Arch 7350: Foundations of Architectural Theory I Synthesizing Essay: Studying the narratives of design from the last decade Katelyn Dimopoulos Dec. 2020
Attitude towards usability & human activity
Ta b l e o f C o n t e n t s
5
Article 1. Architecture vs architecture: in everyday life
6-9
Article 2. The Public: Designing for Participation
10-13 Article 3. Human Identity in the Urban Context
9 10
4 -5
FOUNDATIONS OF ARCHITECTURAL THEORY
2
Architectur experien factors in
re is driven be the sociological and physical nces of the human being, and how such nfluence the well-being of the individual.
FOUNDATIONS OF ARCHITECTURAL THEORY
3
ARTICLE 1
Architecture vs architecture: in the everyday
T
here is no human life without architecture. Architecture defines the world we live in spatially, commanding that we participate in its presence. In having such power over human life, the architect must take great responsibility in shaping architecture appropriately. Designing for human happiness is a variable target, from addressing the monotony of everyday life to the most luxurious of lifestyles. However, basic human tendencies of habit and routine, exist along the entire spectrum of everyday life. This presents the main duality of architecture: capital “A” vs lower case “a” architecture. The first, “Architecture”, is the celebration and protection of high design and sophistication within the profession. The second, lower case “architecture” is surrounded by the notion that architecture is defined not by the extravagances of elegant design, but instead the everyday needs and lifestyles of its user. Architecture undoubtably “intervenes in the everyday life” of all humankind [1]. The built environment that surrounds us is the background and setting of the everyday: the unpredictable faction of our human existence. The everyday cannot be foreseen or controlled, but instead studied based on the repetition and personal routine of the individual. In doing so, architecture can be molded around the “bodily habits and cultural memories” we produce every day [2]. Case
Study House #20 by architect Richard Neutra was one of many case studies that show the possibilities that designing for the everyday life of a family can offer the profession of architecture [3]. The house is a “modest self-service house” that plays with open space floors plans and windows to connect the outdoors with the indoors [3]. The client, a couple with young children, desired a space that was built around their everyday life – one of caring for their children. The architect made sure the kitchen and living space were accessible upon entry and these spaces were open to each other for interaction. This seemingly small, lower case “a” architectural move in not one of great complexity, but had a lasting effect on the everyday interaction between the family in their own space. Architecture can give people the fortitude to embrace the everyday, through the flexibility it provides us to “take over” a space to our own individual desires. There is a limitation to how much the architect can control of our everyday lives and when they try, the “results tend to be embarrassingly literal and decorative” [4]. Although designing for the “everyday space stands in contrast to the carefully planned, officially designated, and often underused spaces of public use” it can be argued that lower case architecture cannot be all that exists [5]. The architect is a creative person, one who invents and develops new possibilities for human existence. If the architect were to only design for the everyday life, it would “suffocate in routine” [6]. In full contrast
to the support that the everyday life gives to lower case architecture, it is the misfortune of high design and innovation. “Architecture goes beyond utilitarian thinking” and provides the public with a means of expression that is not solely for the usage of people, but instead to be experienced as an art form [7]. Le Corbusier argues that the human benefit of architecture is the way in which it can stir emotion and bring value to beauty [8]. For example, the expressive form found in the Hotel “La Concha” is the type of architecture than would align with the values of capital “A” architecture [9]. The architect, Toro & Ferrer, translated wind and motion into architectural form, creating an inventive, yet highly artistic architectural structure. The expression of capital “A” architecture brings culture and sophistication; something that could be lost when architecture is considered only as a utilitarian means for human existence. The human species is complex in its needs. It needs both the basic necessities of life, such as food, water and shelter, but it also needs culture and art to feed the soul. Architecture is a product of the dichotomy between everyday life and the extravagant, and cannot be defined by either one completely. It is necessary for architecture to address both, just as the human psyche does on a daily basis. This is what make architecture so essential to our existence, as it allows us to grow in body and spirit.
Sources [1] Upton, “The Architecture of Everyday Life”, p.708. [2] Upton, “The Architecture of Everyday Life”, p.720. [3] Art & Architecture, Available at: hSps://usmodernist.org/AA/AA-1945-12.pdf (p.122-127) [4] Upton, “The Architecture of Everyday Life”, p.713. [5] Upton, “The Architecture of Everyday Life”, p.711. [6] Le Corbusier, “Toward an Architecture”, p.86. [7] Le Corbusier, “Toward an Architecture”, p.87. [8] Le Corbusier, “Toward an Architecture”, p.96. [9] Progressive Architecture US Modernist, August, 1959, Volume XL, Number 8, “Resort Hotel for San Juan,” Toro & Ferrer and Warner, Burns, Toan, Lunde, available at: https://usmodernist.org/PA/PA- 1959-08.pdf FOUNDATIONS OF ARCHITECTURAL THEORY
4
CASE STUDY HOUSE #20
HOTEL LA CONCHA
FOUNDATIONS OF ARCHITECTURAL THEORY
5
ARTICLE 2
The Public:
DESIGNING FOR PARTICIPATION
FOUNDATIONS OF ARCHITECTURAL THEORY
6
A
t its most rudimentary level, the built environment is meant to be of use to its inhabitants. The user, whether it be their experience with it or simply their gaze, is what gives architecture it’s value. In allowing the public to participate, without the barricade of the individuals socioeconomic standing, race, gender or personal defining feature, is what it makes architecture important. But what does it mean to truly engage the entire public? Moreover, what is the definition of the public? These questions are rooted in the juxtaposition between the architect “telling” the public the purpose of the design versus allowing the architecture to let the public speak for themselves. The idea that an architect must be able to create a space that is meant for the use of all people from all backgrounds seems like an impossible feat. Public buildings, from the library to City Hall, claim to achieve this at their core, but fail in addressing the base understanding of the complexity of the individual. In history, public spaces have been built with the intention to represent democracy and inclusion for all, however, they were built on the foundational funding of the elite and powerful. From the beginning of democratic societies, this argument has been shown true. The Roman Forum, a multipurpose, public marketplace where the public was welcome to gather and participate in art and trade, was one of the earlier examples of democratic, seemingly completely public space [1]. Citizens came here for shopping, elections, public speeches and trade1. This space was considered completely public and for the inclusion of all humans. However, what about the citizen who does not have an item worthy of trade, or the literacy to participate in elections?
Or the bodily ability to walk the streets of this space? Or the color of their skin did not match that of those around them? If the disabled, uneducated, poor and those of racial minority were not considered in the equation that made up the “public” of this city, this architectural example of public space cannot be considered one of true equity and social power. This problem of inequity in public space is due to the fact that they are designed and funded by those of power. Yes, the ancient Romans paid taxes and so do we in this day and age as well, but this money is useless if the public does not have an influence over its spending. We have governments and leaders who make decisions on what is to be funded as public space, and what is not. In doing so, the public is being considered “the universal victim, helpless and passive against the forces of capitalism, consumerism and stimulation” [2]. Think back to the Roman Forum: this space was based on small vendors and trade (capitalism), shopping (consumerism) and public events (stimulation). What influence did the public have in this architectural decision besides using it for exactly what it was designed for? This is the power of the architect: to influence human behavior and desires. This power is profound and must be evaluated on the foundation of inclusion and equity for all people, not on capitalism and exploitation of the consumer. In the recognition and implementation of the needs of those who inhabit the space, an architectural idea can be considered for the public. A City Hall, an American symbol of the ethos and culture of a particular city or community, is an example of a completely public serving building that must follow this idea of humanistic design. In the example of the Scottsdale Civic Center, the designers addressed this idea in making the statement
FOUNDATIONS OF ARCHITECTURAL THEORY
7
“the public is being considered the universal victim, helpless and passive against the forces of capitalism, consumerism and stimulation.”
“The architect must first understand what it means to be an individual in the public sphere, and how the public sphere can morph into various versions of itself over time.”
that “citizen participation can be of a very high order in the design process and when it is, can be an important factor in achieving fine architecture” [3]. To achieve this, the public was included in the entire design process and public gathering spaces were designed to enhance the idea of equity, not power and status. The entire inside is created without interior partitions, allowing for every space as viewed by the user of equal value and importance [3]. Participation and human activity are at the forefront of the design, as a public space should do. Every space is equally and easily accessible, and the most public of departments are located on the main floor3. An individual entering this building is treated as though they are both different than everyone else there, as every human being is, but equally given the choice to participate and interact with the programs of the building that affect the society as a whole. To achieve such equity, the architect must include a vital missing puzzle piece into their design strategy: the “humanistic coefficient” [4]. This strategy involves the inclusion of the people as “conscious agents or actors” within the public realm [4]. This means the people are what shape certain cultures, based on their actions, desires, needs and personal experiences. This not only influences the individual, but when brought into a collective atmosphere, the human is also affected by the observation of others. As the human grows and participates more deeply in their respective society, their conscious choices and moral attitudes are altered. Philosophers have even argued that “society is what some of them term the “seat of objectivity” and
FOUNDATIONS OF ARCHITECTURAL THEORY
8
therefore antagonistic to the subjective existence of the individual” [5]. The architect must first understand what it means to be an individual in the public sphere, and how the public sphere can morph into various versions of itself over time. This represents the challenge of architecture to represent the public as an everchanging whole and not the individuals that make up that whole. Creating architecture for the public is a challenging feat. The make-up of the public is not only entirely unique to the individual’s experiences and consciousness, but also to the interconnection of these individuals as a whole. The architecture of the Scottsdale Civic Center allows for the public to tell their own story of what is important their existence. The public shifts and changes over time, making architecture, something so permanent and rooted to its beginnings, not as adaptable as the people it serves. This presents the architect with a very important design constraint that must be addressed in everything they do: is the built environment that they are molding allowing for the entire public to participate in an equitable way. Sources [1] History.com Editors. “Roman Forum.” History.com. A&E Television Networks, March 8, 2018. https://www.history. com/topics/ancient-rome/roman-forum. [2] Crawford, “Blurring the Boundaries: Public Space and Private Life”, p. 23. [3] “Scottsdale’s New Civic Center,” Architectural Record. March 1971. p. 119-124. [4] Turner, “Dramas, Fields, and Metaphors. Symbolic Action in Human Society”, p.32. [5] Turner, “Dramas, Fields, and Metaphors. Symbolic Action in Human Society”, p.54.
FOUNDATIONS OF ARCHITECTURAL THEORY
9
T H E U R B A N FA B R I C “Planning is the correlating of human activities; architecture is the housing of these activities” - Carre Bleu, 3, 1961. Candilis, Josic, Woods.
FOUNDATIONS OF ARCHITECTURAL THEORY
10
T
ARTICLE 3
HUMAN IDENTITY IN THE
URBAN CONTEXT
the city addresses the mobility needs of the people. As social beings, we need to be given conditions that allow us to move around at different scales in order to interact with others. The members of the Team 10 clearly lay out the need for architects and city planners to rethink our urban layout in a way that connects humans through social interaction. Cities need to emphasize that architecture that makes them unique and valuable, such as having “nodes” of certain building types, like public service buildings, strategically laid out along the commonly used paths through out the city. Cities are made up of “a very compound rhythm based on many kinds of movement, human, mechanical and natural”. From this strategic teamwork between architecture and urban infrastructure, the “whole of life in the city becomes richer than the sum of its parts”[1].
he urban fabric we walk, drive and fly over every day is the context for which the human identity is molded. Our physical and spiritual wellbeing is drastically altered, both good and bad, from the built environment that we interact with every day. Thus, this urban fabric must be arranged with the intention of keeping balance and growing parallel with the needs of its users. Within the urban context, the symbiotic relationship between architecture and urban planning is vital in maintaining the progression of the human being. As the members of “Team 10” have so bluntly exclaimed during the 20th century, the profession of architecture is one of specialization and precision. It is one that is molded by the roads, land and life that can intertwine with each other at any instance. An architect can no longer think of their City planning and architecture have a work around the limits of the site, but instead prevalent relationship when assessing the of the consequences of the design on the city of Chandigarh, India [2]. Some of the individual’s urban lifestyle altogether. profession’s best architects of the time, Le Living organisms are not static and cannot Corbusier, Pierre Jeanneret, Jaen Drew and be treated as such. As humans, we require Maxwell Fry, have invested their time and nourishment, activity and communication designs into this city. However, architecture is everyday in order to sustain a healthy only as successful as its urban context allows lifestyle. We have progressed as a species due it to be. The layout for the city of Chandigarh, to our inability to stand still and our desire to by architect Le Corbusier, was designed with evolve with time. Therefore, the urban fabric the intention of emphasizing human growth must also adapt at that same rate of change. through time at the forefront. Growth in this Architecture itself shelters and houses the case meant more than population, it also daily life of the human being, however, meant expanding architecture, retaining
Diagram, Kahn. 1957
FOUNDATIONS OF ARCHITECTURAL THEORY 11
nature and catering to the mobility needs of the human. All of these design forces emphasize the focus that urban planning must have on the wellbeing of its users. The city of Chandigarh takes on the “evils of city life – congestion, dislocation, incoherence, unsocialness, ugliness and boredom” and reimagines them in a way that amplifies the human condition [2]. Mobility is divided into high speeds traffic (which is bordered with trees to reduce sound), public transport lanes and various pathways for daily activities such as walking, biking and driving. The city uses nature to improve air quality, reduce sound pollution and create shade. The city plan varies from the classic “grid” system and instead molds around various building typologies and lifestyles, such as areas for school or government buildings [2]. The houses are kept simple, to accommodate different budgets and allow for growth and ownership. All aspects of the city are seemingly designed to allow architecture to grow from it’s framework, instead of constrain it. In doing so, both architecture and the urban landscape can successfully follow the evolutionary growth rate of the human being. Architecture and urban planning are professions that “function to establish optimum conditions in which the present becomes future” [3]. They need to work sideby-side, just as the building stands alongside the street front, to create an environment that caters to the growth of the individual. In creating urban landscapes that address the relationship of architecture, nature, and connectivity together, the wellbeing of the users is enhanced. Sources [1] Smithson, “Team 10 Primer”, p. 105. [2] E. Maxwell Fry (1955, June). CHANDIGARH-NEW CAPITAL CITY. Architectural Record, 1955-06, pp.139-148. Available at: haps://usmodernist.org/AR/AR-1955-06.pdf [3] Smithson, “Team 10 Primer”.
London Roads Study, diagram Dean and Richards, 1960. [3]
TEAM TEAM 10 10 FOUNDATIONS OF ARCHITECTURAL THEORY
12
City plan of Chandigarh [2].
Public School Buildings in Chandigarh [2].
FOUNDATIONS OF ARCHITECTURAL THEORY 13