Simplicity and complexity

Today’s lesson is about simplicity and that complexity, the design project that i've chosen is from diploma sem 3, Sport centre, which located at Kuala Selangor (KS).

Based on lesson today, I would say that my building is more familiar on the New Architecture. I believe our job was to build, and that our building sufficed to our surrounding, environment and community through the findings on the site analysis in order of to make building more functionable.

At this point, I would like to share some thought of mine about simplicity and complexity.

In my opinion, I would say that both of it has the connection, we are not to create something new, but something suitable, intrinsically right and as relatively perfect as maybe.

We need to be consider of the site context, culture, materials or construction that suitable for the place in term of respect and appreciation of the place by remaining the identical form.

Simplicity is not simplification, we as an architect are responsible to take consideration from a lots of aspect to make the building in practical use and connotes both attainment and quality. For example, we need to do site analysis of the building to understand the culture, identical, wind, sun, vegetation, community and so on to express itself in the technical way and achieve a better quality of lifestyle.

This sport centre is proposed at residential area of Kuala Selangor, therefore it’s a need to do the analytical studies to suit and approach for the site and community.

In that sense, a building is never simple enough. To free oneself from the superfluous; that is, to identify what is superfluous without confusing it with the richness of curiosity, of a question, of questioning, requires an accurate and difficult effort toward discrimination, even though solely liberating oneself from the superfluous clearly does not guarantee access to the heart of simplicity.

A building is simple not because its shape conform to elementary geometry, not because all of it is immediately visible, or because the logic is evident in its connections, but because all its parts voice their necessity, both reciprocally and with respect to the meaning of the specific architectural solution. In simplicity there must be nothing pre-established, nothing immobile. Instead, all must be balance, measurement, relation between points, vital organization, mysterious transparency.

In other words, New Achitecture aims at being neither original, individual, nor imaginative. Architecture is “original” when it provides a complete solution of the difficulty concerned that makes analysis to the site more important and necessary. By “individual” we understand the degree of intensity or application with which the most various or directly interconnected problems are disposed of. “Imagination” is no longer expressed in remote intellectual adventures, but in the tenacity with which formal order is imposed upon the world of realities. The ability to face a problem objectively brings us to the so-called “revolutionary” side of the Modern Movement. It is necessary to state that our investigations into housing and town-planning problems are based primarily on sociological, rather than on formal or representational, principles. In short, the ideas of what developments were possible were based on the general needs of the community.

Last but not least, a simple building must thus compose its own image image as the superficial tension of complexity; for there is no level of complexity that cannot be expressed through the clarity of simplicity without simplification.