Submit a Project Advertise Architonic
World
© All rights reserved. ArchDaily, part of DAAily platforms AG 2008-2024 ISSN 0719-8884 All images are © each office/photographer mentioned.
  1. ArchDaily
  2. Labor

Labor: The Latest Architecture and News

Building Methods in Focus: The Solid vs Hollow Partitioning Debate

Two primary building approaches are commonly identified in architecture and design: solid versus hollow construction. These methods vary significantly across different cultures and regions, specifically for interior partitioning systems, when they appear interchangeable. Each has its own established practices influenced by local materials, labor preferences, climatic conditions, and cultural traditions. When architects and designers focus on their local context, it is easy to overlook the broader construction assumptions, limiting design flexibility and methodology. This raises an important question: How do these two building approaches differ?

Focusing mainly on interior systems, the distinctions between solid and hollow construction largely stem from the availability of materials and workforce preferences. For example, in the United States and Japan, stud walls, both wood and metal, are frequently used for partitioning. Conversely, brick remains the predominant material for partition walls in regions such as Hong Kong and southern China. Why do we build differently, and what are the benefits and challenges of each building methodology?

Building Methods in Focus: The Solid vs Hollow Partitioning Debate - Image 1 of 4Building Methods in Focus: The Solid vs Hollow Partitioning Debate - Image 2 of 4Building Methods in Focus: The Solid vs Hollow Partitioning Debate - Image 3 of 4Building Methods in Focus: The Solid vs Hollow Partitioning Debate - Image 4 of 4Building Methods in Focus: The Solid vs Hollow Partitioning Debate - More Images+ 14

Fighting Slavery and Child Labor in Architecture: An Interview with Sharon Prince

Dismantling the system of slave and child labor in the architecture and construction industry does not seem like a simple task, especially on a global scale. However, this is precisely the mission of the Design for Freedom (DFF) initiative, created by CEO and founder of the Grace Farms Foundation, Sharon Prince, along with Bill Menking, professor and editor-in-chief of The Architect's Newspaper.

Through events and freely available tools, Design for Freedom seeks to "raise awareness and inspire responses to halt forced labor in the construction materials supply chain," offering paths to ensure transparency and ethics in the architectural production process.

Architecture's "Dark Products": What Do Architects Claim Ownership of in the Design Process?

Why do we build? How do we build? Who do we ultimately build for? These have been questions that have dominated the worlds of both practice and pedagogy since the early ages of architecture. On a basic level, those questions can be answered almost reflexively, with a formulaic response. But is it time to look beyond just the simple why, how, and who?

In a world where the physical processes of architecture are becoming increasingly less important and digital processes proliferate through all phases of architectural ideas and documentation, we should perhaps be looking to understand the ways in which architects work, and examine how we can claim the processes—not just the products—of our labors.