Hybrid Buildings Celebrate The Collective Realm: Design Research at The TU Delft

EDUCATING THE FUTURE: Architectural Education in International Perspective
BARKOD
International EAAE Conference-Workshop-Exhibition Educating the Future: Architectural Education in the
International Perspective 21-23 March 2013, IKU, Istanbul
Similarities and differences: architecture and the

disciplines of art, design and construction
Hybrid Buildings Celebrate the Collective Realm: Design

Research at the TU Delft
Olindo Caso
TUDelft - Faculty of Architecture, Netherlands
o.caso@tudelft.nl
Olindo Caso, architect, is a lecturer at the Faculty of Architecture, TU Delft (NL). He is the coordinator of the first year
of the Architecture MSc Hybrid Buildings. His research activity focus on the urban valence of architectural
interventions and the architecture of infrastructure. He runs his own design office.
Roberto Cavallo
TUDelft - Faculty of Architecture, Netherlands
r.cavallo@tudelft.nl
Roberto Cavallo is an architect and associate professor at the Faculty of Architecture, TU Delft (NL). He is co-founder
of Studio-AI (Amsterdam), responsible for the MSc in Architecture Hybrid Buildings and one of the main actors in the
Architecture research program. His various scientific publications are ranging from the urban to the architectural
project.
Abstract
The master course Hybrid Buildings at the Faculty of Architecture, Delft

University of Technology, The Netherlands (http://www.buildingtypology.nl/), is
running since 10 years being a precursor in pursuing research and design of
―hybridity‖ as a currently meaningful architectural position.
The TU Delft Hybrid Buildings approach investigates mainly a threefold research
& design domain:
The architectural intervention as urban intervention: disciplinary hybrid
(architecture + urbanism);
The programmatic complexity as added value: the functional hybrid;
Architectural language as synthesizing system: the expression of the hybrid
building.
What distinguishes the approach of the TU Delft Hybrid Buildings studio from
other approaches is especially the focus on the value of the architectural design
project as Urban Architecture, as a contribution to the city and its under laying
cultural dimension.
In doing this we aim to investigate the moyenne durée behind the architectural
intervention fitting the continuity of the city plan / idea. Indeed, urban structures
are, more often than not, lasting. They are meant for the long term and need,
rather than rejection, consolidation and thoughtful adaptation.
Other schools and researchers pay otherwise more attention to the inherent
programmatic complexity of hybrid buildings and to their technical machinery
29
supporting complex configuration to work better and/or instantly react to changes

(building physics).
The paper reports the recent experiences in the design studio by discussing
students‘ work on the case-study area Parool Triangle in Amsterdam East,
bringing forward the actuality of the TU Delft Hybrid Buildings approach for the
development of consolidated urban areas.
Key words: hybrid buildings, design research, building as catalyst, building and
urban context, Parool.
Introduction
In architecture, hybrid building is a concept-container that accommodates a variety of -often
contrasting- interpretations. According to own position and needs, every designer can fit into it
because this concept implies the loosening of the relationships between form and content.
Indeed, hybrid buildings are receiving increasing attention in contemporary architectural debates
and practices, attempting the escape from the traditional but arid binomial form-function by
addressing ‗multi-purpose‘ buildings. Rather than looking for mere programmatic solutions,
hybrid buildings offer updated answers to our way of living, working and entertaining. Current
issues like intensification / optimization of land uses, densification of programs, re-vitalization,
economic feasibility of urban plans, are most recurring urban conditions that hybrid buildings
tackle with.
However, the possible risks related to the rise of the hybrid building should not be
underestimated. An example is the ‗Fuck Context‘ approach, neglecting long-lasting urban
developments and jeopardizing the representation and the continuity of civic values., The
design of hybrid interventions, instead, should reflect on the urban values and on the position
buildings take in the historical development of the city.
This paper will firstly describe the master specialization Hybrid Buildings (HB) at the Faculty of
Architecture (BK) of the Delft University of Technology (TUD). Secondly, a discussion will follow
on the hybrid building within the specific ‗urban architecture‘ orientation of the studio. Finally
students‘ design experiences will be presented.
Genesis
The master specialization HB is running for more than 10 years at BK, TUD, being a precursor
in pursuing research and design of ―hybridity‖ as a currently meaningful architectural position.
In 1999 a study programme ‗The Architectural Intervention‘ was started to clarify the mutual
relationships between (urban) architectural research and design education feeding a number of
research & design studios. In this framework, the studio ‗Hybrids: urban architecture between
centre and periphery‘ aimed to investigate the interdependency of urban transformations and
changes in building typologies.
At that time the hybrid building was already mentioned by Koolhaas (1978) and known through
the researches of Steven Holl and Joseph Fenton (1985), whose studies on the development of
the urban block in the American city pointed out the relationships between the rise of the hybrid
building and the constraints of the city grid.
30
Building forth on these precedents, the research & design studio ‗Hybrids‘ published two books2
defining the contours of the architectural research on this topic and presenting the related
outputs in terms of (graduation) projects.
Agenda
The master specialization HB builds up on research & design issues developed through this
experience. The agenda posed at the centre of the debate the relationship between
architectural interventions and urban transformations involving several critical aspects like:
1. The architectural intervention as urban intervention: disciplinary hybrid;

2. The programmatic complexity as added value: the functional hybrid;
3. Architectural language as synthesizing system: the expression of the hybrid building.
1. The studio addresses the urban questions linked to the rise and development of the hybrid
building. The goal is finding architectural answers to the problematic posed by the current urban
conditions. The projects do not propose a new type of city or urban structure but confer new
meaning to the existing ones, reacting to the inflexibility of zoning approaches when facing the
demands of density, usability, spatial economy or liveliness. In this way the hybrid building
supports the re-foundation of the existing city updating and merging its long lasting social and
cultural values. The failure in recognizing the mutual relationship between the guiding city
structures (from history) and architectural interventions opens the door to the absolute generic,
preparing implicitly the ground for speculative interventions and (potentially) wasting
consolidated (urban) values.
2. The inherent complexity of the hybrid intervention finds an additional dimension in the urban
nature of the hybrid project. According to Leen van Duin ―hybrid buildings distinguish
themselves from the conventional typologies due to the complex combination and interweaving
of different functions, spatial types and constructive systems. In this way they facilitate a web of
new relationships anticipating on a culture of rapidly changing coalitions between all types of
social organizations. They leave room for eventual unpredictable changes in accommodation
requirements. Not the final product, but a strategy dominates the design brief: the goal of finding
a clear pattern for each situation‖3. As the hybrid building should be conceived according to
open-end and strategic thinking, a degree of genericity in the architectural approach is needed
in order to activate confrontations with the specific urban conditions. This approach also
2
Van Duin & Van Wegen (eds., 1999); Van Duin et al. (eds., 2001).
3
Van Duin (2001). English translation by authors.
31
introduces ‗time‘ as a design variable, in terms of providing the conditions for future
accommodation of changing programmes.
3. Following the previous points, hybrid buildings are artefacts of urban architecture and should
therefore lend their own identity from their urban embedding rather than from the building
programme (the functions). In other words, the functionalist assertion saying that a building
should show its content loses significance in the described case of hybrid buildings. As the
programme cannot (any longer) be the source of unity and the inspiring principle for the formal
design of the building, which feature can take over this role instead?
Specificity
The Hybrid Buildings master specialization is concerned with the challenges and threats caused
by the growing pressure on urbanised areas. These are even more relevant in places like the
Dutch city, where the scarcity of land goes together with a strong demand of buildings. This
condition may lead to speculative operations threatening (cultural) urban legacies. Optimization
and exploitation of available resources becomes a hot issue: how to realise more with less? In
the meantime, how to realize urban quality defending cities from alienation? How to maintain
specificity in a world of increasing (although often necessary) genericity?
Peculiar for the Hybrid Building programme is therefore the attention to the urban dimension of
the hybrid intervention4, privileging its potential as ‗urban maker‘, as catalyst able to lead urban
transformation. The architectural intervention is considered as a strategic tool to induce urban
development. The design of (hybrid) buildings should reflect on their urban significance and on
the position they take in the historical development of the place. Therefore research on cities
and their history is an important component of the program.
One of the aims is investigating the moyenne durée5 behind the continuity of the city plan / idea.
Indeed, urban structures are, more often than not, lasting. They are meant for the long term and
need, rather than rejection, consolidation and thoughtful adaptation. But how to conciliate this
desired ‗slowness‘ with the courte durée, the rapid changes in programmes and fashions?
Which architectural intervention fits the urban plan by allowing programmatic ‗open-ending‘
while still retaining identity and architectural definition? Which kind of building corresponds to
this state of ‗multi-purposeness‘?
Steven Holl (Fenton, 1985) has made a pertinent distinction between the hybrid building en the
multifunctional mega-structures of the middle of the 20th century. While these mixed-use large
structures postulated the rise of a new kind of city, hybrid buildings are characterized by ―an
individual form supporting the underlying pattern of the city grid‖. Fenton (1985): ―It is crucial to
stress that hybrid buildings stand differentiated from other multiple function buildings by scale
and form. The scale is determined by the dimension of a city block within the orthogonal grid.
The form is a direct result of the late Nineteenth century technical innovations such as structural
framing, the elevator, the telephone, electrical wiring, central heating and ventilation systems …
The hybrid type was a response to the metropolitan pressures of escalating land values and the
constraints of the urban grid … The buildings became taller, larger than ever before. Its only
constraints were the zoning ordinances and the orthogonal grid itself‖.
4
Obviously, the design studio approaches all aspects of architectural design including building technology. In this
paper we want to enlighten the specific attention of the studio towards the urban dimension of the architectural
intervention.
5
We borrow this terminology from Fernand Braudel and we apply it to the ‗times‘ that are proper of city development.
32
Although Fenton referred to the specific case of the American city and to the urban debate of
the 1980s, its transposition to other cases and to the current urban debate remains valid.
Indeed, hybrid buildings are architectural objects – not vague structures. They derive the reason
of their existence from the existing city. They show the potential of urban places of acquiring
new meanings, catching-up with current (social) demands without losing identity. Hybrid
buildings are par excellence architectural answers to urban developments6.
In the prologue to a recent publication on this topic (Fernandez Per et al., 2011), Steven Holl,
rethinking the 1985 Pamphlet, attempts actualizations by looking at current dynamics. This time
the Chinese case becomes relevant, with its ‗hyper-urbanization‘ and millions of people moving
into urban areas. ―Instead of developers building huge, bland apartment buildings without
service programs of public space, new building types are needed. These new hybrid types can
shape public space. Urban porosity is a key intention for large hybrid buildings with the aim of
pedestrian oriented urban places. Each new public space formed by hybrid buildings contains
living, working, recreation and cultural facilities. ... They become localized ‗social condensers‘
for the new communities‖.
A third generation of hybrid buildings is indeed emerging. After the old, traditional combinations
like house + shop / atelier, common to many ages and cultures, and after the American type of
hybrid, with its gigantism in scale and dense internal complexity (annexation of the tower to the
block, as Koolhaas explains, 1978), the new generation seeks architectural answers to the
newer urban conditions. When we look at the reality, there is little doubt that the role of the
building as catalyst, ‗social condenser‘ for communities, should be put forward more than ever
before. Political and economic developments increase the pressure on (public) building
programs. With governments increasingly withdrawing, disengaging from both (cultural) local
infrastructure and public space quality, the hybrid building of the 21st century must re-establish a
healthy balance between people and places, between buildings and public space. Furthermore,
digitalization has brought a less physical context of action for many matters, blurring boundaries
between public and private and between time and space, but tremendously reinforcing at the
same time the need for spatial specificity and encounter (Caso, 1999). Smart hybrid
combinations (buildings and functions) can help to realize sustainability, both at the level of
energetic consumption / waste and at the socio-economic level. This decision is not merely
speculative: which combination will better profit of each other‘s potentialities?
It is not anymore just a question of scale, of bigness, but rather of appropriateness and
engagement. A hybrid building of the third generation is not necessarily a big, bulky object
absorbing liveliness and complexity into it. Scale will keep playing a role, particularly in
developing countries, still busy with large-scale phenomena and an economy of quantities.
Surely this is not the case of most existing European cities, already entered into an economy of
qualities. Here the hybrid building serves the city, clarifying its structure and generating in a
balanced way quality on public space outside and inside itself. This building holds an own
identity, but in connection with the ‗group‘ to which it belongs. The essence of the third
generation hybrid building is its vocation of being collective in many ways.
Preferred locations for this hybrid building are empty spots, gaps into the existing cities that
have the potential to be re-functionalized or optimized in order to increase the performances of
the place, keeping an eye on the (economic) sustainability of the intervention. These areas can
be found not only within the urban-block grid, but also where existing gaps can be recognized
and filled-in without denying the possible re-use of existing constructions. The city must be then
considered as an objective fact, able to offer precious material for the intervention.
6
Engel, H. (2001).
33
Is the distinction made by Fenton (1985) in Graft, Fabric and Monolith hybrids7, still helpful in the
third generation? This is probably the case, although this incomplete classification8 contradicts
his own conclusions about the basic anarchism of the hybrid building: ―The determination of
program and form advanced by typological models of the urban environment appears merely
nostalgic in the presence of hybrid buildings which defy the categorization by building type (…)
Hybrid buildings are the triumph of ingenuity and daring of their designers. The architect‘s
individual input is evident in the specificity with which each building responds to its program and
site. The combinations are limitless. What is offered by the hybrid building is a practitioner‘s tool
for dealing with the intricacies of the Twentieth Century city‖. Surely, the distinction between
Fabric Hybrids (built using the same elements composing the city and thus merging into it) and
Monolith Hybrid (just the exception to the city rules) seems still to be the most relevant as long
as we focus on the relationship between building and urban space / public space9.
Case Study
At the HB Design Studios students are confronted with the above described problematic. The
case studies chosen for the design exercises make possible the study on new relationships
between architectural interventions and urban developments within urban contexts strongly
looking for new meanings. We have found in the Parool Triangle in Amsterdam a representative
case study in which the intertwining between architectural intervention and urban space can
deliver interesting answers and challenging future scenarios. We decided to propose this case
study as design exercise in the Hybrid Buildings MSc1 studio. The original layout of the Parool
site is indeed an example of the negative reading of the complicated relationships between
buildings and urban space caused by their reciprocal detachment.
In these situations the recurring modus operandi was usually a radical one: tabula rasa.
Demolishing the existing buildings and substituting them with new interventions create a
whitewash new situation, clearing off the heritage of previous histories / identities. Indeed, the
‗Parool Triangle‘ shows an enormous potential waiting to be freed by thinking architectural
place-dedicated interventions. In this framework we would like to draw particular attention to
design approaches that emphasize in different ways this elective role of the third generation of
hybrid buildings.
Parool Triangle
The Parool Triangle is an area in Amsterdam along the Wibautstraat. The area lends its
triangular shape from a former railway junction, and its name from the highest building in the
area, once headquarter of the Amsterdam based newspaper ‗Parool‘.
7
Graft hybrids reflect the programme showing in this way the content of the building. It results often in a sort of
designed patchwork. Fabric hybrids are conceived as part of the urban fabric. They are ‗the affirmation of a form and
its envelope and the subsequent relegation of the program to an inconspicuous appearance of the building‘. Monolith
hybrids are bigger and larger, loosening themselves from the city fabric acquiring a more monumental meaning even
beyond their size.
8
According to Engel (2001), the classification made by Fenton adopts two criteria at the same time. On the one hand
he considers the way in which the exterior aspect of the building refers to the programme. At the other hand,
however, he also addresses the relationships of the hybrid with the urban situation. By reporting these 4 dimensions
in a 2x2 matrix (expressive/neutral on one axis and block/tower on the other one) 4 possible combinations can be
obtained: the neutral block (Fabric), the neutral tower (Monolith), the expressive tower (Graft) and a fourth
combination that Fenton does not consider, the expressive block. As an example of this fourth category Engel
mentions Aalto‘s Culture Centre in Wolfsburg.
9
As already remarked by Engel (2001).
34
The transformation of the area from railway junction into urban site begun in the 1930‘s when, in
order to solve the infrastructural problems in the eastern area of Amsterdam, part of the railways
was demolished, including the terminus station Weesperport, relocating the remaining tracks on
a dyke. The left over areas remained as an empty gap within the already urbanized
surroundings.
The general expansion plan (AUP) of Cornelis van Eesteren (1934) shows the new destinations
for the area. The scar of the former railway yard had to become a new wide avenue, the
Wibautstraat, the new entrance to Amsterdam from the southeast. The areas around the former
Weesperpoort station and the Triangle were filled in with a pattern of residential buildings.
Realizations on the Triangle only took place after World War II, in the framework of the post-war
reconstruction. The Corbusian craftsmanship school (1956) was designed by architect J.B.
Ingwersen and is now on the list of municipal monuments. Two years before, the architect
Berghoef had already realised five housing blocks along the railway track (1954). Finally, the
buildings of the newspapers Parool and Trouw, designed by Van den Broek & Bakema (1969-
1974), completed the occupancy of the area. The headquarter of the newspaper De Volkskrant
was built in 1965 on the other side of the Wibautstraat, following a design of the Rotterdam
based architecture firm Kraaijvanger.
35
The time-distance among the surrounding 19th century city, the Van Eesteren plan, and the final
infill given to the Parool Triangle in the 60‘s and 70‘s, resulted in a multi-layered urban setting
where the differences in architectural approaches are easily legible. More important is to remark
the differences in urban paradigms laying at the basis of the mentioned interventions. As the
19th century developments in the area, still following the rule of blocks and streets, adapted their
morphology to the existing infrastructure, Van Eesteren tries to inject the garden city idea into
this setting, pointing out the new Wibautstraat as the carrier of the new city structure. In the
actual realization the relationship between buildings and public space is functionally determined.
The position of the buildings on the site has very little to none reference with both the 19th
century surrounding area and the Wibautstraat boulevard. Moreover, the relationship with the
garden city ideals of Van Eesteren‘s AUP also disappeared somewhere between the ‗50‘s and
the ‗70s.
Problematic and Assignment

This clash among the morphology of the Parool triangle and the other features of the area is at
the same time the problem and the challenge, asking for a new interpretation of the relationship
between different paradigms in urban architecture.
The newspapers headquarters left the area between 2004 (Parool) and 2007 (Volkskrant and
Trouw). In 2008 a dedicated project-office was set up to give direction to the many plans
regarding the Wibautstraat area, in order to turn the fragmented en disordered-looking
Wibautstraat into a properly designed ‗Urban Boulevard‘. A new profile of this street, combined
with a number of (large and small) interventions along with it, should finally realize the original
intention of creating a street with allure, worth its role of entrance to the city.
Architect Joan Busquets designed a new masterplan for the Parool area. He had no doubts10:
demolition of all buildings on the site (excepting the Ingwersen‘s school – the monument) and
the realization of a high-density intervention at the new Wibautboulevard. The plan also
attempts to connect the long lines of the Oosterpark neighbourhood with the Wibautstraat and,
over the street, to the Amstel.
The recent economic uncertainties have made this plan not feasible. Complete clearance of the
site is not an option anymore and more sensitive interventions must be found. New design
strategies are needed building up on the current urban conditions. The task is therefore re-
qualifying the area by designing appropriate interventions able to realize a healthier balance
between buildings and public spaces. The site also needs to be re-functionalized in order to act
as a (socio-spatial) catalyst for future developments, balancing the relationship between people
and functions. Third generation hybrids seem to be very suitable to cope with these
requirements.
Design Projects
Many students‘ proposals elaborated for this case study show indeed a drive towards the design
of the building as a ‗social condenser‘ by researching the proper balance between the different
dimensions at stance: functions, users, communal interiors, public exteriors, density, (critical)
relationship with the underlying urban grid – still without giving up the ambition of realizing a
clearly legible building / ensemble. Quite remarkable is the attention of many students towards
10
The professional ability of Busquet is not under discussion here. His plan fitted very well the required programme,
but the changing conditions made the requirements no longer feasible.
36
the functioning / role of the building as a built artefact. This aspect of the proposals clearly rises
above the ambition of creating iconic buildings, wild dreams too often fascinating students as
well as their teachers. The position of the HB studio plays a clear educational role at this
concern. The selection of projects presented below intends to show the unity of goals within a
variety of approaches. The 2/3 of the building programme is common for all projects
(neighbourhood library and housing) while the remaining 1/3 can be decided by the student
according to own research and belief.
Alejandro Heredia Moreno (Mexico). This architectural intervention organizes a pattern of

public spaces at the local scale mediating them with the (city-scale) public space at the Wibaut
boulevard and related building fronts. The hearth of the composition is formed by the library hall,
designed as a connective indoor element between different kinds of public spaces. The library is
a collective space by itself – the sitting room of the neighbourhood. The collective dimension
informs other parts of the design as well, like the organization of dwellings and the relationships
between building and small public squares at the backside.
Mattias Svensson Lembke (Sweden). Two blocks strongly characterized by a neutral load-
bearing skin compose this design. Together with the Parool building, the two blocks realize an
urban composition able to form a recognizable public space (street), qualifying it as an urban
place. The mutual relationships between the collective interiors and the public space reinforce
the potential of ‗social condenser‘ of the intervention, inviting the Parool building to join the new
urban situation.
37
Jos Reinders (Netherlands). Prioritizing the urban scale, this proposal brings more spatial
definition into the location, especially concerning the definition of the city-square between Parool
building and boulevard. Peculiar for this project is the attempt to realize a higher interaction
between the Ingwersen‘s school and the library, through the creation of an elevated collective
open space giving entrance to both buildings and holding a strong relationship with library hall -
the spatial collective element structuring the composition.
Ruben van der Plas (Netherlands). The collective idea of this project lays in the ingenious
composition of different, specific functions within a well-defined building envelop. The functions
use each other‘s spatial characteristics and constraints turning them into their strengths. The
programme combination is smart in terms of energy consumption, as the surplus of heath
produced by the Turkish bathhouse and the swimming pool can be reused for the library and the
dwellings. The collective courtyard at the upper floor is designed as an energetically active
glasshouse.
38
Varun Kaushik (India). This project organizes and gives quality to the public space at location,
turning the present spatial un-definition into a quality place, reciprocally supporting buildings
functions and users. Peculiar of the design is the organization of routes and open spaces in the
area, a system that includes a living bridge above the Wibaut boulevard. This whole system
converges towards the main square between Parool building and boulevard, intended to be the
focal point of the neighbourhood.
Jos Neering (Netherlands). The proposal addresses another area of the Parool triangle than
most projects do. The 5 Berghoef‘s apartments buildings radially placed along the railway dike
form a series of (green) open courtyards, currently not much more than residual spaces
between the blocks. This project renews the now obsoleted apartments blocks unifying them all
under an undulated roof sheltering the courtyards as well. The courtyards becomes in this way
places for collective activities (including a market), suggesting at the same time the possibility of
a new public centrality between the Trouw building and the renewed blocks.
39
Mi Wang (China). This project plays on two different realms present in the area: the ‗boulevard
side‘ (large scale, velocity, heavy traffic, city) and the ‗domestic side‘ (neighbourhood scale,
green, local quality, slow traffic). By densifying the border between the two realms the project
creates a kind of ‗wall‘, freeing the vocations of the two sides of being treated and developed
consequently. A sloping element is then introduced as a green park complementing the
domestic side, while the boulevard side houses shops and larger scale activities and buildings.
Peculiar in this project is the living bridge above the boulevard. The bridge contains the library
and functions also as a green walkway between the green slope of the domestic side, the
boulevard, and the Amstel. The living bridge is treated as a collective artefact offering everyone
a brand new view on Amsterdam.
Hybrid Buildings Celebrate the Collective Realm

What is common to all these projects is an explicit vocation towards researching the collective
meaning in the in different design scales and in various ways.
40
Most evident of this desire of collectiveness in the designs is for instance the treatment of the
spaces of common action inside and outside of the buildings as collective places. The buildings
are often enriched by halls, passages, courtyards and internal streets, showing the desire of
giving a collective dimension to the hybrid buildings. When such an element is missing, its role
is taken over by a collective function in the building as for instance the lecture hall or a coffee
bar. At the same time, the public spaces outside buildings are also addressing the collective
realm, refusing the genericity of the word ‗public‘ and researching a specific role for it. The two
parts of this game enjoy often a reciprocal reinforcement through their continuity in space. The
public space extends in the building and otherwise, the building takes possession of the public
space.
The variety of functions inhabiting a hybrid building could be on itself understood as

collectiveness. Although only few projects fully approach the programmatic complexity of hybrid
configurations (as for instance Van der Plas does), the most proposals recognize the need of
structuring this complexity by designing internal buffers and shared spaces, imagining for them
a collective use. These spaces are often designed as internal squares and equipped to allow
users to stay. Staircases changes into tribunes, passages and streets acquire a double role.
The expression of most designed buildings could be referred to the Fabric Hybrid as described
by Fenton (1985). The source of inspiration for their design is very often found in the characters
of the surrounding urban structure and the meaning that the building wants to acquire in this
structure. This is another reading of the collective vocation of the projects. They hardly pose
themselves as strongly embedded icons of conflicting individuality, but reflect on the value of the
building as part of the collective heritage of the city and its inhabitants. These students prefer
friendly solutions derived by local characters. For this reason, Monolith hybrids and Graft
hybrids are virtually absent in the production of the students. Instead, some projects refer to the
fourth category (Expressive Fabric hybrids, that Fenton does not consider in his categorization)
that we already discussed (see note 9). This is probably due to the characteristics of the
assigned case study, although we believe that the context of the European city offers more
space for Fabric kinds of interventions than the American city.
Finally, it must be remarked that this collective vocation is not a given element of the MSc1
Design Studio. It is rather a conclusion to which many students arrive by reflecting on the topic
and designing their interventions. We, teachers and researchers, also learn from these
proposals and we attempt to link them into more general frameworks. Other readings emerge
from the projects, as the growing attention to ‗greenery‘ as a design material (Cavallo & Caso,
2012) or the research about the relationship between the generic floor plan and the specific
façade. For this paper we have selected a number of projects among the many dealing with the
collective idea. We have tried to underpin these concepts and place them into the (scientific)
debate on hybrid buildings.
Bibliography
BOCK, M.; V. VAN ROSSEM,; Z. HEMEL,; K. SOMER. Cornelis van Eesteren.

Architect/Urbanist. Rotterdam, NAI publishers, 2001
CASO, O. (1999). The city the elderly and telematics. Delft University Press, Delft.
CAVALLO, R. & O. CASO (2012). Design Research in an environment of change: the „green
approach‟ in urban regeneration. EAAE-ISUF Conference, Delft, October 2012. Conference
proceedings forthcoming.
41
DUIN, VAN L. & H. VAN WEGEN (eds., 1999). Hybrides. Stedelijke architectuur tussen centrum
en periferie. Delft University Press, Delft.
DUIN, VAN L. (2001). Onderzoeksatelier Hybrides: stedelijke architectuur. In: DUIN, VAN L.; H.
ENGEL, I. PANE‘ (eds., 2001). ―Hybride Gebouwen en Architectuur van de Stad‖. Delft
University Press, Delft.
DUIN, VAN L.; H. ENGEL, I. PANE‘ (eds., 2001). Hybride Gebouwen en Architectuur van de
Stad. Delft University Press, Delft.
ENGEL, H. (2001). Hybride gebouwen en architectuur van de stad. Typologische of distributieve

indifferentie? In: VAN DUIN, L.; H. ENGEL, I. PANE‘ (eds., 2001). ―Hybride Gebouwen en
Architectuur van de Stad‖. Delft University Press, Delft.
FENTON, J. (1985). Pamphlet Architecture n.11. New York / San Francisco. Distributed by
Princeton Architectural Press. Preface of Steven Holl.
FERNANDEZ PER, A.; J. MOZAS, J. ARPA (2011). This is Hybrid. a+t architecture publishers,
Vitoria-Gasteiz (E).
KOOLHAAS, R. (1978). Delirious New York. A Retroactive Manifesto for Manhattan. Thames &
Hudson, London.
LEEUW, VAN DER R. (2010). De Wibautstraat. Stadsboulevard of verkeersader? Student

research work, TUDelft. Plan Amsterdam 6-2010. DRO Amsterdam, Municipality of Amsterdam,
2010.
42

Hybrid Buildings Celebrate The Collective Realm: Design Research at The TU Delft

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Hybrid Buildings Celebrate The Collective Realm: Design Research at The TU Delft

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

EDUCATING THE FUTURE: Architectural Education in International Perspective

Similarities and differences: architecture and the

Hybrid Buildings Celebrate the Collective Realm: Design

The master course Hybrid Buildings at the Faculty of Architecture, Delft

supporting complex configuration to work better and/or instantly react to changes

1. The architectural intervention as urban intervention: disciplinary hybrid;

Problematic and Assignment

Alejandro Heredia Moreno (Mexico). This architectural intervention organizes a pattern of

Hybrid Buildings Celebrate the Collective Realm

The variety of functions inhabiting a hybrid building could be on itself understood as

BOCK, M.; V. VAN ROSSEM,; Z. HEMEL,; K. SOMER. Cornelis van Eesteren.

ENGEL, H. (2001). Hybride gebouwen en architectuur van de stad. Typologische of distributieve

LEEUW, VAN DER R. (2010). De Wibautstraat. Stadsboulevard of verkeersader? Student

Вам также может понравиться