STOA - Studio of Tectonic and Open Architecture
Most people think of architecture as a fancy name for fine buildings and an architect as a fine man who designs fancy buildings. If these definitions were confined to dinner table talk as amusing conversational pieces, we would not have to worry. Unfortunately this is not the case; instead, when reduced to their essence, most contemporary architectural criticism and discourse merely echoes the most simplistic and superficial notions people have about architecture. The architectural profession itself has lost its intellectual grip by dissociating itself with history and the learning of architectural syntax. It thus contributes actively towards the promotion of gloss over substance with their work. All this connives to make our living environment evermore banal, vulgar and alienating. An art form which once held itself to represent the best of the human spirit now finds itself in the trash-can of the global cult of materialism. Please join the efforts in halting this trend and returning architectural practice to its serene duty of public service.
The idea of STOA is inspired by a more general but also more accurate definition of architecture; that of ‘Open Architecture’ used with great clarity in the Information Technology industry. The necessary sharing of fundaments induces organically an attitude of cooperation. Thus the STOA idea of open architecture seeks to create the seemingly impossible consensus (in our times) on aesthetic matters by dealing seriously with the commonality of language. The acronym is borrowed from a building type called the Stoa in the Greek acropolis which provided a enclosed space for citizens to gather for no other purpose than to conduct conversations - to exchange thoughts and ideas. It facilitated a democractic need.
The following definitions refer to computers but when applied as metaphors to the built environment, a clearer idea of how our built environment ought to function also emerges. Read them closely noting the meaning of the underlined words and see if some hints emerge as to why and ‘open architecture’ may also be the preferred model for buildings and cities:
ARCHITECTURE
A design: The term architecture can refer to either hardware or software, or to a combination of hardware and software. The architecture of a system always defines its broad outlines, and may define precise mechanisms as well.
An open architecture allows the system to be connected easily to devices and programs made by other manufacturers. Open architectures use off-the-shelf components and conform to approved standards. A system with a closed architecture, on the other hand, is one whose design is proprietary, making it difficult to connect the system to other systems.
OPEN ARCHITECTURE
An architecture whose specifications are public: This includes officially approved standards as well as privately designed architectures whose specifications are made public by the designers. The opposite of open is closed. The great advantage of open architectures is that anyone can design add-on products for it. By making an architecture public, however, a manufacturer allows others to duplicate its product. Linux, for example, is considered open architecture because its source code is available to the public for free. In contrast, DOS, Windows, and the Macintosh architecture and operating system have been predominantly closed. Many lawsuits have been filed over the use of these architectures in clone machines. For example, IBM issued a Cease and Desist order, followed by a battery of lawsuits, when COMPAQ built its first computers.
REAL ARCHITECTURE
An open architecture is thus that promotes a sense of sharing, of belonging and rendering the capacity to communicate and cooperate between the disparate parts.
In spirit, the technological advances in computing in the last decade expresses the best ideals:
Paradoxically the hype that surrounds the high-tech phenomenon is expressed in an architecture that celebrates exactly the opposite tendencies; aggression, idiosyncracy and self-centeredness.
Open architecture must not fall into the simplistic functionalism which apply to mechanical systems, instead it must visibly express the manifest effects of functioning shared systems, that of communal cohesion - cooperation based on the clarity of common interests.
A shared aesthetic? How do we arrive at that? Like all means of legible communication, a shared aesthetic then it must use a commonly favoured language. If we were asked to suddenly invent a system of verbal speech, to what would we turn? Surely we would be looking for precedent, existing linguistic systems. In western architecture, there is only one language at the root. That of the architecture which emerged from the Greek Civilisation – the architecture based on the knowledge of the passed down tectonic orders.
Rome, 1 8 2001