“However, our judgment of most buildings tends to oscillate between how well it functions, if it is fit for purpose (utilitas); how well it stands up, if the structure is appropriate (firmitas) and how it moves us (venustas).” (Thurrott, 2011) Marcus Vitruvius Pollio, the Roman writer, as well as engineer and architect, defined architecture in three words when he worked for the Roman Empire: utilitas, firmitas, and venustas (2011). How well the building matches the purpose for which it was designed for, is defined by utilitas. Firmitas relates to the structure, and how appropriate it is. Venustas is a measure of how the building works aesthetically: how it is to look at (2011). It can be argued that good architecture is a harmony of all three of these words (2011). The Iron Bridge over the river Severn, built by Abraham Darby III in 1779, and the proposed river surveyor’s house, designed by ClaudeNicolas Ledoux, are two buildings to which one can make a comparison of the relation to utilitas, firmitas and venustas. The iron bridge was a very radical building, being the first outward demonstration of the structural qualities of Iron, a material born out of the industrial era (Nuttgens, 1983). The bridge landmarks the transition from heavy and solid structures, built with masonry and bricks, to a lighter framework (1983). In terms of venustas, this was a brave design. When Iron had previously been used in buildings, it had been concealed inside the masonry. For example, Iron was used in the construction of the Pantheon in Paris, but to the untrained eye, the building appears to be none more than a typical masonry structure (2011). For the first time in history, an exposed Iron structure had been exhibited. Likewise, the proposed river surveyor’s house, designed by Ledoux, was also bold, but in different ways. In the drawing, one can see the bold geometrical shapes common in many of Ledoux’s other drawings, such as those for the cenotaph he designed for Isaac Newton (Roth, 2007). The huge scale of the river surveyor’s house is also something common to his designs. When looking at the drawing, one imagines the building to be smaller than it is, before spotting the traditional waterwheels in the foreground, which put it into scale. The venustas of the design is heavily centred on the scale of this building, as well as the use of a simple geometric shape. At the time, the appropriateness of Darby’s structure could be debated. His revolutionary exposed Iron frame caused a divide amongst the people (2011). One half embraced it, and were ready to experiment and use whatever the Industrial revolution had to give them, whilst the others reminisced on the many thousands of years that stone structures had been used, and felt this new venture was too radical (2011). However, the firmitas of the iron bridge, in terms of the soundness of the structure, cannot be debated, as it is still very much standing today, over two hundred years since its constriction. The water surveyor’s house has different structural aspects. Unlike the engineered structure of the iron bridge, the structure consists only of a simple hollowed cylinder. Ledoux has reduced the structure to only the most essential (Curtis, 1982). When one compares the structure of the sluice house to that of the traditional water mills, one can understand how controversial the structure must have been. The appropriateness of the structure can not effectively be commented on, as it was never built.
It is when one begins to consider these two structures in terms of utilitas that the main differences begin to evolve. The iron bridge was designed to be purely functional; it is a very direct solution to the problem. Ledoux’s design, however, take a more symbolic approach. He moved away from the traditional solution, and designed something which became part of the river. His symbolic approach is encapsulated in the idea of the river flowing through the heart of the stricture, as a pose to the traditional structure on the side of the river. Darby did not reinvent the bridge, but proposed a radical iron structure, whereas Ledoux proposed a symbol. To conclude, when analysed in terms of venustas, utilitas and firmitas, the iron bridge is very different to the river surveyor’s house. Aesthetically, both designs were controversial. The exposed framework of the iron bridge met opposition, and the sheer scale of Ledoux’s design put it far ahead it its time. Structurally, Darby used a thin Iron frame, contrasting with the more heavy duty structure that Ledoux proposed. However, it is the utilitas of the buildings which truly sets them apart. Darby’s design is one in which the form is clearly dictated by the function. It follows the traditional image of what a bridge should be. In Ledoux’s proposition, however, it is the abstract form which defines the function, a symbolic function at that, which is evolved from the water itself, a key symbol which divides these two designs: one is designed for the water, and the other is designed from it.
References Curtis, W J R (1982). Modern Architecture since 1900. 3rd ed. London: Phaidon Press Limited. 28-29. Frampton, K (2007). Modern architecture: a critical history. 4th ed. London: Thames & Hudson. 29. Nuttgens, P (1983). The Story of Architecture. 2nd ed. London: Phaidon Press Limited. 227, 228, 244. Roth, M (2007). Understanding Architecture: Its elements, history and meaning. Colorado: Westview Press. 448-451. Thurrott, J (2011). Between Thinking and Making: Architecture in Context Lecture 2: Form, Function and the Beginnings of Abstraction.