See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/333388049

ARCHITECTURE IN XXI CENTURY– RE-USING ARCHITECTURAL IDEAS AND

FORMS

Conference Paper · June 2016

CITATIONS READS

0 29

2 authors:

Nađa Kurtović-Folić Aleksandra Miric

University of Novi Sad 13 PUBLICATIONS   2 CITATIONS   
64 PUBLICATIONS   61 CITATIONS   
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Optimization of architectural and urban planning and design in function of sustainable development in Serbia View project

200 years of urban planning in Serbia View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Nađa Kurtović-Folić on 26 May 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 XVI МЕЖДУНАРОДНА НАУЧНА КОНФЕРЕНЦИЯ ВСУ’2016
XVI INTERNATIONAL SCIENTIFIC CONFERENCE VSU'2016

ARCHITECTURE IN XXI CENTURY– RE-USING ARCHITECTURAL

IDEAS AND FORMS

Nadja Kurtovic Folic 1, Aleksandra Miric 2

Abstract: There is a belief that architecture is evolving continuously, even though in

practice, we recognize many already existing forms. If we think that it is not the case
with contemporary architecture, and that it is doing something different and
futuristic, we could argued that it is not true in many ways. Different ideologies have
been developed architecture according their principles, but in each of them, in any
civilization, directly or indirectly, architecture is a result of perception of the specific
natural or built environment. The history of architecture can be seen as the history of
architectural ideas and the history of built forms. We could see that there are some
conceptual similarities among them and that it is sufficient to follow the birth,
development and transformation of architectural ideas in order to understand their
longevity and presence even when they are not visually easy to recognize. It is
believed, in fact, that technological advances made it possible for certain ideas,
conceived a long time ago, to develop nowadays to amazing proportions, and that the
number of new ideas is actually very few, and they are developing slowly. The
longevity of ideas can be relatively easy to follow, because once the appropriate type
of structure that corresponds to a specific function is created, then this type of
structure is usually varied in material, size, color, but people can always recognize
them based on their importance for them. Two ideas, known through the history, that
contemporary architects are dealing with are: the re-use of old buildings to make
something new and organic architecture that tries to be incorporated with the
environment around it by being more curvy and sometimes by using plants into the
structural design.

Key words: contemporary architecture, re-use, historical buildings,

anthropomorphic architecture,

1. Introduction
There is a belief that architecture is evolving continuously, even though in practice,
we recognize many already existing forms. If we think that contemporary architecture is
doing something different and futuristic, we could argue that it is not true in many ways.
Different ideologies have developed architectures according to their principles, but in each
of them, in any civilization, directly or indirectly, architecture is the result of perception of

1
Prof. Nadja Kurtovic Folic, University of Novi Sad, Faculty of technical sciences, Trg D. Obradovica 6,
Novi Sad, Serbia
2
Aleksandra Miric, architect-conservator, PhD student-researcher at the Institute for the study of ancient
architecture IRAA, Aix en Provence, France, PhD student at the Faculty of Civil Engineering and
Architecture, Nis, aleksandramiric@yahoo.com
 XVI МЕЖДУНАРОДНА НАУЧНА КОНФЕРЕНЦИЯ ВСУ’2016
XVI INTERNATIONAL SCIENTIFIC CONFERENCE VSU'2016

specific natural or built environment. The history of architecture can be seen as the history
of architectural ideas and the history of built shapes. We could see that there are some
conceptual similarities among the ideas and that it is sufficient to perceive the emergence,
development and transformation of engineering ideas in order to understand their longevity
and presence even when they are not visually easy to recognize. It is believed, in fact, that
technological advances made it possible for certain ideas, conceived a long time ago, to
develop nowadays to amazing proportions, and that the number of new ideas is actually
very few, and that they are developing slowly. The longevity of ideas can be relatively
easy to perceive, because once the appropriate type of structure that corresponds to a
specific function is created, then this type of structure is usually varied in material, size,
colour, but people can always recognize them based on their importance for them.

2. The re-use of old buildings by adaptation for new uses

The re-use of old buildings could be understood in many different ways. The most
obvious way is evident all around us, better to say all around the world. That means that
the old buildings, not necessary being a part of the listed built heritage, pass through
different building processes (adaptation, refurbishment, reactivation, reconstruction,
rehabilitation…) with the desire to be re-used with a new purpose. [1]
The re-use of the existing building stock is the best viable use of this resource, but it
must be ensured that all that is significant is conserved and that good conservation practice
is employed. Even where a traditional building has no specific interest that singles it out
from others of the type, if it is traditionally constructed it makes sense to employ the best
conservation practice in the application of the standards. Functional standards, rather than
prescriptive standards for those building could:
- Permit greater flexibility for designers in achieving the minimum standards,
- Cater more sympathetically to the needs of historic buildings undergoing re-use.
The term "re-use" has been given a specific meaning and is restricted to prescribed
changes of intended use or occupation. After the process of re-using, the regulations
require a building to comply with all the standards. [2]
Re-use of the building to which regulations apply are:
- Changes in the occupation or use of a building to create a dwelling or dwellings or a part
thereof.
- Changes in the occupation or use of a building ancillary to a dwelling to increase the area
of human occupation.
- Changes in the occupation or use of a building which alters the number of dwellings in
the building.
- Changes in the occupation or use of a domestic building to any other type of building.
- Changes in the occupation or use of a residential building to any other type of building.
- Changes in the occupation or use of a residential building which involves a significant
alteration of the characteristics of the persons who occupy, or who will occupy, the
building, or which significantly increase the number of people occupying, or expected to
occupy, the building.
- Changes in the occupation or use of a building so that it becomes a residential building.
- Changes in the occupation or use of an exempt building to a building which is not so
exempt.
- Changes in the occupation or use of a building to allow access by the public where
previously there was none.
- Changes in the occupation or use of a building to accommodate parts in different
occupation where previously it was not occupied.
 XVI МЕЖДУНАРОДНА НАУЧНА КОНФЕРЕНЦИЯ ВСУ’2016
XVI INTERNATIONAL SCIENTIFIC CONFERENCE VSU'2016

Re-using process can be applied to the part of a building as well as to the whole
building.
A listed historic building may usually be re-used provided that it does not
compromise the character that is the special interest, significance or appearance of the
building. Re-using of a building to change its occupation or use is often the only means of
ensuring its survival and future viability. Achieving a proper balance between the
development requirements of re-using, the building regulations and the special needs of the
historic building is a demanding task that requires specialist advice and negotiation with
verifiers. A flexible approach to the issues is required. [3]
The best viable use for a historic building should always be the main objective
within a proposal to re-use such a building, when considering sustainable development.
Undoubtedly, there are some historic buildings where any work involved in the process of
alteration would cause damage to their character or special interest. However, most historic
buildings can be improved to satisfy the requirements of the regulations. Appropriate
measures, which do not compromise cultural significance, should be taken, including
providing access, research, information and education, to assist all people to enjoy,
appreciate, learn from and understand built heritage. The conclusion that could be drawn is
that almost all buildings are capable of re-using that will be beneficial to society.

Fig. 1. Re-use of 14th century Santa Maria delle Grazie as Chemical and Biological
Library, Giuseppe Rebecchini architect, Ferrara 2003 (photo A. Cordoni)2.1. Subheading

3. Re-use of historical building ideas

But there is another way of re-using of old buildings by “re-using” building ideas.
The number of architectural ideas very slowly and gradually increases over time - but,
owing to the technical and technological possibilities the ideas are being developed to
unprecedented proportions. Contemporary architects re-use some of those ideas, even if
sometimes they are not aware of doing so. Some of the ideas are developing in such a way
that it is difficult to recognize the starting point, but some could be recognized almost as
replicas. That is the most delicate way of the re-using process as the architect has to be
very creative when using the idea which has been used and, sometimes, exhausted through
time.
Using the water mirror in front of a building is a very old idea aiming at beautifying
the perception of the building. Smooth water surface was used in architecture from ancient
times as it was the only available media by which the nicely designed facades could be
made to look more impressive. But when the development of technology enables the
mirror facades, the idea of reflecting the building or its surrounding appeared in vertical
position. Now it is quite common to use mirror facades on the contemporary buildings as
the main media to make them attractive if they reflect some other building/s or greenery
from the vicinity. [4]
 XVI МЕЖДУНАРОДНА НАУЧНА КОНФЕРЕНЦИЯ ВСУ’2016
XVI INTERNATIONAL SCIENTIFIC CONFERENCE VSU'2016

Fig. 2. From water mirror to glass mirror – Hadrian’s villa at Tivoli, 2nd century;
Vaux le Vicomte castle, 17th century, Vila in Calo d en Real, Ibiza; Prishtina, glass facade
Designing buildings that are inspired by historic buildings built in some historical
period or designed by some famous architects from the past, and where it is clearly visible
can be also considered as re-using of certain ideas developed over time.

Fig. 3. Casa Milà, Barcelona, Antoni Gaudi; JOH3 Apartment house, Berlin, Meyer
H. Architects
4. Re-using the idea of the analogy between buildings and human body
When a man in prehistoric times needed to build his own shelter that result the first
man-made dwellings. Examples for such construction could only be by and which the man
observed forms in nature and considered which forms were suitable for replication in order
to meet certain purposes. The various constructions developed by imitating the natural
forms of bridging, sheltering, covering, space. Since the laws of nature usually make the
starting point for the fundamental laws of aesthetics, then, by their imitation, architectural
aesthetics is largely related to their appearance in the natural environment.
This way of creating architecture could be traced through the whole history until the
present day. Two basic approaches to biomimetic design can be recognized, sometimes
known under the term of bionic architecture. The first one, called the design modeled on
nature, starts from defining human problems or needs and it searches for a solution by
finding organisms or ecosystems that are already adapted to the given context. The second
one, called human-nature –inspired design, attempts to spot certain behaviour and translate
in architecture characteristics or function of the body or the ecosystem. [5, 6]
Human body is seen as a conceptual power of many architectural ideas (both realized
and those unrealized which are still at the level of theoretical assumptions). Throughout the
history, man has been used as a measure, symbol, metaphor, as the meaning of many
messages. Material and spiritual interpretation of the human body could be recognized in
 XVI МЕЖДУНАРОДНА НАУЧНА КОНФЕРЕНЦИЯ ВСУ’2016
XVI INTERNATIONAL SCIENTIFIC CONFERENCE VSU'2016

different architectural periods. There are different interpretations of the analogy between
buildings and the human body. Very often the theoreticians express determination and
confirmation of architectural and urban composition, spatial distribution and proportional
relationships through an analogy with the human organism. Modern interpretations of the
human body in architecture are mixed with the use of new materials and the result is
extravagant and futuristic architecture. [7, 8]

Fig. 4. Surrounding of Stone Towers inspired by Egyptian landscape, Cairo, Zaha

Hadid architect, 2009
Organic architecture has also been developed since the ancient times, but the
definition is not connected with the similarity between architecture and nature, but this
architecture tries to be incorporated with the environment around it by being curvier and
sometimes by using plants into the structural design. Even this architectural approach is old
today and it is usually linked with the work of Frank Lloyd Wright, but his explanation of
organic architecture was that it is an interpretation of nature’s principles manifested in
buildings that were in harmony with the world around them. A building is a product of its
place and its time, very closely connected to a particular moment and site. Because of that,
a building is never the result of a ruling style. [9]
The theoretical view that sculpture occupies the space, while the architecture is the
art of shaping space substantially cut the hitherto conventional discourse on style at the
beginning of 20th century. In architecture of 21th century architecture becomes the sculpture
that occupies the space, but at the same time it keeps the character of the art of shaping
space. [10]

Fig. 5. Sarpi Border Checkpoint, Georgia, J.Mayer H. Architect, 2011; 18.36.54 House,
Studio Daniel Libeskind, 2008 (photo N.Koening
 XVI МЕЖДУНАРОДНА НАУЧНА КОНФЕРЕНЦИЯ ВСУ’2016
XVI INTERNATIONAL SCIENTIFIC CONFERENCE VSU'2016

Concluding remarks
There are many buildings erected in the first decade of 21st century as an expression
of a certain power which requires to be validated in the city space. How many of them will
withstand the test of time, and be considered in future as distinctive symbol of the city, the
countryside, the area? How many of the present day powers (investors and architects) will
be able to establish themselves in the time to come? How many of this production will be
declared a cultural heritage? There is a common point in all these questions. How many
structures, erected in the first decades of the 21st century, were created by the designers’
conscious or unconscious implementation of the ideas which had already been present and
realized?
The questions are logical: in fact, they indicate the degree to which the power of
those historical ideas can be established and create a valuable architecture of 21st century.

Acknowledgement
This paper has been undertaken after the part of the Project 36042 supported by
Ministry of Education, Science and Technological Development of Serbia.

REFERENCES
[1] Latham, D.: Creative Re-use of Building: Principles and practice, Donhead 2000,
256P
[2] Bloszies,C.: Old Buildings New Design. Architectural Transformation, Princeton,
Princeton Architectural Press, 2013, 144p
[3] Kurtović-Folić, N.: "Conservation through Conversion", Proceedings of 11th
International Scientific Conference VSU'2010, Vol.II, (D.Partov, ed.), Luben
Karavelov, 3-4 June 2011, Sofia, 233-238
[4] Kurtovic Folic, N.:"Architectural Space Could not be Read in Text
Form"International interdisciplinary scientific conference Radical Space in between
Disciplines RCS 2015, Conference Proceedings (eds. R.Boskovic, M.Zekovic, S.
Milicevic), September 21-23 2015, Department of Architecture and Urbanism,
Faculty of Technical Sciences, Novi Sad, 227-234
[5] Gruber, P.: Biomimetics in Architecture, Architecture of life and buildings",
Springer-Verlag/Wien 2011. 280p
[6] Zauri, D.: „Primena biomimetike kao mogućeg kriterijuma tipologije u savremenoj
arhitekturi“, seminarski rad, Postdiplomske studije, Fakultet tehnickih nauka, Novi
Sad, 1-27p, (neobjavljeno)
[7] Stewart, S, Dennis, Daranola, D.: Body and Architecture: Relation of the human
body and Architecture, Venus Content Providers, 2015.
[8] Luedeman, J.J.: Architecture and the Human Body, Washington State University,
2012. 98p
[9] Wright, F.L.: The Language of Organic Architecture, Volume 16 of Taliesin square-
paper, F.L. Wright, 1953, 6p
[10] Brüderlin, M, Bach, F.T.: ArchiSculpture: dialogues between architecture and
sculpture from eighteenth century to present day, University of Michigan, Hatja
Cautz, 2004, 224p

View publication stats