance in projects like Kitukake’s TowerShaped Community (1958; Fig. 6) and Kuro-kawa’s Box Type Apartments (1962), the Expo‘70 Takara Beautillon and Capsule House (1970) and the famous Nakagin Capsule Tow-er (1972; Fig. 2 and 7), Japanese architectsand designers devised many prototypes ofindependent, temporary and mobile livingunits, with GK Industrial Design Associates as

one of the most active groups, and elished a discourse on capsule architeand its social implications.17

The manifesto ”Capsule Declaration” analisations of built capsule dwellings elished Kisho Kurokawa as the leading rsentative and prophet of capsule architec

which he believed to hold liberating potefor the individual and the possibility of ratransformation of society as a whole. ”sule Declaration” tackles the concept ocapsule as an envelope for protecting thing organism, as an object of mobility ansure society, as a mechanism of individuand social diversity, as a creation of a dent family system founded on the indivias an object of the individual’s spiritual ment in a Metabolist city, as a private elope protecting one from unwanted infotion, as a characteristic product of prefabtion and mass production, and as a against systems and uniformity.18

Although Kurokawa’s arguments aboutsule architecture are practically philoscal and/or reflect social renaissance, desof capsule architecture by Japanese pioncan similarly be characterised withinframework of the prophecy on ‘the ineviity of experiment’, which was establishePeter Cook in Experimental Architectu1970. It was devised through an overviecharacteristics, works of protagonistsexamples mostly from the 1960s andbased on the primacy or combination ofactors of the logic of production, the valthe object, the value of the constituentsopportunity of the material and opport

of the technology .19

M AIN TYPES OF CAPSULE UNITS

GLAVNI TIPOVI KAPSULA

Two main types of capsule units are evidthe autonomous, self-sufficient type o

Fig. 4. Peter Cook, Archigram: Plug-in City, 1964Sl. 4. Peter Cook, Archigram: Plug-in City , 1964.

Fig. 5. GK Industrial Design Association: KomatsuSki-lodge, 1962; 1 - porch unit, 2 - service unit,3 - bunks, 4 - framework of timber, sheathedexternally with fibreglass, internally with plywood,5 - concrete pad, 6 - rubber cushions, 7 - shelf,8 - stepsSl. 5. GK Udruženje za industrijski dizajn: Skijaškakuæa Komatsu, 1962.; 1 - ulaz, 2 - servisnaprostorija, 3 - ležajevi, 4 - drveni okvir, izvanaojaèan staklenim vlaknima, a iznutra obloženšperploèom, 5 - betonski oslonac, 6 - gumenipodmetaèi za apsorpciju, 7 - polica, 8 - stube

14 Cook, 2002: 80-82; ”Buckminster Fuller was thfather of the concept, the space capsule the outridethe capsules of Kisho Kurokawa (seen by membArchigram in issues of ”Architecture d’Aujourd’huones to beat.”15 As early as at the end of fifties, an architecturalment called ‘Metabolism’ was established during prtions for the 1960 World Design Conference in Toky

movement was based on the philosophy of transformand encompassed urbanism and industrial design barchitecture. In Metabolism 1960 - The Proposals foUrbanism, the architects Kiyonori Kikutake, FumMaki, Masato Ohtaka, Noriaki (Kisho) Kurokawa, Noboru Kawazoe and designer Kiyoshi Awazu prestheir view of human society as a part of a continuousral entity that includes animals and plants and undetheir faith in technology as ”an extension of huma[Kawazoe, et al. 1960]16 A good example are participating and winninjects at competitions organised by the Shinkenchi pan Architect) magazine in 1966 and 1967. [Nit1967: 207-216; Dahinden, 1972: 76-81, 92-97]

2

1 3

74

6

58


7/14


capsule and the connective type, which isconnected to infrastructure or megastructureframework and is dependent on it.

Autonomous capsules: from mobile archi-

tecture of complete autarchy and nomadismto composite cellular agglomerations, bio-logical metaphors and structuralism - Au-tonomous cellular capsule units are indepen-dent living units intended for one person or asmaller household; they can be completelyautarchic or constructionally solid enoughand of such forms that they enable horizontaland/or vertical aggregation, facilitating thecreation of more complex composite struc-tures. Independent cellular capsule units arehighly mobile and represent the most appro-priate implementation of the demand forcomplete autonomy and nomadism. Theseunits are the most direct implementation of

technology transfer from space engineeringfor the needs on Earth. The experimental fieldincludes designs of living units for extremeconditions, which imply entirely new socialrelations and community formation, the de-velopment and use of new materials and en-abling the tendency for nomadism, estab-lished in the desire to transform the society

•

after World War II and culminating in counter-culture movements in the 1960s.

Living units for polar research set an examplefor many proposals for temporary dwellings

in less demanding conditions, such as skilodges, alpine huts or more extreme propos-als for underwater dwellings. In addition toArchigram’s Living Pod or even Suitaloon andthe Komatsu ski lodge by GK Design in Japan(Fig. 5), Matti Suuronen’s Futuro House fromlate 1960s is a paradigmatic and famous ex-ample of such a living unit.

Structurally speaking, independent units com-prise primarily types of prefabricated struc-tures of homogeneous monocoque20, frameor panel designs with mass-produced, stable,light-weight and mobile components or evenentire volumes, which were also enabled bythe use of new materials, i.e. plastic, render-

ing the design of living environments a partof industrial design. First prototypes of an all-plastic house (1955-1956) were Ionel Schein’smonocoque single space modules for hotelcabins and mobile library.21 Arthur Quarmby,the British pioneer of the use of plastic in ar-chitecture, paradigmatically described cabinsas ”a brilliant exercise in the development ofa living capsule to cater for ten hours of nightand eight hours of daytime. It includes twinbeds which convert for daytime use into acouch and a table, and a splendidly compacttop-lit bathroom with W.C., shower andwashbasin.”22 Schein’s Maison Plastique from 1956 is a proposal of a ‘growing’, flexi-

ble house made of plastics in a panel design,while plastic houses designed by Cesare Peawere a direct reference to Archigram with re-gard to the question of expendable architec-ture and corresponding responses, similarlyas Qarmby’s ‘shells’ for British Railways andolder Fuller’s experiments, as well as tradi-tional prefabricated houses, house trailersand caravans.23

With Fuller’s 1940 caravan Mechanical Wingserving as a model, living ‘capsules’ for the

17 In 1969, the Japanese magazine SD (Space Design)published a thematic issue on ‘capsules’ with several pa-pers by Japanese Metabolists, including Fumihiko Maki,Noboru Kawazoe and Kisho Kurokawa, as well as a dis-cussion and description of activities by GK Industrial De-sign Associates. [*** 1969: 36-45]

18 Kurokawa, 1977: 75-85

19 Cook, 1970: 30-6720 In 1943, Marcel Breuer devised a housing prototypewith Plas-2-Point , one of the first projects where the outerskin also had a structural function. The project was a forerun-ner of experiments with a single-shell, i.e. monocoque con-struction, which emerged at the end of the 1950s with thedevelopment of the plastics industry. [Bergdoll, 2008: 21]

21 Busbea, 2007: 58. Schein designed it together withthe engineers Magnant and Coulon.

22 Quarmby, 1974: 48

23 See: Archigram 3, 1963, on ‘expendability’. [Cook,1999: 14-15]

Fig. 6. Kiyonori Kikutake: Tower Shaped Co1958, view and section of tower and detaunitSl. 6. Kiyonori Kikutake: Stambene jedinictornja, 1958., pogled i presjek tornja i detmontažne jedinice

Fig. 7. Kisho Kurokawa: Nakagin Capsule TTokyo, 1972, axonometric view of tower aaxonometric cut-away view of capsuleSl. 7. Kisho Kurokawa: Toranj kapsula NaTokyo, 1972., aksonometrijski prikaz torni aksonometrijski presjek kapsule

Fig. 8. Sean Godsell: Future Shack, a recycshipping container as a mass-produced rehouse for emergency and relief housing, Sl. 8. Sean Godsell: Koliba buduænosti, rebrodski kontejner kao masovno proizvedprenosiva kuæa za potrebe osiguravanja su nuždi ili za odmor, 1985.-1997.


8/14


needs of the nomad were completely fur-nished and equipped mobile dwellings.24 However, as the American caravan was neveractually used as a mobile home, the 1960sprojects of truly mobile dwellings for contem-porary nomads appear to be an experimentthat grasps the opportunity for true libera-tion.25 Projects of potential emancipation

were realised as dismountable containerdwellings: from units designed by the Horn-sey College of Art for the Milan Triennial 1964 to Alberto Rosselli’s Mobile House exhibitedat Italy: The New Domestic Landscape, 1972,as well as many contemporary successors ofliving units for extreme conditions and mobileor temporary art interventions (Fig. 8 and 9).

On the other hand, composite cells are unitswith an interior structure that allows for cellu-lar agglomerations. Such units are generallymodular and constructionally stable struc-tures designed as monocoque or a frame andinfill. Composite cells are completely furnishedand equipped for functioning as independent-ly as possible, as also characteristic of auto-nomous cells. Nevertheless, assembling or‘growth’26 of cellular agglomerations revealsthe issue of a complete lack of control, whichrenders difficult or completely negates the ba-sic possibility of further mobility of such cellu-lar units due to vertical agglomeration.

Taking the definition of the capsule and itsdemand for mobility into account, integrated‘capsules’ can only be referred to as such ona metaphorical level if disassembling thecomposite structure is no longer possible.

The dismountable version most commonlyappears in the form of light-weight, prefabri-

cated and container units and their tempo-rary designs, usually reaching up to severalfloor heights. Wolfgang Döring’s early experi-ments with plastic cells, which date back tothe mid-sixties, or the Portakabin system canbe compared to ‘stacking’, prefabricatedcomponents of contemporary and highlypopular container architectures, as they buildon the potential of realisable general mobi-lity and nomadism as well as solving housingissues.27

Furthermore, the ‘metaphorical’ version em-ploys prefabrication and is usually based onunits constructed of dwelling materials thatare more durable and conventional, weavinginto compositions with representational fea-tures of the open structure, growth, incom-pleteness, fragmentation or even organicity.In the history of architecture, this versionrepresented an attempt to establish a rela-tionship between the built and social struc-

tures dealt with by structuralism in archture. A typical and notorious exampMoshe Safdie’s Habitat ’67 for Expo ’6Montreal.28

Connective capsules: megastructureclip-on/plug-in units - The second mainof capsule units, depending both on the

bearing and other infrastructural systemthe connective type, which can be clippeplugged in, hanged or inserted in the structure frame or core. Stemming fromrelationship between the megastructurethe equipped living capsule, Archigrclip-on/plug-in concept29 denotes a pragic system for solving housing issues wsimultaneous creation of a new lifestyleerating’ anarchism, techno-fetishism ancasionally an ironic undertone of the into a brave new world . On the other h Japanese Metabolists express this relaship through social and political commitinspired by a technologically conditi

‘natural growth’ and ‘cyclicality’. Paradigic and pioneering examples of such desinclude Kikutake’s Tower Shaped Command Kurokawa’s Bamboo Type Commfrom the end of the fifties or the 1964 CapHomes by Archigram’s Warren Chalk, wwere realised in Kurokawa’s Nakagin CapTower in 1972 and his Capsule House K the same year.

On the other hand, the connective type ocapsule, which is inserted in the strucframe, is directly related to the traditiospace frames.30 Reyner Banham notesthe first project that resembled a megasture was the 1952 group project produc

the Architectural Association31, while he ents François Jamagne’s project for Ant

•

24 The first caravans in the United States becamelar in early 1930s and by 1937 represented a permshelter for two hundred thousand families, mainto the consequences of the Great Depression. Cawith sanitary facilities were introduced after 1950. [1999: 69-73]

25 Scott, 2007: 215-237

26 Dahinden notes that the growth of cellular agrations has often been inappropriately comparenatural growth, as natural growth in the plant worldto the ultimate state of maturity. [Dahinden, 1972: 2

27 Composite cellular capsule units reveal the releof capsule architecture in conditions that requiremum pragmatics. While many similar examples an

jects could be pointed out, particularly when it comcontainer architecture, it should be noted that mini.e. capsule units are used primarily as dwellings fodents, functioning as a pragmatic tool for solving hoconditions, but also cater to temporary living needs sonal workers or in case of natural disasters. Cedric ‘non-architectural’ architecture in Potteries Thinkbthus become a reality in more compact systems.

28 Reyner Banham describes the development project and its implementation, but always refers tocellular units comprising the megastructure as ‘habcapsules’, ‘house-capsules’, ‘concrete-box capsu‘stacked capsules’. This does not correspond to our tion of capsules as developed from pioneering exam

Fig. 9. N55: Snail Shell, 2002, low cost living unit,which enables living in various naturalenvironments, also functions as an artistic

intervention in public spaceFig. 9. N55: Snail Shell (Puževa kuæica), 2002.,jeftina stambena jedinica koja omoguæava stanovanjeu razlièitim prirodnim okolišima. Takoðer možefunkcionirati kao umjetnièka intervencija u javnomprostoru.

Fig. 10. Miha Kajzelj: Bivouac 2, Kotovo sedlo(1965 m), Julian Alps, 2005Sl. 10. Miha Kajzelj: Bivouac 2, Kotovo sedlo (1965 m), Julijske Alpe, 2005.


9/14


from 1955 as one of the first examples ofmegastructure with a diagonally braced verti-cal frame and inserted highly technological‘capsules’, which in this case promoted maxi-mum flexibility of an art museum.32

In addition to Archigram’s nomadic projects,for instance Blow-out Village (1966) or Free

Time Node: Trailer Cage (1967), Metabolists’spiral and frame structures that wait to becompleted randomly, such as Kurokawa’s Takara Beautillon and structures for Kiku-take’s flexible move-net units, as well as Yona Friedman’s space frames with ad hoc cellular dwellings from the second half of thefifties, other numerous examples of usingand implementing the typology in the 1960scan be highlighted as paradigmatic examplesof frames and capsule insets. In an early andtypical example from 1964, Wolfgang Döringproposed relatively traditionally designed,modular and prefabricated ‘family’ duplexliving cells as insets in a multilevel steel

frame. At the beginning of the seventies Pe-ter Cook recognised potential in Döring’shousing projects and their use of plastics, asthey made ”the idea of the simple prefabri-cated capsule a near reality”.33 (Fig. 11)

CONTEMPORARY EXAMPLES WITH MANIFESTATIONS FROM CULTURAL ENVIRONMENTS OF SLOVENIA AND CROATIA

SUVREMENI PRIMJERI I NJIHOVE MANIFESTACIJE U KULTURNIM SREDINAMA SLOVENIJE I HRVATSKE

The trends of the experimental approach are

illustrated in a comparative overview with se-lected examples from the cultural environ-

since living units no longer satisfy the necessary criterionof mobility after they are built in. [Banham, 1976: 106-107]

29 It was described more thoroughly by Reyner Banhamin his paper ”A Clip-on Architecture”. [Banham, 1965: 535]

30 Examples extend from Paxton’s Crystal Palace in 1851and the development of three-dimensional space framesystems to a great interest and use in the 1950s and 1960s,with main protagonists including Buckminster Fuller, Kon-rad Wachsmann, André Waterkeyn and others.

31 Banham, 1976: 85

32 Banham, 1976: 37-38

33 Cook, 1970: 87

34 The project was developed in prof. Ravnikar’s studioat the Ljubljana School of Architecture. [Kobe, 1972: 11]

35 *** 1975. Although this could hardly be characterisedas true capsule architecture, Domicijan Serajnik’s projectis well though-out protocapsule architecture, with at leastas much credit for clairvoyance going to the client, i.e. theMinistry of Education.

36 http://makrolab.ljudmila.org/faq/ [19/1/2013]

37 As a thorough communication among a limitednumber of individuals in an isolated space should producemore ‘evolutionary codes’ of social relations than largesocial movements. [http://makrolab.ljudmila.org/re-ports/press/slo /19/1/2013]

38 http://makrolab.ljudmila.org/reports/published/pelj-han/ [19/1/2013]

Fig. 12. Architectural studio G&B: FA Houenergetically autonomous folding mobilSl. 12. Arhitektonski studio G&B: SMO Kugetski autonomna sklopiva pokretna jedi

Fig. 11. Wolfgang Döring: Stapelhaus(House of stacked units), 1964, model, plaSl. 11. Wolfgang Döring: Stapelhaus (Kuæ

naslaganim jedinicama), 1964., model, tlo

ments of Slovenia and Croatia in the pioneer-ing times and contemporaneity.

The autonomous type - With regard tomaterial experimentations, demands for mo-bility and autarchy, the cultural environmentsof Slovenia and Croatia also offer some pio-neering as well as contemporary examples.

In 1972, Kobe and Garzarolli’s Soft House,the Slovenian ‘protocapsule’ proposal formaterial, technological and social redefini-tion of architecture, dwelling and home,which introduced a hard foam building with alimited, ten-year life span, attempted to re-spond to contemporary issues of high hous-ing prices and demands for increased mobili-ty that traditional construction could nottackle.34 In terms of mobility, the Slovenianproject of a travelling library from 1947 shouldalso be mentioned. The concept transformedthe railway station into an ad hoc experimen-tal cultural centre avant la lettre, with a mo-bile exhibition held in a freight car, book saleand a dwelling for the librarian.35 Followingthe path of independent structures like Liv-ing Pod, Komatsu ski lodge or Futuro House,similarly contemporary, formally and struc-turally diverse designs like Richard Horden’sSki Haus and, last but not least, bivouacs bySlovenian architect Miha Kajzelj should bementioned (Fig. 10).

A unique art example from Slovenia is Marko

Peljhan’s Makrolab36, a mobile laboratorythat was installed in several sites around theworld in a ten-year period before 2007. Ma-krolab is (was) an autonomous and self-suf-ficient communications, research and livingunit, connected to the external world via elec-tronic media and capable of sustaining workof four people in physical isolation (Fig. 1).37 This transforms the capsule into a social ex-periment.38 Instead of filtrating informationand seeking individuality or intimacy, the

•


10/14


residents of the Makrolab capsule are inten-sively and literally involved in activities in theglobal space of flows; this capsule unit is of aheterotopian nature, simultaneously func-tioning outside the system and being criti-cally connected to it, and represents a trueexample of using the liberating potential ofthe capsule in the quest for autonomy in con-

temporary space.39

In the field of container-like prefabricatedbuildings, we can mention examples like theSlovenian RIMAMOBIL or the Croatian SMO- Sklopivi Mobilni Objekt (FA House) by G&Barchitectural studio, which is an energeticallyautonomous foldable mobile unit and doesnot require a building permission nor connec-tions to the infrastructure.40 They both followthe path of highly-tailored mobile prefabri-cated units, which can be used for differentprogrammes and can be seen as experimentsin the redefinition of dwelling connected tothe site or prescribed relation between theunit and its programme or use (Fig. 12).

While belonging to the group of autonomous- composite units, which can form openstructures, the K-67 kiosk, a famous Slove-nian example of a flexible system for urbanfurniture, which was being designed by SašaMächtig from 1966 onwards, could hardly beclassified among capsule systems, eventhough the independent unit could functionas a capsule envelope (Fig. 13).41 The samecan be said for his later UMS system. The ba-sic ‘cross’ element functioned either as aclosed independent unit or allowed for con-nections to new units, generating a passablemulticellular system. Therefore, this example

can be classified as a metaphorical capsulesystem, similarly as the 1964 Chenéac’sproject42 with comparable characteristics.

Examples of light-weight, prefabricated andcontainer composite or stacking units areomnipresent all around the world. There areseveral manufacturers of container units inSlovenia and Croatia, while numerous stu-dent projects and, last but not least, Jure Ko-tnik’s book and exhibition at the Museum ofArchitecture and Design in Ljubljana have re-cently contributed to the popularisation ofcontainer architecture in the area. The latterpresents such architecture as low-pricedmodular construction with an emphasis on

individuality and environmental friendliness- with recycled containers, fast installation,minimum noise-related stress on the environ-

ment and site intervention, i.e. as envmentally-friendly construction.43

The connective type - A structural valent of Döring’s or even Friedman’s proals can also be found in Croatia. Andrija njakoviæ44, a pioneer of experimental atecture, developed a project for an apart

building for the 1968 competition in Osijas to create a flexible system that woucilitate the merging of positive features dividual and collective housing construin a ‘socialist society’. The basic frame sture and areas for ensuring basic functand hygienic needs is upgraded with peally tailored apartment units for residwho can arrange the layout, form and appance of the apartment unit with their personal engagement.45 The technologfeasible and planned rational solution iscurrent with world trends, but can be clfied among structures of metaphoricalsule systems only conditionally due to a

plied possibility of inserting prefabriccapsule units, potentially evident only imodel, and since the system was design‘traditional construction’ (Fig. 15).

This group of projects also includes conporary designs by Studio Up, which usecapsule concept in a metaphorical mannprojects such as Spectator’s Group hquarters in Zagreb (Fig. 14), where workas, i.e. ‘capsules’46, are set in a strucframe, as also represented on the facada variation on the theme of capsule hwith Goli Bosi Design Hostel in Split.

In contemporary architectural practice

capsule concept is metaphorically usedin the form of prefabricated, monofunctiprimarily sanitary facilities built in the fstructure of many hotel, housing or ocomplexes.47 A sensitive authorial andtirely individual interpretation and desisuch form but in a completely differentting can, for instance, be found in Five Hoon Silba by the architects Igor Pedišiæ anLetiloviæ, who integrated crucial program

•

39 Makrolab is (was) a non-profit project financeby state and interstate institutions as well as privamobile capital and individuals. Moreover, the protransterritorial.

40 http://www.gib.hr/SMO/smo.html [15/6/2013

41 Although Marjetica Potrè notes that it was nolikely for K-67 kiosks to function as a home, thislonger as unrealisable. [Potrè, 2003: 148; Mächtig60-63]

42 Chenéac, Prototype de cellule polyvalente, 1964bea, 2007: 60]

43 http://www.aml.si/dogodki/aktualno/dogodkni/kontejner.html [15/10/2010]; Kotnik, 2008

44 His commitment to architectural experiments dent in many projects [Galoviæ, 2004: 18-19]. Thementary for the 1966 national competition for the pof the Seven Secretaries of SKOJ youth centre in Z

Fig. 13. Saša Mächtig: Kiosk K-67, 1967-1969Sl. 13. Saša Mächtig: Kiosk K-67, 1967.-1969.

Fig. 14. Lea Pelivan, Toma Plejiæ (Studio UP)+ Ivana Franke + Silvio Vujièiæ: Spectator Group’sHeadquarters, 2010, axonometric view with set-in‘work capsules’Sl. 14. Lea Pelivan, Toma Plejiæ (Studio UP)+ Ivana Franke + Silvio Vujièiæ: Poslovna zgradasjedišta Spectator grupe , 2010., aksonometrijskiprikaz s umetnutim ‘radnim jedinicama’


11/14


for contemporary functioning of an existingtraditional building in five external mono-functional units without any major interven-tions within it48, though the project remainson the level of metaphorical capsules due tothe unfulfilled condition of mobility (Fig. 16).

CONCLUSIONZ AKLJUÈAK

The period from the late fifties of the previ-ous century onwards was highly favourablefor experimental work by individuals who putforth proposals for future society and dwell-ings to provide responses to the actual situa-tion regarding the social, economic and alsospatial reality. Within this context and result-ing from possibilities offered by the newtechnology, the concept of the capsule wasformed, introducing a living unit intended pri-marily for the individual or couples withoutchildren and strongly challenging the tradi-

tional perception of home, its material struc-ture and spatial relations offered by the newtypology. Many designs of modernist minimalliving cells for the individual could be regard-ed as protocapsule units, while the 1960s liv-ing capsules, when compared to the former,represent a technologically compact upgradeand fulfilment of the mobility condition.

The capsule concept is a relevant, vivid andsignificant part of contemporary architecturalproduction and every-day life. Offering aclearer definition, it denotes projects thatbuild on the tradition of original proposals aswell as metaphorical manifestations inspiredby them.

The purpose of this paper was not to providea complete overview of capsule systems inthe development of architecture, but prima-rily to highlight the origins, basic types, man-ifestations and use of the concept in pioneer-ing times and contemporaneity, illustratingthem with some examples of experimentalpractices from the cultural environments ofSlovenia and Croatia. While at least an appar-

ent commitment to experiment can be ex-pected in contemporary practices, these pio-neering examples reveal concurrent and pro-gressive practices of architects and designersalso in the cultural environments of Sloveniaand Croatia as early as in the revolutionarysixties of the previous century.

After comparing pioneering and contempo-rary designs, it can be concluded that theutopian tone of pioneers has been supersed-ed by productivity, application and viabilityhere and now. Heroic manifestos and theirpromises of social change, which would sup-

posedly make capsule architecture truly real-isable, were replaced in contemporaneity bysolving housing issues of the current realityin creative fields of architecture, industrialdesign and more or less subversive artisticpractices. Products, i.e. capsule dwellings,are thus both urban and anti-urban propos-als, stimulators and interpositions in publicspace, environments of retreat and contem-plation in the centre of and away from citynoise, as well as exponents and installationsat exhibitions, or appear in all of the above-mentioned environments, testing their ownlimits with their presence. This establishes,though not always explicitly, a transdiscipli-nary discourse of the experiment, which dis-covers and reveals the issues of the individu-al and community, housing typology, build-ing and dwelling, function and representation,and by offering a common architectural de-nominator relativises the authority and au-tonomy of disciplines, uniting them in a com-plex and richer whole that responds to theunpredictability of contemporaneity.

[Translated by: Mojca Trampuš, MA]

Fig. 15. Andrija Mutnjakoviæ with collaboapartment building for the competition i1968, model, section, elevationSl. 15. Andrija Mutnjakoviæ sa suradnicimvišestambena zgrada za natjeèaj u Osijekumodel, presjek, proèelje

Fig. 16. Igor Pedišiæ, Iva Letiloviæ: Five ‘capon the Silba island, 2011Sl. 16. Igor Pedišiæ, Iva Letiloviæ: Pet ‘kapsna otoku Silbi, 2011.

even carries the title ”The Right to Experiment” [Mutnja-koviæ, 1988: 85-97].

45 Mutnjakoviæ, 1988: 68

46 These spaces are designated as ‘work capsules’ and

integrated in the structure, lacking the condition of mobi-lity [http://pogledaj.to/arhitektura/studio-up-poslovna-zgrada-sjedista-spectator-grupe /22/12/2012/]. Althoughthe experimental potential of the capsule concept couldbe recognised in the project, these spaces can be classi-fied as capsules on the representational or metaphoricallevel only.

47 There are a number of producers and examples ofprefabricated bathroom pods. For example, company fromSlovenia with a long tradition and more than 70.000 ma-nufactured units is Varis Lendava d.d. [http://en.varis-lendava.si/references /15/6/2013].

48 The project is also called Five Capsules, Silba. [Mrdu-ljaš, 2012: 104-109]


12/14


Bibliography

Literatura

1. Banham, R. (1965), A Clip-on Architecture, ”Archi-tectural Design”, November: 534-535, London 2. Banham, R. (1969), A home is not a house, ”Ar-

chitectural Design”, January: 45-48, London

3. Banham, R. (1976), Megastructure: Urban Futu-res of the Recent Past, Thames and Hudson,London

4. Bergdoll, B. (2008), Home Delivery: Visciditiesof Modernist Dream From Taylorized Serial Pro-duction to Digital Customization, in: Home Deli-very [Bergdoll, B.; Christensen, P.], The Mu-seum of Modern Art, Birkhäuser: 12-26, New York/Basel/Boston/Berlin

5. von Borries, F. (2010), Klimakapseln: Überle-bens-bedingungen in der Katastrophe, Suhr-kamp, Berlin

6. Boomkens, R. (1998), Een drempelwereld. Mo-

derne ervaring en stedelijke openbaarheid, NaiUitgevers, Rotterdam

7. Brejc, T. (1991), Modernizem: oris kriterijev,”Sinteza”, October (87-90): 141-150, Ljubljana

8. Busbea, L. (2007), Topologies: The Urban Uto- pia in France, 1960-1970, MIT Press, Cambridge,Mass.

9. Cook, P. (1970), Experimental Architecture, Uni-verse Books, New York

10. Cook, P. (ed.) (1999), Archigram, Princeton Ar-chitectural Press, New York

11. Cook, P. (2002), Capsules, Pods and Skins, in:Concerning Archigram [ed. Crompton, D.] Ar-chigram Archives: 80-82, London

12. Èelik, M. (2007), New Architecture in Slovenia,Springer Verlag: 160, Wien

13. Dahinden, J. (1972), Urban Structures for theFuture, Praeger Publishers, New York14. De Cauter, L. (2004), The Capsular Civilization:

On the City in the Age of Fear, NAi Publishers,Rotterdam

15. Feuerstein, G. (1996), Der Mensch in der Kap-sel, in: Wieviel Raum braucht der Mensch? Woh-nen für das Existenzminimum [ed. Haussmann,R.; Schulte, K.], Aries, 61-62, München

16. Galoviæ, K. (2004), Razgovor: Andrija Mutnja-koviæ, arhitekt; Oduvijek me zanimao eksperi-ment, ”Vijenac”, 12 (277): 18-19, Zagreb

17. Heynen, H. (1999), Architecture and Moder-nity: A Critique, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.,London

18. Kawazoe, N.; Kikutake, K.; Kurokawa, N.; Oh-taka, M.; Maki, F. (1960), Metabolism 1960: The

Proposals for New Urbanism, Bijutu SyuppanSha, Tokyo

19. Kikutake, K. (1978), Koso To Keikaku, BijutsuShuppan-sha: 102-105, Tokyo

20. Kobe, G. (1972), Mehka hiša, ”Arhitektov bil-ten”, May: 11, Ljubljana

21. Kotnik, J. (2008), Container Architecture: Thisbook contains 6441 containers, Links Books,Barcelona

22. Kurokawa, K. (1977), Metabolism in Architec-ture, Studio Vista, London

23. Lynton, N. (1994), Zgodba moderne umetno-sti: Pregled likovne umetnosti 20. stoletja, Can-karjeva založba, Ljubljana

24. Mächtig, S. (1969), Kiosk sistem K-67, ”Sinte-za”, October (15): 60-63, Ljubljana

25. Mrduljaš, M. (2012), Being Open to Reality:Five Capsules, Silba, Croatia, ”Oris”, 14 (75):104-109, Zagreb

26. Mumford, E. (2000), The CIAM Discourse on Ur-banism, 1928-1960, MIT Press, Cambridge,Mass., London

27. Mutnjakoviæ, A. (1988), Tercijarni grad, Revija,Osijek

28. Nitschke, G. (1967), The Metabolists, ”Architec-tural Design”, May: 207-216, London

29. Potrè, M. (2003), Next stop, Kiosk = Naslednja postaja Kiosk: Moderna galerija Ljubljana,29.10.-30.11., Moderna galerija, Ljubljana

30. Prahl, S. (1999), Gimme Shelter, Short-term So-lutions for a Long-term Problem: TemporaryHousing for No-Income and Low-Income Peo-

ple, in: Transportable Environments: Theory,Context, Design and Technology [ed. Kronen-burg, R.], E&FN Spon: 69-73, London

31. Quarmby, A. (1974), Plastics and Architecture,Praeger Publishers, Washington/New York

32. Risselada, M.; van den Heuvel, D. (2005.), Team 10: in search of a Utopia of the present, NAi Publishers, Rotterdam

33. Williams Goldhagen, S.; Legault, R. (ed.)(2000), Anxious Modernisms: Experimentationin Postwar Architecture Culture, MIT Press, Cam-bridge, Mass.

34. *** (1965), Industrial Design in Japan, ”Architec-tural Design”, July: 355, London

35. *** (1969), ”SD - Space Design”, 3, Japan

36. *** (1975),”Arhitektov bilten”, 24/25, Ljubljana

Sources

Izvori

Internet sourcesInternetski izvori

1. http://makrolab.ljudmila.org/archives/imrc/2000/2000rott3.jpg [15/10/2010]

2. http://makrolab.ljudmila.org/faq/ [19/1/2

3. http://makrolab.ljudmila.org/reports/pres[19/1/2013]

4. http://makrolab.ljudmila.org/reports/pub/peljhan/ [19/1/2013]

5. http://www.aml.si/dogodki/aktualno/dki-strani/kontejner.html [15/10/2010]

6. http://www.n55.dk/manuals/snail_shellem/sss.html [19/1/2013]

7. http://pogledaj.to/wp-content/uploads/11/studio-up_aksonometrija.jpg [22/12/2

8. http://pogledaj.to/arhitektura/studio-uslovna-zgrada-sjedista-spectator-grupe/

[22/12/2012]

9. http://en.varis-lendava.si/references/[15/6/2013]

10. http://www.gib.hr/SMO/smo.html [15/6/

Illustration sources

Izvori ilustracija

Fig. 1. http://makrolab.ljudmila.org/archivesgearc/2000/2000rott3.jpg

Fig. 2. Photo: author

Fig. 3. Cook, 1999: 45

Fig. 4. Cook, 1970: 105Fig. 5. *** 1965: 355, 356

Fig. 6. Kikutake, 1978: 102, 104

Fig. 7. Bergdoll, Christensen, 2008: 146

Fig. 8. Kotnik, 2008: 198, 200

Fig. 9. http://www.n55.dk/manuals/snail_ssystem/sss.html

Fig. 10. Èelik, 2007: 160, 161

Fig. 11. Dahinden, 1972: 66, 67

Fig. 12. Architectural studio G&B

Fig. 13. Photo: author

Fig. 14. http://pogledaj.to/wp-content/uplo2010/11/studio-up_aksonometrija.jpg

Fig. 15. Mutnjakoviæ, 1988: 66, 69

Fig. 16. Mrduljaš, 2012: 106, 107


13/14


Biography

Biografija

Summary

Sažetak

Koncept arhitektonske kapsule kao eksperimentPodrijetlo i manifestacije s odabranim primjerima u Sloveniji i Hrvatskoj

PETER ŠENK , PhD, is a lecturer at the Faculty of CivilEngineering, University of Maribor, and a practic-ing architect. He studied architecture at the Facultyof Architecture, Ljubljana, and Berlage Institute,Rotterdam, and obtained his PhD in Philosophyand Theory of Visual Culture from the Faculty of Hu-manities, University of Primorska. He is a co-found-er of Studio Stratum, an architecture and urbanismpractice, and Institute for Spatial Policies [IPoP].

Dr.sc. PETER ŠENK , predavaè na Graðevinskom fa-kultetu Sveuèilišta u Mariboru. Studirao je arhitek-turu na Arhitektonskom fakultetu Sveuèilišta uLjubljani i na Berlage Institutu u Rotterdamu, Nizo-zemska. Doktorsku disertaciju iz filozofije i teorijevizualne kulture obranio je na Fakultetu za huma-nistièke studije u Kopru. Suosnivaè je arhitekton-skog i urbanistièkog biroa Studio Stratum kao iZavoda za prostornu politiku.

Koncept kapsule, pod èime se podrazumijeva kom-paktna, minimalna, potpuno namještena i oprem-ljena stambena jedinica, uglavnom je u povijestiarhitekture povezana s trendom megastruktura iutopijskih radikalnih arhitektonskih eksperime-nata iz 60-ih godina 20. stoljeæa. Opæepoznate va-rijacije ovoga koncepta èine hotelske kapsule i pre-fabricirani sanitarni objekti, konstrukcije za zaštituod atmosferskih utjecaja, te kapsule kao ogranièenii/ili kontrolirani graðevni sklopovi ili podruèja kojinisu više direktno povezani s izvornim konceptom.Cilj je rada prikazati podrijetlo, osnovne tipove,manifestacije i upotrebu ovoga tipa stambene jedi-nice od prvih primjera do suvremenih rješenja, tena odabranim primjerima prikazati važnost ovogakoncepta u svome prvotnom, ali i metaforiènomobliku u kontekstu kulturnih sredina Slovenije i Hr-vatske. Podrijetlo i razvoj koncepta kapsule u arhi-

tekturi može se pratiti kroz teorijske koncepte mo-derne, u kontekstu arhitekture nakon Drugoga svjet-skog rata i u sklopu izrazito tehnološki utemeljenearhitekture, osobito u Velikoj Britaniji i Japanu.Temelj eksperimentalne arhitekture u Velikoj Brita-niji postavili su revizionisti moderne u sklopu Ne-zavisne grupe u drugoj polovici 1950-ih godina.Radikalna promišljanja o naèinu stanovanja, stam-benim objektima, životu u gradu i razumijevanjuokoliša poslije su razvili prvi protagonisti arhitek-ture kapsule poèetkom 1960-ih na temelju stapanjasuvremene tehnologije i pop-kulture, konzumeriz-ma, mobilnosti, masovne proizvodnje te eksperi-mentiranja s novim materijalima.U Britaniji, èlanovi Archigram grupe i Cedric Priceprojektirali su 1964. godine stambene jedinice kojesu se nazivale kapsulama. Eksperiment projekti-ranja stambene jedinice kao kapsule bio je potak-

nut konceptom svemirske kapsule kao odgovor napitanja o tehnologiji graðenja i uèinkovitosti. Usto,pitanja koja su se odnosila na društvene i kulturnepromjene, kao i prikladnu stambenu tipologiju, na-lazila su svoj odgovor u kontekstu ergonomskogdizajna kapsule, moguænosti masovne proizvodnjei moguænosti korištenja elemenata koji bi bili po-trošni, po potrebi nadograðivani i meðusobno zam-

P

jenjivi, te koji bi se (kao i cijele kapsule) tako moglismatrati potrošnom robom, usvajajuæi pritom pri-stup inaèe karakteristièan za industrijski dizajn ucilju kreiranja novoga životnog stila obilježenogkonceptom potencijalne mobilnosti.Iako je koncept kapsule u Japanu povezan s tradi-cijom nevidljivog (invisible tradition), on je u osno-vi ponajprije nastao kao odgovor na hitne potrebebrzorastuæih gradova u kontekstu obnove i neefi-kasnoga prostornog planiranja, a bio je dodatnoojaèan vjerom u znanost, tehnologiju i modernostu sklopu novoga japanskog društva. Neki su meta-bolisti uspostavili dualnost trajnosti i prijelaznostiu svojim projektima veæ krajem 50-ih godina 20.stoljeæa. Takve tendencije vidljive su u trajnim me-gastrukturama s æelijama, tj. stambenim jedinica-ma - kapsulama s kraæim vijekom trajanja koje suiz njih izrastale, no naziv ‘kapsula’ nije bio u široj

upotrebi prije druge polovice 1960-ih godina. Te-meljni dokument „Deklaracija o kapsuli”, kao irealizacije stambenih objekata kapsula - potvrdilisu Kisho Kurokawu kao vodeæeg predstavnika ipredvodnika arhitekture kapsule, za koju je vjero-vao da predstavlja oslobaðajuæi potencijal za poje-dinca i moguænost radikalne transformacije društvau cjelini.Unatoè prilièno dvosmislenoj definiciji, izvorni kon-cept kapsule - kako u Velikoj Britaniji tako i u Japa-nu - odnosi se prije svega na kompaktnu, mobilnu,potpuno opremljenu i ergonomski dizajniranustambenu ili monofunkcionalnu jedinicu s ugraðe-nim rokom trajanja. Dva glavna tipa stambenih je-dinica kapsula mogu se jasno razabrati: prvi je au-tonomni (autonomous), samodostatni tip kapsulekoji se manifestira kao mobilna arhitektura te imaobilježja potpune samodostatnosti i nomadske po-

kretljivosti, kompozitne æelijske aglomeracije, bio-loške metafore i strukturalizma. Drugi tip je spa-jajuæi (connective) s obilježjima spajanja i priklju-èivanja, a može se spojiti, prikljuèiti, objesiti iliumetnuti u infrastrukturni okvir ili jezgru o kojimaovisi. U pogledu njihove konstrukcije, oba tipa jedi-nica sadrže primarno masovno proizvedene, prefa-bricirane homogene ili kompozitne tzv. monocoque

konstrukcije, okvirni ili panel dizajn s knim ojaèanjem na osnovi tipa aglomeracAutonomne stambene jedinice kapsulljaju projekte potencijalnog oslobaðanjbilnosti u formi stambenih objekata korastaviti ili èine kompaktne kontejnersTo su stambene jedinice za ekstremne kretne ili privremene intervencije. Ipljanje ili ‘rast’ æelijskih aglomeracija psloženim zadatkom, ili pak u potpunnjihov potencijal mobilnosti. Integriranne kapsule stoga se mogu smatrati samo na metaforièkoj razini.Slièno tome, spajajuæi tip kapsule i njeizmeðu megastrukture i opremljene stdinice kapsule oznaèava pragmatièki mijenjen rješavanju stambenih pitanja sstvaranjem novoga životnog stila. Nep

konaènog izgleda može se dovesti u vbaðajuæim’ anarhizmom, tehno-fetišizštvenim i politièkim angažmanom, tehntovanim ‘prirodnim rastom’ te potencijapanje pozitivnih obilježja individualne stambene izgradnje.Kao rezultat eksperimentiranja u cilju prješenja za aktualne probleme društvenske i prostorne stvarnosti, koncept kapje izazov tradicionalnoj percepciji kuæe, terijalnoj strukturi i prostornim odnosimturi. Utopijsku dimenziju prvih rješenja zu moderno doba produktivnost, primjennost rješavanja stambenih pitanja, kaoprostorni dizajn u kreativnim podruèjimre, industrijskog dizajna i umjetnièkih djU konaènici, interdisciplinarni diskurs eta oznaèava koncept kapsule kao relev

cept suvremenoga doba. On razotkriva se dotièu individualnog i zajednièkogtipologije, graðenja i stambenih objekai reprezentacije. Na temelju zajednièkotonskog nazivnika on relativizira autonomnost disciplina, ujedinjujuæi ih u slgatiju cjelinu koja nudi odgovor na nepsuvremenoga doba.


14/14

10_senk sigfried giedion

Documents