Parasitic Architecture of the 21st Century: the Influence of Utopian Concepts on the Formation of New Spatial Approaches

This article analyzes the preconditions for the development of parasitic architecture in the 21st century and the influence of past utopian ideas on the formation of contemporary architectural concepts. Particular attention is given to examples of parasitic architecture in both historical and contemporary contexts, with a focus on identifying new spatial approaches to shaping the environment in large cities. The results of this study confirm the relevance of 20th-century ideas, which continue to influence contemporary architecture thanks to technological progress, which opens up opportunities for their implementation. Thus, utopia is considered not only as a historical and conceptual phenomenon but also as a factor contributing to the development of parasitic architecture in the 21st century.

K.A. PSHENICHNIKOVA, Candidate of Sciences (Architecture) (This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.)

The Moscow Architectural Institute (State Academy) (11/4, Rozhdestvenka Street, Moscow, 107031, Russian Federation)

1. Menchetelli V.A Walking city by archigram group: on the utopian dimension of mobile architecture. Diségno. 2020. No. 9, pp. 17–20. https://doi.org/10.26375/disegno.9.2021.4
2. Bardzińska-Bonenberg T. Parasitic architecture: theory and practice of the postmodern. Advances in Human Factors, Sustainable Urban Planning and Infrastructure. 2017, pp. 3–12.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-60450-3_1
3. Şensoy G., Üstün B. Traces of the past utopias in contemporary architecture: parasitic architecture. ICONARP International Journal of Architecture and Planning. 2018. Vol. 6. No. 1, pp. 170–195.
https://doi.org/10.15320/ICONARP.2018.44
4. Yorgancıoğlu D., Güray Z. Alternative approaches in architectural design education: «Parasitic architecture» as a space design strategy. Megaron. 2018. Vol. 13. No. 1, pp. 144–155.
https://doi.org/10.5505/megaron.2017.74946
5. Hättasch M. Form after urbanism: the potential of Grossform. The Plan Journal. 2016, pp. 59–76. https://doi.org/10.15274/TPJ-2016-10006
6. Arabulan S. Evaluation criteria of parasitic architecture. International Journal of Architecture and Design. 2015, pp. 37–51. https://doi.org/10.17932/IAU.ARCH.2015.017/arch_v09i1003
7. Пшеничникова К.А. Особенности формирования архитектурных объектов на основе пневматических конструкций в XXI веке: Дис. … канд. наук. М., 2019. C. 20–21. EDN: CMETXF
7. Pshenichnikova K.A. Features of the formation of architectural objects based on pneumatic structures in the 21st century. Cand. Diss. (Engineering). Moscow. 2019, pp. 20–21. (In Russian). EDN: CMETXF
8. Šijaković M., Perić A. Symbiotic architecture: Redefinition of recycling design principles. Frontiers of Architectural Research. 2018. Vol. 7. No. 1, pp. 67–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foar.2017.12.002
9. Baroš T., Katunský D. Parasitic architecture. SSP – Journal of Civil Engineering. 2020. Vol. 15. Iss. 1, pp. 19–28. https://doi.org/10.1515/sspjce-2020-0003