Full Ebook of The Architecture of Persistence Designing For Future Use 1St Edition Fannon Online PDF All Chapter

The Architecture of Persistence
Designing for Future Use 1st Edition

Fannon
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmeta.com/product/the-architecture-of-persistence-designing-for-future-us
e-1st-edition-fannon/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...
The Future of Modular Architecture 1st Edition David

Wallance
https://ebookmeta.com/product/the-future-of-modular-
architecture-1st-edition-david-wallance/
Experimental Architecture Designing the Unknown 1st

Edition Rachel Armstrong
https://ebookmeta.com/product/experimental-architecture-
designing-the-unknown-1st-edition-rachel-armstrong/
Governing for the Future Designing Democratic

Institutions for a Better Tomorrow 1st Edition Jonathan
Boston
https://ebookmeta.com/product/governing-for-the-future-designing-
democratic-institutions-for-a-better-tomorrow-1st-edition-
jonathan-boston/
Computer Organization and Architecture: Designing for

Performance 11th Edition William Stallings
https://ebookmeta.com/product/computer-organization-and-
architecture-designing-for-performance-11th-edition-william-
stallings/
(Re)designing the Continuum of Care for Older Adults:
The Future of Long-Term Care Settings Farhana Ferdous
https://ebookmeta.com/product/redesigning-the-continuum-of-care-
for-older-adults-the-future-of-long-term-care-settings-farhana-
ferdous/
Cognitive Architecture Designing for How We Respond to

the Built Environment 2nd Edition Sussman
https://ebookmeta.com/product/cognitive-architecture-designing-
for-how-we-respond-to-the-built-environment-2nd-edition-sussman/
Wireless Security Architecture Designing and

Maintaining Secure Wireless for Enterprise 1st Edition
Minella
https://ebookmeta.com/product/wireless-security-architecture-
designing-and-maintaining-secure-wireless-for-enterprise-1st-
edition-minella/
Mathematics for the IB Diploma Analysis and approaches

HL 1st Edition Paul Fannon
https://ebookmeta.com/product/mathematics-for-the-ib-diploma-
analysis-and-approaches-hl-1st-edition-paul-fannon/
Wireless Security Architecture Designing and

Maintaining Secure Wireless for Enterprise 1st Edition
Jennifer Minella
https://ebookmeta.com/product/wireless-security-architecture-
designing-and-maintaining-secure-wireless-for-enterprise-1st-
edition-jennifer-minella/
@ArcLib
@ArcLib
The Architecture of Persistence argues that continued human use is the ultimate measure of sustain-
ability in architecture, and that expanding the discourse about adaptability to include continuity as
well as change offers the architectural manifestation of resilience. Why do some buildings last for
generations as beloved and useful places, while others do not? How can designers today create build-
ings that remain useful into the future? While architects and theorists have offered a wide range of
ideas about building for change, this book focuses on persistent architecture: the material, spatial,
and cultural processes that give rise to long-lived buildings.
Organized in three parts, this book examines material longevity in the face of constant physical and
cultural change, connects the dimensions of human use and contemporary program, and discusses
how time informs the design process. Featuring dozens of interviews with people who design and use
buildings, and a close analysis of over a hundred historic and contemporary projects, the principles of
persistent architecture introduced here address urgent challenges for contemporary practice while
pointing towards a more sustainable built environment in the future.
The Architecture of Persistence: Designing for Future Use offers practitioners, students, and scholars
a set of principles and illustrative precedents exploring architecture’s unique ability to connect an
instructive past, a useful present, and an unknown future.
D. Fannon is an architect and building scientist whose work integrates research and design to pro-
vide occupant comfort and wellbeing in long-lasting, low-resource consuming buildings. He is jointly
appointed associate professor in the School of Architecture and the Department of Civil and Environ-
mental Engineering at Northeastern University. David earned a Bachelor of Architecture degree from
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, a master’s from UC Berkeley, and is a registered architect in the State
of New York. He is a Member of ASHRAE and a LEED Accredited Professional with B+DC specialty.
M. Laboy is an assistant professor in the School of Architecture at Northeastern University, with affili-
ate appointments in the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering and the School of Public
Policy and Urban Affairs. As co-founder of FieLDworkshop LLC, she leads research-based transdis-
ciplinary approaches to heighten the connections between people, buildings, and landscapes. Her
research and teaching examine how socio-ecological thinking influences architectural theory and
practice to shape human experience, performance, and adaptability to dynamically changing envi-
ronments. Michelle holds a Master of Architecture and a Master of Urban Planning from the Univer-
sity of Michigan and a Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering from the University of Puerto Rico, and
is registered as a Professional Engineer.
P. Wiederspahn is an associate professor at Northeastern University, Boston, MA, and principal of
Wiederspahn Architecture, LLC. His research and pedagogy are focused on architectural design,
production, performance, and systems. In particular, he has conducted research on: wood con-
struction and its cultural impact at the detail, architectural, and urban scales; high-performance,
rapid-assembly, structural/thermal component construction system as an alternative to wood
framing; light-weight flat-pack, rapid-deployment, long-term-use emergency shelter systems; and
furniture design. His architectural practice has received numerous design excellence awards for res-
idential, multi-family, commercial, and interior architecture projects. Peter earned his Bachelor of
Architecture from Syracuse University and his Master of Architecture from the Harvard University.
@ArcLib
@ArcLib
@ArcLib
@ArcLib
Designing for Future Use
D. Fannon, M. Laboy and P. Wiederspahn
@ArcLib
@ArcLib
First published 2022
by Routledge
52 Vanderbilt Avenue, New York, NY 10017
and by Routledge
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, OX14 4RN
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business
© 2022 David Fannon, Michelle Laboy, and Peter Wiederspahn
The right of David Fannon, Michelle Laboy, and Peter Wiederspahn to be

identified as authors of this work has been asserted by them in accordance with
sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or

utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now
known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any
information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the
publishers.
Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered

trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent
to infringe.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Names: Fannon, D. (David J.), author. | Laboy, M., author. |
Wiederspahn, P., author.
Title: The architecture of persistence: designing for future use /
D. Fannon, M. Laboy, P. Wiederspahn.
Description: New York : Routledge, 2021. | Includes bibliographical
references and index. |
Identifiers: LCCN 2020052435 (print) | LCCN 2020052436 (ebook) |
ISBN 9780367486389 (hardback) | ISBN 9780367486372 (paperback) |
ISBN 9781003042013 (ebook)
Subjects: LCSH: Architecture—Human factors. | Architecture—Philosophy.
Classification: LCC NA2542.4 .F36 2021 (print) | LCC NA2542.4 (ebook) |
DDC 720.1—dc23
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020052435
LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020052436
ISBN: 9780367486389 (hbk)

ISBN: 9780367486372 (pbk)
ISBN: 9781003042013 (ebk)
Typeset in Corbel
by codeMantra
@ArcLib
@ArcLib
Contents
Acknowledgments vii
Introduction: Motive, Context, Method 1

D. Fannon, M. Laboy, and P. Wiederspahn
PART I
Material Ecologies 15
M. Laboy
1. Essential 41
M. Laboy
2. Durable 61
D. Fannon
3. Simple 69
P. Wiederspahn
4. Situated 87
M. Laboy
PART II
Changing Uses 113
P. Wiederspahn
5. Timely 146
P. Wiederspahn
6. Humane 160
M. Laboy
7. Complex 180
P. Wiederspahn
8. Anticipatory 197
D. Fannon
@ArcLib
@ArcLib
vi COnTEnTS
PART III
Alternative Futures 213
D. Fannon
9. Memorable 227
D. Fannon
10. Evolving 236
M. Laboy
11. Indeterminate 257
D. Fannon
12. Timeless 268
P. Wiederspahn
Conclusion: Towards an Architecture of Persistence 283
List of Interviews 291

Index 295
@ArcLib
@ArcLib
Acknowledgments
This work is primarily the product of the 2017–19 Latrobe Prize, awarded
by the American Institute of Architects (AIA) College of Fellows, and
we are very grateful for this honor and support. Special thanks to Terri
Stewart at AIA National for her coordination through the grant period.
In addition to the financial support, our work was greatly aided by the
connections and opportunities that emanate from this prize.
We gratefully acknowledge Dean Elizabeth Hudson and the Northeast-
ern University College of Arts Media and Design (CAMD) for material
and moral support of our endeavors, with a special recognition of Tammi
Westgate and Katherine Calzada. We also extend our sincere gratitude
to Mary Hughes, the Administrative Officer of the Northeastern Univer-
sity School of Architecture for her constant assistance.
We are deeply indebted to the numerous students who contributed
to this project as research assistants. Joshua Friedman, Hannah Ost-
wald, Nina Shabalina, Sara Soltes, Kristen Starheim, Sarah Warren,
and Dominik Wit all worked to document the case-study buildings and
support the early development of the themes. Alya Abourezk, Ghalia
Ammar, Alex Bondi, Emma Casavant, Josie Cerbone, Laura Gómez,
Jennéa Pillay, Abby Reed, and Avery Watterworth prepared additional
drawings, models, graphics, and data. Kanani`ohokulani D’Angelo,
Ellen Eberhardt, and Elizabeth Tandler all assisted with transcribing
interviews. Adline Rahmoune was instrumental in securing images and
rights for publication.
Several exhibitions related to our Latrobe Prize research helped refine
and clarify the essential concepts for this book, and we gratefully
acknowledge the people and organizations who supported them. The
Boston Society for Architecture (BSA) Foundation sponsored Durable:
Sustainable Material Ecologies, Assemblies and Cultures. Special thanks
to Paige McWhorter, Pamela de Oliveira Smith, and Maia Erslev, and
our co-curators at OverUnder, Hannah Cane, Chris Grimley, and Shan-
non McLean. Anthony Morey from the Architecture + Design Museum
in Los Angeles, along with John Dale and Stephen Kendall from the
Council on Open Building supported Persistent: Evolving Architecture in
a Changing World. Michael Grogan at Kansas State University College of
Architecture, Planning and Design, and the Flint Hills Chapter of the AIA
supported Persistent traveling to the Midwest.
@ArcLib
@ArcLib
viii Acknowledgments
Our heartfelt thanks and appreciation to the many colleagues and crit-
ics with whom we taught the comprehensive design studio at north-
eastern University School of Architecture: the crucible in which we
developed and refined ideas of future-use architecture. We would like
to offer special recognition to Michael Leblanc for his many years of
contributing to this studio.
We extend our deepest gratitude to the generations of comprehensive
design studio students, who helped test the ideas of designing build-
ings to anticipate future change and then carried these concepts into
the world through their practice.
As a work of grounded theory, this book grows out of the seeds of
ideas that emerged from our many delightful and thought-provoking
research interviews with historians, architects, building owners, and
managers from around the world who shared their time, thoughts, pro-
ject histories, and documentation, we thank them all. A critical sample
of their intellectual contributions is quoted in the chapters and their
names are listed at the end of the book. We would like to offer special
appreciation to Bob Miklos and Nick Berube from designLAB for their
willingness to test the interview questions early in the process and pro-
viding valuable feedback that informed our process. We also appreciate
all the firms and artists that granted us permission to use drawings and
photographs to illustrate and explain these ideas.
Thanks to Erin Laboy for providing editorial advice, and guidance on
interview citation strategy. Additional thanks to Russell Wiederspahn
and Donald Fannon for editorial advice.
Thanks also to our team at Routledge, especially our Editor Krys-
tal Racaniello and Editorial Assistant Christine Bondira for their sup-
port and answering our many questions, and to Katharine Maller who
walked us through the initial stages. We are grateful to Sofia Buono for
suggesting many improvements to the manuscript text and index, but
of course any remaining errors are our own.
Finally, a special thanks to our families for their love and support.
Leah, Eleanor, Samuel, and Benjamin.
Noah and Josh
Michaele, Russell, David, and Elizabeth
@ArcLib
@ArcLib
Introduction
MOTIVE, CONTEXT, METHOD
Motivation
In a prominent site in the Tuscan city of Florence, between the Piazza
della Signoria and the Baptistery of Saint Giovanni, stands a building
with a 700-year history of changing human uses. Originally built circa
Figure 0.1 Exterior

view, with original
arches, replica
sculptures in the niches
with tabernacles. Neri
di Fioravante, Benci di
Cione and Francesco
Talenti, Simone di
Francesco Talenti;
Orsanmichele (Florence,
Italy), 1337–1404.
Photograph by Gabriele
Maltinti.
@ArcLib
@ArcLib
2 INTRODUCTION
1290 on the site of an oratory, it burned down in 1304, and was rebuilt
in 1337 as a market. Over the centuries of its existence and many physi-
cal transformations, it changed from a place of commerce to a place of
devotion, and later of exhibition. The architecture was not static; each
change in use added or subtracted something significant, although the
changes grew smaller in scale and less frequent over time. The struc-
ture required partial reconstruction after suffering fires and floods, and
demanded significant effort to preserve, but people found it worthy of
their efforts and memories, and the building compensated them with
ongoing usefulness. Through each major change the essence of the
building remained—whether physically or emotionally, it persisted.
Orto San Michele has been called a place of epiphanies and phoenix-
like resurrections (Zervas 2012, 13). This building’s history raises impor-
tant questions. Why do buildings like Orsanmichele remain useful for
so long, while most do not? What enabled Orsanmichele to endure so
many changes to its context and use? Surely it depends in part on the
durability of the building’s robust materials and its prominent location,
not to mention devotion to the Madonna della Grazie—whose painted
image on one of its pillars has been credited with miraculous cures of
the fourteenth-century plague. Perhaps it is also the pragmatic utility
of its structure—hollow columns that allowed grain to travel from the
storage lofts above to the open market below—or their arrangement in
six structural bays connected by arches that place two massive columns
at the center of the space, providing an open loggia with access from all
sides, and precluding centrality or hierarchy. Most notable today is the
cultural value this prominent site is imbued with due to generations of
cultural and artistic production that adorned the niches in the building’s
thick facade for centuries. The craft guilds that commissioned the first
sculptures during the fifteenth century gave the building a new civic
Figure 0.2 Changes in use and architectural changes over seven centuries. Neri di Fioravante, Benci di Cione
and Francesco Talenti, Simone di Francesco Talenti; Orsanmichele (Florence, Italy), 1337–1404. Drawing by
authors.
@ArcLib
@ArcLib
INTRODUCTION 3
use that evolved into its main role as a museum today. Yet, the form of
the building defied any of the traditional patterns and typologies com-
mon in buildings with similar uses. Orsanmichele’s architecture is often
associated with the terms loggia and palazzo, having elements of both
but not a pure example of either, drawing from these typologies, even
though those uses were never intended for the building (Bartoli 2012,
37). Somehow this building, in spite of additions and transformations
always maintained the sense of continuity between past and future.
Recently, Orto San Michele has developed certain useful inertia. Other
than structural repairs, the last changes of significance prior to the twen-
tieth century occurred in the eighteenth century, when the well-known
sculptures in the niches of its facade were displaced by replicas. Recent
changes to the ornamentation have been limited to conservation and
restoration efforts—moving the original sculptures from the facade to
the interior where they would be protected from the environment. The
relocation accompanied the latest change of use for the upper levels of
the building: historically used as grain storage or archives, they are now
a museum for permanent display of the sculptures. Fortunately, this per-
manent exhibition attracts smaller crowds than temporary exhibitions do,
allowing the building to meet the Italian fire-code (Nanelli 2012, 317). The
last substantive changes included a new entry and stair that was added
in the 1960s (Nanelli 2012, 317), connecting to the adjacent palazzo via a
bridge, and making the museum effectively autonomous from the church
on the ground floor. These changes stimulate an ongoing debate among
historians and conservationists about the appropriateness and merits of
these efforts. Perhaps because buildings are often defined by their func-
tion, replacing the sculptures with replicas raised questions about authen-
ticity and about the purpose of Orsanmichele since the facade no longer
displays original art to the public. Some scholars suggest the result is an
indoor museum focused on the statues, and a separate open-air museum
focused on the building itself and its niches for sculpture (Strehlke 2012,
310). Some worry that becoming a precious historical object housing a
permanent collection of decontextualized historical art means people
will no longer use the building, stopping Orsanmichele’s story of dynamic
evolution. However, Diane Finiello Zervas suggests that its very history
offers hope, recalling that “destruction and renewal have always been
core activities at Orto San Michele,” noting how changes in use prompted
the structural modifications built from the ninth to the fourteenth cen-
tury: “the monastery, the grain market and loggia, and the granary and
oratory known as Orsanmichele—were created and adapted to serve the
changing needs of the Florentine people and pilgrims (Zervas 2012, 13).
The premise of this book is the idea that buildings can be built to last,
serve and adapt to the changing needs of people, and thereby become
an integral part of the history of a place.
Today’s buildings—if built to last—will become the found environments
to which future generations adapt. The process of thinking through the
material strategies for long-lasting buildings, to challenge the func-
tionalist paradigm, and imagine uncertain futures, is at the core of this
book. The three parts of this book argue the merits of investing material,
expertise, and time into buildings that benefit contemporary and future
@ArcLib
@ArcLib
4 INTRODUCTION
generations. The question of how to design long-lasting buildings for future

use is urgent. Humanity must rapidly work to adapt the built environment
to mitigate the environmental harm from its construction and operation.
While architects need to focus on dramatically reducing greenhouse gas
emissions in the next few decades, designing buildings that last and remain
useful for generations is a critical consideration in a lower carbon future. In
the context of population growth, mass migration, and urbanization, the
built environment must accommodate humanity’s urgent and changing
needs at an ever-larger scale. Architects must provide humane and resilient
spaces to dwell, learn, work, heal, gather, celebrate, and worship. Design-
ing buildings that can adapt to many of these uses over their life span and
that people want to invest effort into for many generations, should not
be revolutionary. This book challenges architectural practice to think far
beyond the limited life of contemporary building.
The architecture of persistence, like Orsanmichele, outlives its original
purpose but remains both useful and cherished for the long term. Per-
sistent architecture not only outlives a typical contemporary building
but may well outlive the expected life of its own materials. The idea
that persistence describes the continuance of an effect after the cause
is removed closely aligns with buildings where the proximate purpose
for their construction (functional, financial, political) may change, yet
buildings endure. Designing for persistence is predicated on the idea
that the site, material, form, assembly, and proportions of architecture
continue to welcome human use, inspire care, and allow the possibil-
ity of change for generations. The research described in this book fore-
grounds consideration of the temporal dimension of architecture, and
demonstrates a broad range of design strategies for useful longevity.
Context
This book weaves together many threads of individual and group inquiry
by the authors as practitioners, scholars, and educators about build-
ings that change over time by accident or design. It is the direct prod-
uct of a three-year investigation about designing buildings to support
human occupancy in many possible but unknown futures, supported
by the Latrobe Prize from the AIA College of Fellows. The roots of that
research lie in the Comprehensive Design Studio and its concurrent and
associated course Integrated Building Systems at northeastern Univer-
sity, where over many years the authors developed a pedagogy using
ideas of resilience and future change to help students learn the inher-
ent logics of building systems, their architectural arrangement, and
the resulting cultural value over the long term. The resulting projects
integrate architectonic, environmental, and structural systems into
high-performing, long-lasting buildings that adapt to unknown future
environmental, spatial, and human conditions. While the speculative
nature of student work and the descriptive and didactic examples in
class were suggestive, neither was systematic nor formally theorized.
This model of teaching studio—intertwining the students’ design pro-
cesses with technical understanding and creativity—demonstrated that
remarkable buildings can emerge from a design process that transcends
use and time. Finding evidence of that creative potential in architec-
tural practice motivated this research.
@ArcLib
@ArcLib
INTRODUCTION 5
Method 1 1 For an academic treat-

ment of the selection and
The ideas in this book emerged from an empirical process of qualitative implementation of research
methods used in this project,
research using Grounded Theory methods. Grounded Theory is some-
please see Fannon, David.
times called a “bottom up” method because it starts with observation and Michelle Laboy. “Meth-
and experience of the world—in this case, the built environment— ods of Knowing: Grounded
seeking patterns and themes which ultimately coalesce into a coherent Theory in the Study of Future-
Use Architecture.” In Future
theory of the world (Bollo and Collins 2017). Praxis: Applied Research as
a Bridge between Theory and
As noted, years of background literature and teaching demonstrated Practice: Proceedings of the
that physical durability and spatial arrangement and metrics, while 2019 ARCC International
necessary, were not themselves sufficient to explain building longev- Conference. Toronto: Ryerson
ity. In that sense, persistent architecture—like architecture generally— University, 2019, from which
some words and ideas of this
defies quantitative analysis. Furthermore, the attributes that allow (or chapter are extracted, and
cause) buildings to endure are inherently project-specific and context- for which the authors retain
dependent cases of broader general phenomena. These types of contin- rights to publish here.
gent, complex, multivariate problems can only be understood through
observation and analysis of projects, practices, and people, operating
in different contexts through qualitative research. Critically, Grounded
Theory is a systematic method of analysis that makes research using
qualitative data rigorous and valid.
Interviews
Although a study about buildings, the primary source of data for this
project comes from structured interviews with architects, clients and
managers of buildings, especially of long-lasting buildings. Interviews
Figure 0.3 Simplified,

DIDACTIC
Exhibitions Scholarship Educational

linear concept diagram
Modules
of the research process,
grounded in multiple
data sources (bottom),
which are synthesized
EXPOSITORY
Curation
and analyzed to identify
the attributes, which are
ILLUSTRATIVE PRECEDENTS in turn explained and
ultimately disseminated
(top). The words on
the right characterize
SYNTHETIC
the dominant mode

Pedagogy
of enquiry. Drawing by
authors.
THEORY
OF PERSISTENCE
ANALYTICAL
Grounded Theory Method

EXPLORATORY
Structured Analytical Primary Quantitative

Interviews Drawings Documents Data
PEOPLE PROJECTS
@ArcLib
@ArcLib
6 INTRODUCTION
Table 0.1 Questions Structured Interview Questions

used in Structured
Interviews. Table by When and Has your work considered change over time?
authors Where Can you suggest specific projects should we talk about?
Why Are the buildings you’ve worked on—whether new,
renovated, or buildings in general—worth keeping?
How Does the design process change when considering long-
term future change?
What Design strategies and project attributes enable long-
term future change, and which preclude or challenge it?
Who Prompts considerations of future change, who benefits,
and who pays?
Would You be willing to share documentation with us to support
our research? Is it okay if we contact you with any follow
up questions?
bring out the context and motivations behind buildings and practices,
capturing things not accessible by studying the work alone. Interviews
also trace the intersection of design theories with the complexities of
practice, and outline the role of clients, users, and other stakeholders
in future adaptability. Most importantly, interviews can tap the elusive
wealth of experience, the sum of accumulated lessons from studying
old buildings, participating in evolving projects, and correcting occa-
sional failures. In some ways, this research resembles an oral history of
persistent buildings: gathering information not published in books or
embodied in physical artifacts, but residing only in human memories,
2 Thanks to nan Regina, and accessible only by asking and listening.2
Director of the Office of
Human Subject Research The structured aspect of the interviews provides the consistency and
Protection at northeastern rigor needed for systematic analysis, which distinguishes them from
University, who suggested
this analogy to explain that merely thoughtful but wandering conversations. The structure involved
this project was not human asking each subject identical and pre-planned questions (Table 0.1), and
subjects research because limiting what and how much the interviewers said to avoid leading the
buildings rather than people subject to preordained responses that simply reinforce the interview-
were the subject of the study.
The people were interviewed er’s existing views. The questions provide a common starting point from
in their professional rather which each interview naturally takes its own course and prompts varied
than personal capacity. follow-up questions. Good questions must balance the specificity needed
to enable structured analysis by eliciting responses about a consistent set
of issues while remaining open to prompt unexpected insights.
Of course, all interviews depend on the selection of subjects, and here the
team cast a broad net, inviting architects, engineers, developers, finan-
ciers, lawyers, contractors, construction managers, property owners,
facilities managers, and researchers based on their connection to specific
buildings or the topic generally. A comprehensive list of interviews, and
an alphabetical list of interview subjects may be found in the appendices.
To capture them as data, interviews were recorded, and the audio
recordings transcribed to text for subsequent analysis through a pro-
cess known as coding. A hallmark of grounded theory, the coding pro-
cess consists of close and careful reading of transcribed texts, during
which the researchers mark or “tag” sections of text with additional
information, for example, connecting them to specific topics or themes,
@ArcLib
@ArcLib
INTRODUCTION 7
or across texts. Once texts are embellished in this way, researchers can
aggregate and synthesize the tags and notes to interpret and under-
stand the overarching ideas emerging from the full corpus of texts. As
a qualitative method, grounded theory embraces the iterative evolu-
tion of the codes and coding process as researchers work through the
project. In this case, the team established some codes based on prior
literature review, but many emerged directly from the reading and sub-
sequent discussion. With multiple researchers and multiple interviews,
maintaining a limited code list and applying it consistently demanded
significant discipline. If coding itself is difficult, the synthesis and con-
solidation of ideas are even more challenging, particularly with a team
of three researchers each approaching the problem with a unique per-
spective and expertise.
Analytical Drawings
While the interviews capture the human perspective and history, the
research also includes carefully studying buildings themselves to under-
stand physical and non-physical attributes, which requires identifying
buildings to study! Fortunately, as with the interviews, grounded the-
ory embraces iterative selection of case studies, precluding the need to
identify a set of perfect case study buildings to study at the inception
of the project, or indeed, the idea that such a sample could exist. It is
important to distinguish case study buildings—selected for the analy-
sis that shaped the theory of persistent architecture—from precedent
buildings chosen to illustrate, explain, or exemplify those set of ideas,
for example, in this book. A list of possible case study buildings also
emerged from the teaching experience and expanded thanks to sug-
gestions during the interviews, yielding the projects that shaped the
ideas and examples in this book. In addition to the design and con-
struction data represented through drawings, quantitative metrics of
energy, economic and environmental performance, as well as primary
sources like specifications fleshed out the case study buildings.
In a deliberate analogy to the process of coding transcripts from con-
sistently structured interviews, the analysis of buildings proceeded by
graphically coding information on a consistent body of drawings. The
production of drawings began by establishing a standard format for
levels of detail, layer naming, and other properties, based on initial
hunches about the questions this graphic dataset might help answer,
and proceeded to produce a graphically consistent set of plans, sec-
tions, and elevations for each building. This body of drawings serves
as a foundation for the subsequent analysis by layering and removing
information to interpret features of these buildings, such as arrange-
ment of spaces and structural patterns. The drawings also generate
additional data, such as aspect ratios, dimensions, and window-to-wall
ratios that may be compared graphically or numerically.
Finally, comparisons made across and among buildings through group-
ing, arrangement, and contrast revealed attributes, patterns, and com-
mon organizational strategies of the case studies. To that end, a series
of comparative graphic matrices arranged the individual buildings
based on attributes, so that the arrangement and relative position of
@ArcLib
@ArcLib
8 INTRODUCTION
drawings carries meaning and reveals trends. Each of the three parts of
the book presents an example of one such thematic matrix. Initial sort-
ing by obvious attributes—such as floor area or structural material—
sometimes revealed unexpected affinities, and prompted more sophis-
ticated organizations, such as relating the distance between vertical
circulation and the facade to the shape of the building. This compar-
ative graphic approach resembles the text-based interpretation and
theory-building, and the processes reciprocally informed the other.
The graphic analysis sometimes highlighted the absence of relation-
ships, as with exceptional buildings that persist for their economic or
cultural value regardless or in spite of their physical form. Finally, and
perhaps most gratifyingly, the emergent themes and attributes here do
not mirror, and in some cases frankly contradict, the researchers’ ini-
tial speculations on this topic. The fundamental test of a good research
method lies in its ability to produce new knowledge, and while conduct-
ing interviews and making analytical drawings has the appearance and
form of research, the rigorous structure of grounded theory means this
project has the substance of research, rather than simply reflecting the
researchers’ preconceived notions.
Organization of the Book

This book is organized into three primary parts framed around different
aspects of the temporal dimension in architecture and identified with
Roman Numerals I, II, III. Each section begins with an extended essay
introducing the historical and theoretical discourse that situates the
constituent chapters contained in that section. The first part, Material
Ecologies, explores the relationship between buildings, materials, and
sites that enable and give rise to long-lasting architecture. The sec-
ond part, Changing Uses, addresses connections between people and
buildings, to shelter human activities. The third part, Alternate Futures,
explores the place of the future, and the response to the inherent uncer-
tainty of building. In separating the physical, the useful, and the poetic
elements of persistent architecture, these parts echo—unintentionally,
if perhaps inevitably—the Vitruvian triad of firmitas, utilitas, venustas,
and the earliest written traditions of Western architecture. Certainly,
this work is the product of scholars rooted in and drawing upon the
intellectual discourse, built work, and professional practices of that tra-
dition. It is important to acknowledge the prevalence of projects located
in North America, Europe, and Japan, and the scarcity of projects from
the Southern Hemisphere. The regional clustering is particularly rele-
vant to the full-spread matrix diagram found in each part. Developed
from the analytical drawings prepared during the research process, the
three matrices enable not only the study of individual buildings and
comparisons among them but also reveal patterns or trends across the
full set of case studies, and perhaps the limits of this set.
Each of the three primary parts are further divided into four themat-
ically linked and sequentially arranged chapters labeled with Arabic
numerals 1 through 12. The twelve numbered chapters each introduce
and describe one attribute of the architecture of persistence. These
attributes emerged from and evolved through the grounded theory
@ArcLib
@ArcLib
INTRODUCTION 9
MA
TE
1 RI
ESSENTIAL AL
12 2
EC
TIMELESS DURABLE
O
LO
S
RE
11
GIE
3
INDETERMINATE
SIMPLE
ERNATE FUTU
S
10 4
EVOLVING SITUATED
ALT
9 5
MEMORABLE TIMELY
8 6
ANTICIPATORY
HUMANE
7
COMPLEX
E S
C H A NGIN G US
Figure 0.4 Diagram of the book structure, showing the three main sections, the chapters in a clockwise
sequence beginning at the top, and the connections of paired chapters across the book. Drawing by
authors.
research process as traits commonly (though by no means universally,

or, for that matter exclusively) found in the case studies of persistent
architecture. Where the introductory essays in each part draw primar-
ily from the written discourse of architecture and are illustrated with
examples as needed, the twelve chapters focus on individual attributes
and draw more heavily on the interviews and building analysis.
In addition to the sequence of connected ideas in each section and intro-
duced in the initial essay, ideas also link across sections (Figure 0.4).
While relevant cross-references appear throughout the text as needed,
an additional set of strong structural connections bind specific pairs of
attributes. Some of these sibling chapters (and the underlying attrib-
utes) stem from seeming contradictions, as with Timely and Timeless or
Simple and Complex. In the same vein, the attributes Anticipatory and
@ArcLib
@ArcLib
10 INTRODUCTION
Indeterminate describe nearly opposite approaches to planning for the

future. As with human siblings, the antithetical framing reveals each
while also pointing to a greater synthetic truth. Other pairs illustrate
architecture’s reciprocal relationship between buildings and people.
Perhaps most obviously—and with apologies to Louis Kahn—Essential
considers what a brick wants, while Humane considers what people
want from persistent architecture. Similarly, Durable traces the material
integrity buildings need to physically endure, while Memorable empha-
sizes the emotional and cultural integrity that prompts people to keep
them. Other pairs are questions of degree, for example, the attribute
and chapter Situated speaks to grounding buildings in the enduring
aspects of their place, while its sibling Evolving describes slow or some-
times imperceptible changes occurring over generations. In all these
cases, the same author wrote both chapters as a pair, resulting in a sec-
ondary structure of connections that weaves throughout the work help-
ing overcome the decomposition inherent to an otherwise linear and
analytical method. Finally, the conclusion identifies additional overlaps
and contrasts between ideas, integrates the various threads, and frames
the new possibilities that emerge for an architecture of persistence.
References
Bartoli, Maria Teresa. 2012. “Designing Orsanmichele: The Rediscovered Rule.”
In Orsanmichele and the History and Preservation of the Civic Monument,
edited by Carl Brandon. Strehlke: 33–52. Studies in the History of Art; 76.
Washington, DC: National Gallery of Art.
Bollo, Christina, and Tom Collins. 2017. “The Power of Words: Grounded Theory
Research Methods in Architecture & Design.” In Architecture of Complexity:
Design, Systems, Society and Environment: Journal of Proceedings: 87–94.
University of Utah: Architectural Research Centers Consortium.
Nanelli, Francesca. 2012. “Orsanmichele: Some Recent History.” In Orsanmichele
and the History and Preservation of the Civic Monument, edited by Carl
Brandon. Strehlke: 315–38. Studies in the History of Art; 76. Washington, DC:
National Gallery of Art.
Strehlke, Carl Brandon., ed. 2012. Orsanmichele and the History and Preservation
of the Civic Monument. Studies in the History of Art; 76. Washington, DC:
National Gallery of Art.
Zervas, Diane Finiello. 2012. “‘Degno Templo e Tabernacol Santo’: Remembering
and Renewing Orsanmichele.” Studies in the History of Art 76: 7–20.
@ArcLib
@ArcLib
@ArcLib
@ArcLib
STRUCTURAL
MATERIAL
STEEL
CONCRETE
MASONRY
WOOD
FLOOR AREA: SQUARE FEET 10,000

SQUARE METERS 1,000
20,000
2,000
Figure I.0 Precedent Matrix: Structural Material and Building Size. This image shows 43 case study
buildings on a graph, all plans at the same scale, and all oriented to true north. The vertical axis tracks the
primary structural material from wood at the bottom to brick masonry, then concrete, and steel at the
top. The horizontal axis measures the total area of the building footprint (floor plate) from the smallest at
the left to the largest at the right. Drawing by authors.
@ArcLib
@ArcLib
30,000 40,000 80,000
3,000 4,000 8,000
@ArcLib
@ArcLib
@ArcLib
@ArcLib
Part I
Material Ecologies
M. Laboy
The Poetics of Material Decay

Architecture is defined by many intangibles: space, light, memories; but
mostly, change in architecture involves a physical change to its mate-
riality. From the moment a raw material is extracted from the earth,
through the transformation of resources into building products, starts
a process of environmental deterioration and human-led modification.
The eventual failure of some or all components leads to the removal,
replacement, reuse, and end-of-life deconstruction. This chapter exam-
ines the history of theories and practices that take a critical approach to
material change in architecture, and explores the meaning of material
persistence as the foundation of persistent architecture. Tracing what
changes in architecture, both as a result of environmental exposure
and human acts, helps understand the more constant and unchanging,
that which can or should be designed to remain throughout the life of a
long-lasting building.
Architects seldomly think of the life of the building after design—some-
what considering it during construction, hardly at all post-occupancy, and
much less at the end of its life. By engaging in a nuanced examination of
material change in architecture, this chapter argues the ecological basis
and motivations for an architecture of persistence, and theorizes mate-
rial approaches that extend the life of the most resource-intensive and
place-specific elements of construction. Architectural theory and history
are full of conflicting views about architecture as both permanent and
transient, monumental and ephemeral. On one hand, as historian Daniel
Abramson shared during an interview with the authors, embracing con-
tinuous change in architecture runs somewhat counter to fundamental
assumptions about architecture’s aesthetic and psychological role as a
stable object providing permanent identity (D. Abramson 2018). Edward
Ford acknowledges this “ideological baggage” often makes us “uncom-
fortable with the idea of transience and impermanence in thinking of
the institution and the monument” (Ford 1997, 5). On the other hand,
the evidence for Ford’s argument for a theory of impermanence is the
many historically significant structures still perceived to be long-lasting
and monumental despite alterations and near-full replacements, which
were suppressed from collective memory to preserve their image rather
than their materiality (3).
@ArcLib
@ArcLib
16 MATERIAL ECOLOGIES
The notion of impermanence in architecture is as much rooted in the

material reality of buildings, as it is connected to the emotional power
and creative potential of history and memory. In fact, the decaying
edifice, real or imaginary, played an essential role in the study and
representation of architectural history and in the formulation of new
theories and methods. The artist recognized as archaeologist Giovanni
Battista Piranesi represented the architectural ruin as a history partly
erased, which has to be examined closely in order to be reconstructed.
Piranesi’s quote from 1743: “Speaking ruins have filled my spirit with
images that accurate drawings could never have succeeded in convey-
ing” is believed to credit their physical incompleteness with stimulating
the imagination of the architect to enter into the surviving work and
exercise their creativity (Translation quoted in Pinto 2013, 231; from
Wilton-Ely 1978, 45). Pinto connects the eighteenth-century English
idea of empiricism—the importance of evidence—with the idea of the
imaginary—the role of myth and fantasy in recovering the past and
introducing subjectivity (45). This is at the core of what Stan Allen called
a paradox: while claiming to record evidence in Rome’s Campo Marzio,
Piranesi in fact achieves what no single author has achieved, a “paradig-
matic formal method” to author the city where “time is represented by
the accumulation of material and its decay and transformation” (Allen
1989, 76–77). This creative potential serves as a premise for a theory of
persistence in architecture. The idea that some materials are erased
over time in order to reveal more enduring elements is powerful, espe-
cially when what remains becomes an invitation to reconstruct the past
Figure I.1 Giovanni

Battista Piranesi.
Ichnographia of the
Campus Martius of
the Ancient City. 1757.
Image courtesy of the
Yale University Art
Gallery.
@ArcLib
@ArcLib
MATERIAL ECOLOGIES 17
and imagine better versions of what architecture could have been. A

critical awareness of material change in design can create a framework
for future appropriation, reinterpretation, and reinvention, giving archi-
tecture the potential to fulfill its original promise.
Like Stan Allen’s idea for the city, time in the landscape is also repre-
sented by material accumulation and decay. The architectural ruin in a
natural environment has a long tradition in landscape painting, mediat-
ing the sublimity of the natural landscape and the smallness of human
figures to create narratives about the power of nature, the passage of
time, and the enduring aspects of everyday life. The caprice or capriccio,
a genre of dreamlike ruin painting, usually depicts a change in the mate-
rial and human use of buildings as signs of both persistence and decay
of architecture. “The crumbling, though sacred edifice, populated not
by worshipers, but by itinerants who display drudgery or everyday exist-
ence along its walls…” become building blocks, a fabrique that “makes
a landscape agreeable to look at and be in, the most basic definition
of the picturesque… the representation of ruins to include the specta-
tor’s own sense of drama” (Augustyn 2000, 335–41). Analyzing the work
of Denis Diderot in Salon de 1767, the ruin is revealed to engage two
drivers of human imagination—memory as the “vehicle for daydream”
of the creative amateur, and fear of a “universe in ruins” (442–44). The
nostalgia and fear inspired by material decay are recurrent elements
in the architectural imagination, but these emotions alone cannot
advance the contemporary practice of designing for persistence with-
out proactive approaches to material change.
Material decay fuels the work of artists and architects because it imbues
buildings with the passage of time. A pragmatic approach to an archi-
tecture of persistence recognizes the emotional and creative power of
allowing traces of time to be registered in buildings while negotiating
the inherent risks, technical dimensions, and performance criteria for
contemporary material culture. This is not an argument for an uncritical
acceptance of impermanence, nor an appeal for traditional but naïve
notions of permanence. This is an argument for embracing the role of
materiality in the cultural persistence of buildings, to guard against
unnecessarily accelerating the path to decay or demolition long before
a building’s material life span. This section of the book examines the
material dimensions of durability, stability, resourcefulness, open-
endedness, and place specificity, in order to extend the life of the build-
ing beyond expected moments of temporary obsolescence.
Ecological Metaphors and Realities of Long-Life Buildings

Buildings emerge from and contribute to a constantly evolving global
ecosystem, regardless of how long they last or what impact they have
on a specific ecosystem. The last 50 years can be described as a progres-
sion towards an ecological moment in architecture, where architectural
theory shifted from ideas of continuity and permanence to ideas of tem-
poral cycles and dynamic equilibria. Ecology is a field that studies the
relationships between living organisms—including people—and their
environment. The influence of ecology in design practice prompted a
shift from thinking of buildings as static objects to understanding them
@ArcLib
@ArcLib
Figure I.2 Hubert

Robert. The Return
of the Cattle. Oil on
Canvas. ca. 1773–75.
Pendant to The Portico
of a Country Mansion
(35.40.2). Image courtesy
of the Metropolitan
Museum of Art. Bequest
of Lucy Work Hewitt,
1934.
as dynamic configurations of matter, energy, and populations in con-

stant flux. Ecological theories in design often represent buildings either
as organisms (living things in relationship to environments) or as hab-
itats (environments for species, including people). Architectural theory
often adopts metaphors from ecology that relate to the environment
of a species: cradles, graves, affordances, and niches (O’Donnell 2015;
Laboy 2017). An ecological paradigm means seeing the context of the
building as a dynamic system, where buildings can settle into many dif-
ferent conditions, rather than a fixed situation or a single equilibrium.
@ArcLib
@ArcLib
Figure I.3 Shearing

Layers of Change with
added arrows and
the additional layer
of Surroundings, to
S SK
G illustrate the shearing
IN IN dynamism of the site’s
D ST
N constantly changing
U SE R conditions. Drawing by
O U
R R C authors, adapted from
R V
IC T
U
SU E R Stewart Brand and Frank
SP E Duffy.
A
C
E
P
LA
N
STUFF
SITE
The concept of dynamic equilibrium emerged in ecology to describe

periods of gradual and rapid change in ecosystems (Folke 2006), related
to the flows of material and energy in systems. This ecological metaphor
in architecture expects buildings to exist in multiple states throughout
their life, resulting in constant material and energy flows triggered by
social and environmental forces that weather, destroy, strengthen, and
rebuild materials.
The focus of ecological design on regeneration and restoration of lost
or damaged ecosystems connects architecture with principles and the-
ories emerging from landscape theory, to conceive of buildings and
their sites as productive parts of multi-scalar systems (Laboy 2016,
83). Recent calls from professional practice to integrate principles of
regenerative design in architecture (Busby, Richter, and Driedger 2011)
borrow from John Tillman Lyle’s theory, which sought to achieve a sus-
tainable and dynamic balance with ecosystems (Lyle 1994). Lyle used
ecosystem theory and biological processes as the model for design;
most notably “seeking optimum levels for multiple functions, not the
maximum or minimum level for any one” (Lyle 1994, 40–42)— an idea
analogous to designing architecture for future-uses.
Steward Brand’s (1995) seminal book How Buildings Learn (a title that
assigns buildings human intelligence) used O’Neill’s Hierarchical Con-
cept of Ecosystems (O’Neill 1986) as a metaphor for how the material
systems in buildings change over time. Categorizing components based
on different rates of change, what Brand called Shearing Layers of
Change: Site, Structure, Skin, Services, Space Plan, Stuff—was an adap-
tation of Frank Duffy’s Shell, Services, Scenery, and Set (Brand 1995,
@ArcLib
@ArcLib
12–13). In this ecological metaphor, the slowest-changing components,

such as structure, are analogous to the redwood trees in a forest that
not only are “in charge” but also mostly oblivious to but gradually inte-
grating the rapid changing components—especially at times of major
changes—most influenced by them: “the speedy components propose,
and the slow dispose” (17).
In Brand and Duffy’s theory, the site is a static element and structure
is the next most resistant to change. The structure does tend to last
longest—using more robust materials and static patterns that are often
protected by the enclosure and other interior systems. But according
to George Gard, one of the team members interviewed by the authors
at Bruner/Cott Architects in Cambridge, “part of what is creating the
shearing above is that our sites are always changing” (Gard 2017). Brand
referred to the fact that the siting (location) of a building rarely changes.
But the site of a building is a dynamic environment influenced by tech-
nological, infrastructural, social, political, and economic conditions that
are likely to change at different intervals during the life of a building.
Figure I.3 shows a proposed revision of the Shearing Layers diagram, a
dynamic reading of the site as infrastructure (ground), and the changing
environmental and cultural conditions (atmospheres). This proposes a
seventh S, surroundings which is inclusive of and expands Brand’s unoffi-
cial seventh S: “human Souls, the servants to our stuff” (17). The changing
social context of a site deeply influences material change in architecture.
Some aspects of a building’s surroundings are fairly permanent (sun path,
soil type, etc.) Others change in the generational time scales associated
with the living systems it sustains (climate, land use, access, users, tree
canopy), and others much more rapidly (seasonal weather, water levels,
etc.) Architects often expect and plan for the faster rhythms of change, but
even when not planned for, buildings will absorb many of these medium- to
slow-changing and unanticipated conditions, even if poorly.
Architecture has also been the subject of speculations on biomimicry,
a theory defined as “Nature as Model, Nature as Measure, Nature as
Mentor” which explores natural processes such as photosynthesis and
natural selection to design echo-inventions that copy the “design and
manufacturing processes to solve our own problems” (Benyus 2002, 2).
These design paradigms expand into the hypernatural, a level beyond
the natural, “working directly with natural forces and processes—rather
than against them—in order to amplify, extend, or exceed natural
capacities… to counteract the increasing fragility and degradation of
the natural environment” (Brownell et al. 2015, 19). Brownell et al. point
out the differences between biomimicry as a representational approach
and bioengineering or geo-design, which engage directly with organ-
isms and natural processes towards a human-initiated purpose, but
critiques the duality of these paradigms for limiting design aspirations
(9). These ideas aspire to make architectural materiality responsive,
intelligent, regenerative. What they have in common is a desire to think
of buildings as part of and engaged with natural processes, and the
need to put human ingenuity towards making that engagement pro-
ductive and constructive, rather than destructive. In these frameworks,
long-lasting buildings have the potential to not only depend on the
@ArcLib
@ArcLib
natural environment as a source of materials but also contribute to the

persistence of relationships in a particular place and ecosystem, espe-
cially an urban ecosystem.
Some natural metaphors in architectural theory are not derived from
living systems, but from the underlying mineral systems that structure
and nurture life on Earth. The theory of metamorphosis defines the
origins of the architecture at a geological scale, such as the physical
transformation of natural materials into buildings, and the evolution
and transformation of their construction logics into monumental forms
and styles (Moravánszky 2017, 193). The idea that the natural logic of
construction emerges from the properties of materials suggests that
any deviation from that must reveal challenges, requiring intention
and rationalization of a process of technological innovation. This pro-
cess of material transformation is intellectual—not necessarily in a way
that reveals the logic of what it is made of, but the logic of how cul-
ture got there…an aesthetic that echoes, or transfers… “a phenomenon
which is familiar in the history of architecture and design: the transfer of
forms that were originally connected with the way in which one material
was processed to other materials” (Moravánszky 2017, 15). The theory
of metamorphosis originates in the seminal work of Gottfried Semper’s
Four Elements of Architecture. According to Moravánszky, metamor-
phosis is translated from stoffwechsel (meaning metabolism, material
transformation) and refers to the creative process of making appropri-
ate use of materials: each material giving way to technical forms which
then become artistic motifs, and influence new forms of representation
(187). While written in the nineteenth century, Semper’s theory contin-
ues to have relevance today, especially the preoccupation with continuity
in change, which “makes it possible to knit them into the fabric of the
computer age” (Moravánszky 2017, 209). Quoting Andrea Deplazes, who
remarked on the metamorphosis of timber from tectonics to stereotomy:
The issue is change and continuity, the constant renewal of form

which reflects the story of its own creation. The freedom is not
unlimited, the new materials and objects are integrated in a pre-
structured system which is adequately elastic and which promotes
rather than restricts reinvention.
(Deplazes 2001; in Moravánszky 2017, 213)
Wherever theories remained representational, the result likely is a super-

ficial language with little impact on the actual adaptability of buildings.
The Metabolist movement of the 1960s was a metaphor of vitality and
transformability translated into modular forms reminiscent of building
blocks of living cells. The original manifesto by Kisho Kurokawa, Fumi-
hiko Maki, and others, used the English word for Semper’s theory of
stoffwechsel, which is why Semper’s is translated as “theory of material
change” (Moravánszky 2017, 202). This analogy between built and natu-
ral environments is a cautionary tale for architects interested in theoriz-
ing change in architecture: when the metaphor does not translate into
performance over time, the language of the architecture is more likely
to remain a static representation of dynamic processes, rather than a
realization of the true persistence of ecosystems.
@ArcLib
@ArcLib
Theories of change in architecture draw heavily from Darwinian theo-

ries of the evolution of species, a slow process that happens over gen-
erations. When talking about evolutionary design—the idea that design
should be variance-driven rather than equilibrium-based—Steward
Brand proposed: “A building is something you start. A building is not
something you finish” (Brand 1995, 188). William McDonough sees
what has happened to the natural and built environment as a de-
evolution—"simplification on a mass scale… a tidal of sameness spread-
ing from sea to sea…” against which we must advance the principle
of respecting not only biodiversity but diversity of place and culture
(McDonough 2002, 119). Diversity recognizes that ecosystems depend
on relationships, “the uses and exchanges of materials and energy in a
given place…” and that means that human systems must “work toward
a rich connection with place, and not simply with surrounding ecosys-
tems” (McDonough 2002, 121–22). It also means recognizing the diver-
sity of needs and desires of people, by designing buildings that “can be
adapted to different uses over many generations of use, instead of built
for one specific purpose” (McDonough 2002, 139). McDonough refers to
the enduring advantages of the lofts in TriBeCa and SoHo designed with
“high ceilings and large, high windows that let in daylight, thick walls that
balance daytime heat with nighttime coolness” that today would be con-
sidered inefficient but are both appealing and endlessly useful (139)—a
paradigm for architecture that shifts form follows function to form follows
evolution (141). Diversity is a characteristic of resilient social and eco-
logical systems. The recent discourse on engineering resilience focuses
on return to function (Tierney and Bruneau 2007)—mostly in the face of
disaster; while the adaptive model of socio-ecological resilience engages
the complexity of human beings using buildings differently and, thus,
changing them over time as cultural ideas, physical artifacts, and envi-
ronments (Laboy and Fannon 2016). In other words, materials will persist
when people can get what they need from the space because people will
care for them even as they disrupt their patterns or change their func-
tion. “People want diversity because it brings them pleasure and delight.”
(McDonough 2002, 144) Persistence negotiates the evolutionary and
functional paradigm by focusing on the enduring qualities of material
systems to remain useful and delightful but not functionally specific.
End of Life in Architecture
Codes use historic data to guide the design process, but this approach
may limit the conditions in which materials will perform well in the
future. Optimizing material capacities to conditions at the time of their
design may be economical but can accelerate the end of life of a build-
ing. This is why resilience can be in conflict with sustainability. The focus
on short-term mitigation may inadvertently overlook the very long-
term waste created when buildings face premature failure because of
a lack of abundance and diversity. This balance is not easy: there are
urgent problems that need to be solved now, e.g. resource consump-
tion and carbon emissions need to be minimized rapidly. But in build-
ings those goals cannot be shortsighted, or society will find itself again
in a new cycle of demolition, resource extraction, and reconstruction
that can undo all the progress made before. Artificial intelligence is
@ArcLib
@ArcLib
seen as a potential path to address these uncertainties and build on the

capacity of the social actors that maintain and transform buildings over
time (Keenan 2014). This idea imbues architecture with the adaptive
qualities and resourcefulness of a human brain. Materials that respond
to stimuli, components that track their maintenance and replacement
needs, skins that can transform as the climate changes, could very well
be part of the solution in the future. But even intelligence and knowl-
edge evolves, which means that whatever materials constitute or gov-
ern those systems and algorithms will also deteriorate, may be subject
to obsolescence and to cultural shifts that may result in their premature
replacement. This is why any theory of material change in architecture
needs to engage with the end of life question.
Building materials are entangled in a global web of industrial ecology,
processes of resource extraction, fabrication, construction, deconstruc-
tion, and disposal, impacting global and local environments, econo-
mies, and cultures. Industrial ecology, which also relies on metaphors
to analyze impacts and speculate alternative models, provides tools
to understand the impacts of specific buildings, products, or even indi-
vidual human decisions (Eckelman and Laboy 2020). There is an urgent
need to reduce the environmental impacts of construction and opera-
tion of buildings. The ecological argument for long-lasting buildings is
to reduce the number of resources used, and in turn reduce per capita
impacts, by reducing how many buildings are built to serve the needs of
each human generation.
Nearly 50 years after RIBA President Alexander John (“Alex”) Gordon’s
challenge to design buildings that have long life, loose fit, low energy
(Gordon 1972), the idea of low energy needs to be reconsidered in light
of the relationship between material reuse and carbon. That is, the
advantage of long life, loose-fit buildings can be measured in terms of
low embodied energy (Lifschutz 2017, 8). This idea, translated as embod-
ied carbon, first emerged in a 1973 ecosystems theory article, borrow-
ing concepts from economics to analyze input-output processes. Bruce
Hannon proposed that “if carbon flows (or any element) are proportional
to the direct energy flows then a component’s direct and indirect con-
nection to the rest of the ecosystem can be expressed in terms of car-
bon flows” (Hannon 1973, 545). Embodied energy describes the building
as a component of a global ecosystem that requires energy inputs and
outputs, measured in equivalent carbon used to extract, refine, fabri-
cate, assemble, and later discard or recycle materials. Therefore, that
energy is embodied in the completed structure from the day it opens,
before any energy is used on operations like heating, cooling, lighting,
equipment, and so forth. Embodied energy is increasingly the argument
for preservation, and in turn, future preservation becomes the impe-
tus for embodying more energy into buildings. As Tod Williams shared
in conversation with the authors, “if a building is built well, it [took] a
certain amount of energy, to the extent we possibly can, we should try
to keep it.” Of course, a well-built building, as opposed to an ephem-
eral one, will require considerably more energy to construct, and so it
must be able to endure and worthy of being kept to justify that initial
investment. Embodied energy informs materials selections, through
@ArcLib
@ArcLib
life-cycle accounting of the equivalent carbon emissions resulting from

the production, assembly, and end-of-life processing of building materials.
The embodied energy in buildings makes an ecological argument about
recycling in that the same material is being used multiple times for differ-
ent uses during its life. The difference is that recycling uproots material to
be reintroduced elsewhere, whereas design for persistence seeks to pre-
serve a building’s material in situ. A strong argument for producing long-
lived buildings is so we can benefit from the embodied energy of a building’s
material and constructional effort over a much longer period of time.
When deciding whether to keep a building or build a new one, embod-
ied energy is an important metric. During an interview with the authors
at the Portland office of ZGF Architects, Baha Sadreddin, a high-
performance specialist who creates life-cycle tools for decision-making
during early design, discussed the complicated relationship between
durability and embodied carbon in the built environment:
demolition and recycling means processing energy. Concrete could

last for hundreds, maybe thousands of years. A major [carbon]
impact of new construction comes from concrete. And within con-
crete, probably eighty to ninety percent of the impact comes from
Portland cement.
(Sadreddin 2019)
While the industry searches for ways to reduce the environmental

impact of materials and increase their durability, what is already built
represents carbon emissions already expended in the environment, and
yet not all of it is feasible to reuse. If a material makes the building last,
the embodied carbon benefits of adaptively reusing the building can
be significant. Comparing the life cycle impacts of a new high-performing
building to the material modifications necessary to keep the existing one
can be enlightening. During the interview with the team from Bruner/
Cott Architects, the authors learned that the Life Cycle analysis for the
renovation of an old brick masonry industrial building for the expansion of
the Massachusetts Museum of Contemporary Art (Mass MoCA) in North
Adams, Massachusetts revealed that it would take more carbon to take
the building down than what it took to transform it into the museum,
even before accounting for what it would have taken to build a new build-
ing (Gard 2017). But as discussed in more depth in Chapter 5 Timely, the
building was saved for many other reasons, connections to geography and
human histories that made it worthy of reuse. Developing better building
materials is important, but making buildings worth keeping is imperative.
There are other important ways to measure the life cycle impacts of
buildings: whether building materials make people sick or leave toxins in
ecosystems. The designation of a Living Building has become the highest
metric of sustainability in architecture in the United States. The system
of criteria for the Living Building Challenge (LBC) certification includes a
list of materials that cannot be used in buildings, whether because they
pollute the environment, bio-accumulate up the food chain, or harm
construction and factory workers (International Living Future Insti-
tute 2016). LBC requires design narratives that explain how buildings
may change over time (adaptable reuse) and deconstruction—how its
@ArcLib
@ArcLib
Figure I.4 Interior lobby space, exposed bolted connections in timber structure. Bruner/Cott Architects,
RW Kern Center in Hampshire College (Amherst, Massachusetts), 2016. Photograph by © Robert Benson
Photography, courtesy of Bruner/Cott Architects.
material may be used at the end of the building’s life, in order to “con-
serve natural resources and to find ways to integrate waste back into
either an industrial loop or natural nutrient loop” (International Living
Future Institute 2014). The architects Bruner/Cott explained how writ-
ing this narrative and various program test fits for the recently Living
Building certified RW Kern Center in Hampshire College, Massachusetts
(2018) that informed not only the space configuration and selection of
materials, such as timber for the structure and cellulose for insulation
but also the detailing of bolted connections and simplicity of assembly
to facilitate reuse and reduce the work of separation and sorting at dis-
assembly (Forney 2017). There is an inherent risk in building, especially,
with new materials of unknown impact on human health and ecosys-
tems. An Architecture of Persistence must focus not only on the ability
of a building to last or be adapted to new uses but most importantly on
the quality of human life and use that such buildings sustain.
@ArcLib
@ArcLib
The concept of Circular Tectonics suggests that life cycle considerations

in architecture are fundamentally a question about how we build, asso-
ciating theories and methodologies linked to tectonics (e.g. materiality,
joinery, detailing, contextual positioning, spatial construction) with the
idea of ‘circularity’ (e.g. ecology, re-use, re-cycle, and cradle-to-cradle)
(Hvejsel and Beim 2019, 52). Hvejsel and Beim make a compelling case
for why the emphasis of the circular economy movement on the ‘pos-
itive society-wide benefits’ resonates with the role of architecture in
society, and caution of the risk that any focus that prioritizes cost may
suppress the qualitative benefits of social and cultural value (52–54). An
Architecture of Persistence makes that fundamentally ecological link,
emphasizing the material decisions that create lasting social and cul-
tural value to ensure that people want to keep buildings for a long time,
are able to reuse and repair, and ultimately remanufacture.
Persistence as an Ecological Concept

Persistence, a term commonly used in evolutionary ecology, refers to
the significant inertia and resistance in ecological systems, which usu-
ally favors demographic and environmental stability such that essential
resources are maintained (Falk, Watts, and Thode 2019, 2). The term
also differentiates the features of structured habitats in stable and resil-
ient ecological communities from unstructured habitats (Hyman et al.
2019, 5). The concept is place-specific, connected to the evolution or
adaptability over a long period of time of an ecological niche, a range
of conditions within which a species can live (Holt et al. 2014, 288–96).
Persistence has negative associations as a characteristic of invasive
species, even though these characteristics make those species highly
adaptable to many conditions, and in some cases, powerful providers
of ecological services to humans, albeit often at the cost of diversity.
Persistence also emerged in the literature review on the resilience of
socio-ecological systems—the capacity of institutional or physical infra-
structure designed by humans to cope or adapt to certain kinds of exter-
nal variability (Janssen, Anderies, and Ostrom 2007, 309). Persistence
is the first stage and precondition of resilience at the individual level,
enabling resilience at other scales: recovery at the population scale
and reorganization at the community scale (Falk, Watts, and Thode
2019, 2–10). These definitions of persistence have many parallels in a
long-lasting building, which absorb slow and constant variability in pop-
ulations of users, and contribute to the resilience of the community that
may need to reorganize uses in the future or restructure the building
when conditions of drastic change demand it. As new populations come
into a building, people need to reappropriate space, read the potential
in the structure, and find the material and labor resources necessary to
reorganize into a new temporary or stable configuration. Persistence
also has cultural definitions that translate into architectural practice:
perseverance in the face of adversity, a dogged determination, adher-
ence to or seeking something valued, cohesive. These are the neces-
sary qualities of critical practices seeking to design architecture that
persists, especially when economic systems do not reward long-term
thinking, and instead expect to produce buildings expediently, often
@ArcLib
@ArcLib
with lower quality materials to be discarded faster, cheaper, and with

limited regard to long-term global environmental or social impacts.
Thus, the theory of persistence is rooted in the creation of material
ecologies and economies of resistance and long-lasting value, and must
be produced by an alternative design culture focused on the most fun-
damental and enduring qualities of architecture, to challenge current
material practices.
Drivers of Material Change: Environmental Forces and

Human Agency
The material of architecture mediates the dynamic relationship
between social and natural environments. The forces driving mate-
rial change can be external (sites, climate, infrastructure) and inter-
nal (occupants, people, economy). Brand (1995) argues that interiors
change radically while exteriors maintain continuity (Brand 1995, 21).
The reality is more nuanced. A building’s outer layers are exposed to
weather, while interior layers experience wears from human use. For
example, curtain wall facades tend to have significantly shorter life
spans than the structure. Interior technologies may be replaced for effi-
ciency or taste, but in buildings where a concrete, brick masonry, or tim-
ber structure is exposed their long-lasting finishes may remain for the
character they give to the space. It is often the intermediate layers—the
hidden, structural, and formative—that are most challenging to access
or modify, and therefore responsible for the success or failure of the
building as a persistent physical and organizational framework for sus-
tained human use.
Designing for persistence means making decisions about the nature
and the assembly of materials that enable a dynamic equilibrium
between gradual and rapid change, between externally driven and
internally driven forces. The lifetime of architectural materials and the
degree of their entanglement as assemblies determine the simplicity
or complexity of their repair or replacement. These rates of change are
not all predictable. Materials may get replaced before the end of their
actual physical life due to unforeseen changes in performance criteria
or human preference. Environmental forces also vary in time scale and
predictability. Many are consistently cyclical (solar radiation), others are
constantly variable (wind), and some are gradually changing (climate).
The certainty of these forces and predictability of their effects on mate-
rials has been theorized as the end of the process of construction: or
weathering, the ever-changing finishing of the surface of a building
through the simultaneous subtraction and sedimentation of materials
(Mostafavi 1993, 16). However, some forces are gradually increasing
in magnitude, accelerating the rate of change, or changing abruptly in
ways that are unpredictable and potentially disruptive. The most nota-
ble are climate change and urbanization, which relate to trends of mass
migration, industrial decline, environmental degradation, and remedia-
tion. These trends will translate into new regulatory, technological, pro-
grammatic, and performance requirements for building materials that,
if not anticipated now, may accelerate the need for change, repair, and
replacement.
@ArcLib
@ArcLib
Human agency is also a somewhat unpredictable force. People choose

to change buildings or their components for any number of reasons,
long before the materials reach the end of their life. The sense that soci-
etal change can be brought about through innovation, inspiration, and
creativity (Hammett and Wrigley 2013) means that material change in
architecture and the city are a concrete vehicle to represent progress
towards certain ideals, and may often seek to intentionally break with
the past. Starting in the nineteenth century the western culture of
permanence began to shift towards a belief that architecture should
be a reflection of its age, and that “shorter building lives would reflect
and impel radical change in each generation”—the precursors to the
twentieth-century concept of obsolescence that emerged with depre-
ciation, a capitalist tool for financial risk management (D. M. Abramson
2016, 14). For Michael Sorkin, delinking architecture and privilege was
contingent on empowering people to not only find but also change an
environment to one where they can flourish—referencing Lefebvre’s
idea in “Right to the City” about the power of changing ourselves by
changing the city (Sorkin 2013). It is interesting that much of what cap-
italism deemed obsolete in the last century became the richness found
by communities looking for spaces that invite creation and entrepre-
neurship. The qualities people find in what capitalism discarded, e.g.
the old industrial buildings, became the vehicles for urban regenera-
tion. In this way, the material persistence of buildings that can weather
a degree of decay affords time and supports efforts to preserve a diverse
building stock with a wide range of age and levels of affordability; to
resist the always new mindset of capitalism and empower communities
to find spaces of robust materiality to transform on their own.
While generations often seek to make space their own by reconfiguring
or restructuring some of architecture’s material—a sign of the desire to
shape their environment or to leave an imprint—most of that change
occurs at the scale of the impermanent: from furniture to temporary
or non-load-bearing partitions. New leadership, new workplace poli-
cies, new cultural practices and tastes, revisions to building codes that
place new demands on systems, zoning codes that alter land uses, tax
codes that encourage or discourage demolition—all are factors that can
unexpectedly affect how people value—and ultimately use buildings. The
rapid social and political changes of the twentieth century saw the emer-
gence of architectural design theories that empower users to change
their environment by changing important parts of the architecture. These
theories focus on architecture as an infrastructure, the basic system that
services and cedes control to people. John Habraken’s proposal for an
open architecture, which will be discussed in more depth in Part II Chang-
ing Uses, differentiated levels of control through material properties: the
permanent supports of long-lasting structure and the more ephemeral
user-adjustable infill (Habraken 1972). The architectural responses to this
body of work were most notably and often focused on housing (Kendall
and Teicher 2000, 12–13)—the most intimate and deeply personal space
where people are most likely to want control.
Ordinary buildings that constitute the fabric of cities often speak to
a particular time of building, a repetition of material strategies and
@ArcLib
@ArcLib
assemblies that define the character of an entire urbanism. A building

may not be individually listed as historically significant, but it can be
part of districts seen as an essential part of the urban landscape and
the social history of a place. South End rowhouses in Boston, indus-
trial buildings in districts of Portland, Chicago, New York, Boston, and
many other cities, often have a repetitive logic and a robustness of
material that help them persist. Individual buildings may go away over
time, but many remain and are repurposed or retrofitted to extend
their life. During a phone interview with the authors, Paul Alessandro
from HP Architecture, a firm that works in many adaptive reuse pro-
jects in Chicago, reflected on why these ordinary buildings are worth
keeping: “they’re part of the overall character of a place, something
that’s intrinsic to the nature, the value, livability of a place” (Alessan-
dro 2017). All of these trends point towards the idea that material per-
sistence is especially important in the most ordinary buildings because
these will become the material fabric that gives character to so much
of the found urbanisms of the future, the districts where capitalism
will flow in and out, that will persist for communities to reappropriate
and reinvent.
Land value, especially in urban areas, significantly influences the cost
and investment in buildings, and subsequently the effort it takes to keep
them. In cities, it is not uncommon for the land to be worth more than the
building. In a self-reinforcing cycle, as society builds cheaper buildings,
land value is more likely to become the main driver of those decisions.
Land value is similarly susceptible to cycles of investment and disinvest-
ment. At moments in history, when land becomes devalued, buildings can
sit abandoned for a long time. Long-lasting buildings may better weather
these long periods of land devaluation, often decades until changing
environmental, economic, and cultural conditions invite a reconsidera-
tion of their value to a place. This was certainly the case in warehouse or
Figure I.5 Brick

rowhouses of the
South End, considered
the largest Victorian
row house district in
the United States,
where alterations
are guided by the
South End Landmarks
District Commission.
Photograph courtesy of
littlenySTOCK.
@ArcLib
@ArcLib
industrial buildings in urban districts: the durability of the load-bearing

masonry and timber systems was critical to their persistence during long
periods of neglect, while other systems were often severely deteriorated
or more likely to be replaced at later times when buildings were reclaimed
for new uses. The historian Daniel Abramson explained during a conver-
sation that in the American context these periods of neglect happen
when “people aren’t seeing any value in the underlying land. It’s not
even worth taking them down. Capitalism is always moving from place
to place. It’s much easier to go find some new place to build…” (D.
Abramson 2018). This is what made some of these generously sized
buildings not only spatially but financially attractive to the commu-
nities of artists, makers, and inventors that infused a new life into so
many of them. Abramson added that eventually, buildings become so
devalued that investors look back when it becomes cheaper to build
in them: “Capital has a spatial quality… it leaves a place, eventually it
might circle back around.” In a perverse twist, this has often happened
when communities create enough of a thriving life in these buildings
and districts to make them attractive again, and the capital arrives to
displace them.
In the American context, tax breaks are often used to incentivize the
preservation of certain landmarked buildings. But tax structures are
reflections of cultural values, and as such can shift and conflict with
other public priorities. During a meeting with the authors at the Kansas
City Design Center, director Vladimir Krstic noted these cultural shifts
happening there around tax abatements, Tax Incentive Financing (TIF),
and other tax mechanisms: “the local community is starting to really
be opposed to that…because the result is that the city needs to give
up [something] to give it to developers, and how’s that affecting some
other things?” (Krstic 2019). In this contested environment, architects
may need other mechanisms and arguments to ensure the preservation
of building materials. Abramson offered a compelling case for archi-
tects to have agency in prompting building reuse:
Obsolescence was a process of cultural devaluation or functional

devaluation, but people found a way to revalue the obsolete… that
revaluation always takes some kind of effort and agency…and cer-
tainly architects can revalue what was considered obsolete by get-
ting people to look at it differently….
(D. Abramson 2018)
Despite the pressure for development, many modifications to existing

buildings are made to reduce their size, especially in deep floor-plate
buildings, to let more daylight in, improve air quality, and provide a more
humane space. When these modifications are not possible, the building
becomes vulnerable to changes in societal values and expectations. Matt
Noblett from Behnisch Architekten reflected on a significant challenge for
architects today—designing the future of a good portion of the unredeem-
able buildings from the twentieth century that exists around the globe.
Referring to a common type along Park Avenue in Manhattan as “giant,
fat, 50,000 square feet [4,600 square meter-floor] plate office build-
ing… nicely finished but deadly space…” he asked: “What is the future of
@ArcLib
@ArcLib
Figure I.6 Park Avenue

in Manhattan, with 270
Park Avenue (formerly
known as Union Carbide
Building) on the far
right. Skidmore,
Owings & Merrill (New
York, NY, USA), 1960.
Photograph by Mariolav.
occupation in all of these buildings?” (Noblett 2019). The real estate market
in New York is such that, according to Noblett, carving out “nice big light
wells and reducing square footage” is not an imperative. Even buildings of
significant architectural or historical value, like the Union Carbide Building
at 270 Park Avenue by Skidmore, Owings, and Merrill (see Chapter 1) are
in the process of demolition to be replaced by taller, better-performing
buildings. David Nelson of Foster + Partners, explained:
The zoning laws in Central New York have changed significantly

which will allow building owners to either completely demolish
or heavily modify buildings within a certain vicinity, and in many
instances to be able to build more than twice the size that what we
are seeing at the moment.
(Nelson 2019)
Land use regulations can not only accelerate the demise of architectur-
ally significant buildings but also unintentionally result in the preserva-
tion of ordinary buildings. For example, a building that is larger than
what a code allows becomes grandfathered into smaller-scale urbanism.
This was the case of 1K Fulton—a 1920s cold storage building converted
into an office and retail space in Chicago’s Fulton Market district. While
one can assume that the building was preserved due to its long-lasting
concrete structure and industrial character, Paul Alessandro shared that
it was saved because it was much taller than what is allowed to be built
in the district, despite the fact that it required significant effort and
cost to thaw the ice inside the building, repair the degrading concrete
frame, and completely reclad the previously opaque building (Alessan-
dro 2017). The tenants, now mostly occupied by the offices for the tech-
nology company Google, may find the history and character of the old
concrete structure appealing and valuable. This is different than the
trend of facadism—the facadectomy projects that keep a historic facade
@ArcLib
@ArcLib
Figure I.7 (a) Original

concrete facade by
Skidmore, Owings, &
Merrill (1975), and (b)
new facade by Cutler
Anderson Architects,
and SERA Architects
(2016). Edith Green
Wendell Wyatt Federal
Building (Portland,
Oregon, USA).
Photographs courtesy
of M.O. Stevens licensed
under CC-BY-SA-3.0.
and build a completely new building behind it—which only preserves

the memory of the original building through its street presence but it is
rarely considered the same building. In contrast, in the more ordinary
old buildings when the structural components remain, it is often saving
the most space-defining and carbon-intensive material. Interestingly in
the 1K Fulton case, the structural concrete frame was all that needed
to be kept in order to still be the same building grandfathered as non-
conforming with zoning rules. The 1K Fulton concrete structure, with its
column caps, is visible through the new glazed facade, and still stands
about five stories taller than adjacent buildings. Heavy structural sys-
tems do have perceived inertia that leads them to persist, which many
of those interviewed put in terms of both carbon and dollars, taking as
much of both to demolish than to renovate. This was certainly a fac-
tor in the conversion of Mass MoCA, discussed earlier. At its concep-
tion the institution was looking for an inexpensive, large space for large
art installations that could be more experimental and site-specific than
what traditional museums offered. The architects believed that the
mere size of the heavy load-bearing masonry building was a reason to
keep it because the community loved the history of this building but
would not accept building anything new at that scale.
Changes in energy performance goals also drive material changes in
building enclosures, which usually have a significantly higher impact
than the structure on operational energy. In recent decades energy
codes have changed faster and more dramatically than structural
codes. Goals to improve operational performance often lead to facade
changes that can produce dramatic transformations on the pattern (e.g.
window-to-wall ratio), materiality (recladding), and performance (ther-
mal resistance). The General Services Administration (GSA) is an agency
constantly driving significant changes in energy performance standards
for a large number of buildings in the United States. The GSA owns or
@ArcLib
@ArcLib
ft
4.9 9.8m
Figure I.8 Typical upper floor plan and building section. SOM (1975), Cutler Anderson Architects and SERA
Architects (2016). Edith Green Wendell Wyatt Federal Building (Portland, Oregon, USA). Drawing recreated
by authors.
@ArcLib
@ArcLib
leases over 8,000 assets of the US federal government, and maintains

more than 370 million square feet (34.3 million square meters) of work-
space for 1.1 million federal employees (“Public Buildings Service” n.d.).
The Office of High Performing Buildings develops best practices, guid-
ance, and tools to advance innovations in planning, design, and oper-
ations of federal buildings, including improvements in energy costs,
human health and performance, and environmental impacts. Their
goals change depending on the administration, as was evident in the
transition from the Obama to the Trump administration when it shifted
from life cycle and human productivity to energy cost savings.
The authors interviewed the dean at the University of Washington,
Renee Cheng, who is an expert researcher on the work of the GSA.
Cheng shared that the GSA does extensive evaluations on whether
to renovate a building, sell it and buy a new one, or demolish it and
build new: “every couple of years a new executive order would ramp
up the [energy] goals…and there would be an inventory look to see
which buildings were not meeting those new standards (Reneé Cheng
2017). In the 2010s American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA),
an economic stabilization policy of the Obama administration looked
for “shovel-ready” projects, accelerating the completion of over 500
projects in all 50 states and territories. One of these projects was the
Edith Green-Wendell Wyatt federal building in Portland, Oregon, orig-
inally designed by Skidmore, Owings & Merrill in the 1970s, and later
redesigned by Cutler Anderson Architects. After being on hold for a
couple of years—Cheng explained—ARRA had increased standards that
required redesigning of the facade, and yet because ARRA was set to
move quickly the decision to keep and renovate the building was not
revisited: “It would likely had been a more difficult decision given the
challenge of meeting more strict standards” (Reneé Cheng 2017).
This modernization project transformed the 18-story building into one
of the highest performing federal buildings, saving the concrete frame
and cladding it with a new facade system that provides a geometrically
intricate addition of floor plates to all sides of the building, replacing
mechanical systems, and anticipating the demands of unknown ten-
ants (Renée Cheng 2015). Clearing the facade 22 inches outside of the
existing frame added 33,000 square feet (3,065 square meters) of space
(Libby 2013). Cheng recalls that the clever decision emerged from real-
izing that the addition of that small depth of floor space with the facade
would significantly improve use flexibility (Reneé Cheng 2017). Reducing
the weight of the concrete facade also eliminated the need for seismic
retrofits to meet stricter standards, extending the life of the building
(American Institute of Architects Committee on the Environment 2014).
Design for Material Persistence

In light of the inevitable material change in buildings, an important ques-
tion for this research was, what should persist in long-lasting buildings?
Certainly, the elements that persist must be robust and long-lasting
enough to mitigate the impact of their construction on the environment
(sustainability) yet give people the ability to adapt and thrive under
@ArcLib
@ArcLib
different conditions (resilience). For Daniel Abramson—the answer to

that question historically has been an issue of identifying which part of
the building would maintain a sense of identity, and which would be
susceptible to change (D. Abramson 2018). This is at the core of mon-
umentalizing “the relationship between the fast-flowing time and the
peaceful haven of permanence” (Moravánszky 2017, 193). Persistence is
first focused on the architectural attributes that have the most inertia—
the slowest changing throughout the long life of buildings. This prioriti-
zation means that the materials that persist in all conditions have the
most capacity and highest performance to create meaningful connec-
tions to place, cultural significance, and richness of human experience.
An ecological view of architectural material points towards designing
a productive resistance or inertia in buildings. That buildings are “pon-
derous, hard to move into the future”—an idea shared by Randal Heeb
during an interview with the authors at the office of Opsis Architecture
in Portland—results from accumulating value through the significant
time and energy it takes to extract, produce, and assemble its materials
(Heeb 2017). Stability, not permanence, is how architecture ultimately
absorbs cycles of variability—a metaphor from ecology that says that
in the complexity-stability dynamic of systems, principles of connectiv-
ity, richness, nestedness, and strength of interactions, dampen oscilla-
tory dynamics and increases the persistence of ecological communities
(Landi et al. 2018). In socio-ecological systems, the tolerance to certain
kinds of variability can make you vulnerable to other forms of variability,
trading off capacity for a highly uncertain environment (Janssen, Ander-
ies, and Ostrom 2007). What does that mean in architecture? Accepting
variability in performance will need to be defined within a limited range:
balancing resistance with the possibility of change through reoccupa-
tion, which means recognizing that others will need to work on it. This
recognition prompts important considerations during the design pro-
cess: How do materials reveal their logic? How will future users make
space their own? How much room is left for new connections, new
layers, different levels of performance? What is fundamental about
the architecture that remains, and what lives and dies? These ques-
tions are analogous to finding the keystone species of an ecosystem,
and identifying the other species that have a narrower tolerance for
variability.
These are primarily material questions because architects must choose
where to invest more resources and energy. Not everything should
change, but some things will. The stable material properties carry architec-
ture into the future. Designing these with enough capacity and strong con-
nections to place, while simultaneously allowing a richness and diversity
of opportunities for change allows the life within it to thrive and reorgan-
ize in many different conditions. Focusing on making elements movable,
retractable, etc. is what Ann Beha called trying to save “small money.” It
is also futile, as these elements often are very unlikely to change or move.
An anecdote shared with the author during a tour of Milstein Hall at the
Cornell School of Architecture by OMA, brought this issue into focus. The
architects carefully planned movable partitions in the lower level gallery,
some using expensive hardware and wheels. But after completion some
@ArcLib
@ArcLib
remained unmoved for so long, that when they finally decided to move
them, the tires were flat and could not be moved. Being too heavy to lift
for replacement, they are now flat tires fixed in place. This is not a big
problem for them, as they had not seen much need to move them to
begin with. But it was perhaps an investment of effort and resources
best spent elsewhere during design. Nonetheless, it provides a good
lesson for other systems that do need to change fast, e.g. environmen-
tal or communication technologies: simplicity, access, and managea-
bility for human bodies are key.
Architects should design materials into configurations that make some
modifications possible, rewarding, desirable, and sustainable. As we will
see in later chapters, modifications are possible when the logic of the
materials are legible and honest; rewarding when they improve con-
nections to place; desirable when the changes can significantly advance
human values; sustainable when they leave something better behind for
future generations.
Material Implications of Designing for

Persistence
Louis Kahn is said to have designed buildings as if they were wrapped
ruins—appearing to have neither glass nor function (Scully 1993).
This raises an interesting tectonic question for architecture designed
for future reuse: for the architect designing with the expectation of
change over a very long time, what else should be expressed other
than its most robust materiality and connection to place? To answer
this question, perhaps better than designing a building to appear
like a ruin, designers could imagine the essence of architecture long
after the moment of its making: how would the architect design those
elements found after the actual ruin of the building is rediscovered?
Figure I.9 View of the

courtyard and water
feature. Louis Kahn,
Salk Institute for
Biological Studies (La
Jolla, California, USA),
1965. Photograph by
Shawn Kashou.
@ArcLib
@ArcLib
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
Patrol would be glad to set up, on any desired number of these
barren planets, as many atomic power plants as the Cahuitans
wanted; with controls set either to let go in an hour or to maintain
stability for twenty five thousand Galactic Standard years.
The Cahuitans would immediately extinguish all vortices not
containing products, and would move all living products to the new
planets as soon as the promised incubators were ready.
“Products indeed—they’re babies!” Joan insisted, when Cloud
stepped the information down to her level. “And how can they
possibly move them?”
“Easily enough,” the fulfillment told Cloud. “Blankets of force will
retain the warmth necessary for such short trips, provided each new
incubator is waiting, warm, and ready.”
“I see. But there’s one question I want to ask for myself,” and
Cloud went on to explain about the unbelievably huge sphere that
crossed Civilization’s vast expanse of space. “What’s the reason for
it?”
“To save time and effort. The product Medury devoted much of
both to the evaluation of a sufficiently productive, esthetically
satisfying, and mathematically correct construction. It would not be
logical to waste time and labor in seeking a variant or an alternate,
especially since Medury’s work showed, almost conclusively, that his
was in fact the most symmetrical construction possible. Now
symmetry, to us, is what you might, perhaps, call a ruling passion in
one of your own races.”
“Symmetry? The first twelve vortices were symmetrical, of
course, but from there on—nothing.”
“Ah—that is due to the differences between our thinkings;
particularly in our mathematical and philosophical thinkings. The
circle, the sphere, the square, the cube—all such elementary forms
—are common to both but the likenesses are few. The differences
are many; so many that it will require several thousands of your
Galactic Standard years for certain of my fellows and me to tabulate
them and to make whatever may be possible of reconciliation.”
“Well . . . thanks. One more question . . . maybe I shouldn’t ask it,
but . . . this that we have laid out is a wide-reaching and extremely
important program. Are you sure that you are able to speak for all
the Cahuitans who will be affected?”
“I am sure. Since we are a logical race we all think alike—
logically. On the other hand, your race does not seem to me at the
moment to be at all a logical one. Can you speak for it?”
“In this matter I can; and you, in my mind, will know that I can,”
and in this case Cloud could indeed speak for the Patrol. Philip
Strong, after one glance in Cloud’s mind, would issue the necessary
orders himself and would explain later—to anyone capable of
accepting the true explanation.
“Very well. We will destroy the empty incubators at once, and will
go ahead with the rest of the project whenever you are ready.”
The Cahuitan broke contact and vanished.
In the ship, Cloud got up. So did Joan. Without exchanging a
word or a thought they went hungrily into each other’s arms.
After a time, and still keeping one arm around his Joan, Cloud
reached out and punched a button on his intercom.
“Captain Ross?”
“Ross speaking.”
“Cloud. Mission accomplished. Return to Tellus, please, at full
touring blast.”
“Very well, sir.”
And “Storm” Cloud, Vortex Blaster, was out of a job.
A The reader will please understand that I am doing the best I can
with words we all know. E.E.S.
TRANSCRIBER NOTES
Misspelled words and printer errors have been corrected. Where
multiple spellings occur, majority use has been employed.
Punctuation has been maintained except where obvious printer
errors occur.
*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK MASTERS OF
THE VORTEX ***
Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will
be renamed.
Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S.

copyright law means that no one owns a United States copyright in
these works, so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it
in the United States without permission and without paying copyright
royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part of
this license, apply to copying and distributing Project Gutenberg™
electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™ concept
and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and
may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following the
terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use of
the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for
copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very
easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as
creation of derivative works, reports, performances and research.
Project Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given
away—you may do practically ANYTHING in the United States with
eBooks not protected by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject
to the trademark license, especially commercial redistribution.
START: FULL LICENSE

THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK
To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free

distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work (or
any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full
Project Gutenberg™ License available with this file or online at
www.gutenberg.org/license.
Section 1. General Terms of Use and

Redistributing Project Gutenberg™
electronic works
1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™
electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree
to and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property
(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all
the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or
destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in your
possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a
Project Gutenberg™ electronic work and you do not agree to be
bound by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from
the person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in
paragraph 1.E.8.
1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be

used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people
who agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a
few things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg™ electronic
works even without complying with the full terms of this agreement.
See paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with
Project Gutenberg™ electronic works if you follow the terms of this
agreement and help preserve free future access to Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.
1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the
Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the
collection of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the
individual works in the collection are in the public domain in the
United States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in
the United States and you are located in the United States, we do
not claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing,
performing, displaying or creating derivative works based on the
work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of
course, we hope that you will support the Project Gutenberg™
mission of promoting free access to electronic works by freely
sharing Project Gutenberg™ works in compliance with the terms of
this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg™ name
associated with the work. You can easily comply with the terms of
this agreement by keeping this work in the same format with its
attached full Project Gutenberg™ License when you share it without
charge with others.
1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also
govern what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most
countries are in a constant state of change. If you are outside the
United States, check the laws of your country in addition to the terms
of this agreement before downloading, copying, displaying,
performing, distributing or creating derivative works based on this
work or any other Project Gutenberg™ work. The Foundation makes
no representations concerning the copyright status of any work in
any country other than the United States.
1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:
1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other

immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must
appear prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg™
work (any work on which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or
with which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” is associated) is
accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, copied or distributed:
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United
States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with
almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away
or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License
included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you
are not located in the United States, you will have to check the
laws of the country where you are located before using this
eBook.
1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is derived

from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not contain a
notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the copyright
holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in the
United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are
redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the work, you must
comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through
1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project
Gutenberg™ trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is posted

with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any
additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms
will be linked to the Project Gutenberg™ License for all works posted
with the permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of
this work.
1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project

Gutenberg™ License terms from this work, or any files containing a
part of this work or any other work associated with Project
Gutenberg™.
1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this

electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with
active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
Gutenberg™ License.
1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form,
including any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you
provide access to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg™ work
in a format other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in
the official version posted on the official Project Gutenberg™ website
(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense
to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means
of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original “Plain
Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must include the
full Project Gutenberg™ License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.
1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,

performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™ works
unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing

access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
provided that:
• You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the
method you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The
fee is owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark,
but he has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to
the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty
payments must be paid within 60 days following each date on
which you prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your
periodic tax returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked
as such and sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation at the address specified in Section 4, “Information
about donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation.”
• You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who

notifies you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that
s/he does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™
License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all
copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and
discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of Project
Gutenberg™ works.
• You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of

any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in
the electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90
days of receipt of the work.
• You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.
1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg™

electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set
forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from
the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of
the Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set
forth in Section 3 below.
1.F.
1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend

considerable effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe
and proofread works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating
the Project Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works, and the medium on which they may
be stored, may contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to,
incomplete, inaccurate or corrupt data, transcription errors, a
copyright or other intellectual property infringement, a defective or
damaged disk or other medium, a computer virus, or computer
codes that damage or cannot be read by your equipment.
1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except

for the “Right of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph
1.F.3, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner
of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party
distributing a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work under this
agreement, disclaim all liability to you for damages, costs and
expenses, including legal fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO
REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT LIABILITY, BREACH OF
WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE
PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE
FOUNDATION, THE TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY
DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE LIABLE
TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL,
PUNITIVE OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE
NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you

discover a defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it,
you can receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by
sending a written explanation to the person you received the work
from. If you received the work on a physical medium, you must
return the medium with your written explanation. The person or entity
that provided you with the defective work may elect to provide a
replacement copy in lieu of a refund. If you received the work
electronically, the person or entity providing it to you may choose to
give you a second opportunity to receive the work electronically in
lieu of a refund. If the second copy is also defective, you may
demand a refund in writing without further opportunities to fix the
problem.
1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth in
paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO
OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.
1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied

warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages.
If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the
law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be
interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted
by the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any
provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.
1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the
Foundation, the trademark owner, any agent or employee of the
Foundation, anyone providing copies of Project Gutenberg™
electronic works in accordance with this agreement, and any
volunteers associated with the production, promotion and distribution
of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, harmless from all liability,
costs and expenses, including legal fees, that arise directly or
indirectly from any of the following which you do or cause to occur:
(a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg™ work, (b)
alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any Project
Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any Defect you cause.
Section 2. Information about the Mission of

Project Gutenberg™
Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution of
electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of
computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers.
It exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and
donations from people in all walks of life.
Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the

assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg™’s
goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™ collection will
remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a
secure and permanent future for Project Gutenberg™ and future
generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help,
see Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at
www.gutenberg.org.
Section 3. Information about the Project

Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit
501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the
state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal
Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification
number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent
permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state’s laws.
The Foundation’s business office is located at 809 North 1500 West,

Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up
to date contact information can be found at the Foundation’s website
and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact
Section 4. Information about Donations to

the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation
Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without
widespread public support and donations to carry out its mission of
increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can
be freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the
widest array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small
donations ($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax
exempt status with the IRS.
The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating

charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United
States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a
considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and
keep up with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in
locations where we have not received written confirmation of
compliance. To SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of
compliance for any particular state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate.
While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where

we have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no
prohibition against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in
such states who approach us with offers to donate.
International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make

any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from
outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.
Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation
methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of
other ways including checks, online payments and credit card
donations. To donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate.
Section 5. General Information About Project

Gutenberg™ electronic works
Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project
Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could be
freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and
distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose network of
volunteer support.
Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several printed

editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in
the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not
necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper
edition.
Most people start at our website which has the main PG search
facility: www.gutenberg.org.
This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™,

including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how
to subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.

Full Ebook of The Architecture of Persistence Designing For Future Use 1St Edition Fannon Online PDF All Chapter

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Full Ebook of The Architecture of Persistence Designing For Future Use 1St Edition Fannon Online PDF All Chapter

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Architecture of Persistence

Designing for Future Use 1st Edition

The Future of Modular Architecture 1st Edition David

Experimental Architecture Designing the Unknown 1st

Governing for the Future Designing Democratic

Computer Organization and Architecture: Designing for

Cognitive Architecture Designing for How We Respond to

Wireless Security Architecture Designing and

Mathematics for the IB Diploma Analysis and approaches

Wireless Security Architecture Designing and

D. Fannon, M. Laboy and P. Wiederspahn

Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business

© 2022 David Fannon, Michelle Laboy, and Peter Wiederspahn

The right of David Fannon, Michelle Laboy, and Peter Wiederspahn to be

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or

Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

ISBN: 9780367486389 (hbk)

Introduction: Motive, Context, Method 1

List of Interviews 291

Figure 0.1 Exterior

generations. The question of how to design long-lasting buildings for future

Method 1 1 For an academic treat-

Figure 0.3 Simplified,

Exhibitions Scholarship Educational

the dominant mode

Grounded Theory Method

Structured Analytical Primary Quantitative

Table 0.1 Questions Structured Interview Questions

Organization of the Book

research process as traits commonly (though by no means universally,

Indeterminate describe nearly opposite approaches to planning for the

FLOOR AREA: SQUARE FEET 10,000

The Poetics of Material Decay

The notion of impermanence in architecture is as much rooted in the

Figure I.1 Giovanni

and imagine better versions of what architecture could have been. A

Ecological Metaphors and Realities of Long-Life Buildings

Figure I.2 Hubert

as dynamic configurations of matter, energy, and populations in con-

Figure I.3 Shearing

The concept of dynamic equilibrium emerged in ecology to describe

12–13). In this ecological metaphor, the slowest-changing components,

natural environment as a source of materials but also contribute to the

The issue is change and continuity, the constant renewal of form

Wherever theories remained representational, the result likely is a super-

Theories of change in architecture draw heavily from Darwinian theo-

seen as a potential path to address these uncertainties and build on the

life-cycle accounting of the equivalent carbon emissions resulting from

demolition and recycling means processing energy. Concrete could

While the industry searches for ways to reduce the environmental

The concept of Circular Tectonics suggests that life cycle considerations

Persistence as an Ecological Concept

with lower quality materials to be discarded faster, cheaper, and with

Drivers of Material Change: Environmental Forces and

Human agency is also a somewhat unpredictable force. People choose

assemblies that define the character of an entire urbanism. A building

Figure I.5 Brick

industrial buildings in urban districts: the durability of the load-bearing

Obsolescence was a process of cultural devaluation or functional

Despite the pressure for development, many modifications to existing

Figure I.6 Park Avenue

The zoning laws in Central New York have changed significantly