WHITNEY RANSON | FINAL PORTFOLIO Arch 8620 | History and Theory of Architecture III Clemson Architecture Center in Charleston | Spring 2015 | Professor Thomas
TABLE of CONTENTS Middleton Inn Sketch Le Corbusier Presentation Mepkin Abbey Sketch Croffread House Sketch Essay No. 1 Kiawah House Sketch Essay No. 2 Sullivan’s Island Houses Pavallions Sketches Savannah Sketches Herzog and de Meuron Presentation Hollywood House Sketch Essay No. 3
Inn at Middleton Place | 22 January 2015
LE CORBUSIER
ARCH 8620 | History + Theory of Architecture III Whitney Ranson | 27 January 2015
LE CORBUSIER | Reconciliation of Opposites
“...Ever-present play with opposites - with the contrast between solid and void, between light and dark, between Apollo and Medusa - that permeates [Le Corbusier’s] architecture and is evident as a habit of mind...” [Kenneth Frampton]
CONTENTS PURISM + THE MACHINE AESTHETIC VERNACULAR + THE MODULOR SYSTEM CHAPEL OF NOTRE DAME-DU-HAUT | Ronchamp, France COUVENT SAINTE-MARIE DE LA TOURETTE | Eveux-sur-l’Arbresle, France
PURISM + THE MACHINE AESTHETIC
CHARLES EDOUARD JEANNERET
Born 1887, in La Chaux-de-Fonds, Switzerland
LA CHAUX-DE-FONDS, SWITZERLAND
“One of the prime images of his adolescence must have been this highly rational gridded industrial town...” [Kenneth Frampton]
TONY GARNIER | Cite Industrielle
CHARTERHOUSE OF EMA | “Living Commune”
AUGUSE PERRET | Reinforced Concrete
GERMAN WERKBUND | Peter Behrens
PURISM | Amedee Ozenfant
PURISM | Apres le Cubisme
Guitare| 1920
Nature morte a l’oeuf| 1919
“Purism was as much an ideological celebration of industrialial civilization, exhibiting the “read-made” lexicon of everyday life, as it was an aesthetic discourse conceived as an end in and of itself.” [Kenneth Frampton]
PURISM | L’Esprit Nouveau
PIERRE JEANNERET | Paris Practice [1922]
“If we eliminate from our hearts and minds all dead concepts in regard to houses and look at the question from a critical and objective point of view, we shall arrive at the ‘House Machine’, the mass production house, healthy (and morally so too) and beautiful in the same way that the working tools and instruments which accompany our existence are beautiful.” [Le Corbusier]
DOM-INO HOUSE | House Machine [1915]
“If we eliminate from our hearts and minds all dead concepts in regard to houses and look at the question from a critical and objective point of view, we shall arrive at the ‘House Machine’, the mass production house, healthy (and morally so too) and beautiful in the same way that the working tools and instruments which accompany our existence are beautiful.” [Le Corbusier]
VILLE CONTEMPORAINE | 1922
VILLE CONTEMPORAINE | 1922
PLAN VOISIN | Paris [1925]
PLAN VOISIN | Paris [1925]
“A city made for speed is a city made for success.” [Le Corbusier]
5 POINTS OF ARCHITECTURE | 1926
Roof Garden
Free Facade
Pilotis Ribbon Windows
VERNACULAR + THE MODULOR SYSTEM
LEAGUE OF NATIONS COMPETITION | 1927
FIGUATIVE PAINTING | Post 1926
Femme | 1954
Taureau IX | 1954
FIGUATIVE PAINTING | Post 1926
Etude quatre mains, lithographies | 1955
LE MODULOR SYSTEM | 1950
UNITE D’HABITATION | 1930s
“...so the Unite was seen by its author as restoring the dignity of architecture to the simplest private dwelling.” [Kenneth Frampton]
CHAPEL OF NOTRE DAME-DU-HAUT | Ronchamp, France
RONCHAMP | Sketches
RONCHAMP | 1950
“...so the Unite was seen by its author as restoring the dignity of architecture to the simplest private dwelling.� [Kenneth Frampton]
RONCHAMP | Interior
RONCHAMP | Drawings
Plan
Elevation
COUVENT SAINTE-MARIE DE LA TOURETTE | Eveux-sur-l’Arbresle, France
LA TOURETTE
LA TOURETTE
LE CORBUSIER | Reconciliation of Opposites
SOURCES
Frampton, Kenneth, Le Corbusier: Architect of the Twentieth Century. New York: Harry N. Abrams, Inc., 2002. Frampton, Kenneth, Modern Architecture: A Critical History. New York: Thames and Hudson, 2007. Fondation Le Corbusier
Mepkin Abbey | 3 February 2015
Croffread House | 12 February 2015
Paper No. 1 | 18 February 2015 The role of the tectonic in architecture is difficult to define, yet is a theory that infiltrates nearly all aspects of architecture creating themes that can define ta body of architectural work. In his text titled Studies in Tectonic Culture, architectural historian and critic Kenneth Frampton explores the defining qualities of an architectural tectonic as well as the history of the theory and the impact that it has had thus far in the realm of architecture. Frampton begins his discussion of the tectonic in architecture by discussing the role of space in the built environment. He uses the most basic concept of architecture – the creation of space through the use of planes to define volume – to introduce the topic of the tectonic in architecture. In his text titled Studies in Tectonic Culture, Frampton explains that his “[…] study seeks to mediate and enrich the priority given to space by a reconsideration of the constructional and structural modes by which, of necessity, it has to be achieved. […] It is my contention that the unavoidable earthbound nature of building is as tectonic and tactile in character as it is scenographic and visual.” 1 In his chapter titled “Reflections on the Scope of the Tectonic” Frampton illustrates the breadth of the topic of the tectonic through his discussion of how the tectonic is expressed through or influenced by topics such as the etymology of the word tectonic, the implications of topography, mankind’s self realization through the corporeal metaphor that emerges out of architecture’s tactile experience, the ethnographic implications that emerge from varying cultures, the representational and ontological aspects of the tectonic, the contrast of tectonic and atectonic architecture, technological advances, and, finally, the mediation and reconciliation of tradition and innovation that is inherent in tectonic architecture. In many of Frampton’s points, the expression of the tectonic is found in the balance of two contrasting ideas such as the representational and ontological aspects of tectonic form, which he defines as, “the skin that re-presents and the composite character of the construction and the core of a building that is simultaneously both its fundamental structure and its substance. Finally, Frampton defines the “tectonic” in architecture as an aesthetic expression of how a space is built and what materials and methods are used to construct it. He summarizes his definition of the tectonic by stating that architecture is realized through the dynamic intersection of three themes: “the topos, the typos, and the tectonic.”2 In this chapter as well as a later chapter titled “Postscriptum: The Tectonic Trajectory, 1903 – 1994, “Frampton further defines tectonic architecture by utilizing examples of work by Le Corbusier, Frank Lloyd Wright, and Mies van der Rohe. By using examples of each of these architects’ earlier works and contrasting them with work produced during the middle of the 20th century, Frampton reveals how each of the architects developed his own distinguishing tectonic. Le Corbusier’s earlier work is driven by his fascination with industrialization and the machine aesthetic and was regulated by the philosophies of the Purist Movement. His commitment to creating a style of architecture reflective of the aesthetics and efficiency of machines evident in the text of his architectural manifesto, Vers une architecture, in which he wrote, “If we eliminate from our hearts and minds all dead concepts in regard to houses and look at the question from a critical and objective point of view, we shall arrive at the ‘House Machine,’ the mass production house, healthy (and morally so too) and beautiful in the same way that the working tools and instruments which accompany our existence are beautiful.”3 In his text “Modern Architecture, A Critical History,” Frampton describes this shift away from the machine aesthetic that occurs around the 1930’s in Le Corbusier’s work by emphasizing that “this shift to the natural materials and primitive methods had consequences that went beyond a mere change in technique or surface style. Above all it meant abandoning the classical envelope that had been used in the villas of the late 1920s in favor of an architecture predicated on the expressive force of a single architectonic element, be this a monopitched roof supported by crosswalls or a barrel vaulted megaron.”4 Following this shift in Le Corbusier’s work, a distinct architectural tectonic emerges in his mid 20th century work. This new tectonic is expressed through the architect’s renewed interest in the vernacular architecture of the Mediterranean, a deeper connection to site through architecture that responds to the topography, the presence of corporeal metaphor expressed through the selection of tactile materials, representational and ontological expressions of the tectonic, and, finally, a reconciliation of tradition and technology.
In Le Corbusier’s 1950 – 1955 work, Notre Dame du Haut each of these qualities of the architect’s distinguishing tectonic are visible in the chapel’s architecture. The whitewashed exterior of Ronchamp and the use of gunite over masonry that references the “stippled, whitewashed texture of Mediterranean folk building,”5 acknowledge the influence of tectonic theory’s ethnographic roots.6 Influence of the topography and the site also becomes apparent in Le Corbusier’s later work. In the example of Ronchamp chapel, the dynamic roof form reflects the topography of the site. As Frampton describes, “[…] the rapport established between building and site at Ronchamp, where the crustacean forms which make up the whole – the shell roof with its giant gargoyle, the side chapels and the altar – were all precisely tuned to respond to the ‘visual acousitcs’ of an undulating landscape.”7 The emergence of a corporeal metaphor is also a quality that characterizes the tectonic of Le Corbusier’s later work as he moves away from the machine aesthetic finishes of his Purist works towards a finish that is achieved using basic concrete and rough timber formwork and is referred to as béton brut.8 The rough-hewn texture that becomes characteristic of Le Corbusier’s architectural tectonic establishes a corporeal metaphor within his work that is experienced though the sentient and tactile qualities of the building materials. Similarly to the evolution of Le Corbusier’s work, Frank Lloyd Wright’s work also experienced a shift around the middle of the 20th century as he also begins to develop what becomes his distinguishing architectural tectonic. During the early part of Wright’s career he developed a domestic style of architecture that was characterized by “an open ground-plan contained within a horizontal format comprising low-pitched roofs and low bounding walls – the low profile being integrated deliberately into the site,”9 and came to be known as the Prairie Style. The shift in Wright’s architecture was brought about as a pragmatic response by the architect to the limitations and difficulties imposed by the Great Depression on his Prairie Style of architecture. Frampton explains that during the Depression he was “forced by the economy to recognize the limits of traditional materials and construction” and as a result “Wright was caused to abandon his Prairie Style.”10 However, out of these economic limitations emerged Wright’s Usonian style that was characterized by its utilization reinforced concrete and was defined by the architect’s democratic approach and responded to his belief that civilization in the United States was becoming more dispersed and individualistic as a result of increased automobile ownership.11 Wright’s Usonian style is defined by his distinct architectural tectonic that is evident in his work’s relationship to site and ethnography, contrast of representational and ontological expression, use of technology and tradition, and the presence of corporeal metaphor in the tactile qualities of the materials. An example of Frank Lloyd Wright’s expression of this architectural tectonic can be seen in his 1936 domestic work Falling Water. A prominent theme that emerged in concert with Wright’s tectonic is the relationship of architecture to the site and to the environment through the use of forms and architectural gestures that were inspired by those found in nature. Frampton discusses Wright’s integration of the “topos” in his Usonian architecture by explaining, “For Wright, the word ‘organic’ […] came to mean the use of the concrete cantilever as though it were a natural, tree-like form.”12 In the case of Falling Water, the tectonic is so impacted by the topography that the structure of the house seems to emerge from the site itself. The tectonic of Wright’s Usonian style is further reflected in how he employs the user’s senses to establish a corporeal metaphor for the house that is defined by the tactile materials used and the sound, feel, and smell of the waterfall that is incorporated into the house. Wright’s expression of the representational versus the ontological in his his mid 20th century tectonic is also evident in Falling Water where the ontological nature of the structure is articulated by the reinforced concrete slabs that emerge from the site and the representational quality of the interior of the house that is articulated by the living spaces that exist between the concrete slabs. Finally, despite his initial reluctance to embrace the material, Wright utilized the advanced building technology found in reinforced concrete for the construction of many of his Usonian works. The mediation of and reconciliation of tradition and technology that is inherent in tectonic architecture is expressed in Wight’s use of building technology to realize a dwelling whose form and materials are informed by the tradition of the primitive hut.
In Modern Architecture, A Critical History, Frampton asserts that there are three factors whose lasting influence is evident in the work that Mies van der Rohe completed after 1923 – the brick tradition of H.P. Berlage, the De Stijl group and the Suprematist art movement.13 One could argue that the influence with the most lasting effect on Mies van der Rohe was the Berlage brick tradition whose tectonic is defined by the construction of a monolithic structural frame that is then shrouded in a non-structural brick “skin.”14 This use of brick in a nonstructural manner embodies a tectonic in Berlage’s work that is expressed through the balance of representational versus ontological forms. Frampton relates the “representational and ontological aspects of tectonic form” to the relationship of the “skin that re-presents the composite character of the construction and the core of a building that is simultaneously both its fundamental structure and its substance.”15 The role of representational versus ontological that is evident in the tectonic of Berlage’s work is something this is also reflected in the tectonic of Mies van der Rohe. The tectonic that becomes evident in Mies’s later work emerges out of the subtle evolutions of his career, unlikely the major stylistic shifts that occur in the work of Le Corbusier and Frank Lloyd Wright. However, the presence of Mies’s distinct architectural tectonic is perceptible in his work later work that is produced around the middle of the 20th century. Like Le Corbusier and Frank Lloyd Wright, Mies’s tectonic is expresses through many of the areas outlined by Frampton. In Mies’s Crown Hall, completed in 1956 on the campus of the Illinois Institute of Technology, the expression of his architectural tectonic is evident in his reconciliation of tradition and innovation, the contrast of the tectonic and the atectonic, and the presence of the representational and ontological. Crown Hall is characterized by a single span volume that is articulated in a classical style, through which Mies’s tectonic is expressed in his ability to reconcile the classical plan with the use of modern materials such as steel.16 This building also reveals the contrast between tectonic and atectonic that is also embodied by much of Mies’s mid 20th century architecture. In the case of Crown Hall, the juxtaposition of tectonic and atectonic is evident in the detailing of the curtain wall that where “structure and construction appear to be mutually interdependent,” which, according to Frampton, allows the tectonic potential of the whole […] to derive from the eurythmy of its parts and the articulation of its joints.”17 Precise detailing of joints, particularly as they pertain to the construction of the curtain wall, is a major defining factor of Mies’s tectonic. Finally, the balance between representational and ontological is found in the construction of the curtain wall, a prominent design feature throughout Crown Hall, and the relationship between the representational quality of the glass façade and the ontological quality of the steel structure. It is evident in Kenneth Frampton’s writings as well as the work of Le Corbusier, Frank Lloyd Wright, and Mies van der Rohe that the theory of the tectonic is complex and multifaceted, yet has been integral to the practice of architecture throughout history. Frampton’s claim that “the built invariably comes into existence out of the constantly evolving interplay of three converging vectors, the topos, the typos, and the tectonic,”18 is one that holds relevance for contemporary architects. Architecture today still has a responsibility to react and respond to the site, cultural typology, and tectonic. Frampton’s writing serves as a valuable reminder to architects today of the ways in which the tectonic can be expressed through the intersection of site and type and the lasting impact that architectural tectonic has on the built environment. Finally, it is also valuable to explore the ways in which Le Corbusier, Frank Lloyd Wright, and Mies van der Rohe expressed their individual tectonic and the impact that their tectonic expression had on their work. A common theme that can be drawn from the analysis of each of the architect’s tectonic the emerges in the their mid 20th century work is a response to technology and the lingering effects of the Industrial Revolution. In the case of Le Corbusier, his tectonic primarily represents a return to the vernacular and a departure from the machine aesthetic of his earlier work. The emerging tectonic of Wright and Mies represents a utilization of technology in the form of materials – reinforced concrete in the case of Wright and steel in the case of Mies. The manner in which each of these architects embraced or rejected aspects of industrialization and technology continues to be relevant for architects today who, like Wright, Mies and Corbusier, will be forced respond to the introduction of new technology and through the development of their own architectural tectonic.
SOURCES Frampton, K. (1995). Studies in Tectonic Culture. Boston, MA: MIT Press, p. 2. Ibid. 3 Frampton, K. (2007). Modern Architecture, A Critical History (4th ed.). London: Thames & Hudson world of art, p. 153. 4 Ibid, p. 225. 5 Ibid, pp. 228-229 6 Frampton, K. (1995). Studies in Tectonic Culture. p. 13. 7 Frampton, K. (2007). Modern Architecture, p. 228 8 Ibid, p. 226. 9 Ibid, p. 56 10 Ibid, p. 187 11 Ibid. 12 Frampton, K. (2007). Modern Architecture. p.163. 13 Frampton, K. (1995). Studies in Tectonic Culture. p. 339. 14 Ibid, p. 16. 15 Ibid, p. 235. 16 Ibid, p. 20. 17 Ibid, p. 2. 18 Ibid, p. 2. 1 2
Tadler House | 5 March 2015
Paper No. 2 | 10 March 2015 SHER-E-BANGLA NAGAR CAPITAL COMPLEX OF BANGLADESH In the introduction to his text titled Studies in Tectonic Culture, architectural historian and critic, Kenneth Frampton summarizes the constructed realm as being comprised of “three converging vectors, the topos, the typos, and the tectonic.” Frampton goes on to explain that through consideration of the tectonic, the site, and the type (or culture) one is able to “counter the present tendency for architecture to derive its legitimacy from some other discourse.”1 In analyzing the Sher-E-Bangla Nagar Capital Complex of Bangladesh by Louis Kahn, one can see how the architect was able to achieve an appropriate monumentality through careful consideration of the three elements of the built world: tectonic, site, and culture. The Bengali declaration of independence from Pakistan took place in 1971 during the course of Kahn’s work on the Capital Complex, which lasted from 1961-1982, and as a result imbued the work with a sense of pride and symbolism of democracy.2 In his chapter titled “Louis Kahn: Modernization and the new Monumentality, 1944-1972,” Frampton explains that the architect viewed the tectonic structure of a building as the most important and first element to consider when creating works monumentality.3 However, the importance that Kahn place on the tectonic of monumental forms is perhaps best explained by Kahn himself in his argument that, “Neither the finest material nor the most advanced technology need enter a work of monument character for the same reason that the finest ink was not required to draw up the Magna-Carta…. In Greek architecture engineering concerned itself fundamentally with materials in compression.”4 In the case of Kahn’s work in Dhaka, he is able to achieve an appropriate monumentality through the tectonic in which he fuses the technological aspects the building with the symbolic content of the building. Kahn’s consideration of the tectonic is evident in the Capital Complex through his use of concrete to reveal the way in which the loads of the structure are resisted and transferred, but also the way in which the architecture stands as a symbol of democracy and resistance for the people of Bangladesh. It is also Kahn’s consideration of the topos, or the site, that allows this work to emerge from, but also communicate with the desert landscape of the site. The use of man-made pools that the Capital Complex as an island in the landscape not only establishes a defined boundary in which the architecture can exist, but also considers the climate and light of the building site as a part of the topos. In his essay “Towards a Critical Regaionalism. Six Points for an Architecture of Resistance” Kenneth Frampton argues that to bring a work of architecture closer to nature one must consider the physical topography of the site as well as the climate and light.5 Through the use of man-made pools that surround the complex Kahn not only defines the boundaries of the site, but also creates a natural cooling system for the building that allows it to exist in that specific site. A deep understanding of the typos, or the culture of the place, is evident in Kahn’s writings about the act of assembling people and the connotations that arise from an assembly of people. He writes, “[…] assembly is of a transcendent nature. Men came to assemble to touch the spirit of commonness.”6 Kahn uses his observations of assembly in Bengali culture to inform the plan of his Capital Complex. Finally, it is Kahn’s consideration of the tectonic, the typos, and the topos that allows the Dhaka Capital Complex to achieve an expressive and appropriate monumentality. However, the monumentality of the work is most clearly seen in Kahn’s tectonic, which displays the relationship between the symbolism and technology of construction.7 A specific example of this is Kahn’s use of thin pieces of marble inlaid in the poured-in-place concrete to mark the lines where the daily pours of concrete began and ended, which Kahn refers to as the “marking of making.”8
CRITICAL REGIONALISM Pardox of Modern Civilization and Culture versus Civilization In his essay titled “Towards a Critical Regionalism. Six Points for an Architecture of Resistance” Kenneth Frampton begins by using the words of Paul Ricoeur’s “History and Truth” to succinctly reveal his skepticism of progress in the context of human spirituality and, ultimately, his argument for architecture of resistance. The paradox of modern civilization is that through so-called progress mankind is destroying cultural traditions. Frampton poses the question of how does one actively integrate with modern civilization without simultaneously abandoning the cultural past. In his essay, he defines culture as the collective sense of human identity and belonging, which is distinct from the concerns of functionality and industrialization that define civilization. Critical regionalism explores the mediation of culture and civilization in creating architecture of resistance. “Utility as Meaning Generate Meaninglessness” Hannah Arendt’s argument that “utility established as meaning generates meaninglessness” is evident in the urban fabric’s has evolution away from a reflection of local culture as it becomes increasingly taken over by the “freestanding high-rise and the serpentine freeway”8 that have come to define universal civilization. As Frampton explains, civilization is concerned with utility and a means to an end whereas culture is concerned with “the evolution of its collective psycho reality” and the meaning of life and humanity. Therefore, when utility attempts to give meaning to architecture it deprives it of cultural expression and ultimately its meaning. Avant-Gardism and “Arrière-gardism” Frampton explains that avant-gardism was previously used as a tool for igniting modernization and imparting wisdom, but has now been taken over by capitalism and commercialism. The avant-garde movement that once fought to oppose bourgeois culture9 is now used as a tool to generate money. He argues that the “triumphs of science, medicine and industry that seemed to confirm the liberative promise of the modern project”10 and identify it with the avant-garde has become tainted by the proliferation of mass media and capitalism. Frampton suggests “arrière-gardism” as a response to the commercialistic qualities that have shifted avant-gardism away from being a liberative movement. This idea of “looking back” suggests that in order to sustain the profession as a critical practice, architecture must return to the typos, topos, and tectonic. Critical Regionalism versus Populism The basis of Critical regionalism is not a reviving of the lost vernacular of the past, but rather an interaction of world culture and universal civilization. Populism stands in contrast to the ideals of Critical regionalism and is characterized by the uneducated majority who looks at things briefly and uncritically. Frampton explains that architecture of resistance must have the ability to resist uniformity by employing a critical perception of world culture. One must also be able to mediate universal civilization yet simultaneously resist the kitsch through a limited use and application of technology. To further explain the fundamental strategy of Critical Regionalism, Frampton references Jorn Utzon’s Bagsvaerd Church. In this example, the exterior form of the building is governed by a traditional building system of concrete blocks and a standardized construction technique, both of which are characteristic of universal civilization. However, the wave like form of the church’s interior that contrasts with the highly regulated exterior establishes multiple cross-cultural references and establishes the interior of the church as a sacred space and cultivates the human spirit and ultimately world culture.
The Importance of “Place-form” and the Five Realms of Critical Regionalism that involve a direct relationship with Nature Frampton uses the term “Meglopolis” to describe the prolific suburbanization of the globe and explains that this phenomenon has contributed to the fact that distinct urban boundaries do not exist except in those cities that were established before the turn of the century. He argues that in order to create architecture of resistance distinct boundaries within which the work can exist, must be established because resistant architecture relies on a clearly defined place. Take for example Louis Kahn’s Sher-E-Bangla Naga Capital Complex of Bangladesh where the complex rises up out of the man-made pools, which Kahn uses to create a defined place within which his architecture can exist. Kahn writes of his decision to use the pools as a way to define a space for his architecture within the context of the expansive desert of the larger site, saying “I kept thinking of how these buildings may be grouped and what would cause them to take their place on the land.”11 Frampton explains how the absence of the “place-form” and consideration of place have resulted in the creation of placelessness by writing that “current tendency to reduce all planning to little more than the allocation of land use and the logistics of distribution.”12 However it is in the writings of architect W.G. Clark that one can come to truly understand the significance of a bounded place. In his essay titled “Replacement,” Clark explains that the characteristics of a site, or place, correspond to three aspects of humanity: body, mind, and spirit.13 Thus, to create architecture of resistance one must understand the significance and importance of establishing a defined place in which architecture can exist. W.G. Clark’s reminder to architects to consider the physical, cultural, and spiritual places of a site echoes Frampton’s assertion that the architecture of Critical Regionalism must be more informed and shaped by the site, than modern, avant-garde architecture, which in contrast, shapes the site to accommodate its needs. Frampton explains that for architecture to relate more closely to nature, one must consider the five realms of Critical Regionalism: topography, context, climate, light, and tectonic. In speaking about the realm of topography, Frampton references the phrase “building the site” that is used by Swiss architect Mario Botta.14 Frampton argues that the act of “building the site” is a way of engaging the site and integrating architecture and site as opposed to perpetuating geography of placelessness through excessive alterations to the topography. However the writings of W.G. Clark can, once again, aid in one’s deeper understanding of creating a more direct relationship between architecture and nature through engagement of the site. Clark distinguishes engagement with the site as “settlement” which is distinct from simply “abiding in a place.” He writes, “Settlement implies a benign and sympathetic occupation, the selection a specific and favored place, and the engagement of that place to meaningful use; settlement is the establishment of home. Our growth is opposite of establishment.”15 Context is the second realm in which the architecture of Critical Regionalism engages in a more direct dialogue with nature than the abstract, formal tradition of modern architecture. Frampton posits that engagement with the site extends beyond just integration of architecture with the physical site, and must also consider the context of the site as a way of informing the form of the building. This consideration of the site’s context through the lens of archeology and geological and agricultural history of the site, allows the form of the work to be shaped by the culture and history of the place, thus bringing it even closer to nature.16 Frampton presents climate and light as two closely related realms of Critical Regionalism that when closely considered can also bring a work of architecture into closer conversation with nature. He explains that modern technology has created conveniences, such as air conditioning and lighting, which have inhibited this conversation between nature and architecture because they allow a generic, universal building type to exist in any geographical location. Architecture of resistance does not rely on the conveniences of modern technology and amenities to create a building, but rather creates architecture that reflects the climate and lighting of the site in the form of the building. Through this process, one creates architecture that is so deeply rooted in nature and its specific place that a building that can exists in one site cannot also thrive in another.
Frampton presents the tectonic as the fifth and most important realm of Critical Regionalism that has the ability to bring architecture closer to nature. The realm of the tectonic is defined as being not simply the act of construction, but rather the art that allows the form of the structure to reveal its true function. Tectonic is most eloquently and clearly defined in Frampton’s assertion that architecture’s “autonomy is embodied in the revealed ligaments of the construction and in the way in which the syntactical form of the structure explicitly resists the action of gravity.”17 Tactile Resistance In concluding his writing on Critical Regionalism, Frampton explains that the “tactile resistance of the place-form” can suggest a strategy for creating architecture of resistance that opposes the dominance of universal technology. Frampton reminds us that the haptic qualities of architecture are equally, if not more important, as the perception of architecture through sight. Through this argument for Critical Regionalism, Frampton explains that the tactile qualities of architecture are what prevent it from being reduced by universal technology to a representation of an experience and maintain it as something that must interact with and be experienced by all of the human senses, not solely sight. In this way Critical Regionalism resists the tendency of universal technology to represent architecture through rationalized sight and emphasizes the experience that is inherent in a work of architecture. Tactile resistance is similar to the place-form’s resistance of universal technology in that it establishes physical and tangible boundaries between which one can experience architecture. “HEIDEGGER’S THINKING ON ARCHITECTURE” The Ultimate Aim for a Worl of Art and Architecture versus Functionalism In the words of Christian Norberg-Schulz, Heidegger believes that the ultimate aim for a work of Art and Architecture is to bring “the inhabited landscape close to man, and [let] him dwell poetically.” Heidegger’s belief is that the presence of architecture is what allows life to occur. This view is further explained in Heidegger’s work titled “The Origin of the Work of Art” where he discusses how the architecture of the Greek temple in the landscape creates the space that brings into existence the Greek gods. It is the boundaries created by architecture, and in this case the boundaries created by the Greek temple, that reflect man’s existence in the boundaries between earth and sky.18 By reflecting man’s existence in the world, architecture brings the built environment closer to mankind. Therefore, because architecture is a reflection of man’s being in the world, it is distinct from the pragmatic approach of functionalism that is defined by the maxim, “form follows function.” Functionalism finds its form in the human use of space and results in architecture that has an abstract and meaningless form. However, an architecture of “signs and images” that strives to establish meaning through the representation of something else also falls short of Heidegger’s view of architecture “as a visualization of truth.”19 In order to bring the world into being, a work of Art or Architecture must first serve as a visualization of the truth. “Lived in Space” versus Mathematical Space When Heidegger refers to “lived in space” as distinct from a “mathematical, isomorphic space”20 he acknowledges that the human experience and the space in which human life occurs is different than the scientific definition of space. Heidegger views spatiality as a twofold concept: first, the gathering together of things to create of a space for human life to exist and second, the existence of the things within that space. According to Heidegger, spatiality is brought into existence through buildings, which, in turn, define a location between the boundaries of earth and sky where the fourfold of the world is gathered and at which human life occurs.
“Setting into work of the truth” When Heidegger discusses “a setting into work of the truth” in the context of a work of art or architecture, he distinguishes between the act of presentation and representation. Heidegger illustrates this point by using the example of Van Gogh’s painting of peasant shoes, which is not simply a representation of the shoes, but a presentation of the “thingness” of the shoes. This painting is defined as a work of art because it is able to speak for the shoes, rather than simply serving as a representation of the shoes. In Van Gogh’s work, the viewer is able to see the worn leather and cracked soles of the shoes and it is through the presentation of the shoes that the “thingness” of the shoes is revealed. Heidegger asserts that language is the original art and through the act of naming things we bring them into existence such that they are no longer ephemeral ideas, but something that can be held onto.21 Using language we are able to develop our ideas about things, but it is the work or act of constructing the thing that actually brings it into truth. According to Heidegger, humanity exists “between work and word”22 whereby language, or the word, reveals the possibilities of the world, but it is the work that actually brings the world into existence. “Things visit mortals with a world” The things that make up the world are not simply a gathering of objects, but rather, each thing gathers the fourfold of man, god, earth, and sky in a distinct way. Heidegger uses the example of a jug and a bridge to illustrate how the coming together of each thing reveals the world differently to mankind. He explains this by saying, “things visit mortals with a world”23 meaning that each thing brings a different place into existence. For example, the gathering of the fourfold that is manifested in the “thingness” of a bridge reveals the banks of the stream and the landscape surrounding the stream and ultimately brings into presence a place that is distinct from the world that is revealed to us by the thingness of a jug. Importance of Heidegger’s thinking on architecture Norberg-Schulz emphasizes the importance of Heidegger’s thinking on architecture as a tool that will help us restore the art and significance of architecture. Heidegger describes the rift that exists between earth and sky and explains that it is this rift between the two opposite forces is what holds the earth and sky together and prevents them from breaking away from one another.24 He goes on to explain that the physical earth forms a boundary and it is in this boundary between earth and sky that architecture exists and brings the world into existence. Norberg-Schulz argues that Heidegger’s thinking presents us with a clearer understanding of the things that bring our world into existence. In his work “Building Dwelling Thinking” Heidegger argues that both building and thinking are requisite in the creation of a dwelling. Therefore if it is building that creates a gathering of the fourfold and ultimately reveals the world to us, then thinking is of equal importance.25 Norberg-Schulz implores architects give thought about the things that bring our world into existence as a way to understand the world that eixists.
SOURCES Frampton, Kenneth. “Introduction: Reflections on the Scope of the Tectonic.” Studies in Tectonic Culture. Boston: MIT, 1995. Page 2. Kroll, Andrew. “AD Classics: National Assembly Building of Bangladesh / Louis Kahn.” ArchDaily. 20 Oct. 2010. Web. 9 Mar. 2015. <http://www.archdaily.com/83071/ad-classics-nationalassembly-building-of-bangladesh-louis-kahn/>. 3 Frampton, Kenneth. “ Louis Kahn: Modernization and the new Monumentality.” Studies in Tectonic Culture. Boston: MIT, 1995. Page 209. 4 Ibid, 210. 5 Frampton, Kenneth. “Towards a Critical Regionalism. Six Points for an Architecture of Resistance.” The Anti-Aesthetic. Essays on Postmodern Culture. 1st ed. Port Townsend: Bay, 1983. Print. Page 27. 6 Ed. Smith, Keller and Rehan Tansal. The Development by Louis I. Kahn of the Design for the Second Capital of Pakistan at Dacca. 3rd ed. Vol. 14. Raleigh: Student Publications of the School of Design North Carolina State of the U of North Carolina at Raleigh, 1964. Page 2. 7 Frampton, Kenneth. “Introduction: Reflections on the Scope of the Tectonic.” Page 16. 8 McCarter, Robert. Louis I. Kahn. New York: Phaeton, 2005. Page 269. 9 Frampton, Kenneth. “Towards a Critical Regionalism. Six Points for an Architecture of Resistance.” Page 20. 10 Ibid, 22. 11 McCarter, Robert. Louis I. Kahn. Page 259. 12 Frampton, Kenneth. “Towards a Critical Regionalism. Six Points for an Architecture of Resistance.” Page 25. 13 Clark, W.G. “Replacement.” Clark and Menefee. New York: Princeton Architectural, 2000. Page 13. 14 Frampton, Kenneth. “Towards a Critical Regionalism. Six Points for an Architecture of Resistance.” Page 26. 15 Clark, W.G. “Replacement.” Clark and Menefee. New York: Princeton Architectural, 2000. Page 11. 16 Frampton, Kenneth. “Towards a Critical Regionalism. Six Points for an Architecture of Resistance.” Page 26. 17 Ibid, 27. 18 Norberg-Schulz, Christian. “Heidegger’s Thinking on Architecture.” Perspecta 20 (1983). Page 67. 19 Ibid, 68. 20 Ibid, 65. 21 Ibid, 64. 22 Ibid, 65. 23 Ibid, 64. 24 Ibid, 66. 25 Ibid, 68. 1 2
Brilliant House | 10 March 2015
Brilliant House | 10 March 2015
HERZOG and DE MEURON
Whitney Ranson | ARCH 8620 | April 9, 2015
TABLE of CONTENTS Biography Influences + Artistic Mission Work Sources
OVERVIEW Since Herzog and De Meuron have such an extensive and diverse body of work, this presentation includes a number of their projects in order to better convey how the narratives, values, and philosophical theories have evolved over the course of their practice. However, in highlighting the diversity of the firm’s work, one is able to gain a clearer understanding of the common thread that connects their body of work as a whole. Certainly a distinguishing aspect of the firm’s work and ultimately the link between each of their projects is the desire to relate the work as closely as possible - through materials and form - the site. Through looking at a brief overview of their work, the goal is to reveal the architects’ pedagogy, artistic mission, biography, working methodology, treatment of site and light, use of materials, and, finally, a critical discussion of the architect’s work.
BIOGRAPHY
JACQUES HERZOG b. 19 APRIL 1950 | Basel, SWITZERLAND PIERRE DE MEURON b. 8 MAY 1950 | Basel, SWITZERLAND
SWISS FEDERAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY Zurich, SWITZERLAND Both architects attended the prestigious Swiss Federal Institute in Zurich and were classmates during their time there. Many of the architects that later became sources of inspiration for Herzog and De Meuron in their own practice, were their professors from the Swiss Federal Insititute.
BEGAN PARTNERSHIP 1978 Herzog and De Meuron began their professional partnership in 1978. Since 1978 the firms work has been highly influenced by art, but also science and psychology, but most importantly by the act of observation. The firmâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s work is developed from their daily observations of phenomena in the world.
Another important influence for the firm’s work is nature and the often times invisible parts of nature such as the crystalline structure of rock. The architects explain the inspiration that they gather from objects within various contexts, “Natural objects, such as the stone in the talus at the base of the Himalays, or artificial objects, such as screws holding an airplane door in place, or a fleck of green color in an artists painting. By themselves, objects do not mean anything. Their physical presence alone doesn’t make them alive. In fact, they do not even exist. The need their natural or artificial context to let them be seen in a specific way so that they can become objects of our perception, so that they can be named, so that they are ‘being.’”
AWARDED THE PRITZKER PRIZE In 2001, after only 23 years of practice, Herzog and de Meuron were awarded the prestigious Pritzker Prize.
INFLUENCES + ARTISTIC MISSION
ALDO ROSSI Aldo Rossi, who was a professor at the Swiss Federal Institute, was a major influential figure for Herzog and de Meuron. In the words of the architects, â&#x20AC;&#x153;Rossi and Venturi had the biggest impact on us as students. Back then, they stood for something new that countered modernism somewhat; something ambivalent and routine; something that wasnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t as abstract and model-like as modernism demanded.â&#x20AC;?
Below are just a few of the notable contributions that Rossi made to the greater design community as an architect, product designer, urban designer, and theorist.
Aldo Rossi was also a Pritzker Prize winner - he received the award in 1990. In the essay to celebrate his award, K. Forester writes of Rossiâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s work that, â&#x20AC;&#x153;In his search for norms, Rossi confronts the typological schemes of modern architecture with their ancient and vernacular counterparts; in his formulation of an architecture for present conditions, he plumbs the first truly normative concepts that undergird neoclassicism. He has no use for period ornament, no interest in cut-rate imitation; what he intimates, instead, is the possibility of an order of things that allows us to experience the present as a suspended moment in the passage from the past into the future.â&#x20AC;?
Vanna Venturi House
ROBERT VENTURI
Robert Venturi also represented to Herzog and De Meuron a counter balance to modernism. In fact, he is probably best known for reinventing Mies Van der Rohe’s mantra that “Less is more,” with his own saying that “Less is a bore.”
ART AS AN INFLUENCE FOR ARCHITECTURE Both Herzog and De Meuron are interested in the relationship between Art and Architecture. In an interview, Herzog explained that “Architecture can be likened to art in the way that it affirms while at the same time remaining neutral, leaving room for the possibility of seeing things another way, from another perspective. That is what has always fascinated us in nature. Architecture can be open to a diversity of ways of seeing, can provide the option of seeing it from different angles, if it responds to the complexity of nature. Through out their career art has not played an important role in influencing the work of Herzog and De Meuron, but also as a tool for exploration in architecture. In a 2002 interview, when asked about the relationship of art and architecture in their practice Jacques Herzog responded: “What is art? What is architecture? In fact, we are very interested in learning what architecture is, in finding out about today’s possibilities for architecture and urbanism, in what these disciplines can contribute to everyday life, to everyone’s life. In looking at architecture in this way, art becomes very important because, in the past few decades, it has developed more interesting strategies, it has attracted more interesting and creative people than the field of architecture. These are people who are more open to research, people who are more interested in finding out something than in defending something.” The artist Remy Zaugg was another influential figure for Herzog and de Meuron and was some one that the firm was able to collaborate with. Remy Zaugg was a Swiss painter who was primarily known as a conceptual artist who work addressed and critiqued the perception of space and architecture in contemporary culture. Primarily using text and the meaning of the word as the subject of his paintings, Zaugg dealt with themes of perception, examining the various facets of vision. He believed sight and consciousness to be effectively linked, and that it was through their overlapping that our relationship with the world develops.
REMY ZAUGG
â&#x20AC;&#x153;Remy Zaugg has devoted himself, like no other artist, to finding and defining a suitable architectural context for the presentation of art.â&#x20AC;? [H + dM]
JOSEPH BEUYS Joseph Beuys, who was a German sculptor, installation artist, graphic artist, and art theorist, has been another influential artist for the work of Herzog and de Meuron. However, Beuys was also largely known as a social activist. It is written that he had adopted shamanism not only as his presentation mode of his art but also in his own life and he believed art to be a means of realizing a social utopia. Envisioning the role of the artist as akin to that of a shaman, Beuys developed a self-defined practice of ““social sculpture,” an art form based largely on political involvement and environmental concerns.”
Joseph Beuys | Untitled III | 1948-81
Joseph Beuys | The End of the Twentieth Century | 1983 - 1985 | Basalt, clay and felt | 900 x 7000 x 12000 mm
Beuys’ treatment of material in his work is something that I believe had an impact on the work of Herzog and De Meuron and in their development of their own interest in materials, but also in the development of their view of architecture as a kind of ‘social sculpture.’ The role of shamanism in Beuy’s life and practice of art was arguably also a major influence for the architects. Shamanism is related to death and the shaman is the mediator between this world and the “Otherworld”. In an interview Herzog is once quoted as describing the firm’s architectural goals as being to “acquire the ‘highest ontological state of matter, or a certain spiritual quality. Finally, it is the installations and assemblages of Beuys that brings the greatest source of inspiration for Herzog and De Meuron whose own practice works to reconcile the specific relationship between the parts and the whole of each project. If one can begin to see the architects’ oscillation between the artificial and the natural in an attempt to not only understand these seemingly juxtaposing ideals, or to reconcile the two, but as a way to explore materiality and use the context of the project as a way to, as Herzog says, “bring an object” or in their case a building or a space, into existence.
WORK
STONE HOUSE 1982 - 1989 | Tavole, Liguria, ITALY
The Stone House is an example of an early project completed by the firm and use serves as a case study of their minor work. This project is situated in the dynamic landscape of a former olive grove in Italy. The terrace of the house engages the remaining ruins of the foundation of the former house. This effort of engage the history and archeology of the site is yet another way in which the architect’s attempt to situate the building within the specific context of the site. An awareness of context is also visible in their thoughtful selection of materials and their experimentation with materials. In the case of this project they utilize split slate as an infill material to flesh out the skeletal structure of the house. The firm’s approach to material is very much driven by their understanding that context is what brings an object into existence. “The artwork is the highest ontological state of material once it is taken out of its natural context. All other ontological states of material describe a gradual devaluation ending in the total rape in which mankind participates through his production of the utilitarian objects of daily life and the typical architecture of today.” One can see how the parti of the house – this cross form, communicates the tectonic of the project in its role as the shaper of space, but also serves to carry the loads of the house. The firm has often received criticism for their emphasis on material and the façade of buildings and have in been accused of creating architecture that is only skin deep. However, if you look at the plans and sections of their buildings, and this project in particular, you see that the treatment of the elevation goes beyond simply being scenographic architecture. The cues that the architects have taken from the site and context of the project transcend just simple façade treatment and ultimately become the elements that give shape and structure to the space.
STONE HOUSE 1982 - 1989 | Tavole, Liguria, ITALY
STONE HOUSE 1982 - 1989 | Tavole, Liguria, ITALY
RICOLA STORAGE BUILDING 1986 - 1987 | Laufen, SWITZERLAND This project is the Ricola Storage building that is located in Laufen, Switzerland on the site of a former limestone quarry. Herzog and De Meuron’s project was to encase an existing storage warehouse. As in the case with the last project, the architect’s attempt to connect the building with the surrounding landscape and context of the site, manifested in an exploration of materiality. The linear orientation of the storage building cladding also works to bring the building into context in is references to the stacked planks visible at the numerous saw mills in the area. Limestone is also used in the encasing of the warehouse. Herzog explains that, “The limestone, once quarried here, now for the first time becomes part of this factory area.” Finally, the architects begin to use the material and composition of the façade to reveal the program of the interior of the building. In their description of the building they write, “Every element of the cladding is a kind of storage frame wherein parts of the façade are “stored“, just as goods are stored in the building’s interior.”
RICOLA STORAGE BUILDING 1986 - 1987 | Laufen, SWITZERLAND
RICOLA STORAGE BUILDING | Facade Details
PLYWOOD HOUSE 1985 | Bottmingen, SWITZERLAND This project also reveals the architectâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s commitment to the site and connection to the site. The delicate wooden structure of the Plywood House almost appears to bow to the mature trees that existed on the site before the house and were left untouched by the architects.
INTERIOR
In the Plywood House project, Herzog and de Meuron approached the design as a light wooden box that is highly crafted and built almost in the same manner as a musical instrument. The space was designed as an addition to an existing home that could be used for marionnette performances.
SECTION
SECTION THROUGH PASSAGE WAY
RAILWAY ENGINE DEPOT AUF DEM WOLF 1991-1995 | Basel, SWITZERLAND
The railway engine depot was part of a larger renovation project for the main train station in Basel. Again, in this project the starting point of the design was the context of the project. The architect’s took their inspiration from observing the layout of the sheds, storage spaces, and signal boxes that existed in the original depot. This project reinforces the architect’s artistic mission that quote “all that we have ever designed comes from observation and description. We work by observing phenomenon.” The use of this material for the sky lights, is obviously quite different from the previous two projects that we’ve seen, but again this is related to their belief that the form and material of a building should be specific to a single site. Throughout their career Herzog and Demeuron have also pushed their projects to experiment with new materials and tools. Which I think in many cases, although this has resulted in such a diverse portfolio, is the architect’s unwavering determination to create work that is rooted not only in the context of the landscape, but the context of society and inevitably technology.
SECTION DETAIL
DOMINUS WINERY 1996-1998 | Napa Valley, CA The site of the Dominus Winery project was once an Indian reservation. The use of rough hewn local stone embeds the project in a feeling of primitive architecture and ties the project back to the cultural memory of the site. In this project the architects also sought to tie the project to the geography and climate of the site and used this desire for connection to the site to inform their material and construction decisions. Herzog and de Meuron explain their design decisions saying, â&#x20AC;&#x153;The climate in Napa Valley is extreme: very hot by day, very cold at night. We wanted to design a structure that would be able to take advantage of these conditions. In the United States air conditioning is automatically installed to maintain even room temperatures.â&#x20AC;? The use of the gabions and stone for the wall construction gives the project an ethereal presence in the site as natural light comes into the rooms during the day and artificial light seeps through the stones at night.
DOMINUS WINERY |Wall Construction Detail In order to explore this new method of working with the gabions the architects built a series of full scale mock ups of the gabion facades to test their theories about the passive cooling and to explore the level of transpaerency that could be achieved. The use of full scale mock ups to explore a particular material or technology is something the architects use frequently in their practice as a tool for experimentation and learning.
LEYMEN HOUSE 1996-1997 | Leymen, Haut-Rhin, FRANCE
The materials used in the house emphasize the weight and monumentality of the building as a monolithic building in a field. However, by placing the house on stilts it seems to hover above the field in which it exists. In this project it could be argued that the architects were designing within the context of the protypical house form. This project also reveals Herzog and de Meuronâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s interest in the building userâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s experience of entering the space and their transition from outside to inside.
REMY ZAUGG STUDIO 1995-1996 | Mulhouse, FRANCE
In their design for Remy Zaugg’s studio, the architects explore time and the impacts of weathering as a material with the use of corten steel and concrete. The experience of the building user as they approach and enter the space is heavily emphasized in this project - the user is met with a blank canvas of a facade that on the surface displays a record of the building’s life in the rust stains on the concrete. In many ways this treatment of the facade is reflective of the function of the space within - an artist’s painting studio. This project was a precursor for the Tate Modern project and allowed the architect’s to explore architectural designs specific to the display of artwork.
“The resulting studio functions equally as the artist’s place of work and as a place to present and view art, i.e. a small museum.” [H+dM]
TATE MODERN 1995-2000 | London, UK When Herzog and de Meuron won the competition for the Tate Modern art museum, they were committed to utilizing the existing structure of the former power station. Again, this decision to design a space that is embedded in the existing building, reveals the architect’s commitment to connecting a project not only to the physical site, but to the cultural memory that is inherent in a site. In their design of the Tate Modern, light became a way for the architect’s to connect the building with the site and the city of London. Through this project they were able to explore the use of natural light for lighitng the interior of the art museum. Herzog and de Meuron describe their use of light saying, “From the very beginning, when we first started thinking about the project during the competition in 1994, we entertained the idea of a huge body of light hovering above the heavy brick structure of the former power station. This body of light was to pour daylight into the galleries on the top floor of the museum and, at night, the direction of the artificial illumination would be reversed and magically shine into the London skies. The idea of the light beam proved to be a key element for the development of the other parts of the complex within the overall architectural and urban concept of the Tate Modern.”
SECTION THROUGH TURBINE HALL
TURBINE HALL INTERIOR Olafur Eliasson | The Weather Project
Herzog and de Meuron’s challenge for this project was how to create a link between public and private and interior and exterior in order to transform a building that once was closed to the public into a civic building. The Turbine hall was designed to serve as a public plaza or a congregation space with in the museum. This space also lends itself to experiential art installations such as Olafur Eliasson’s “Weather Project,” and as such the space creates a truly unqiue experience that bridges interior art gallery and public plaza that reconnects the building with the city of London.
MAIN LEVEL PLAN
TATE MODERN 1995-2000 | London, UK
PROCESS Iterative massing models used by the architects to explore the form of the Tate Modern addition project.
TATE MODERN ADDITION PROJECT Scheduled Completion 2016 | London, UK
THE M.H. DE YOUNG MEMORIAL MUSEUM 1999-2005 | San Francisco, CA
In the M.H. De Young Memorial Museum in San Francisco, Herzog and de Meuronâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s interest in nature and the structure at a molecular level becomes obvious in their approach to the form of the building. They describe their process by saying, â&#x20AC;&#x153;We thought of a kind of organism with several limbs or extensions, like the fingers of a hand. We arranged the building in three parallel bands (or fingers) so that the park fills the spaces in between and reaches all the way into the heart of the new building where it forms inner courtyards.â&#x20AC;? Their approach to the design also emphasized a connection to the surrounding park that almost blurs the lines between interior and exterior space.
Plan Diagram + Views of the Interior Courtyards
â&#x20AC;&#x153;The Education Tower is literally the hinge between museum and city. It affords a view, an overview, and insight into the various cultures of this world at this select location in Golden Gate Park of San Francisco.â&#x20AC;? [H+dM]
PROCESS
This project also reveals a lot about Herzog and De Meuronâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s working processes. In the design of this project they developed numerous models, mock ups and studies to explore the form and materiality of the design. In an interview once, Jacques Herzog spoke about how when they first formed their practice they would put all of their energy into one concept from the beginning, but in recent years they have moved towards a design process in which they try to explore as many ideas possible as a way to create a conversation with themselves and with their clients. Herzog and de Meuron use a an iterative process of making sketch models to explor form and materials. In images on the facing page, one can see the architectsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; process of using nature to insipire the pattern and form of the De Young Museum facade. Throughout the trajectory of their career nature and natural forms have continued to be a source of inspiration for the designers and a way in which they can tie their work back to the site in which it exists.
CAIXA FORUM - MADRID 2001 - 2008 | Madrid, SPAIN
In this project the architectâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s chose to highlight the existing buildingâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s former life by inserting the Caixa Forum into the shell of the old Central Electrica Power Station. Through a process of layering, the architects capture a chronology of the buildingâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s history - and future - that connects it closely to the history and memory of the site. By using materials like corten steel and the living wall, the architects also acknowledge that the building will age and weather and that the apperance of it will evolve over time - as such they are keeping the visual chronology of the building open ended so that in the future we will be able to see how the building has continued to evolve from its present appearance.
Shaded space below the building creates intimate and comfortable public plaza. Entry to the space from underneath the building also creates a dramatic experience for the building user as they experience a sense of compression when moving from the open public plaza to the shaded plaza below the building.
“A new kind of public space for Beijing.” [H+dM]
THE NATIONAL STADIUM 2004 - 2008 | Beijing, CHINA
The goal of this project was almost to recontextualize the condition of public space in Beijing. Herzog and De Meuron sought to create a new kind of urban condition in the city that would allow the stadium to remain relevant in the context of the Beijing even beyond the Olympic games. Their goal was to create a new type of gathering space for the people of Beijing. The ground of the city rises up and becomes part of the plinth that the stadium sits upon.The stadium façade is pure structure, and integrates the program within the structure. Outwardly the stadium façade reveals a deeper understanding of the interior and the program of the building. The stadium appears geometric and rational from afar, but as the user approaches, the stadium transforms into a tangle of structure and circulation. In this way the architect’s liken the design of the stadium to an artificial forest with the plinth serving as the roots and trunk and the actual user space as the canopy. Again we can see this oscillation between the artificial and natural in Herzog and De Meuron’s work.
STRUCTURE = FACADE = ROOF = SPACE
PRIMARY + SECONDARY STRUCTURE
PROCESS MODELS
THE NATIONAL STADIUM 2004 - 2008 | Beijing, CHINA
“Even today, most people and architects take ‘reality’ for something they can see or take into their hands. They cannot or do not want to accept the existence of further realities, either within natural or artificial objects. This factor has major consequences not only for the way in which architects conceive their architecture, but for their who economic and ecological impact on our society.” [HdM]
SOURCES
Cecilia, F., & Levene, R. (Eds.). (2002). Herzog & de Meuron 1998-2002. El Croquis, (109/110). Cecilia, F., & Levene, R. (Eds.). (2010). Herzog & de Meuron 2005-2010. El Croquis, (152/153). Cecila, F., & Levene, R. (Eds.). (2002). Herzog & de Meuron 1981-2000. El Croquis, (60 84). Herzog, J., & De Meuron, P. (n.d.). The Hidden Geometry of Nature. Retrieved March 31, 2015, from https://www.herzogdemeuron.com/ index/practice/writings/essays/the-hidden-geometry.html Mack, G. (Ed.). (2000). Herzog & de Meuron 1992-1996. The Complete Works, 3(152/153). Ursprung, P. (Ed.). (2002). Herzog & de Meuron, Natural History. Montreal: Canadian Centre for Architecture.
Pavillions| 24 March 2015
Pavillions| 24 March 2015
Savannah | 31 March 2015
Savannah | 31 March 2015
Hollywood House | 18 April 2015
Paper No. 3 | 1 May 2015 In his introduction Bachelard warns us that he speaks of a “phenomenology of the soul, rather than of the mind”. What, according to him distinguishes soul from mind? In this light explain the role of house, as Bachelard understands it, in the human imagination. How does this sense of house encounter the human conception of the Universe? In his text The Poetics of Space, Gaston Bachelard defines the soul as being distinct from the mind because it represents the natural and unintentional qualities that are at the core of human instinct. The mind, however, has been shaped by knowledge and guided by ideas that have been taught. According to Bachelard, the soul is the central source of human joy because it represents a human’s natural instinct and houses the human imagination, from which the poetic image emerges. Therefore, the human experience of the poetic image is not a product of the mind, but rather a product of the soul. Bachelard explains that this distinction between the human soul and mind is what allows us to understand the “the phenomenon of the poetic image when it emerges into the consciousness as a direct product of the heart, soul and being of man.”1 Through this view of the human imagination, Bachelard comes to understand the house as metaphor for the human soul. In The Poetices of Space Bachelard visits specific parts of the house – the cellar, the attic, and others – that serve as spaces in which the intimate thoughts and memories of the human soul reside. These specific spaces within the house personify the thoughts and memories that embody them. Bachelard writes that “In the attic, fears are easily “rationalized.” Whereas in the cellar, even for a more courageous man […] “rationalization is less rapid and less clear; also it is never definitive.”2 The house plays an important role in Bachelard’s understanding of the human imagination because in his view our house is “our corner of the world”3 in which we can find solace and protection from the universe and it is this feeling of protection sets the imagination free and gives use the ability to daydream. Bachelard goes on to explain that our experience of the house as shelter for daydreams is embedded in us by the first house that we inhabit, but as a result, “beyond all the positive values of protection, the house we were born in becomes imbued with dream values that remain after the house is gone”4 and shape the way the perceive all other houses that we encounter. Ultimately, Bachelard views the poetic image as a connection of the soul to space, such as the intimate spaces within a house, rather than a connection to time. He distinguishes inhabited space – the space in which the concept of home exists – from an inert box that is void of memory. The house, as Bachelard explains, is mankind’s “first universe” and therefore man’s understanding of this initial universe of the house shapes his subsequent understanding of the larger universe. Once humans have an understanding of the “first universe” that is their first house, they are able to confront the space of the larger universe. Bachelard uses the metaphor of a house withstanding a raging storm to illustrate how man’s understanding of the “first universe” gives him the strength and ability to confront the larger universe. Similarly to how the house resists the storm with human-like energies man is able to resist the forces of the universe. Bachelard summarizes this reflection of human qualities in the strength of the house in the midst of the storm by defining the house as “an instrument with which to confront the cosmos.” He writes, “Come what may the house helps us to say: I will be an inhabitant of the world, in spite of the world.”5
In terms of its impact upon human self-understanding explain the shortcoming, according to Christopher Alexander, in the now-prevalent, Cartesian view of the Universe which has come down to us from the European Enlightenment of the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries. Explain how the “Order” conceived by Alexander (“the smile of the Buddha”) differs from the “mechanistic order” of the Enlightenment. Discuss Alexander’s notion of “life” in all things, including buildings; its difference from scientifically understood biological life; degrees of life; and how these degrees of life are perceived by human beings. Cite the 15 Fundamental Properties and give a brief 2 or 3 sentence explanation of each. From the thinking of Alexander explain the importance of “liking from the heart” and the role of the “Self” in the discovery of unity between human beings and their buildings and their environs. In the Phenomenon of Life, Christopher Alexander explains that the Cartesian view of the Universe, as promoted by Descartes, views the Universe in fragmented and isolated parts in an attempt to understand the it by viewing it as a machine. Order, as it is understood in the context of 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries, is something that can be explained by science through an understanding of the way something functions mechanically. However, Alexander argues that this mechanistic approach to order is useless to creative fields because it removes the human experience. As a result, humans no longer see any reflection of self in the Universe through this mechanistic view because it removes the meaning of what it is to be human. In the Cartesian view of order, values are approached simply as matters of opinion. However, Alexander argues, “statements of value are not just statements of opinion.”6 Instead, he proposes that there are alternative views of order besides the scientific and mathematical views in which the only things can be deemed valid or not valid are mechanical.7 Alexander’s view of order is one that proposes that statements which can be proven true or false extend beyond those of a mechanistic nature; and furthermore that, in the context of creative fields, views that can be rationalized as right and wrong include statements and judgments that humans intuitively make regarding harmony, life, wholeness, and value. The primary point that Alexander makes about this new view of order is one that brings it closer to humanity and distinguishes it from the fragmented, mechanical views of order and the Universe that were promoted by Descartes. A true view of order must extend beyond an isolated, fragment of the Universe because in the context of creative fields, such as art and architecture, viewing order as a machine removes all traces of humanity and self-reflection from an object. In addition to proposing a new approach to order, Alexander also proposes a new view of life in which a degree of life exists in every object and thing in space. Alexander’s proposition that a degree of life is present in all things, differs dramatically from the flawed scientific understanding of life simply as a “self-reproducing biological machine.”8 The scientific understanding of life views it in the limited and isolated context of individual organisms, but fails to define life in the context of larger systems of biologically living and non-living things. According to Alexander, everything has some varying degree of life in the larger context of the universe and this perception of life in all objects is a common phenomenon that is experienced by all humans. Alexander uses the example of a breaking wave to illustrate this new notion of life and explains that although the only truly, scientifically living parts of the wave are the microorganisms within it, when it is compared to a stagnant puddle all humans can agree that the wave feels more alive and has a greater degree of life than the puddle.9 Alexander goes on to point out that the scientific view of life is further flawed in its inability to define life beyond the scale of a single organism because it fails to address the degree of life in the larger ecological systems, which are, themselves, comprised of individual organisms.10 Buildings must be viewed in a similar manner that recognizes the degree of life in each material that comprises the building, but also the degree of life in the building as an entire system in the cosmos. This ability to discern the degree of life in one material when compared to another is what allows humans to create art and architecture that speaks to us and moves us. By acknowledging the life in individual materials we are able to create intensely living buildings that make us feel more alive through a connection that we observe between our own degree of life and the degree of life that is reflected in the building.
Alexander uses comparisons between pairs of images to reveal that the human perception of the degree of life in an object is something that can be objectively measured through our shared perceptions of what objects embody a higher degree of life. Through these comparisons, Alexander reveals that “the different degree of life we observe in every different part of space is not merely an artifact or our cognition but is an objectively real physical phenomenon in space which our cognition detects.”11 The point that Alexander makes is that when humans perceive a high degree of life in an object, whether through the harmony, connectedness or genuineness of the object, humans feel more alive.12 The importance of Alexander’s notion that all things have life, is that when we perceive a life in an object, building, or material, we experience a feeling of connectedness to that object that makes us feel more alive because we see a degree of our own life reflected in it.13 One could argue that Alexander is attempting to prove that humans find self-reflection in both living and non-living things and that this perception of self is what gives an object a sense of being alive. He most eloquently and concisely summarizes the importance of this view of life in the context of creativity through his observation that “Whenever I looked at two examples, I could determine which one had greater “life” or greater wholeness, by asking which of them generated a greater wholeness in me.”14 Alexander uses his 15 Fundamental Properties as a set of objective values that can be found in successful architecture and used as a way to reveal how the life of a thing depends on the thing’s wholeness through the presence of what he refers to as “centers.” This measure of a thing’s wholeness is of particular importance in the context of architecture, which Alexander argues must be viewed as a part of “an undivided and extended continuum.”15 Through the 15 Fundamental Properties Alexander reinforces the notion that life cannot be accurately understood when viewed in an isolated, mechanistic sense, instead we must view things in the context of “centers” which deal with the complicated issues of the edges and boundaries of an object.16 Again, Alexander pushes us to view objects, buildings, and organisms in the context of a larger system of living things that exists within the universe and he offers his 15 Fundamental Properties as different ways in which to understand how the “centers” of an object can work together to help reveal its degree of life. LEVELS OF SCALE The first of the 15 fundamental properties of successful architecture is “Levels of Scale.” According to Alexander, degree of life can be found in the variations of a range of scales. It could be argued that the importance of varied scales in revealing an object’s degree of life lies in the relationship that we see between the scale of the object and our own bodies. To illustrate this, Alexander presents a comparison of two doors – one that is handcrafted and one that has been produced by a machine – but both of which seemingly contain a variety of scales. However, we are able to perceive the levels of scale, and ultimately the higher degree of life, in the handcrafted example. This is because the machine-produced levels of scale in the manufactured door do not strengthen the centers in the door. Alexander uses this example to show that the levels of scale are not a property that can be achieved by a machine but, instead emerge as the centers of the thing work together.17 STRONG CENTERS Alexander’s second property that he presents is one of “Strong Centers” which gives an object a feeling of intensity at its core through a layering of centers. Strong centers in a composition, embed it with a hierarchy of layers,18 which orients visual field of the composition. BOUNDARIES The property of Boundaries is what Alexander describes as strengthening the living centers of an object. This property gives us a context in which to understand an object by separating its center from the world that surrounds it through the use of layered and proportional boundaries. To illustrate this property Alexander uses the example of the capital and base as the boundaries of a column. While the column exists as a part of a larger structural system, the capital and base give us boundaries within which we can observe the degree of life in the column.19 ALTERNATING REPETITION Harmony is created in an object through the alternating, rhythmic repetition of units within an object or building. The oscillation that is created by alternating repetition does not come simply from the repetition of a unit, but also the space between the units.20 It is this rhythmic alternation that Alexander argues, gives an object more life because the “centers intensify other centers by repeating.”21
POSITIVE SPACE Alexander’s property of Positive Space is one that brings us back to this notion of connectedness in both objects and architecture. He explains that a lack of positive space exists when “buildings are placed and have their own definite physical shape – but the space which they are floating in is shapeless.”22 In interpreting this property through context of architecture we come to understand that the spaces both within and around a building should not be after-thoughts, but rather should be carefully design spaces that are formed through a process of “slow deliberate strengthening of centers.”23 Successful architecture is comprised of and surrounded by positive space through the careful consideration of the sites between and around buildings as well as the often leftover interior spaces such as closets and hallways.24 GOOD SHAPE The quality of the shape is judged based on the way the parts make up the whole as well as the lasting image that the shape imparts on the viewer. According to Alexander good shapes are composed of basic geometric shapes, which are “powerful as bits of local geometry”25 and are memorable, impactful, and effective. Even complex compositions can be judged as good shapes when they are composed of simple geometric parts that result in a whole composition.26 LOCAL SYMMETRIES Local symmetries and living centers tend to be linked with one another because living things often contain symmetry, but rarely display perfect symmetry. In fact, Alexander argues that perfect symmetry is synonymous with an absence of life. In the case of perfect symmetry it could be argued the absence of life emerges when there is a degree of perfection that could only be achieved by a machine. As a result, successful architecture should have broad overall symmetries that are composed of smaller instances of symmetry within its parts because local symmetry is what brings something to life.27 DEEP INTERLOCK AND AMBIGUITY The property of Deep Interlock in an object implies a level of unity or connectedness between the object and the surrounding world. In this property Alexander investigates the relationship of an object’s center to its surroundings,28 and the ambiguous overlapping space that is shared between the center of one object and the center of another that strengthens the centers of both objects. To illustrate this point he uses the example of a dovetail joint, which perfectly conveys the dependence that both sides of the joint have on the shared space between, but also strength that each piece of wood gains from this interlocking that occurs in this shared space. CONTRAST Contrast allows an object to reveal its function and purpose, which ultimately reveals its degree of life. Without contrast, objects cannot be distinguished from one another and as a result become lacking in life because it is contrast and distinction that gives a thing life through revealing its true purpose.29 GRADIENTS In his property on Gradients, Alexander returns to his discussion of a mechanical approach to order and its ability to deprive an object of a degree of life. The presence of gradients in an object inherently reveals the life within the thing because gradients display a certain softness and variation that is absent in an object produced by machines and can only be produced through a natural response to change. ROUGHNESS Similarly to the property of Gradients, the property of Roughness gives an object a degree of life because it is a quality that cannot by achieved by machines.30 Roughness overcomes the sterility that is inherent in something mechanically produced or mathematically calculated. Again, Alexander relates an object’s degree of life back to its relationship to humans.31
ECHOES Echoes are present when the forms and shapes that comprise an object are all descended from a single family of forms that reverberates throughout the object, giving it life. The property of echoes ties the parts of an object back to the whole in that the resemblance in that we are able to recognize the form of the whole object in the shapes and forms that comprise it.32 THE VOID The void within an object creates a calm that gives relief to the energy of patterns and detail that surround it. In living things there must be a balance between void and detail, calmness and chaos and it is the contrast of quietness created by the void that gives an object’s center the energy that brings it to life. Alexander explains that the void cannot be calculated mathematically or mechanically, but rather it is something that is required by human psychology, which, again, reinforces this understanding that a high degree of life is not something, which can be produced by a machine. SIMPLICITY AND INNER CALM Inner calm and simplicity imply a sense of necessity and complexity within an object without creating a sense of complication. According to Alexander, Simplicity and Inner Calm have been achieved when “everything essential has been left; nothing extraneous remains.” 33 What Alexander points out is that there is a high degree of life in an object that embodies properties of simplicity and inner calm because we are able to understand that it has been reduced to the most essential, necessary, life-giving properties of the object.34 NOT SEPARATEDNESS Alexander identifies his final fundamental property – Not Separatedness – as being perhaps the most important property because it speaks to what it means to be a human and how we as humans view ourselves in the context of the cosmos. This property is best expressed in Alexander’s summation that “we experience a living whole as being at one with the world, and not separate from it.”35 The pertinence of this final property is that when we perceive the connectedness of a thing to the world around it, we in turn feel a sense of connectedness to the world in ourselves. Connectedness and this ability to achieve a connection to the world that is “so harmonious it melts into its surroundings humbly, connects with its surroundings, is indistinguishable from its surroundings. But it does this altogether without giving up its character or personality” 36 is something that we as humans seek for ourselves. When this quality of Not Separatedness is visible in an object or building, a degree of life is revealed in the self-reflection that we observe in the object.37 Throughout his writings and notions about life and order Alexander is attempting to illustrate to us how this mechanistic view of life and order has not only infiltrated the art and architecture that we produce, but more importantly has the influence of mechanistic views which have caused us to lose sight of ourselves as humans, what it means to us to be human, and how we see ourselves in the greater context of the universe. For Alexander, the notion of “liking from the heart” has the ability to heal and mend this disconnection between humans and the world because liking something from the heart produces a heightened degree of life in us. 38 Alexander explains that when we like things from the heart it is because that thing makes us feel whole and more human. 39 Alexander summarizes the role that “liking from the heart” and the role that “self” play in the discovery of unity between human beings and their buildings in his chapter of The Luminous Ground titled “The Existence of an “I.”” In this chapter he explains that “When we succeed in making a living thing from this point of view, we achieve a building (ornament, painting, garden, street) in which strong centers are connected to our own (individual and collective) eternal self.” 40 Ultimately, it is this reflection of self in our own creation of something that has life that allows us to feel more alive, more human, and more connected with the greater universe. Alexander’s belief is that viewing the world through this new notion of life and order and through the application of the 15 Fundamental Properties, we will be able to create something that is truly alive. Finally, it is through this act of creation that we are able to reconcile the disconnection between our world-view and ourselves through the experience of truly liking something from the heart that emerges when we find a reflection of ourselves in an object or in architecture.
In view of the influence of thinkers (such as Frampton, Heidegger, Bachelard, and Alexander) and probing architectural practitioners (such as Kahn, Holl, Clark, Zumthor, Herzog/DeMeuron, and Gehry) how would you characterize, generally speaking, the shift in the development of Architecture from the middle of the 20th to the beginning of the 21st Centuries? One could characterize the Modernist architecture of designers such as Mies Van der Rohe, Frank Lloyd Wright, and the early work of Le Corbusier as a departure from the architectural traditions of the past in an attempt to re-invent architecture in the context of the influences of the Industrial Revolution and advances in science and technology. The Purist Movement that comprises the early work of Le Corbusier reveals a fascination with machines and an aesthetic in which there is a noticeable absence of the human hand. The project that Corbusier viewed as the fullest embodiment of his Purist beliefs - Villa Savoye reveals his commitment to creating a style of architecture reflective of the aesthetics and efficiency of machines. This departure from classical architecture can also be seen in Mies Van de Rohe’s rationalist approach to order and his reinvention of the classical orders through the use of modern materials and technology. The work of Frank Lloyd Wright also departs from the traditions of architecture through his interest in science and the molecular compositions of nature that characterizes his Usonian period. Each of these architects’ work represents a departure from the traditions of architecture that led up to the Modernist Movement. This departure is evident in how they each produce work that views architecture in a new and different context – whether through science, technology, or industrialization – in an effort to bring the work into the context the Industrial Revolution and the technological and scientific advances of the period. This departure is what Christopher Alexander might argue has disconnected humans from the larger universe as a result of the loss of life in the machine influenced architecture of the Modernist Movement. It is in the work of thinkers such as Frampton, Heidegger, Bachelard, and Alexander that we see a cry for architecture to return to the traditions of topos, typos, and tectonic, in an effort to return the human experience to architecture, so that we might feel more connected to it and to the universe. We see this return to the past traditions of architecture in the later work of Le Corbusier where he abandons Purism and the machine aesthetic and replaces it with the tactile qualities of the rough hewn concrete and the connectedness to the site that we see in many of his later works. Post-purist works like Ronchamp, reveal Le Corbusier’s shift to a view of architecture that is connected to the core of our humanity through this connection to site and reflection of humanity in the work. Kenneth Frampton also argues for a return to the cultural traditions of architecture in his essay “Towards a Critical Regionalism. Six Points for an Architecture of Resistance” where he calls architects to reconsider the past and the collective sense of human identity and belonging that is embedded in human culture, but is lost in the functionality and industrialization of modern civilization.41 Heidegger also emphasizes the importance of human presence in his comparison of “lived in space” and “mathematical, isomorphic space” 42 where he explains that the human experience and the space in which human life occurs is very different than the scientific definition of space. Bachelard also touches on this notion of space in the context of human presence when he refers to inhabited space as opposed to an “inert box that is void of memory.” 43 The common themes that arise in the writings of each of these thinkers is that architecture must strive to be more connected to the larger context of the universe and aware of the role of human presence in architecture and that in doing so we will, as Alexander believes, be able to see the reflection of ourselves in architecture that makes us feel more alive and more present in the world. In considering the works of Louis Kahn, W.G. Clark, Peter Zumthor, and Herzog and de Meuron, however, one can see a shift in the development of architecture towards a return of the human presence and experience in the context of a work, but also the general connectedness of a work to place, culture, and memory. A deeper connection to the topos can be seen in Louis Kahn’s consideration of the site in his Sher-E-Bangla Nagar Capital Complex of Bangladesh. Kahn’s use of man-made pools allows this work to emerge from, but also communicate with the desert landscape of the site giving it a deep sense of connectedness and presence in the site. Kahn’s design of the Capital Complex as an island within the landscape establishes a defined boundary in which the architecture can exist and find context in the monotonous desert landscape.
In the context of W.G. Clark’s work we can see this in how he engages the site through a notion of “settlement” rather than simply “abiding in a place.”44 This connection to site can be seen in the way the architecture of his Inn at Middleton Place draws you into the site, connecting you with the topography of the river bluff and the cultural memory of the plantation ruins. Peter Zumthor’s work also echoes this shift in architecture through his emphasis on the tactile, haptic, and atmospheric qualities that embody the human experience of architecture. This connection to the human experience as well as the typos, the topos, and the tectonic can be seen is his Vals Therme in which all of the human senses are ignited by the materiality, scale, and atmosphere of the work. The work of Herzog and de Meuron displays a connection to site and cultural memory through their use of materials that are specific to the context of each project. An example of this is the Ricola Storage Building that was constructed using limestone that was once quarried at the site on which the building stands, connecting it to the cultural memory of the site. This shift in architectural thinking that is evident in many of the works of Kahn, Clark, Zumthor, and Herzog and de Meuron as well as the writings of thinkers such as Bachelard, Heideggar, Frampton, and Alexander places contemporary architecture at a pivotal and pregnant moment in the trajectory of architectural history. In order to succeed in making mankind feel more alive in the world, architecture today must consider the influences of these thinkers and strive to create architecture that is more connected in every sense – more connected to memory, culture, place, history and, in general, the greater cosmos. When a work of architecture is connected to the world and to the universe we are able to see its connection to us and to our soul and it is this phenomenon that allows architecture to make us feel more alive. If the goal of architecture is to improve upon the quality of human life and reveal to us our place in the cosmos, then we must never stop working to create architecture that embodies a sense of connectedness to the world and is reflective of ourselves. It is imperative that the architecture professionals of today uphold these values and ideals of connectedness and humanity in their work and commit to educating the public in the values of creating architecture that is a reflection of ourselves.
SOURCES 1 Bachelard, Gaston. The Poetics of Space: The Classic Look at How We Experience Intimate Places. Boston: Beacon, 1994, p. xviii. 2 Ibid., 19. 3 Ibid., 4. 4 Ibid., 17. 5 Ibid., 46-47. 6 Alexander, Christopher. The Phenomenon of Life, The Nature of Order: An Essay on the Art of Building and the Nature of the Universe. Berkeley, Calif.: Center for Environmental Structure, 2002, p.19. 7 Ibid., 17. 8 Ibid., 28. 9 Ibid., 31. 10 Ibid., 34. 11 Ibid., 64. 12 Ibid., 76. 13 Ibid., 64. 14 Ibid., 144. 15 Ibid., 80. 16 Ibid., 80-87. 17 Ibid., 145-148. 18 Ibid., 154. 19 Ibid., 158-164. 20 Ibid., 169. 21 Ibid., 165. 22 Ibid., 174. 23 Ibid., 174. 24 Ibid., 173-178. 25 Ibid., 182. 26 Ibid., 179-185. 27 Ibid., 186-194. 28 Ibid., 195. 29 Ibid., 200-209. 30 Ibid., 210. 31 Ibid., 210-215. 32 Ibid., 218-221. 33 Ibid., 227. 34 Ibid., 226-228. 35 Ibid., 230.
SOURCES Ibid., 228. Ibid., 230-235. 38 Ibid., 315. 39 Ibid., 316. 40 Alexander, Christopher. The Luminous Ground, The Nature of Order: An Essay on the Art of Building and the Nature of the Universe. Berkeley, Calif.: Center for Environmental Structure, 2002, p.70 41 Frampton, Kenneth. “Towards a Critical Regionalism. Six Points for an Architecture of Resistance.” The Anti-Aesthetic. Essays on Postmodern Culture. 1st ed. Port Townsend: Bay, 1983. P. 27. 42 Norberg-Schulz, Christian. “Heidegger’s Thinking on Architecture.” Perspecta 20 (1983). P .65. 43 Bachelard, Gaston. The Poetics of Space: The Classic Look at How We Experience Intimate Places. Boston: Beacon, 1994, p. xviii. 44 Clark, W.G. “Replacement.” Clark and Menefee. New York: Princeton Architectural, 2000. p. 11. 36 37