In an interview with Austrian architect Dietmar Eberle, entitled „Domestic City,‟ the concept and meaning of flexible architecture and its place within a dynamic living situation in today‟s context is deliberated. Eberle states that infrastructure is the most public part of the city, explaining that identity is both formulated and connected via infrastructure. He acknowledges „culture‟ as the key contributor to the environment, as „what makes a place.‟
He identifies the architects‟ duty as creating frameworks for realising and representing various living conditions. (Steinemann, 2008)
He puts forward that buildings are never used in the way that the architect anticipates. The average „lifespan‟ of a building is approximately 15 years according to Eberle; the lifespan he speaks of refers to the use or programme of the building. In order to extend the lifespan of the building, it should be flexible because uses will always change.
He advocates for a high degree of user autonomy, much like Turner, and control over the atmosphere every person lives in. He believes that the development of concepts for residential buildings should be reduced to the design of structures that create framework conditions for individual habitation concepts.
Schneider and Till present a refreshingly clear outlook on flexible architecture in the book Flexible Architecture (2007), where they seek to understand long term housing. They begin with the sentiment that perpetuating current housing methods deny the scope for extension or change, calling this „design stupidity.‟ „Why build housing that so quickly becomes redundant?‟ is the key question. They go on to question what gives a building the ability to
55 adjust over time. Complementing the thinking that there is an alternative to mass housing, they offer that there is an opportunity for architecture to be direct in construction, that even generic spaces can tolerate change and can offer retention of identity, that structures can be modest and feature in the background of living.
So what is flexible housing? Flexible housing is housing that can adjust to changing patterns and needs; both social and technological. Changing needs can include those that are personal (an expanding family), or practical (the onset of old age) or technological (upgrading of old services). Changing patterns can be illustrated by a changing demographic (the increasingly popular single person household), economic change (an increase in the rental market) or environmental (response to climate change). Time is also a key consideration of flexibility, with changes occurring both before and during occupation.
The argument presented by Schneider & Till (2007) is that there are more reasons to allow change, than there are to enforce staying the same. Flexible housing is inherently sustainable, as it aims to facilitate easier living through the inevitable changes that occur over lifetimes. The lifetime with which flexible architecture is concerned, however, is that of people rather than the building, offering that resilient architecture starts with tending to the needs of both people and environment. A useful description of flexible architecture is that it acts as a „shock absorber, there to soak up the dynamics of living.‟
Steven Groák (Schneider & Till, 2007) offers a distinction between two well-used terms that are often seen as interchangeable; adaptability and flexibility. He defines the former as
„capable of different social uses‟ and the latter as „capable of different physical arrangements.‟ His clear cut definition does not consider that one may inspire the other, that an architecture that supports both the growing life cycle of social and physical sustainability is possible.
56 The Dutch introduced the concept of „polyvalency‟ which centres around the notion that space can be used in a variety of ways without having to make physical changes to the structure. (Schneider & Till, 2007)
The case for flexible housing can be summarised as being inherently sustainable.
Modernism‟s fixation with ergonomics resulted in „tight-fit functionalism‟ producing spaces that could only be used for a singular, preconceived purpose. Andrew Rabeneck (Schneider
& Till, 2007) describes how inflexible construction techniques became a norm, with internal partitions being loadbearing, roof spaces being filled with trussed rafters, which made any future alterations impossible and prohibitively expensive. The more customised and more specific a design from the outset, the less flexible it is over time. (Schneider & Till, 2007) Herman Hertzberger and Otto Steidle (Schneider & Till, 2007) offer the concept of
„incomplete space‟ to architects, as something to consider rather than fear. This entails a space and/or structure that is designed for and anticipates change; that is deliberately open to infill or other appropriation.
Luc & Xavier Arsène-Henry (Schneider & Till, 2007) summarise the concept of affording the right to user participation in a set of „guidelines‟ for flexibility:
i) Everyone should be able to fit out his home as he wishes, including the right to make mistakes.
ii) Ability to express one‟s self as a function of his choices; a personable home
iii) Engagement in creative acts of organising space in the living context; being a „co- author‟ brings satisfaction
57