House VI by T.Ploc

HOUSE VI

CASE 15

House VI Peter Eisenman

Horsley, K. B. (Kent Brian), Ploc, T. (Tomáš)

CONTENT Introduction

Essay

Basic drawings

Analytical drawings 1.Type 34 2. Construction

3. Geometry

4. Space 74 5. Representation

6. Form/programe

Reflective Report

108

List of References

112

I N T RO D U C T I O N

Introduction

Architect:

Peter Eisenman

This report is an analysis on House VI by American

Client:

Suzanne Frank

Architect Peter Eisenman. The house was completed

Location:

Cornwall, United States

in 1975 and has become famous for its unique inter-

Year:

1975

pretation and expression of modernism, its intricate spatial design and also from the challenges and criticization it faced. House VI is the last of his house series. The building will be analysed through 6 themes; Type, Construction, Geometry, Space, Representation and Program/Form. The following essay refers to the analytical drawings, which also correspond to the 6 themes.

E S S AY

House VI Essay

senman himself in 1973. The abstract was written

Type

in 1978, 3 years after the completion of House VI. Eisenman’s first steps in developing the architec-

In this text Moneo begins by discussing similar ide-

tonics of the building came from the idea of in-

as to Eisenman, stating that a type of architecture

verting existing architectural canons. Eisenman re-

can be characterised by a condition of uniqueness,

fers to Le Corbusier as an example and states that

and agrees that the concept of type implies change

his work uses dense edges rather than originating

(Moneo, 1978, p. 3). However, what makes the

the design from the centre, combined with ver-

text interesting is when Moneo also explores the

tical layering. He acknowledged that this pairing

counter argument against this expression. Moneo

of ideas has been recognised as an architectural

suggests that an architectural piece must have a

canon. Eisenman stated that it is also possible to

precise position in history (Moneo, 1978, p. 4).This

construct a design from a dense centre (instead

means that the piece clearly belongs to a historical

of dense edges) combined with vertical layering of

architectural type, or is strong enough to create

space (Eisenman, 1994, p. 21). It can be seen in Fig-

a type of its own. Even though House VI pushes

ure XX that the prominent edges run through the

boundaries of modernism, it hasn’t been consid-

building. This approach and therefore the develop-

ered a significant fragment of post modernism.

mental drawings carry certain characteristics of

Eisenman believes House VI was effective in rep-

architecture which resonates the notions of mod-

resenting his ideologies, where Moneo may only

ernism. A quality which differentiates the building

see it as an experimental monument.

from the modernism movement is, as explained

1 Eisenman, P. (1994). House VI. In S. Frank, Peter Eisenman’s House Vi:The Client’s Response. New York: Watson-Guptill Publications.

by Eisenman, its capacity to resist absorption into the normative culture of architecture over time (1994, p. 110).

2 Frank, S. (1994). The Client’s Response. In S. Frank, Peter Eisenman’s House Vi:The Client’s Response (pp. 49-72). New York: Watson-Guptill Publications.

This expression of typology by Eisenman is positioned against the text “On Typology” by Rafael Moneo. This text is from Opposition, an Architectural Journal originally started by initiatives of Ei-

3 Moneo, R. (1978). On Typology. Oppositions, 1-25.

Horsley, K. B. (Kent Brian), Ploc, T. (Tomáš)

2. Construction

translucency and placement of glazing (Figure 2.2.1- 2.2.6) are positioned to

The client, Suzanne Frank initially only

control the composition of the building

communicated proverbial notions of

or the spatial experiences inside, rather

living, such as sleeping and dining to

than controlling the light for practical

Eisenman (Frank, 1994, p. 53). They

use. Some skylights were constructed

refrained from requesting specific de-

complet.ed horizontal to maintain the

tails as they did not want to obscure

orthographic expression (Figure 2.3.1-

the architects poetic abstractions. This

2.3.4).

gave Eisenman a free license to experiment and use the building as an expres-

Gregotti later acknowledges that each

sion of his own ideologies. However,

architectural work must be open to

this act, in some aspects, had negative

experimental risks (Gregotti, 1996,

consequences as, Eisenman lost many

p. 53), which House VI certainly em-

of the practical and functional necessi-

braces. However, he also states that

ties through his continuous pursuit for

the only accepted system of design is

composition.

those common to techniques of building construction (Gregotti, 1996, p. 53).

In the text “Inside Architecture”, Vit-

In other words, structure and practi-

torio Gregotti explores the role of

cal actions should be at the forefront

modernism in the late 20th Century.

of the design process. Even though the

He goes on to discuss the distinctions

conceptual expression resulted in a sig-

of practical and conceptual actions and

nificantly applauded design, the original

the techniques used through their re-

detailing was too demanding and the

spective process (Gregotti, 1996, p. 51).

drawings lacked degree of specification,

For Eisenman’s House VI, the concep-

which resulted in delay in construction

tual action is prioritised over the prac-

time and leakage after completion in

tical. Gregotti argues that the methods

1975. The text Inside Architecture was

form the technique and thus the archi-

published in 1996. Some design difficul-

tectural construction. The Construc-

ties and failures seen in House VI may

tion of House VI contradicts this idea

have influenced the more practical di-

as many fake walls and constructions

rection of construction towards the

are used throughout the building, only

late 20th Century.

to portray the architectural concept by Eisenman (Figure 2.1.1-2.1.4). The

4. Gregotti,V. (1996). On Technique. In V. Gregotti, Inside Architecture (pp. 51-60). Chicago: Graham Foundation for Advanced Studies in the Fine Arts.

CASE 15 – HOUSE VI

3. Geometry

on the same axis and some individual spaces carry its own grid structure

Eisenman used many pure geometric

with symmetry, such as the bedroom.

forms in his design. As previously ex-

The use of geometry and symmetry

plained, Eisenman attempted to create

extends to the finer detail of the build-

composition by challenging the use

ing. Some glazing used, as highlighted in

of edges. The development process

figure 3.3.1, has an orthographic and

began from intersecting, slipping and

geometric pattern, is symmetrically

deconstructing 4 simple rectangular

placed and also references the grid of

planes with strong edges to create a

the internal stairs below.

particular geometric composition (figure 3.1.1-3.1.2). Comments made by

The internal symmetry was also at

Eisenman after the construction sug-

times created by deconstructed ge-

gests that these composition and the

ometric components and connecting

resulting proportions were important

these spaces with adjacent forms. The

to his design. When the renovations

symmetry in the bedroom was aided

were carried out on the house due to

by placing 2 rectangular glazing slots

leakage, he discontentedly stated that

on the floor, connecting the first and

the “subtle adjustments of proportions,

ground floor.This not only helps create

the thickness of mullions, the alignment

the symmetrical composition within

of openings… have changed the nature

the room, but enables the occupants

of the house as it was originally de-

to experience the building as a whole.

signed” (Eisenman, 1994, p. 109).

This diverse method of creating symmetry is explained interestingly by

Geometric forms can also be seen in

Richard Padovan in his text “Vitruvius”.

many aspects of the design. Through-

He explains how a space which is de-

out the development of House VI, Ei-

signed by determining the mutual pro-

senman maintained an orthographic

portions between all three dimensions

approach, only altering components in

is not only symmetry but also eurhyth-

the three dominant axes and strictly us-

mic (Padovan, Vitruvius, 1999, p. 159).

ing straight lines. Figure 3.2.1 and 3.2.2

These eurhythmic spaces “can give us

analyses the grid pattern on the floor

an insight into its qualitative proper-

plans. The grid seem irregular at first,

ties” (Padovan,Vitruvius, 1999, p. 159).

however, the window openings align to other internal and external openings

5. Padovan, R. (1999). Vitruvius. In R. Padovan, Proportion Science Philosophy Architecture (pp. 156-172). London: E & FN Spon.

Horsley, K. B. (Kent Brian), Ploc, T. (Tomáš)

Space

The walls of Eisenman’s House VI have distinct independent forms which sup-

House VI by Eisenman offers many in-

port this idea and therefore is one of

tricately designed interior spaces. In

the reasons why the interior is often

the building, it is obvious that compo-

described as spatial experiences rather

sition was prioritised before practi-

than the interior surfaces. The exterior

cal design of space. As it can be seen

surfaces were created from the same

in figure 4.1.1, the columns and walls

developmental process as the interior,

are placed in positions where it limits

however the exterior is looked upon

the functionality of the space.There are

as composition of façade and not space.

columns coming down on both sides of

This explains how even though element

the dining table, limiting the arrange-

may have the same compositional lan-

ment or the size of table that can be

guage, it has significantly different influ-

placed in this area. This also creates

ences on the occupants when used in

some dead areas where space is diffi-

different areas of a building.

cult to occupy or cannot be used at all. Unlike traditional housing where walls and doors are used to define spaces, the interior of the building is defined by rectilinear boxes being cut by large planes, slots and beams (Frank, 1994, p. 49). As a result Eisenman’s design does create interesting visual connections (Figure 4.3.1-4.3.6). The idea of space in House VI is placed against the text Dom Hans Van der Laan, Architecture and the Necessity of Limits, also by Richard Padovan.

6. Padovan, R. (1989). Dom Hans Van Der Laan, Architecture and the Necessity of Limits. Stichting Manutius.

His analysis of volume discusses a thought-provoking notion of spaces. He discusses Van der Laans beliefs on how “architectonic spaces can only arise between masses clearly defined as independent forms” (Padovan, 1989, p. 9).

CASE 15 – HOUSE VI

Representation

“a generation younger… truly marvel, born in fairy tale or, at least, the make

As explained in the analysis of Type, the

believe world of child’s play” (Frank,

building emerged from the develop-

1994, p. 49).

ment of modern ideas. For this reason, the resulting composition of façade is a

There are various interpretations of

representation of modern architecture

Representation. Many of the ideas dis-

being challenged. The complex façade

cussed here are representation of ar-

of House VI also has a sculptural style

chitectural concepts and styles. The

that can only be fully understood when

need to represent style over practical

moving around the building (Frank,

matters is often questioned in archi-

1994, p. 62). As the occupant approach-

tectural work. In the text “Five Notes

es and moves around the building to get

on Style”, Antonio Monesiroli discuss-

to the main entrance on the east face

es the importance of defining style. In

(figure 5.1.1- 5.1.2), the architecton-

this text he clearly states that in mod-

ic forms and the shadows they create

ern architecture, the variation of style

(figure 5.2.1-5.2.4) start revealing the

is a necessary principle and that it is

architectural detail and the relationship

a mode of artistic knowledge (Mone-

with the interior.

stiroli, 1997, p. 113). The strong desire to represent his architectural style has

After entering the building, the first

lead Eisenman to a conceptually suc-

dominant feature is the opposing com-

cessful design in House VI.

position of stairs. Bright red stairs are positioned over the occupants head and complementary green stairs are placed perpendicularly, leading up to the first level. To Eisenman, this represented the concept of spatial oppositions, which was one of Eisenman’s studied ideology which influenced the publication of the journal, Opposites, previously referenced. To the clients however, it represented something more than a conceptual style. Suzanne Frank explained that upon entering the building, she felt

7. Monestiroli, A. (1997). Five Notes on Style.

Horsley, K. B. (Kent Brian), Ploc, T. (Tomáš)

Program/Form

Thomas Schumacher explores this relationship and the origins of the con-

The best insight to the practical use

cept in the text “The Outside is the

of the building comes from the occu-

Result of an Inside”. As it can already

pants themselves. Throughout the de-

be recognised from the title, he sug-

sign process, the clients had to request

gests that “many modern movement

changes to Eisenman as some of his

architects interpreted this maxim as

original desires were incomprehen-

requiring both “space” and “program”

sible. This included the addition of a

be expressed on the exterior of their

bedroom (figure 6.1.1-6.1.2). Suzanne

buildings” (Schumacher, 2002, p. 23) .

Frank stated that “there was no precise

This seems to be a logical interpre-

one-to-one relationship between our

tation of a building, more commonly

daily patterns and the shaping of space,

described in modernism as form fol-

except that the communal activities

lows function. However, As Eisenman’s

took place downstairs and the more

House VI was developed as a series of

private space was upstairs (Frank, 1994,

geometric expressions, the outside and

p. 53). Although discussions were had

the inside was not defined until late in

between the clients and the architect,

the development process. As a result,

the fundamental use and placement of

even though the interior and exterior

specific programs did not translate into

are design from the same process and

the plans of the building, often leading

language, the interior programs itself

to an uncomfortable living situations.

is not reflected in the exterior of the

The single bathrooms in the building

building (figure 6.2.1-6.2.2).

was only accessible by walking upstairs and through the bedroom, which made the experience rather awkward (Frank, 1994, p. 53). 8 Schumacher, T. L. (2002). “The outside Is the Result of an inside”: Some Sources of One of Modernism’s Most Persistent Doctrines. Journal of Architectural Education, 23-33.

Another commonly discussed matter is the relationship between the interior program and the external form of the building. Relationship between the two are often described as obligatory especially in the era of modernism.

CASE 15 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; HOUSE VI

Fig. 1.1.4. - Edges in isometric drawing 1:100

Fig. 2.2.6. - Translucency in isometric drawing 1:100

Fig. 3.3.2. - Glass brick glazing following the concept of the house and staircases Fig. 3.1.2. - Concept of House VI

Conclusive drawings 15

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

Horsley, K. B. (Kent Brian), Ploc, T. (Tomáš)

Fig. 0.1. - Site plan 1:500 18

CASE 15 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; DRAWN ANALYSIS

Fig. 0.2. - Ground floor 1:100 19

Horsley, K. B. (Kent Brian), Ploc, T. (Tomáš)

Fig. 0.3. - First floor 1:100 20

CASE 15 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; DRAWN ANALYSIS

Fig. 0.4. - Roof 1:100 21

Horsley, K. B. (Kent Brian), Ploc, T. (Tomáš)

Fig. 0.5. - East facade elevation 1:100 22

CASE 15 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; DRAWN ANALYSIS

Fig. 0.6. - North facade elevation 1:100 23

Horsley, K. B. (Kent Brian), Ploc, T. (Tomáš)

Fig. 0.7. - West facade elevation 1:100 24

CASE 15 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; DRAWN ANALYSIS

Fig. 0.8. - South facade elevation 1:100 25

Horsley, K. B. (Kent Brian), Ploc, T. (Tomáš)

Fig. 0.9. - Section_dining room 1:100 26

CASE 15 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; DRAWN ANALYSIS

Fig. 0.10. - Section_staircase 1:100 27

Horsley, K. B. (Kent Brian), Ploc, T. (Tomáš)

Fig. 0.11. - Section_footbridge 1:100 28

CASE 15 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; DRAWN ANALYSIS

Fig. 0.12. - Section_living room 1:100 29

Horsley, K. B. (Kent Brian), Ploc, T. (Tomáš)

Fig. 0.1. - Isometric drawing 1:100 30

CASE 15 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; DRAWN ANALYSIS

A N A LY T I C A L D R A W I N G S

ANALYSIS LAYERS 1. Type 1.1. Presence of the edges 1.2.Vertical layering 1.3.Viewpoints 2. Construction 2.1. Fake structure 2.2.Translucency 2.3. Lighting 3. Geometry 3.1. Concept 3.2. Grid 3.3. Glazing 4. Space 4.1. Limitations 4.2.Deadspaces 4.3.Visual connections 5. Representation 5.1. Entrance 5.2. Facade tectonics 5.3 Opposing staircase 6. Form/Program 6.1. Programme 6.2. External form 6.3. Circulation

1. TYPE

Horsley, K. B. (Kent Brian), Ploc, T. (Tomáš)

dominant edge staircase edge inverted edge

Fig. 1.1.1. - Projection of edges on the ground floor 1:100 36

CASE 15 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; DRAWN ANALYSIS

Fig. 1.1.2. - Projection of edges on the first floor 1:100 37

Horsley, K. B. (Kent Brian), Ploc, T. (Tomáš)

dominant edge staircase edge inverted edge

Fig. 1.1.3. - Projection of edges on the roof 1:100 38

CASE 15 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; DRAWN ANALYSIS

Fig. 1.1.4. - Edges in isometric drawing 1:100 39

Horsley, K. B. (Kent Brian), Ploc, T. (Tomáš)

vertical construction

Fig. 1.2.1. - Ground floor vertical layer 1:100 40

CASE 15 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; DRAWN ANALYSIS

Fig. 1.2.2. - First floor vertical layer 1:100 41

Horsley, K. B. (Kent Brian), Ploc, T. (TomĂĄĹĄ)

overlaying construction

Fig. 1.2.3. - Vertical overlaying from first to ground floor 1:100 42

CASE 15 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; DRAWN ANALYSIS

Fig. 1.2.4. - Vertical laying from ground to first floor 1:100 43

Horsley, K. B. (Kent Brian), Ploc, T. (TomĂĄĹĄ)

field of view observer

Fig. 1.3.1. - Viewpoint from the entrance 1:100 44

CASE 15 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; DRAWN ANALYSIS

Fig. 1.3.2. - Viewpoint from the hallway 1:100 45

Horsley, K. B. (Kent Brian), Ploc, T. (Tomáš)

field of view observer

Fig. 1.3.3. - Viewpoint from the study room 1:100 46

CASE 15 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; DRAWN ANALYSIS

Fig. 1.3.4. - Viewpoint from the staircase 1:100 47

Horsley, K. B. (Kent Brian), Ploc, T. (Tomáš)

field of view observer

Fig. 1.3.5. - Viewpoint into the bedroom 1:100 48

CASE 15 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; DRAWN ANALYSIS

Fig. 1.3.6. - Viewpoint from the bedroom 1:100 49

2. CONSTRUCTION

Horsley, K. B. (Kent Brian), Ploc, T. (Tomáš)

Fig. 2.1.1. - Fake construction on the ground floor 1:100 52

CASE 15 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; DRAWN ANALYSIS

Fig. 2.1.2. - Fake construction on the first floor 1:100 53

Horsley, K. B. (Kent Brian), Ploc, T. (Tomáš)

Fig. 2.1.3. - Fake construction on the roof 1:100 54

CASE 15 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; DRAWN ANALYSIS

Fig. 2.1.4. - Fake construction in isometric drawing 1:100 55

Horsley, K. B. (Kent Brian), Ploc, T. (Tomáš)

translucency (min/max)

Fig. 2.2.1. - Translucency of the east facade 1:100 56

CASE 15 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; DRAWN ANALYSIS

Fig. 2.2.2. - Translucency of the north facade 1:100 57

Horsley, K. B. (Kent Brian), Ploc, T. (Tomáš)

translucency (min/max)

Fig. 2.2.3. - Translucency of the east facade 1:100 58

CASE 15 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; DRAWN ANALYSIS

Fig. 2.2.4. - Translucency of the south facade 1:100 59

Horsley, K. B. (Kent Brian), Ploc, T. (Tomáš)

translucency (min/max)

Fig. 2.2.5. - Translucency of the roof 1:100 60

CASE 15 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; DRAWN ANALYSIS

Fig. 2.2.6. - Translucency in isometric drawing 1:100 61

Horsley, K. B. (Kent Brian), Ploc, T. (Tomáš)

direct sulight diffused sunlight

Fig. 2.3.1. - Sunlight in the dining room 1:100 62

CASE 15 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; DRAWN ANALYSIS

Fig. 2.3.2. - Sunlight on the staircase 1:100 63

Horsley, K. B. (Kent Brian), Ploc, T. (Tomáš)

direct sulight diffused sunlight

Fig. 2.3.3. - Sunlight in the bedroom and bathroom 1:100 64

CASE 15 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; DRAWN ANALYSIS

Fig. 2.3.4. - Sunlight in the living room and bedroom 1:100 65

3 . G E O M E T RY

Horsley, K. B. (Kent Brian), Ploc, T. (Tomáš)

Fig. 3.1.1. - Concept of House VI 68

CASE 15 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; DRAWN ANALYSIS

Fig. 3.1.2. - Concept of House VI 69

Horsley, K. B. (Kent Brian), Ploc, T. (Tomáš)

Fig. 3.2.1. - Grid of the ground floor 1:100 70

CASE 15 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; DRAWN ANALYSIS

Fig. 3.1.2. - Grid of the first floor 1:100 71

Horsley, K. B. (Kent Brian), Ploc, T. (TomĂĄĹĄ)

Fig. 3.3.1. - Isometric drawing of glass brick glazing 1:100 72

CASE 15 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; DRAWN ANALYSIS

Fig. 3.3.2. - Glass brick glazing following the concept of the house and staircases 1:100 73

4 . S PA C E

Horsley, K. B. (Kent Brian), Ploc, T. (TomĂĄĹĄ)

composition imperfections user limitation

Fig. 4.1.1. - User limitations that comes from composition on the ground floor 1:100 76

CASE 15 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; DRAWN ANALYSIS

Fig. 4.1.2. - User limitations that comes from composition on the first floor 1:100 77

Horsley, K. B. (Kent Brian), Ploc, T. (Tomáš)

Fig. 4.2.1. - Deadspaces on the ground floor 1:100 78

CASE 15 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; DRAWN ANALYSIS

Fig. 4.2.2. - Deadspaces on the first floor 1:100 79

Horsley, K. B. (Kent Brian), Ploc, T. (Tomáš)

Fig. 4.3.1. - Visual connections on the ground floor 1:100 80

CASE 15 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; DRAWN ANALYSIS

Fig. 4.3.2. - Visual connections on the first floor 1:100 81

Horsley, K. B. (Kent Brian), Ploc, T. (Tomáš)

Fig. 4.3.3. - Visual connection of entrance, dining room and exterior 1:100 82

CASE 15 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; DRAWN ANALYSIS

Fig. 4.3.4. - Visual connection of entrance, first floor and exterior 1:100 83

Horsley, K. B. (Kent Brian), Ploc, T. (Tomáš)

Fig. 4.3.5. - Visual connections of living room, dining room, kitchen, bedroom, bathroom and exterior 1:100 84

CASE 15 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; DRAWN ANALYSIS

Fig. 4.3.6. - Visual connection of living room, bedroom and exterior 1:100 85

5 . R E P R E S E N T AT I O N

Horsley, K. B. (Kent Brian), Ploc, T. (TomĂĄĹĄ)

site entrance house entrance guest house / field of view observer

Fig. 5.1.1. - Site entrance 1:500 88

CASE 15 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; DRAWN ANALYSIS

Fig. 5.1.2. - House entrance 1:100 89

Horsley, K. B. (Kent Brian), Ploc, T. (TomĂĄĹĄ)

facade color shadows

Fig. 5.2.1. - West facade tectonics, colors and shadows 1:100 90

CASE 15 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; DRAWN ANALYSIS

Fig. 5.2.2. - North facade tectonics, colors and shadows 1:100 91

Horsley, K. B. (Kent Brian), Ploc, T. (TomĂĄĹĄ)

facade color shadows

Fig. 5.2.3. - East facade tectonics, colors and shadows 1:100 92

CASE 15 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; DRAWN ANALYSIS

Fig. 5.2.4. - South facade tectonics, colors and shadows 1:100 93

Horsley, K. B. (Kent Brian), Ploc, T. (Tomáš)

Fig. 5.3.1. - Coherence between staircases and edges 94

CASE 15 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; DRAWN ANALYSIS

6 . F O R M / P RO G R A M

Horsley, K. B. (Kent Brian), Ploc, T. (TomĂĄĹĄ)

1.01 1.02 1.03 1.04 1.05 1.06

entrance closet kitchen dining room living room study room

Fig. 6.1.1. - Ground floor program 1:100 98

CASE 15 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; DRAWN ANALYSIS

2.01 2.02 2.03 2.04

bedroom closet dressing bathroom

Fig. 6.1.2. - First floor program 1:100 99

Horsley, K. B. (Kent Brian), Ploc, T. (TomĂĄĹĄ)

transparent room profile

Fig. 6.2.1. - Program relationship with external form of the east facade 1:100 100

CASE 15 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; DRAWN ANALYSIS

Fig. 6.2.2. - Program relationship with external form of the north facade 1:100 101

Horsley, K. B. (Kent Brian), Ploc, T. (TomĂĄĹĄ)

transparent room profile

Fig. 6.2.3. - Program relationship with external form of the west facade 1:100 102

CASE 15 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; DRAWN ANALYSIS

Fig. 6.2.4. - Program relationship with external form of the south facade 1:100 103

Horsley, K. B. (Kent Brian), Ploc, T. (Tomáš)

Fig. 6.3.1. - Ground floor circulation 1:100 104

CASE 15 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; DRAWN ANALYSIS

Fig. 6.3.2. - Diagram of the ground floor circulation 1:100 105

Horsley, K. B. (Kent Brian), Ploc, T. (Tomáš)

Fig. 6.3.3. - First floor circulation 1:100 106

CASE 15 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; DRAWN ANALYSIS

Fig. 6.3.4. - Diagram of the first floor circulation 1:100 107

R E F L E C T I V E R E P O RT

CASE 15 – REFLECTIVE REPORT

We have chosen this building because it is one of

chaotic structure. This geometry creates absurd

the most famous work of architect Peter Eisen-

spaces that sometimes have no meaning and are

man. From the first point of view, you know that

inaccessible. Most analytical layers merge, so that

this is a completely different house, rather it is the

the whole analysis is continual. At the same time,

complex geometric structure we tried to analyze.

due to the difference of the house, it was difficult

First of all, it was important to find out why such a

to define what to imagine under each theme. For

house was designed.This is the relatively early cre-

example, analyzing the load-bearing structure as a

ation of this architect, who was known more as an

topic related to the theme of construction would

academic and a theorist who did not have much

be totally useless, since it is absolutely irrelevant

experience with real architectural work. House

and it was more interesting to analyze the non-

VI is one of ten family house projects designed

load bearing and fake structure.

by him. From the simplest to the most complex,

The hardest part was to devise analytical layers

with only six of them being builded. House VI is

to individual themes, since they were not more

the second most complicated. Because it is a kind

precisely defined and anyone could imagine some-

of experimental architecture, the basis was to un-

thing else. Even though there were lectures on

derstand the concept of the composition of the

the themes, it was difficult to find connections

house. We have started our research with recom-

between lectures and our case study. In our case,

mended literature, however the most useful was

there were more or less two different classes. One

book Peter Eisenman’s House VI: The Client’s Re-

was a lecture in which project from famouse archi-

sponse by Suzanne Frank, an understanding of the

tects were described, but I lacked a deeper anal-

compositional sketches and the other five houses

ysis supported by analytical drawings that would

of this house series. During this basic research, we

also show us how such drawings should look like.

found some similarity between Le Corbusier and

On the other hand, the booklet was based on in-

Peter Eisenman, as they both design a structure

formation obtained mostly independently from

with varying complexity - from the simplest to the

the lectures and would probably look almost the

most complicated.

same if we did not attend to the lectures.

Since it is an experimental geometric architecture,

This my individual opininion and my point of view

we tried to find out what kind of drawings could

which might be caused by different kind of teach-

analyze and display the composition best. The ba-

ing approach at my home university – CTU in

sis of house geometry is the intersecting of three

Prague.

grids and the four edges that together with two staircases forms which create symmetry in this

Tomáš Ploc

109

R E F L E C T I V E R E P O RT

CASE 15 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; REFLECTIVE REPORT

House VI is simply an expression of Eisenmanâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s

approach allows deeper insight into each theme,

architectural ideologies and concepts. Through

there is a reduced amount of consistency between

analysing the building, it became obvious that the

the supporting documents. The same building was

house was far from a family house which it was in-

compared to a text from 1978 and also from 2002

tended to be. Eisenmanâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s pursuit for composition

for different themes. This questions legitimacy of

resulted in a conceptually beautiful form and space,

the comparison between different themes, espe-

but lacked coherence in functionality and details,

cially as ideologies can significantly change over

which lead to issues during and after construction. The 6 themes given to research were, although

two decades. As a result of the structure of the

relevant, seem to be very broad and difficult to

essay, the text almost reads as 6 separate essays.

refine. There are many different interpretations of the given themes and many of the principles

The word count was a limiting factor of the as-

overlap with one another. This meant researching

signment. 2000 words could easy be written on 1

the meaning and definitions of each theme by the

theme analysed against 1 significant text. The cur-

architects, clients and the referenced authors be-

rent format only allows approximately 330 words

fore valid comparisons could be made. The anal-

per topic, not including introduction or conclusion.

ysis may have been more comprehensive if there

There were so much information that came from

were less or more refined themes.

the analysis and it is unfortunate that all the inforThe referenced documents were chosen depend-

mation could not be presented. Despite some of

ing on their relevance to this refined understand-

these challenges, the course was educational and

ing of the 6 themes of House VI. Some texts were

being able to present clean drawings on an aes-

chosen as they support the experimental ap-

thetic format was a good change from traditional

proach of Eisenman, some because it posts valid

architectural assignments.The communication and

arguments against the architectural design and

the work produced from my group partner was

some simply because they had thought provok-

to a very high standard am very pleased with the

ing ideas. One reason or another, the referenced

report. Producing diagrammatic drawings definite-

documents were chosen as they would aid further

ly helped with the analysis of the building and the

analysis of the themes. As a result, texts from dif-

drawings and the essay compliment one another.

ferent time periods and backgrounds were chosen and the buildings was positioned against the funda-

Kent Horsley

mental ideologies of these texts. Even though this

111

L I S T O F R E F E R E N C E S E S S AY

CASE 15 – HOUSE VI

List of References (APA 6th edition)

- Eisenman, P. (1994). House VI. In S. Frank, Peter Eisenman’s House Vi:The Client’s Response. New York:WatsonGuptill Publications. - Frank, S. (1994). The Client’s Response. In S. Frank, Peter Eisenman’s House Vi: The Client’s Response (pp. 4972). New York: Watson-Guptill Publications. - Gregotti,V. (1996). On Technique. In V. Gregotti, Inside Architecture (pp. 51-60). Chicago: Graham Foundation for Advanced Studies in the Fine Arts. - Moneo, R. (1978). On Typology. Oppositions, 1-25. Monestiroli, A. (1997). Five Notes on Style. - Padovan, R. (1989). Dom Hans Van Der Laan, Architecture and the Necessity of Limits. Stichting Manutius. - Padovan, R. (1999).Vitruvius. In R. Padovan, Proportion Science Philosophy Architecture (pp. 156-172). London: E & FN Spon. - Schumacher, T. L. (2002). “The outside Is the Result of an inside”: Some Sources of One of Modernism’s Most Persistent Doctrines. Journal of Architectural Education, 23-33.

113