Diagnostics and Monitoring

Architecture students are no stranger to the technical dynamics of building construction.  But one aspect of architectural design that has fascinated me for a while is the shortsightedness of those in the building trade.  When a client approaches a contractor, architect, or engineer to solicit their work on a new building, does the client think "I want this building to stand the test of time" or does he/she think "I just want a good return on my investment".  Perhaps these two desires are more closely related than we think-- that the value of a building is equally tied to its ability to endure and its capacity to interpret culture (or perhaps project culture) through contemporary design and construction

With this in mind, I have been enjoying Michael Henry's building diagnostics and monitoring course, in which we explore building pathology and the ways in which time and elements take their toll on the built environment.

I'd like to also suggest that while contemporary building design seems to fall closer to the side of Return on Investment and Speed of Construction, most architecture students receive little to no training about how their building design will perform over of time.  Design studios seem to focus almost exclusively on concept and quality of design (with, every so often, a nod to context).  But while architecture students most likely imagine that the buildings they are proposing will last forever, there is scant consideration of the corrosive/erosive/decaying dynamics of architecture that inevitably undo the best laid design plans.  This small diagram lays out the gap between architecture studio theory (ideal), the theoretically normative place that I believe architecture should seek to design for, and the actual (positive) place that most buildings are built today.

PennDesign Theory 1.2 - Type

When Carl Linnaeus set forth in the 1750’s to classify all living life into kingdoms, phylums, classes, orders, families, genuses, and species he was setting a scientific precedent for the future of all zoology, botany, and biological sciences.  Boldly taking on the task- God’s first biblical task to mankind- that of naming all living life on Earth, Linnaeus nevertheless proceded undaunted, taking his best guess at the development of species and their relative relationship to one another.  Prior to Linnaeus, the study of nature was left to an elite class of educated gentry whose naming system and theories on biological classification differed as widely as the animal kingdom itself. Linnaeus’s classifications may have been naive (and perhaps even nostalgic), but they have lasted 250 years, with refinements along the way, to help us navigate the web of life with a common language and reference system-- allowing for a more refined and specific dialogue of inquiry, development, and discovery.

Carl Linnaeus and the relationality of types

Texts by Moneo, Vidler, and Corbusier delve into the concept of type and what it means to practice an art of subjectivity, customization, and delight in an age of scientific  enumeration.
Vidler walks the reader down a path of archaeological and anthropological discovery, beginning with an analysis of the earliest works of architecture- the pre-renaissance Temple of Solomon and other rustic houses of worship- contrasting their god-given proportions with those derived from piecemeal, organic development - namely Laugier’s primitive hut, constructed from the basest materials - the earth (foundation), trees (vertical structure), and branches (horizontal protection from the elements).  Vidler then addresses the term type, attaching the word in its earliest form to the works of Ribard de Chamoust, who defined type in regard to architecture as “the first attempts of man to master nature, render its propitious to his needs, suitable to his uses, and favorable to his pleasures,” (Vidler, 98) different from Chamoust’s concept of archetypes - those being the “fundamental elements of architecture” (99) - such as trees (vertical elements of the Primitive Hut’s architecture) which are merely types.  Pursuant of a better definition for type, Vidler takes the word back to its original Greek roots, where it meant “impression” or “figure” from the verb “to beat.”  Breaking from the theological inclinations of type, Vidler traces the development of type through the works of Blondel, Boulee, Ledoux, Durand, Pugin, and eventually to Qatremere who made the most scientific classification of type - “relative” type, he argues is non-classifiable, “as opposed to essential [type], in the uses to which it is intended” (Vidler, 105).  Perhaps taking a cue from the scientific enumeration that brought Carl Linnaeus to his scientific naming system 70 years prior, Qatremere states, “classification, as a fundamental and constituent problem of natural history, took up its position historically, and in a necessary fashion, between a theory of the mark and a theory of the organism.” (Vidler, 105). In this vein of historical progress, type becomes increasingly more scientific, and from Qatremere onward the style of classicism is seen as only one of many possible styles for architecture- its types are seen as a limited typology that grows as other styles are discovered, but all of whose archetypes remain those first and most foundational elements of construction - the earth (foundation), trees (vertical structure), and branches (horizontal protection from the elements).

The evolution of the ideal type:
from Paestum to the Parthenon, from the Humber to the Delage.
Le Corbusier, 1923

Le Corbusier takes a far more specific prose on type, organizing his thoughts on “man, a constant, the fixed point that in truth is the only object of our concern (Le Corbusier, Type Needs Type Furniture, pg 3). He stresses the need to see objects - indeed all objects - in relation to the human body, maintaining, “we must therefore always seek to rediscover the human scale, the human function” (p 3).  Though he stops short of defaming non-human-scale objects as objects unworthy of typology and use, he maintains the sacred nature of the human-scaled object.

Cold and brutal = right and true?

Moneo takes the reader on a pleasant stroll down architecture-typology-lane qualifying the developments of architecture to be seen best as “objects in their own right - as with paintings, but having elements made to evolve” (Moneo, 1).  Seen in this light, as well as the light of Durand’s infinite variation (a method of composition based on a generic geometry of axis superimposed on the grid) “the connection between type and form disappears” (29) as infinite variety merges with infinite variety - evolution within evolution - type stands in humble acquiescence, aware that dichotomy and categorization are futile devices in the face of myriad variety and customization.”



When nature is in control, the classification process yields a reading of life - to analyze the objective and genetic bifurcations of plants and animals alike.  When humans - and artfully inclined humans at that - are in control, the classification of various types and forms becomes nearly impossible - to analyze the subjective choices of stylistically-inclined individuals in the context of innumerable typologies, classification simply breaks down and yields to broad categorization of architectural tropes -  classicism, modernism, post-modernism, and the like - or a narrow analysis of objects within architecturally defined spaces - tables, chairs, windows, doors, etc.  In summary, I think that Moneo captures the immense task and opportunity that an architect faces when challenged to design a building in light of four millennia of architectural thought and creation: “the design process is a way of bringing the elements of a typology - the idea of a formal structure - into the precise state that characterizes the single work.” (Moneo, 3).

Works Cited:
Vidler, Anthony. The Idea of Type: The Transformation of the Academic Ideal. pp. 95-115

PennDesign Theory 1.1 - Standards

In ancient Roman mythology, Janus was the god of beginnings and transitions, thence also of gates, doors, doorways, endings, and time.  According to scholars, he is “usually a two-faced god since he looks to the future and the past".  In recognizing the development of contemporary architecture and design it is important to recognize three dialectic Janus faces of the architectural profession: first, the past and the future, second, objectivity and subjectivity, and third, transparency and obfuscation of structure and form.  By analyzing these 'faces' one may come to see a subtle yet profound connection between seemingly irreconcilable poles of thought.

The undercurrent of theory readings from this past week deal with matters of standards. How can architects maintain civil discourse and consistency of design without a generally accepted language of how buildings are made and how they can be understood by professionals and lay-people alike? Standards are defined as "something considered by an authority or by general consent as a basis of comparison; an approved model."

Wittgenstein's Haus Kundmanngasse

In the first reading, Richard Sennett's analysis of two Austrian houses reveals a string of architectural deviations- one, a cold and lofty symmetrical objectivism, intended to represent "the foundation of all possible buildings" (Sennett pp 254) and the other of a more playful and grounded 'new objectivism' - a house with a "structures that showed plainly their purposes and their construction in their forms" (Sennett 255). These two projects, Ludwig Wittgenstein's house on the Kundmanngasse and the Villa Moller by Adolf Loos, constitute the two extremes of craft routines and standards applied in early modern architecture.  Both houses emphasize an extreme dedication to perfectionism - in Wittgenstein's house an unforgiving consistency of 1:1 heights, widths, and materials that creates a sterile, standard model for what Wittgenstein believed to be the foundation for all possible buildings. Wittgenstein famously demanded perfection of construction dimensions, and faced with an unlimited budget for construction once asked that an entire ceiling slab be destroyed and reconstructed three centimeters lower to to provide what he deemed a proper and acceptible universal ceiling height.  Loos's Villa Moller on the other hand is far more subjective. Forgoing Wittgenstein's 1:1 geometrical rigidity, Loos cuts windows in a varying way, taking advantage of the way light plays upon exterior walls and creates desirous exterior views. A perfectionist in his own right, Loos relied upon on-site sketches and a limited budget construction budget to create a house that is not only beautiful in its use of standards and proportions (dissimilar to those of Wittgenstein's Kundmanngasse house), but more importantly incredibly liveable for its occupants.

Adolf Loos's Villa Moller

Following Sennett's perspective on standards and attention to detail, Richard Neutra details a history of craftsmanship- reflecting on the trials of early manufacturing in which standards of design had not been developed.  Consumers could not trust early modern manufacturing standards (many of which had not been tested to provide accurate and comparitive information.  The only value of a product lay in its performance, and "Fraudulent publicity[became] so interlocked with the business that first sprouted from machine production that the machine itself was branded by some writers as a curse" (Neutra, 54).  However, with the advent of mass production and a growing need for goods with which traditional hand-crafted supply could not keep pace, standardization was eventually accepted for its inherent functional concept. Machine-made parts and products, Neutra asserts, are simply the “essential prerequisite of continuous improvement toward machine-made perfection” (Neutra, 54).  But the standardization and mass-production of industrial parts and pieces is only valid in the architectural sphere so long as the parts and pieces are accurately represented in the end form of the house.  A steel frame house would not have been initially accepted if its outward complexion was not hidden by articles of handicraft and ornament -- Neutra maintains that in the “half-industrial, half-handicrafts methods of today’s petty building business... there is still reflected a good deal of that initial insecurity which earlier characterized, in general, incipient industrialization, with all its deficiencies.” It is this fear of mechanical and industrial failure that propagates much superficial decoration-- if industrial standards are taken seriously, contemporary handicraft can advance fully into the modern age, and, in closing, Neutra professes “only with standards as anchor [can] the typhoon of insecurity be weathered [as] industrialism breaks loose over the world” (63).

Jean Prouve's early work in prefabricated house components

Jean Prouve rounds out the trio of thinkers by exposing his beliefs on prefabrication; maintaining that factory-produced buildings lose an aesthetic appeal due to their conceptual distance from the site in which they will eventually be assembled, Prouve argues that prefab buildings are part of a standardized “ugliness” which “rules our surroundings” (Prouve, 99).  Rather, he argues that prefabrication can be beautiful, if given a hand-crafted attention to dimensions, ergonomic details, and material assemblage.  Anything less, Prouve states, leaves a wasteland of impersonal, factory-produced, cold, and sterile industrialized landscapes. “Can one really believe that people and children brought up in [such] surroundings could grow and develop more beautiful bodies and minds?” (99) Prouve asks, and given the intrinsic value of industrialized parts (Neutra), but the sterility that could result if too much is standardized and proportioned at a scale foreign to the human ergonomic (see Sennett’s Wittgenstein House) it is self-evident that buildings can maintain good proportion (a la Loos), be mass-produced (Neutra) but also lead toward a more beautiful and liveable architectural future.

Works Cited
Neutra, Richard. Survival Through Design. pp 53-71
Prouve, Jean. Prefabrication: Structures and Elements. Framework of Life pp. 98-104
Sennett, Richard. The Craftsman. Craftsmanship. pp 252-257