Arriving at the diagram 17 So which aspects of the'programme'can we harness in producing this three-dimensional diagram from which the building design can evolve?What constitutes this crucial creative springboard? As has often been articulated,architecture at its most basic manifestation is mere shelter from the elements so that human activity can Figure 3.7 Edward Cullinan,Archeolink Visitor Centre, Aberdeenshire,Scotland 1997.From Architects'Journal, be undertaken in acceptable comfort. 6/12/97,p.35. Should the designer assume this position,a greater concern for matters of fact rather than any theoretical stance,accepted canon,or departure when the initial 'diagram'of the precedent is implied.Indeed,the earliest, building begins tentatively to emerge is the most primitive attempts at making shelter most crucial and most difficult aspect of against the elements merely assembled avail- designing and,indeed,the most intimidating able materials to hand;this was an entirely to a fledgling designer. pragmatic process of design by trial and error Geting started (Figure 3.8).Even today,some decisions embodied in the design process are entirely Beaux Arts architects referred to the initial dia- pragmatic in nature particularly when incor- gram of their building as the parti,literally,'a porating new materials or methods of con- point of departure'.The parti encapsulated the struction;early crude and tentative efforts essence of a building in one simple diagram tend to be refined and modified by trial and and implied that the development of the build- error using the same pragmatic processes as ing design could proceed to completion with- our forebears. out substantial erosion of the initial idea or But in searching for this initial form or parti parti.Whilst such a process had then been it is unlikely that purely pragmatic consider- both informed and judged by accepted Beaux ations will dominate.Designers are much Arts canons,nevertheless the process of pro- more likely to be profoundly influenced by ducing an initial diagram for a building of real accepted ways of doing things or canons clarity and order still has equal validity today which are a useful source for ordering this even if in a pluralist modern world those notoriously problematic form-finding process. canons have multiplied and shifted. Classical architects worked,literally,within
departure when the initial ‘diagram’ of the building begins tentatively to emerge is the most crucial and most difficult aspect of designing and, indeed, the most intimidating to a fledgling designer. Getting started Beaux Arts architects referred to the initial diagram of their building as the parti, literally, ‘a point of departure’. The parti encapsulated the essence of a building in one simple diagram and implied that the development of the building design could proceed to completion without substantial erosion of the initial idea or parti. Whilst such a process had then been both informed and judged by accepted Beaux Arts canons, nevertheless the process of producing an initial diagram for a building of real clarity and order still has equal validity today even if in a pluralist modern world those canons have multiplied and shifted. So which aspects of the ‘programme’ can we harness in producing this three-dimensional diagram from which the building design can evolve? What constitutes this crucial creative springboard? As has often been articulated, architecture at its most basic manifestation is mere shelter from the elements so that human activity can be undertaken in acceptable comfort. Should the designer assume this position, a greater concern for matters of fact rather than any theoretical stance, accepted canon, or precedent is implied. Indeed, the earliest, most primitive attempts at making shelter against the elements merely assembled available materials to hand; this was an entirely pragmatic process of design by trial and error (Figure 3.8). Even today, some decisions embodied in the design process are entirely pragmatic in nature particularly when incorporating new materials or methods of construction; early crude and tentative efforts tend to be refined and modified by trial and error using the same pragmatic processes as our forebears. But in searching for this initial form or parti it is unlikely that purely pragmatic considerations will dominate. Designers are much more likely to be profoundly influenced by accepted ways of doing things or canons which are a useful source for ordering this notoriously problematic form-finding process. Classical architects worked, literally, within Arriving at the diagram 17 Figure 3.7 Edward Cullinan, Archeolink Visitor Centre, Aberdeenshire, Scotland 1997. From Architects’ Journal, 6/12/97, p. 35
18 Architecture:Design Notebook Figure 3.8 Guyanan benab. Figure 3.9 Sir E.Cooper,Port of London Authority Building,1931. the ordering device of the orders and simi- larly,the Beaux Arts parti relied on its own parti in more recent times as a crucial point canonic devices which effectively ordered of departure in our formal explorations.This within an accepted framework the architect's is,of course,an over-simplification,for eight- initial forays into form-making (Figure 3.9). eenth-and nineteenth-century architects were With the advent of modernism,Le Corbusier's deeply concerned with the idea of building Regulating Lines'and his later 'Modulor' 'types'classified by use,which reflected an were presented as canons based upon the equally profound concern on the part of con- same mathematical origins and with the temporaneous scientists for classifying by same outcome in mind;they similarly offered 'type'the entire natural world. a set of devices to order and clarify architec- We have already seen how pragmatic tural form. designers in their quest to develop primitive forms of shelter developed buildings which in Typology their forms and materials were closely asso- ciated with nature;materials at hand were To a large extent the notion of typology (or assembled in such a way as to meet the study of 'types')has replaced the Beaux Arts demands of climate and user alike.This
the ordering device of the orders and similarly, the Beaux Arts parti relied on its own canonic devices which effectively ordered within an accepted framework the architect’s initial forays into form-making (Figure 3.9). With the advent of modernism, Le Corbusier’s ‘Regulating Lines’ and his later ‘Modulor’ were presented as canons based upon the same mathematical origins and with the same outcome in mind; they similarly offered a set of devices to order and clarify architectural form. Typology To a large extent the notion of typology (or study of ‘types’) has replaced the Beaux Arts parti in more recent times as a crucial point of departure in our formal explorations. This is, of course, an over-simplification, for eighteenth- and nineteenth-century architects were deeply concerned with the idea of building ‘types’ classified by use, which reflected an equally profound concern on the part of contemporaneous scientists for classifying by ‘type’ the entire natural world. We have already seen how pragmatic designers in their quest to develop primitive forms of shelter developed buildings which in their forms and materials were closely associated with nature; materials at hand were assembled in such a way as to meet the demands of climate and user alike. This 18 Architecture: Design Notebook Figure 3.8 Guyanan benab. Figure 3.9 Sir E. Cooper, Port of London Authority Building, 1931
Arriving at the diagram 19 developed into a vernacular typology(Figure 3.10)in which architecture and nature estab- lished a close correspondence,a source of constant inspiration to both designers and theorists since the eighteenth century.But as a burgeoning nineteenth-century technology in turn created a new building technology,so a new tectonic typology (Figure 3.11) emerged concerned with new structural and 出由 constructional devices far removed from ver- nacular precedent.Finally,architects have found themselves profoundly influenced by the physical context in which they design,so Figure 3.11 Contamin et Dutert,Palais des Machines, that a contextual typology(Figure 3.12)has Paris Exposition,1889.From Space,Time and Architecture, Gideon,S.,Oxford University Press,p.270. developed.Not surprisingly,all these typolo- gies have been developed to great levels of sophistication and represent,as a combined resource in the form of exemplary precedent, the fundamental springboard for effectively prosecuting building design. Figure 3.12 Robert Venturi,Sainsbury Wing,National Gallery,London,1991.From A Celebration of Art and Figure 3.10 Vernacular,Barns,Suffolk. Architecture,Amery,C.,National Gallery,p.106
developed into a vernacular typology (Figure 3.10) in which architecture and nature established a close correspondence, a source of constant inspiration to both designers and theorists since the eighteenth century. But as a burgeoning nineteenth-century technology in turn created a new building technology, so a new tectonic typology (Figure 3.11) emerged concerned with new structural and constructional devices far removed from vernacular precedent. Finally, architects have found themselves profoundly influenced by the physical context in which they design, so that a contextual typology (Figure 3.12) has developed. Not surprisingly, all these typologies have been developed to great levels of sophistication and represent, as a combined resource in the form of exemplary precedent, the fundamental springboard for effectively prosecuting building design. Arriving at the diagram 19 Figure 3.10 Vernacular, Barns, Suffolk. Figure 3.11 Contamin et Dutert, Palais des Machines, Paris Exposition, 1889. From Space, Time and Architecture, Gideon, S., Oxford University Press, p. 270. Figure 3.12 Robert Venturi, Sainsbury Wing, National Gallery, London, 1991. From A Celebration of Art and Architecture, Amery, C., National Gallery, p. 106
20 Architecture:Design Notebook Plan type So much for a broad perspective of typologies as another backdrop to creative activity,but how can we harness specific typologies to help us develop our building as a three-dimen- sional artefact?Le Corbusier famously declared,'The plan is the generator';putting aside for a moment that much meaning was lost in the English translation ('the three- dimensional organisation is the generator' would have been nearer the mark)it neverthe- less suggests that plan types can indeed pro- vide one of many departure points (others will be discussed later).Further putting aside Figure 3.13 Barry Johns,Technology Centre,Edmonton, 1987.From Architectural Review,May 1987,p.82. whether your building will adhere to free or geometric forms,or both,it is still possible to distil a remarkably limited range of basic plan types which tend to be variations on linear, courtyard,linked pavilion,shed,or deep- plan organisations (Figures 3.13-3.17). There are,of course,massive variations on each type and most buildings combine aspects of more than one to satisfy the needs of a com- plex brief.Nevertheless,this initial stab at establishing a plan form which will provide an appropriate 'frame'to sustain specific social activities,is one crucial decision which allows the design to proceed. Building type Historically,of course,plan types like,for Figure 3.14 Aldo Van Eyck,Orphanage,Amsterdam, 1960.From The New Brutalism,Banham,R.,Architectural example,the 'basilica'or 'rotunda'were Press,p.158
Plan type So much for a broad perspective of typologies as another backdrop to creative activity, but how can we harness specific typologies to help us develop our building as a three-dimensional artefact? Le Corbusier famously declared, ‘The plan is the generator’; putting aside for a moment that much meaning was lost in the English translation (‘the threedimensional organisation is the generator’ would have been nearer the mark) it nevertheless suggests that plan types can indeed provide one of many departure points (others will be discussed later). Further putting aside whether your building will adhere to free or geometric forms, or both, it is still possible to distil a remarkably limited range of basic plan types which tend to be variations on linear, courtyard, linked pavilion, shed, or deepplan organisations (Figures 3.133.17). There are, of course, massive variations on each type and most buildings combine aspects of more than one to satisfy the needs of a complex brief. Nevertheless, this initial stab at establishing a plan form which will provide an appropriate ‘frame’ to sustain specific social activities, is one crucial decision which allows the design to proceed. Building type Historically, of course, plan types like, for example, the ‘basilica’ or ‘rotunda’ were 20 Architecture: Design Notebook Figure 3.13 Barry Johns, Technology Centre, Edmonton, 1987. From Architectural Review, May 1987, p. 82. Figure 3.14 Aldo Van Eyck, Orphanage, Amsterdam, 1960. From The New Brutalism, Banham, R., Architectural Press, p. 158
Arriving at the diagram 21 Figure 3.15 Eiermann and Ruf,West German Pavilion, World's Fair,Brussels,1958.From A Visual History of Twentieth Century Architecture,Sharp,Heinemann,p.223. Figure 3.17 Ahrends,Burton and Karolek,Portsmouth Polytechnic Library,1979.From ABK,Architectural Monograph,Academy Editions,p.99. often closely associated with specific building types and this linkage between plan and build- ing type has,if less dogmatically,nevertheless still persisted in characterising twentieth-cen- tury architecture also (Figures 3.18,3.19). But inevitably such orthodoxies are challenged from time to time and these challenges are generally recorded as important catalysts in architectural development. Thus the linked pavilion type of post-war school buildings in Britain was challenged by the Smithsons in 1949 at Hunstanton School where a courtyard type was adopted(Figure Figure 3.16 Norman Foster,Sainsbury Building, 3.20),but also by Greater London Council University of East Anglia,1977. Architects'Department in 1972 at Pimlico
often closely associated with specific building types and this linkage between plan and building type has, if less dogmatically, nevertheless still persisted in characterising twentieth-century architecture also (Figures 3.18, 3.19). But inevitably such orthodoxies are challenged from time to time and these challenges are generally recorded as important catalysts in architectural development. Thus the linked pavilion type of post-war school buildings in Britain was challenged by the Smithsons in 1949 at Hunstanton School where a courtyard type was adopted (Figure 3.20), but also by Greater London Council Architects’ Department in 1972 at Pimlico Arriving at the diagram 21 Figure 3.15 Eiermann and Ruf, West German Pavilion, World’s Fair, Brussels, 1958. From A Visual History of Twentieth Century Architecture, Sharp, Heinemann, p. 223. Figure 3.16 Norman Foster, Sainsbury Building, University of East Anglia, 1977. Figure 3.17 Ahrends, Burton and Karolek, Portsmouth Polytechnic Library, 1979. From ABK, Architectural Monograph, Academy Editions, p. 99