Mobility in Architecture...and Dividing Programs/Rooms

In a discussion about "evolutionary architecture" amongst architects in our firm in Boston, we explored the difference between morphable form during construction and mobile form during occupancy. A forward-thinking software client has commissioned us to design a building that can alter itself to their needs. While pre-fabricated modules like shipping containers, SIPs, and concrete boxes can be assembled numerous ways, once the last mortar is laid or nail nailed, they are static.

In our discussion I posited that, post-occupancy, architecture can only be mobile around the shell of a building. From a building's outside in, flashy daylighting and weatherproofing systems can rely on parametrics, but once you deal with flooring, insulation, vertical circulation, and especially vertical structure, everything turns out to be highly fixed in place.

In our discussion, we determined that one element within the building envelope that is potentially very movable is program, i.e. the division between public and private space. Many design schools have 4' x 8' panels for pinups that can be wheeled into place to divide up an auditorium into 5 or more discussion spaces (see pictures). In my office discourse we talked about how to harness this freedom of mobility...having tracks would give too much authorship to the designer; without tracks, the space under the wheels would destroy acoustic privacy.

Does anyone take issue with my cynical thoughts about the practicality of moving whole buildings without the expensive and energy intensive use of hydraulics? Does anyone have any thoughts on practicable ways to rearrange interiors on the drop of a dime, with acoustic and visual integrity?

A friend's response:
For Being a Southern California native, I am very disappointed in your lack of addressing the outdoor space. Given large openings and proper, "designed" engagement of the outdoor environment, it seems to me that there is a variety of ways to manipulate the usable shell and the program. Especially if the outdoor space is shaded/covered etc….

Gregory Ain was masterful at transforming interior spaces with inexpensive movable panels, doors transforming 1, 2 or 3 smaller spaces into larger ones. The original Eames office in Venice – was a beautiful example of transformative space. I could go on…perhaps Bostonites feel differently?