Geomorphic Tectonics

O P / PO STIO N S Intractable Divisions? Current approaches to the architectural object and the concepts of tectonics exhibit significant limitations in their capacity to address compound sustainability problems and environmental degradation caused by rapid urbanization, densification, and construction. These limitations arise in large part from the connected perceptions 1. that urban form is composed of discrete systems and objects, 2. that architectures need to be discrete objects that must be set apart from their surroundings, and 3. that tectonics needs to conform to and affirm the implied divisions. In general terms, the restraints stem from the perceived dichotomy between the human-made and the natural and preclude a more integrative approach. An alternative approach might focus on intensive integration rather than separating architectures and their settings. In search of a general theory of architecture, Gottfried Semper described four elements of which all architecture can be said to consist: the hearth, roof, enclosure, and mound. Semper posited that these four elements are articulated and arranged following local circumstances, climate, and culture (Semper 1851, 55). Today, however, local differences and diversity of architecture have disappeared, especially in urban settings, and a more generic range of buildings and tectonic articulations prevail. In this context, the mound and related earthworks constitute no longer a primary part of tectonics. Instead, earthworks are frequently relegated to the leveling of sites, excavation to accommodate underground spaces, and modest applications to facilitate green roofs. Michael U. Hensel Vienna University of Technology Geomorphic Tectonics