Surgimiento y contexto de los ODM

Etimology Dictionary defines the term parasite as “one who lives at another’s expense, who eats at the table of another,” Greek origin, derived from noun use of an adjective meaning

“feeding beside”, from para- “beside” and sitos-“food”. Combes (2001) defines “parasitism”

as a type of relationship between species, where one species – the parasite, benefits at the expense of the other – the host. According to the Oxford English Dictionary (2^nd ed.), a parasite is an animal or plant which lives in or upon another organism (technically called its host) and draws its nutrients directly from it. Webster’s Third New International Dictionary of the English Language invokes directly the concept of harm as “an organism living in or on another living organism obtaining from it part or all of its organic nutrient, and commonly exhibiting some degree of adaptive structural modification – such an organism that causes some degree of real damage to its host”. According to Ahmadjian and Paracer (2000) ‘parasitism’ is a type of a symbiotic relationship in which one of the symbionts benefits at the expense of the other. According to the same source “as in mutualism, the primary factor in parasitism is nutrition: the parasite obtains its food from the host”, yet in this type of symbiosis, some symbionts that draw the benefit from this relationship can be

“so pathogenic that they producing a disease in host shortly after the parasitism begins”

(Ahmadjian & Paracer, 2000: 7). Barnard and Behnke (2005) point out that “parasites are exploitative, taking form their host nutrients and energy made available through the latter’s foraging efforts, as well as perhaps benefitting from transport, protection and a thermally-regulated environment provided by the host” (Barnard & Behnke, 2005: 1). In this association, the parasite (its genome - genetic material) manipulates the physiology, behaviour and defence mechanisms of the host (its phenotype - the composite of an organism’s observable characteristics or traits) (Combes, 2001). Combes (2001: 6) argues that “in a parasite-host association, the signals produced by the genome of one of the partners may act on the phenotype of the other, thus crossing the species barrier and inducing morphological, anatomical, physiological, or behavioural changes in the recipient”. Poulin (2010: 151) underlines that “the idea that a parasite can modify the

150

phenotype of its host, by either taking control of host behaviour or changing the host’s appearance” is a well-known concept in the study of animal behaviour. The changes in the hosts behaviour and appearance induced by the parasite can be far from subtitle, like those induced by one species of trematode (parasitic flatworms), Leucochloridium spp., which

“alters the size, shape, and coloration of the tentacles of its snail intermediate host and causes them to pulsate violently in response to light”(Poulin, 2010: 151). Thus, this type of symbiotic relationship implies a drastic change in the host’s form and behaviour.

This term, originally used in biology, has been adopted by architects to express dynamic relationships between different architectural entities. According to Marini (2010), the parasitical organism results distinct from the host both in terms of form and space. She explains that the term ‘parasite’ has been used in a series of cultural, design and artistic investigations since the 1980s. Marini (2010) points out that the text ‘Le parasite’ by Michel Serres, published in 1980, was the main influence of the work of the same name by Diller+Scofidio exhibited at the Museum of Modern Art in New York in 1989. Since the 1980s onward there have been many studies and projects exploring the parasitism in architecture, as Korteknie and Stuhlmacher’s prototype ‘Las Palmas parasite’, a temporarily occupied roof of a disused warehouse in Rotterdam in 2001, or the exhibition

‘Parasite Paradise’ which took place in 2003 at Leidsche Rijn, a residential expansion at Utrecht (Marini, 2010).

This design principle, is structural terms, implies introduction of new structural elements independent from the old structure, and in some cases complete replacement of the old structure. The positioning and size of the new structural elements depend entirely on the new intervention and does not follow the structural logic of the old building. Additions and all the alterations to the host building’s fabric are executed in materials clearly distinguishable from the old, and even confrontational. Newly introduced materials do not pretend to form a harmonious union with the old, but follow completely separate material aesthetic defined by the new intervention. In the host building’s interior the clear separation of old and new materials is also at play. The clash between existing and newly introduced materials produces dynamic and very intense relationship between the old and the new.

The form of the original building is substantially changed by this design principle.

The balance of its composition, symmetry, and fenestration is broken and altered by new intervention. New volumes are added following its own formal logic, which is confrontational with the old. The host building can endure substantial subtractions as well, which can change its appearance. New elements belong to a clearly different style, defined by the commissioned architect. This intense relationship extends to the building’s interior as well, where new intervention changes the spatial composition of the old building.

The logic of interior spaces is altered and the character of the host building completely changed. Thus, the new intervention is fully governed by its own formal and spatial logic independent from the existing one.

This design principle implies the highest level of change to the original building.

Compared to the recycling design principle of ‘commensalism’, where the old building has the predominance, and ‘mutualism’, where both new and old are equally present and powerful, the design principle of ‘parasitism’ implies complete inferiority of the old building to the new intervention which overpowers the old. Thus, the recycling design principle of ‘parasitism’ can be defined in the following way:

• Structure:

Ȳ New structure added, independent from the old structure; the old structure can be completely replaced

• Material:

º Exterior:

Ȳ Clear division between the old and new materials º Interior:

Ȳ Clear division between the old and new materials

• Form:

Ȳ Formal logic of the old building is disrupted

• Spatial organization:

Ȳ Spatial logic of the host building’s interior spaces is completely changed

• • •

The above definitions of the recycling design principles of ‘commensalism’, ‘mutualism’

and ‘parasitism’ are in the close correlation with the physical characteristics of original industrial building. In order for the recycling intervention to be as environmentally sustainable as possible, extensive range of existing building’s physical characteristics has to be taken in consideration. As already explained in the Chapter II, the level of the environmental sustainability of the intervention can be measured by: 1) the amount of the old building’s material used, since the use of the existing material minimizes pollution and energy waste related to excavation, production, and transportation; as well as 2) the level of change imposed to the old building, since the less change cause the less energy and material waste. Therefore, it can be concluded that the most environmentally sustainable

152

recycling intervention will be the one which fully exploits the host building.

If the host building can be used ‘as found’ and only a negligible physical change is required, the design principle of ‘commensalism’ is to be applied, given that this design concept implies the predominance of the old and the maximum use of its material. The original building’s structure and materials are preserved and no changes are imposed to the building’s formal composition nor spatial organization. All elements of the old building are put to use. In this way, the embodied energy of the building’s material will be preserved, and unnecessary demolition avoided, cutting down the associated environmental impact.

When the original industrial building requires minor physical change, upgrading of its structure or replacements of certain parts, the design principle of ‘mutualism’ is to be applied, given that this concept implies the preservation of the majority of the elements of the old and yet leaves the space for equally powerful new intervention. Original building’s structure is preserved but new structure is added as well, which can both support the old one or be independent form it. In terms of materials used, there is a clear distinction between the old materials and newly introduced one. New elements can be added to the original building respecting its formal logic and volumetric composition. The interior of the building can undergo a substantial change but the spatial organisation and physical properties of the new elements (i.e. dimension and position) depend entirely on the physical characteristics of the original building. Hence, the elements of the original building in the state beyond repair are replaced, leaving the space for the new intervention, i.e. structure and materials. All elements in good or fair condition are preserved and upgraded if necessary.

If significant physical change, reconfiguration and reconstruction are required for the host building to be usable once again, the design concept of ‘parasitism’ is to be applied.

Old structure is replaced and new materials clearly distinguishable from the old are introduced. The formal logic and volumetric composition of the original building is disrupted and the spatial composition changed. As the majority of the original industrial building’s elements are in unsatisfied condition and cannot be reused, overpowering new intervention, characterized by entirely new structure and materials, and different, confrontational formal and special logic is entirely justified.