Geometrical analysis of Lloyd's of London and Economist Building

L L OY D ’ S O F L O N D O N ECONOMIST BUILDING

CASE 08

Lloyd’s of London – Economist Building Richard Rogers – Alison and Peter Smithson

Moravec, A.M. (Aleš)

CASE 08

Richard Rogers Lloyd’s Building

6

CASE 08

Alison and Peter Smithson Economist Building

7

I N T RO D U C T I O N

Introduction

This booklet is a result of the individual assignment

Analytical layers:

for Types and Methods course, taught at Technical

1. Geometrical similarities in plan

University of Eindhoven in academic year 2016-

2. Repetition in plan

2017. It consists of a comparative analysis of two

3. Grid

following building with focus on geometry:

4. Significant load-bearing elements 5. Symmetry in plan

- Lloyd’s building, London, UK

6. Proportions in plan 7. Repetition in facade

- Economist Building,London, UK

8. Composition of facade 9. Symmetry in facade

Both buildings are multifunctional edifices built

10. Relief

in 2nd half of 20th century, however they are

11.Rhythm

predominantly used as office buildings. The Lloyd’s building was designed by Richars Rogers in 1970s as a pure example of high-tech architecture in City of London. On the other hand Economist building was designed by Alison and Peter Smithson in 1960s in brutalism style, the economist building is located in Westminster in London.

Those two buildings were analysed with focus on geometry, providing eleven analytical layer for every building in order to disassemble the building and identify key elements, which will be later on used in the essay.

9

TA B L E O F C O N T E N T S

Table of contents

Introduction 1. Basic drawings 1.01 Basic drawings Lloyd’s Building

13

1.02 Basic drawings Economist Building

21

2. Analysis 2.01 Geometrical similarities

27

2.02 Repetition in plan

33

2.03 Grid 39 2.04 Geometry of load-bearing elements

43

2.05 Symmetry in plan

47

2.06 Proportions 53 2.07 Composition 57 2.08 Repetition in facade

61

2.09 Symmetry in facade

65

2.10 Relief 69 2.11 Rhythm 75

3. Essay Essay 79 Literature 85

11

B A S I C D R AW I N G S

DRAWN ANALYSIS

Site plan

Site plan Building

Building

0 20 50

River Thames River Thames

100 0 20 50

200m 100

200m

Loyd’s Building Loyd’s Building

Fig. 1.01.01. - SIte plan Lloyd’s Building

1.01 Basic drawings Lloyd’s Building All the basic drawings were redrawn based on drawings in a book: “Kenneth Powell (1999). Richard Rogers. London,

Site plan

UK: Phaidon Press Limited. Richard Rogers Partnership. Lloyd’s of London “ Building

0 20 50

River Thames Loyd’s Building

13

100

200m

Moravec, A.M. (Aleš)

Lower ground floor plan

012 5

10

Fig. 1.01.02. - Lower ground floor plan Lloyd’s Building Lower ground floor plan

012 5

14

10

DRAWN ANALYSIS

Fig. 1.01.03. - Ground floor plan Lloyd’s Building Ground floor plan

012 5

15

10

Moravec, A.M. (Aleš)

Lower ground floor plan

012 5

10

Fig. 1.01.04. - Common floor plan Lloyd’s Building Common floor plan

012 5

16

10

DRAWN ANALYSIS

Fig. 1.01.05. - Top floor plan Lloyd’s Building Top floor plan

012 5

17

10

Moravec, A.M. (Aleš)

Lower ground floor plan

012 5

Fig. 1.01.06. - Section Lloyd’s Building

Section A-A

012 5

18

10

10

DRAWN ANALYSIS

Elevation West Fig. 1.01.07. - West elevation Lloyd’s Building

19

012 5

10

Moravec, A.M. (AleĹĄ)

20

DRAWN ANALYSIS

Site plan

Site plan

Building

Buildings

0 20 50

River Thames Park

0 20 50 100

100 200m

Loyd’s Building Economist Building Boodles Club

Fig. 1.02.01. - SIte plan Economist Building

1.02 Basic drawings Economist Building All the basic drawings were redrawn based on drawings in a book: “Richard Weston (2010) Key Buildings of the 20th Century. London, UK: Laurence King Publishing. Economist Building” and on drawings from RIBA archive.

Site plan Buildings

0 20 50

Park Economist Building Boodles Club

21

100

200m

200m

Moravec, A.M. (AleĹĄ)

Ground floor plan

012 5

10

012 5

10

Fig. 1.02.02. - Ground floor plan Economist Building

Ground floor plan

Fig. 1.02.03. - 1st floor plan Economist Building

22

1st floor plan

DRAWN ANALYSIS

Fig. 1.02.04. - Common floor plan Economist Building

Common floor plan

012 5

Fig. 1.02.05. - Section Economist Building

23

Section A-A

10

Moravec, A.M. (AleĹĄ)

Ground floor plan

012 5

Fig. 1.02.06. - Ryder Street elevation Economist Building

Elevation - Ryder Street

012 5

Fig. 1.02.07. - St. James Street elevation Economist Building

24

10

10

DRAWN ANALYSIS

Fig. 1.02.08. - Bury Street elevation Economist Building

Elevation - Bury Street

012 5

25

10

A N A LY S I S

Common floor plan - Geometrical similarities in plan Direct similarity

012 5

10

Indiresct similariry

Fig. 2.01.01. - Geometrical similarities in Common floor plan Lloyd’s Building

2.01 Geometrical similarities Common floor plan - Geometrical Floor plans were analysed in ordersimilarities to identifyin plan buildings, however in case of Economist

a distinct shape/geometry, which repeats all Direct similarity

building the repetition of same shape in

over the building. Moreover a shape which

012 5 10 floor plan helps in creating coherent building

would be common for both buildings was

complex.

Indiresct similariry

looked up. Unfortunately there is no shape/ geometry, which would be common for both

27

Moravec, A.M. (AleĹĄ)

Top floor plan - Geometrical similarities in plan Lower ground floor plan Direct similarity

012 5

10

Indiresct similariry 012 5

10

Fig. 2.01.02.

- Geometrical Top floor plan - Geometrical similarities in plan similarities in Top floor plan Lloyd’s Building Direct similarity

012 5

Indiresct similariry

28

10

DRAWN ANALYSIS

Ground floor plan

012 5

10

Fig. 2.01.03. - Geometrical similarities in Ground floor plan Economist Building

Ground floor plan - Geometrical similarities in plan Direct similarity

012 5

Indiresct similariry

Fig. 2.01.04. - Geometrical similarities in 1st floor plan Economist Building

1st floor paln - Geometrical similarities in plan

29

10

Moravec, A.M. (AleĹĄ)

Ground floor plan

012 5

10

Fig. 2.01.05. - Geometrical similarities in Common floor plan Economist Building

Common floor plan - Geometrical similarities in plan Direct similarity

012 5

Indiresct similariry

30

10

DRAWN ANALYSIS

31

Moravec, A.M. (AleĹĄ)

32

DRAWN ANALYSIS

Common floor plan - Geometrical similarities in plan Direct similarity

012 5

10

Indiresct similariry

Fig. 2.02.01. - Repetition in plan in Lower ground floor plan Lloyd’s Building

2.02 Repetition in plan In case of Lloyd’s building the most

building consists of unique rooms apart from

remarkable, repeated elements in plane are

staircases and facility rooms.

Lower ground floor plan - Repetition

the facilitySingle towers because rest of the building reprtition

012 5

repetition is only anMultiple open hall the towers really stand

out. However in case of Economist building the situation is similar because most of the

33

10

Moravec, A.M. (AleĹĄ)

Common floor plan - Repetition Lower ground floor plan Single reprtition

012 5 10 012 5 10

Multiple repetition

Fig. 2.02.02. - Repetition in plan in Common floor plan Lloyd’s Building Common floor plan - Repetition Single reprtition

012 5

Multiple repetition

34

10

DRAWN ANALYSIS

Ground floor plan

012 5

10

Fig. 2.02.03. - Repetition in plan in Ground floor plan Economist Building

Ground floor plan - Repetition in plan Single reprtition

012 5

Multiple repetition

Fig. 2.02.04. - Repetition in plan in 1st floor plan Economist Building

35

1st floor plan - Repetition in plan

10

Moravec, A.M. (AleĹĄ)

Ground floor plan

012 5

10

Fig. 2.02.05 - Repetition in plan in Common floor plan Economist Building

Common floor plan - Repetition Single reprtition

012 5

Multiple repetition

36

10

DRAWN ANALYSIS

37

Moravec, A.M. (AleĹĄ)

38

DRAWN ANALYSIS 11,25x11,25x3,75m Lloyd’s building

Common floor plan - Geometrical similarities in plan Direct similarity Indiresct similariry

012 5

10

Fig. 2.03.01. - Grid in Common floor plan Lloyd’s Building

2.03 Grid Common floor plan - Gridanalyses the basic This analytical layer

structural grid in relation with average floor Grid

012 5

height in order to get a sense of proportion.

Basic module

The Economist building uses perpendicular Excluded from grid

grid with reasonable proportions,while Lloyd’s uses a bit oversized and disproportional grid.

39

10

Moravec, A.M. (AleĹĄ) 1,6x1,6x3,2m Residential building 3,2x3,2x3,2m Bank building

3,2x3,2x3,2m Office building

Ground floor plan - Grid Ground floor plan Grid

012 5 10 012 5 10

Module

Fig. 2.03.02. - Grid in Ground floor plan Economist Building

Ground floor plan - Grid Grid

012 5

Module

40

10

DRAWN ANALYSIS

41

Moravec, A.M. (AleĹĄ)

42

DRAWN ANALYSIS

Common floor plan - Geometrical similarities in plan Direct similarity Indiresct similariry

012 5

10

Fig. 2.04.01. - Geometry of load-bearing elements in Common floor plan Lloyd’s Building

2.04 Geometry of load-bearing elements

Common floor plan - Repetition of similar geometrical load-bearing element

There are endless ways how to shape load-

of Lloyd’s columns have circular cross-

bearing elements, in case of these two Element I

section, which might be easily mixed up

buildings, Element columns.

II Columns in Economist

with exposed pipes. In every Economist’s

building are shaped with unmistakeable,

tower the T-shaped columns have slightly

T-shape, cross-section geometry dedicated

different proportions, however they unite

to columns only, on the other hand in case

the appearance of all three towers.

012 5

43

10

Moravec, A.M. (AleĹĄ)

Groundfloor floorplan plan - Repetition of similar geometrical load-bearing element Ground Element I

012 5 5 1010 012

Element II Element III

Fig. 2.04.02. - Geometry of load-bearing elements Ground floor plan - Repetition of similar geometrical load-bearing element in Ground floor plan Economist Building Element I

012 5

Element II Element III

44

10

DRAWN ANALYSIS

45

Moravec, A.M. (AleĹĄ)

46

DRAWN ANALYSIS

Common floor plan - Geometrical similarities in plan Direct similarity

012 5

10

Indiresct similariry

Fig. 2.05.01. - Symmetry in plan in Lower ground floor plan Lloyd’s Building

2.05 Symmetry in plan Lower ground in floor plan - Symmetry Every tower Economist complex has at

neither global symmetry nor symmetrical

least one global symmetrical axis, which

entrance derived from global symmetry.

Global determinate thesymmetry whole volume, however Local symmetry

012 5

more interesting thing is that every entrance Symmetrical room

on ground floor is designed as symmetrical room fitting into the global symmetry. On the other hand Lloyds is complete opposite,

47

10

Moravec, A.M. (Aleš)

Common floor plan - Symmetry Lower ground floor plan

Global symmetry

012 5

10

Local symmetry 012 5

Symmetrical room

10

Fig. 2.05.02. - Symmetry in plan in Common floor plan Lloyd’s Building Common floor plan - Symmetry Global symmetry

012 5

Local symmetry Symmetrical room

48

10

DRAWN ANALYSIS

Ground floor plan

012 5

10

Fig. 2.05.03. - Symmetry in plan in Ground floor plan Economist Building

Ground floor plan - Symmetry Global symmetry

012 5

Local symmetry Symmetrical room

Fig. 2.05.04. - Symmetry in plan in 1st floor plan Economist Building

49

1 floor plan - Symmetry st

10

Moravec, A.M. (AleĹĄ)

Ground floor plan

012 5

10

Fig. 2.05.05. - Symmetry in plan in Common floor plan Economist Building

Common floor plan - Symmetry Global symmetry

012 5

Local symmetry Symmetrical room

50

10

DRAWN ANALYSIS

51

Moravec, A.M. (AleĹĄ)

52

DRAWN ANALYSIS

45m

11,25m

33,75m

67,5m

Common floor plan - Geometrical similarities in plan Direct similarity

012 5

10

Indiresct similariry

Fig. 2.06.01. - Proportions in Common floor plan Lloyd’s Building

2.06 Proportions

Common floor plan - Propportions

The fact that neither Economist building nor Lloyd’s have been designed with use of any

012 5

proportional system, doesn’t need much of an explanation.

53

10

Moravec, A.M. (AleĹĄ)

12,8m

12,8m

22,4m

19,2m

22,4m

19,2m

Ground floor plan

012 5

10

Ground floor plan - Proportions Fig. 2.06.02. - Proportions in Ground floor plan Economist Building 012 5

54

10

DRAWN ANALYSIS

55

Moravec, A.M. (AleĹĄ)

56

DRAWN ANALYSIS

Common floor plan - Geometrical similarities in plan Direct similarity

012 5

10

Indiresct similariry

Fig. 2.07.01. - Composition in West elevation Lloyd’s Building

Elevation West - Composition

2.07 Composition compositional elements ProbablyPrimary the best elevations to look at are Secondary compositional elements

St. James’s Street elevation of Economist Tertiary compositional elements

5 parts: 10 a classical composition of012 three base,

body and a head.

building and West elevation of Lloyd’s building. A gradual shift from classical hierarchical composition to anarchy can be observed. The inspiration for Economist building composition can be traced back to

57

Moravec, A.M. (AleĹĄ)

Elevation - Ryder Ground floorStreet plan - Composition Primary compositional elements

012 012 5 10 5

Secondary compositional elements Tertiary compositional elements

Fig. 2.07.02. - Composition in Ryder Street Elevation Economist Building

Elevation - Ryder Street - Composition Primary compositional elements

012 5

10

Secondary compositional elements Tertiary compositional elements

Fig. 2.07.03. - Composition in St. James Street Elevation Economist Building

58

10

DRAWN ANALYSIS

Fig. 2.07.04. - Composition in Bury Street Elevation Economist Building

Elevation - Bury Street - Composition Primary compositional elements

012 5

Secondary compositional elements Tertiary compositional elements

59

10

Moravec, A.M. (AleĹĄ)

60

DRAWN ANALYSIS

Common floor plan - Geometrical similarities in plan Direct similarity

012 5

Indiresct similariry

Fig. 2.08.01. - Repetition in facade in West elevation Lloyd’s Building

Elevation West - Repetition

2.08 Repetition in facade

Primary repetitive elements

012 5

In both case repetition is use quite often, Secondary repetitive elements

repetition of openings as well as repetition Tertiary repetitive elements

of structural elements, therefore there are almost no unique elements, however in case of Economist building less repetitions is present on ground floor.

61

10

10

Moravec, A.M. (AleĹĄ)

Elevation - Ryder Street - Repetition Lower ground floor plan Primary repetitive elements

012 5 10 012 5 10

Secondary repetitive elements Tertiary repetitive elements

Fig. 2.08.02. - Repetition in facade in Ryder Street Elevation Economist Building

Elevation - Ryder Street - Repetition Primary repetitive elements

012 5

10

Secondary repetitive elements Tertiary repetitive elements

Fig. 2.08.03. - Repetition in facade in St. James Street Elevation Economist Building

62

Elevation - St. James Street - Repetition of opening

DRAWN ANALYSIS

Fig. 2.08.04. - Repetition in facade in Bury Street Elevation Economist Building

Elevation - Bury Street - Repetition Primary repetitive elements

012 5

Secondary repetitive elements Tertiary repetitive elements

63

10

Moravec, A.M. (AleĹĄ)

64

DRAWN ANALYSIS

Common floor plan - Geometrical similarities in plan Direct similarity

012 5

Indiresct similariry

Elevation West - SymmetryFig. 2.09.01. - Symmetry in facade in West elevation Lloyd’s Building Global symmetry axis 2.09 Symmetry in facade

012 5

Local symmetry axis

The result of analysis of symmetry in Center of local central symmetry

elevation goes hand by hand with analysis of Asymmetrical elements in global symmetry

symmetry in plan. No symmetry in plan leads to no symmetry in elevation, which is the case of Lloyd’s.

65

10

10

Moravec, A.M. (AleĹĄ)

Elevation West - Symmetry Lower ground floor plan Global symmetry axis

012 5 10 012 5 10

Local symmetry axis Center of local central symmetry Asymmetrical elements in global symmetry

Fig. 2.09.02. - Symmetry in facade in Ryder Street Elevation Economist Building

Elevation - Ryder Street - Symmetry in facade Global symmetry axis

012 5

10

Local symmetry axis Asymmetrical elements in global symmetry

Fig. 2.09.03. - Symmetry in facade in St. James Street Elevation Economist Building

66

DRAWN ANALYSIS

Fig. 2.09.04. - Symmetry in facade in Bury Street Elevation Economist Building

Elevation - Bury Street - Symmetry in facade Global symmetry axis

012 5

Local symmetry axis Asymmetrical elements in global symmetry

67

10

Moravec, A.M. (AleĹĄ)

68

DRAWN ANALYSIS

Common floor plan - Geometrical similarities in plan Direct similarity

012 5

10

Indiresct similariry

Elevation West - Relief

Fig. 2.10.01. - Relief in West elevation Lloyd’s Building

1 layer 2.10 Relief st

2 layer The relief of Economist building is evenly nd

3rd layer

distribute all over the facade, putting a stress 4th layer

012 5

10

structure while relief on Lloyd’s is derived from pipes, lifts and cores.

on entrances, which are set back. On the th 5 layer

other hand Lloyds building would look “flat” without all the pipes and facility towers.

Moreover in case of the Economist building the relief is derived from load-bearing

69

Moravec, A.M. (AleĹĄ)

Elevation West - Tower - Relief Lower ground floor plan 1st layer

012 5 10 012 5 10

2nd layer 3rd layer 4th layer 5th layer

Fig. 2.10.02. - Relief in West elevation tower Lloyd’s Building Elevation West - Tower - Relief 1st layer

012 5

2 layer nd

3rd layer 4th layer 5th layer

70

10

DRAWN ANALYSIS

Fig. 2.10.03. - Relief in Ryder Street Elevation Economist Building

Elevation - Ryder Street - Relief 1st layer

012 5

2nd layer 3rd layer 4th layer 5th layer

Fig. 2.10.04. - Relief in Bury Street Elevation Economist Building

71

10

Moravec, A.M. (AleĹĄ)

Lower ground floor plan

012 5

Fig. 2.10.05. - Relief in St. James Street Elevation Economist Building

Elevation - Bury Street - Relief 1st layer

012 5

2nd layer 3rd layer 4th layer 5th layer

72

10

10

DRAWN ANALYSIS

73

Moravec, A.M. (AleĹĄ)

74

DRAWN ANALYSIS

Common floor plan - Geometrical similarities in plan Direct similarity

012 5

Indiresct similariry

Fig. 2.11.01. - Rhythm in West elevation Lloyd’s Building

Elevation West - Rhythm

2.11 Rhythm rhythm Rhythm Primary is derived

from

012 5

composition,

Secondary rhythm

symmetry and repetition so if those three Tertiary rhythm

aspects are regular then the rhythm of facade would be calm and regular as in case of Economist building.

75

10

10

Moravec, A.M. (Aleš)

Elevation - Ryderfloor Streetplan - Rhythm Lower ground Primary rhythm

012 5 10 012 5 10

Secondary rhythm Tertiary rhythm

Fig. 2.11.02. - Rhythm in Ryder Street Elevation Economist Building

Elevation - Ryder Street - Rhythm Primary rhythm

012 5

Secondary rhythm Tertiary rhythm

Fig. 2.11.03. - Rhythm in St. James Street Elevation Economist Building

76

10

DRAWN ANALYSIS

Fig. 2.11.04. - Rhythm in Bury Street Elevation Economist Building

Elevation - Bury Street - Rhythm Primary rhythm

012 5

Secondary rhythm Tertiary rhythm

77

10

E S S AY

With geometry towards coherency?

“Geometry is the most common compositional

base with all the facilities (figure 3.01.01). 02 03

tool used by designers. It is embodied in the use

Buildings were analysed according to eleven

of simple two and three-dimensional shapes, but

themes however the analysis showed that there

also in the relationship between these shapes.

are only five themes like: symmetry, composition,

Symmetry, balance, grids and proportions are

grid rhythm and repetition providing us with

examples of common themes based on geometry.”

relevant results, which may confirm or deny the

01 Adword Allen

hypothesis. Probably the most basic theme to analyse in is composition.

According to the quote symmetry, grid, proportion and shape has to be analysed in order to compare

The difference between West facade of Lloyd’s

two buildings from the geometrical point of view.

building and St. James’s Street facade of Economist

The Economist building and Lloyd’s of London

building is obvious (figure 3.01.02). In terms of

are completely different buildings in terms of size,

Economist building the traditional hierarchy in

context, style and other aspects, which will be

central composition is clearly visible, moreover

discussed later.

it gives us an exciting comparison with the historical facade on Boodles club. Both facades

Lloyd’s is a pure example of high-tech architecture,

are composed of three vertical as well as three

designed by Richard Rogers, while Economist

horizontal parts, which results in a hierarchy of

building was designed in brutalism style by Alison

three parts: base, body and head. However nothing

and Peter Smithson. Those two building actually

like this can be seen in Lloyd’s building. In terms of

have something in common, they accommodate

composition it looks like Lloyd’s is using the same

several functions, however in case of the Economic

composition principles as they were used in Taipei

building the categorisation is a bit tricky because

Performing Arts Centre by OMA resulting in rather

it isn’t a single building accommodating all the

a fragmented then united composition.04 This

functions as in case of Lloyd’s. It’s more a complex

example rises a question whether the historical

of three newly built towers and one refurbished

context in terms of compositional principles is

building where every tower accommodates

important for contemporary architecture or not.

specific function, however they share the same

79

Moravec, A.M. (Aleš)

Fig. 3.01.01. - Design concept of Lloyd’s and Economist Building

Nowadays there are two main

in designing a temple/ building so it can

construction systems, firs skeleton -

be related to its users. This means that

column and beam system and second

Vitruvius was convinced that design of a

wall system. Each of them was derived

building should be derived from human/

from

natural proportions, which resonates

different

principles.

Greek

classical architecture, which is derived Lloyd’s building

with R. Padovan opinion: Economist building

from traditional wooden construction,

“It is same with architecture as with

volumes developed into Served beams and columns on

all the arts: its principles are founded

Serving volumes

the other hand Roman architecture

on nature itself, and in the processes of

developed into walls and arches.

nature are to be found clearly indicated

Moreover the classical Greek orders

all the rules of architecture.”07 R.Padovan

were derived from human proportions,

as well as it resonates with H. Apelt’s

the Doric order is derived from male

opinion:

proportion while Ionic order is derived

“Architecture is human activity so it

from female proportions.06

should have human proportions”08

05

H. Apelt

However in terms of proportion, which “Without symmetry and proportion

are derived from human body there

there can be no principles in the design

is nothing much to say about these

of any temple; that is if, there is no

two buildings because the buildings

precise relation between its members,

are not dedicated to any order which

as in the case of those of a well shaped

uses a system of proportions. (more

man.”

information can be found in analysis

06 Vitruvius

Vitruvius was convinced that symmetry

chapter 2.06) Nevertheless in terms of

and proportions play inseparable role

symmetry the analysis becomes more

80

WITH GEOMETRY TOWARDS COHERENCY?

Fig. 3.01.02. - Facade composition of Lloyd’s and Economist Building

image this desire for meaning moves

interesting.

man to design his environment.”09 O. M. Every tower in Economist building

Ungers

complex has one global, consciously

One of many possible interpretations

designed symmetrical axis with several

of this quote might be that humans

Elevation West - Lloyd’s building

Elevation St. James Street - Economist building

local symmetries. The symmetry of

will identify themselves easier with

Primaryiscomposition Economist towers more elements mechanical

shapes/geometry that is derived from

Secondary composition elements

than the symmetry of Boodles Tertiary composition elements club,

human figure, which corresponds with

which results in less hierarchical

H. Apelt’s statement she made in her

composition.04 On the other hand

lecture:

Lloyd’s building is not symmetrical what

“Man is not bounded by circle and

so ever, however there are few local

square but he produces them.” 08 H. Apelt

symmetries in facade, which are more

Therefore

circle

and

square

are

of a freak of chance than a result of

desirable shapes. In this case both

conscious process. (figure 3.01.03)

buildings have something in common, a single shape, which repeats in all floor

Not only a symmetry and proportion

plans. (more information can be found

might be derived from human body

in analysis chapter 2.01) In terms of

but also a shape. Leonardo Da Vinci

Economic building the shape resembles

has proved with his drawings, (figure

a square with chamfered corners, on the

3.01.04) that human figure fits in a

other hand in case of Lloyd’s building a

square and circle with its centre in

oval shape is the most significant and

navel.

repeated shape. However the oval can

“In giving a meaning to things, man

be disassembled to a square and circle.

also imitates the object in his own

Is it a coincidence?

81

Moravec, A.M. (Aleš)

Fig. 3.01.03. - Facade symmetry of Lloyd’s and Economist Building

have square termination (circle and Geometry

influences

many

other

aspects of a building, from overall

square again), when they are of no more than ordinary width.”10 Durand

composition to a small details, however one of Elevation the most important aspects, West - Lloyd’s building

In terms of Lloyd’s and Economist Elevation Bury Street - Economist building

which is influenced by geometry is

building the construction material is

Global symmetry axis

tectonics. As mentioned above ancient Local symmetry axis Center of local central symmetry

concrete, however the proportions in

Greeks derived their orders from Asymmetrical elements in global symmetry

grid are different. Economist building

human proportions and traditional

has ratio of 1:1:1 (length: width: height)

wooden construction, therefore one

on the other hand Lloyd’s ratio is 1:3:3,

might say that tectonics is dependent

which are not the most desirable ratio

on material and proportion.

for concrete so the Lloyd’s structure

“In our consideration

might be considered as “atectonic”.11

of materials

and of their use in the construction

Another

of the elements of buildings, it must

the grid is the fact that Economist

have become apparent that, while

building complex is subordinated to

nature offers some ready to be used

one module of 3,2 meters sharing the

(materials), most of the others have to

same perpendicular grid, while Lloyd’s

be worked out, either to make them

uses a module of 11,25 meters only

suitable for building in general or to fit

in the core of the building. (figure

them to the use to which the different

3.01.05) This fact has a direct impact

elements of buildings are to be put…

on symmetry, rhythm, repetition and

Door and window openings may be

overall coherency of the building.

arched, when very wide, or they may

82

important

thing

about

WITH GEOMETRY TOWARDS COHERENCY?

3.01.04 Vitruvian man figure was drawn by Loenardo da Vinci in 1490 according to proportions of human body described earlier by Vitruvius.

Drawing source: http://kachine.blogspot. nl/2007/01/history-ofanatomy-leonardo-davinci.html

Fig. 3.01.04. - Vitruvian man

There is a strong relation between

was one of the last architects who

architecture, geometry and humans.

occupied himself

It might be said that architecture is

proportions as a formal design tool,

where human needs meet nature,

however there are some attempts to

therefore having the Vitruvius and Da

resurrect proportional system but they

Vinci’s knowledge one might come

are very rare and not very successful in

to a belief that the best way how to

adapting in global scale.

with

system of

shape a coherent environment is to

“The source of unity in modern

use geometry and proportions which

architecture is in the social sphere.”12

are derived from nature - human body.

Sir John Summerson

Unfortunately not anymore.

This statement seams vague because

“As far as architecture is concerned,

Sir John doesn’t provide us with any

the old systems of proportion that

argument supporting his statement so

belonged to a formal order are indeed

it’s difficult interpret it. Nevertheless as

dead and buried at a time when the

architecture becomes more and more

source of unity in modern architecture

abstract13 then in case of Lloyd’s, unity

is in the social sphere.” 12 Sir John Summerson

has probably been shifted towards

It’s fact that system of proportions

something

that provided architecture with unity

which is not derived from nature.

is dead. It’s dead because Le Corbusier

(figure 3.01.06)

83

abstract

or

something,

Moravec, A.M. (Aleš)

1,6x1,6x3,2m Residential building

11,25x11,25x3,75m Lloyd’s building 3,2x3,2x3,2m Bank building

3,2x3,2x3,2m Office building

Fig. 3.01.05. - Grid of Lloyd’s and Economist Building

3.01.06 Illustration shows the same place. One designed by using a system of proportions and the other by NOT using it.

Which one is coherent?

Common floor - Lloyd’s building

Ground floor - Economist building

Illustration is from Leon Kriér’s book: Drawings for Architecture. The book is listed in sources

Grid Basic module Excluded from grid

Fig. 3.01.06. - Modern vs. Classical

84

WITH GEOMETRY TOWARDS COHERENCY?

Sources 01 Edward Allen, Patric Rand (2016).

08 Apelt Haike (2017). Lecture 3:

Architectural detailing. Hoboken, New

Architecture and the idea of Geometry

Jersey: John Wiley & Sons. Section 3

[Technical University of Eindhoven]

Aesthetics. Geometry and proportion

10th of May 2017

02 Richard Weston (2010) Key Buildings

09 O. M. Ungers (1964) What is

of the 20th Century. London, UK:

architecture?

Laurence King Publishing. Economist Building.

10 Durand, J.N.L. (2000). Précis of the lectures on architecture. Los Angeles,

03 Kenneth Powell (1999). Richard

California: Getty Research Institute.

Rogers. London, UK: Phaidon Press

Section Three. Forms and Proportions

Limited. Richard Rogers Partnership.

Lloyd’s of London

11 Kenneth Frampton (1995). Studies in

04

Léon

for

Krier

(2009).

Architecture.

Massachusetts:

The

Drawing

Cambridge, MIT

Press.

Tectonic

Massachusetts:

Culture.

The

Cambridge, MIT

Press.

Introduction: Reflections on the Scope of the Tectonic

Composition: Organic versus Mechanic 12 Sir John Summerson (1957) The Case 05 Hilhorst Wouter (2017) Lecture

for a Theory of Modern Architecture.

2: Architecture and the idea of

Journal R.I.B.A.

Construction [Technical University of Eindhoven] 3rd of May 2017

13

Léon

for

Krier

(2009).

Architecture.

Drawing

Cambridge,

06 R. Padovan (1991). Proportion

Massachusetts: The MIT Press. Two

science

Worlds

philosophy

architecture.

Chapter nine.Vitruvius 07 R. Padovan (1979). Laugier to Van der Laan

85