Vol. 6, No2 (January 2002)
|
||||
__Howard
Davis Eugene, Oregon |
||||
Architectural
Facts in Search of a Language |
||||
I would like to develop some ideas
which I think may be important to Neis´ idea of form language. This talk is
rather speculative. My hope is to begin a conversation which will help to
bring together a few familiar ways of looking at architectural language which
are not normally considered within the same framework. Obviously the attempt
at seeing architecture as a linguistic system is not new. If I am introducing
anything new, it is simply the idea that different points of view each have
their own validity, and there is something to be gained by exposing one point
of view to the insights of the other. In this way, unhelpful ideological
barriers may be breached.
Let me begin with some general
observations.
First, my own concerns are with the
languages that are shared within a particular culture, and how those languages
change from culture to culture and from typical situation to typical situation
within cultures. In this regard, I am interested less in the personal rule
systems that individual architects follow – if such systems can even be
called languages – than I am interested in the formal rule systems that are
commonly understood, and which define the architecture of particular cultures.
These rule systems may be shared by architects. But my own work has been in
the realm of vernacular architecture, and most of the examples in this talk
are in vernacular architecture. I define vernacular architecture as including
a much broader range of building than only the so-called "primitive"
buildings made by non-professionals of relatively unprocessed materials taken
from the site itself. My definition has to do simply with what is common,
whether or not architects are doing the design. So according to my definition,
vernacular architecture does include what we normally understand to be the
vernacular, like mud villages in India. It also includes common buildings like
office towers in Manhattan, terraced houses in London, houses in Bangkok slums,
and prefabricated houses in some parts of the United States. In all these
cases, the rule systems for a particular kind of building are shared widely
enough so that that kind of building is accepted as the most common and likely
way to build.
Second, the reason we need to be
explicit about form languages at all is that implicit, shared understandings
have almost completely broken down. To be sure, explicit statements of
architectural principles go back at least as far as Vitruvius. But the
contemporary building world is characterized by an unprecedented diversity of
buildings. This diversity is not necessarily unhealthy, but it is accompanied
by an almost equally wide diversity of theoretical frameworks. This makes
conversation, much less common agreement, extremely difficult. This is perhaps
more of a problem in the United States than it is here, but even within the
architectural community and the community of architectural education – not
to mention the community that includes clients, contractors or bankers –
words do not necessarily have the same meaning to different people. I would
claim that we need a form of discourse that is understood by more people, and
that would lead to more agreement in the judgment of buildings according to
the terminology used.
Another way of putting this is that
if we are talking about an appropriate form language for our time, or place,
or even for particular places, we are talking about shared understandings, and
some kind of cultural transmission. I want to make the assumption that such
understandings are important, even in the context of an architecture that
might include individual expression. The question is that if such shared
understanding exist, what is their nature and how can they be most useful.
And third, with this subject we are
inevitably talking about the question of representation and of abstraction of
things which cannot always be seen. Of course, a building is ultimately a real
artifact in the world, tens of meters high and made of stone and brick and
mortar. It has a tangible reality, and although the interpretation of its
reality might differ from person to person, it exists. Any means of
representing it – a plan, a model, a computer fly-through – is only a
particular and selective projection of the actual thing. We can be more or
less complete in representing the finished thing. But in the final analysis
the success of a building is measured not only by its reality, by what it is
– which can be represented fairly completely with plans, sections and
elevations at different scales – but by the experience of its reality, which
I would claim often cannot. Of course, the ability to predict that experience
is one of the main jobs of the architect. But even if the architect is
ultimately successful in that prediction, what the architect does not
necessarily have is a set of tools for sharing all aspects of that experience.
What I want to talk about here is
only an incomplete solution to this problem, and perhaps will serve more to
illuminate the problem itself than to actually solve it.
Four Approaches to Architectural
Analysis
What I want to talk about straddles
the boundary between the language of architecture, and the kind of language
used to represent architecture. I want to use some examples of vernacular
courtyard buildings in different cultures to describe the possible
relationships and convergences among four different approaches to
architectural analysis. These approaches have stood apart from each other for
various ideological and intellectual reasons. Yet, I would claim that in their
individual attempts to analyze configurations, they have demonstrated certain
similarities of intention, along with the means to together deal with more
aspects of architectural experience than any one of them could do alone.
The four approaches are the following.
First, the compositional/typological
approach as put forward by the Kriers, for example, in the 1970s and 80s, as
the continuation or revival of two centuries of architectural thought, and
which still forms the basis for much criticism and discourse. Variations of
this approach are used also by various people studying urban morphology in
Italy and France.
Second, the approach of space syntax
as developed by Bill Hillier at the Bartlett School in London, which has found
favor in various urban design and large institutional projects, mostly in the
United Kingdom.
Third and fourth, two approaches of
Christopher Alexander and his colleagues in California. These include the
pattern language, developed during the 1970s, and the latest development in
his work which is much more based in an idea of unified form than the earlier
pattern language. This new work will be published as part of a four volume
work, beginning in a few months.
Each of these four approaches has
pluses and minuses, if we are looking for an accurate and comprehensive method
of description and analysis, that includes form, the qualitative aspects of
rooms, and the experience of buildings. What I would like to ask, is what is
to be gained by combining these approaches, so that the positive aspects of
one will help to compensate for the negative aspects of the other. Such a
synthesis might help point the way toward a form language that has the
capability of bringing together various disparate modes of architectural
thought.
I would argue that the lack of such a
language, that can be shared among architects and between architects and lay
people, is one of the major factors that has contributed to the split among
various sectors of the contemporary building culture. That split is perhaps
more severe in the United States than it is in Europe, but there is no doubt
in my mind that architecture suffers from serious problems of communication.
This paper is a speculation, based on
observations about these approaches I have made over the last several years.
As examples, I am using different variations of vernacular courtyard houses,
in different cultures.
Let me begin by trying to describe
each of the four approaches, using the example of a courtyard house, built
several hundred years ago in Tunis. It is a "classic" example of a
house in a North African Islamic city. It consists of a courtyard, open to the
sky, and with rooms arranged around the courtyard. The house is entered
through a door from the street which leads onto a passage configured so that
there is not a direct view of the courtyard from the street. This is to
protect the privacy of family life, and particularly of women. There are one
or two rooms that do not enter directly from the courtyard, but most rooms do.
In addition, the door is the only opening on the street side; all light at the
ground floor is obtained from the courtyard.
The Typological Approach
First, the typological approach.
From one point of view, the
typological approach is the simplest and most straightforward way to describe
this house. In fact, I have already told you most of the terms used: courtyard,
arcade, "skifa" which is the passage, entrance, rooms. In describing
this house, the typological approach would likely employ a series of simple
diagrams that relate this specific example to an ideal archetype. These
diagrams show not only the existence of various parts that can be named, but
also their relationship to each other. Graphic representation is essential to
this approach, as it is to the others.
One reason this approach is so useful
has to do just with this simplicity, with the ability for abstraction and the
reduction of complex configurations down to simple diagrams that may have
abstract meaning. It is these kinds of diagrams that form the basis for the
"parti" which we ask students to invent or discover in the course of
design. And the parti may connect to certain aspects of meaning. The courtyard,
for example, is symbolic of the house as a whole – in fact the words for
courtyard and for house are the same in Arabic. And one of the unifying
features of North African Islamic architecture is of course that the courtyard
building is ubiquitous in the city, serving many different functional types,
and this helps to connect the house with the mosque, within a higher
understanding that sees the courtyard as an image of paradise.
This approach has a direct and
obvious connection to the most common ways of representing a building –
namely, the orthographic projections. But as I hope will become clear, this is
also its weakness. The orthographic projections only hint at such things as
the typical paths of movement through a building, or the differences between
two rooms in their feelings of focus and spatial intensity, or some of the
connections that may exist between architectural form and human use.
Hillier´s Approach
Let me next describe Hillier’s
approach, which emphasizes a different kind of abstraction, that emphasizes a
property which Hillier calls "depth." The approach requires that
plans be transformed into a kind of diagram that treats all convex spaces as
points, or nodes, and doors or door openings between these spaces as lines.
What this diagram does is not only allow an immediate picture of relationships
among spaces, but allows an understanding of the depth, or number of spatial
steps, from one space to another. It is very easy to see, for example,
something which is not as immediately apparent from the plan or the
typological diagrams – that the rooms that are deepest from the entrance are
the ones marked green. And any room may be the root, to determine the depth of
all other rooms from it.
The importance of the approach is
shown in Hillier’s own analysis of these four hypothetical plans. From one
formal point of view the plans are extremely similar. But they are
experientially very different. Plan (a) is highly centralized; plan (b) has a
kind of enfilade of rooms around the edge, plans (c) and (d) are different
variations. The adjacency graphs show widely different topologies among the
different examples. One interesting thing here is that the space which appears
to be most central, has a very different position relative to the outside in
each of the four examples.
Now you may say that this does not
really have to do with architecture, and just has to do with where doors are
placed. But what I am talking about is the basic topology of configurations,
which is connected to the social origins of building type. The power of this
approach is perhaps best seen in more difficult cases. For example Hillier has
analyzed much more complex vernacular situations to show how power
relationships are embodied in the topology of configurations. In this African
compound, for instance, the chief’s hut is located in the place that is
topologically deepest into the configuration – even though it is physically
located near the outer wall.
Perhaps even more interestingly,
Thomas Markus has used this approach to study how institutional buildings
changed during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, to demonstrate how
changes in social ideology were reflected in corresponding changes in building
plans.
One example shows a school built in
London around 1874. This school is an educational hybrid, that combines
various features of earlier schools, in which groups of pupils were together
in the same large room, with schools that came later, with each group of
pupils having its own classroom. Boys and girls had their own entrances, right
and left respectively. The plan is quite symmetrical. But the adjacency
diagram is remarkable in two ways. One is the very clear gender division,
between boys and girls – notice in the plan how the boys’ staircase stops
at the first floor – this is node 13 in the adjacency graph. The other is
how the groups considered the most vulnerable are deepest into the plan. These
are the babies – nodes 5 and 10 – which are very deep into the plan, even
though on the ground floor; and the girls, which are very deep into the plan,
on the second floor.
Another example is of a workhouse in
London built in 1725. The designers of this building intended it to be a model
for similar buildings to be erected all over Britain. This is only the ground
floor of the building which include kitchen, dining rooms, schoolrooms, work
yards and privies. The plan is symmetrical around two axes of symmetry. In his
analysis, Markus points out that the rooms which are deepest into the plan and
at the end of tree-like structures, are the workrooms and privies – these
are the spaces and functions which most needed to be controlled. And the
central spaces, which are the spaces from which centralized control was
apparently exercised, lie on rings making them accessible to many other spaces
of the building.
In contemporary practice, Hillier’s
technique is used for analysis of large buildings during the design phase, and
it is also used at an urban scale to test different urban design schemes
against desired pedestrian activity. One very recent, high-profile use of the
technique was in the urban design studies at the time of building the Tate
Modern in London, and the pedestrian bridge across the Thames that leads to
St. Paul’s.
A major advantage of this technique
has to do with the ability to be mathematically precise about spatial
relationships, and such precision is necessary when analyzing large
configurations . This lends itself to computer analysis of certain aspects of
complex projects during the design phase. But this mathematical precision is
balanced by a loss of qualitative understanding – a large room and a small
room, a light room and a dark room, are all the same in this technique, all
other things being equal. But because of its ability to analyze extremely
complex configurations, the technique has had success in predicting human
movement in cities and such buildings as art museums and hospitals, and in
helping to develop an understanding of power relationships in buildings.
I would also point out, before going
on, that for the simple courtyard house, it is very easy to put the two
diagrams side by side – the one representing the compositional approach and
the one representing the space syntax approach – and clearly see their
relationship. But as we have already seen, this is not true for complex
buildings.
Alexander: Patterns
Let me go on now to Alexander. I’d
like to begin with his older formulation, because that is more familiar to
many people. The pattern language approach grew out of observations that are
essentially functional ones. As such, it was originally a particularly
modernist point of view. These functional observations are concerned with
recurring human or environmental issues within the environment, and what
physical configuration might resolve those issues so that conflict is
minimized.
An example of such a pattern is
ENTRANCE TRANSITION, which essentially says that the difference between the
psychological state one is in on the street and the psychological state one is
in inside a house has a corresponding spatial form, in the ENTRANCE TRANSITION,
which provides for a change of physical characteristics along a path between
street and house. Now there are undoubtedly some healthy situations in which
this pattern does not exist or is very weak, and where it does exist it
clearly takes on a different form from culture to culture. But in very many
situations it does exist, and is even useful because it brings to light what
many see as an essential characteristic of houses.
Another example of a pattern is
INTIMACY GRADIENT, which says simply that as one goes deeper into a house, one
finds rooms that provide more and more privacy and intimacy, and less
publicness. Again this has different manifestations from culture to culture;
in many Latin American situations the formal living room, where guests are
received, is located quite close to the front door; in other cultures such a
room is deeper into the house. What is much more rare are houses where such an
intimacy gradient does not exist at all, where all rooms are at the same depth
from the outside. And for building analysis, the point is not necessarily that
this pattern exists or exists in a particular form, but that it is necessary
to take this issue into account.
There is a strong relationship, again,
between Alexander’s formulation of patterns and those of typology and space
syntax. In typological terms the ENTRANCE TRANSITION may sometimes be given
the name of a thing: the skifa in the middle eastern house, the fauces in the
Roman house, the path-plus-front porch in the small town American house, the
outside step-plus-vestibule in the London house. And in Hillier’s point of
view, the entrance transition will be represented by one or more nodes
connected by lines, the assembly of which gives all of the rooms of the house
greater depth relative to the street.
In the case of the Tunisian house,
the entrance transition is not simply the skifa; it is the experiential change
between street and courtyard that is both facilitated and mitigated by the
skifa. Another way of saying this is that if we were to take the skifa alone
and build it in the middle of the desert, it would not be an entrance
transition, it would just be a set of walls and roof.
Now, looking at diagrams of these
three approaches side by side, I want to claim that although these are
different representations of the same thing, the emphasis of each one is
different enough from the others so that more insight is gained from looking
at the three of them than only at one. I will take this up more later.
Alexander: Centers
Alexander’s current work shifts the
focus from patterns to what he calls "centers." The emphasis is
subtly changed from the relationship between things being at the center of our
attention, to the idea of a physical entity itself being the focus, but gaining
its intensity and meaning from its relationship with other things. In this
respect there start to be some connections to the typological approach. In the
courtyard house, the courtyard is the principal center. It is the most
important space, and it is the space that will have the most investment put
into it in terms of architectural elaboration and ornament. But it does not
exist only by itself, but it gains its character and particularly its
intensity from the other centers which are around it. Each of those centers,
of course, does the same thing, so what we have in a successful building or
city is a strongly interacting field of centers, in which the success of any
one depends on the success of all the others.
I would like to illustrate this
concept further by looking at this carpet, and pointing out that the unity of
the composition which exists here comes about because the individual centers
have a strong mutual dependence on each other. This is more than simply a
figure-ground phenomenon, but has to do also with the strong identity of
figures and the fact that such identity exists at different scales.
The idea of centers can help to
illustrate typological variations as well. The simple courtyard house is very
closely related to others built at the same time. These 27 houses are in
Tunis, and all built around the same century. They are arranged roughly in
order of size, and probably economic status of their owners. They all share
the idea of a central courtyard, rooms around the courtyard, and indirect
entrance or entrances from the street. What is happening, as we go from large
to small, may be characterized as an intensification of centers. Axes of
symmetry that are less important in smaller houses become more important in
larger houses, and that importance is reinforced by additional centers, in the
form of arcades and rooms which support them. And those rooms, in even bigger
houses, are reinforced by rooms which support them and give them even greater
intensity.
So in this analytical approach, like
in the typological approach, there are entities that can be named. But unlike
the typological approach, in which the description of a building is to some
extent a description of entities and their relationships, this formulation
emphasizes that the life of entities comes, at least to some extent, from the
entities around them, and all the entities that are a part of the same
composition.
Comparisons among Different Buildings
So far I have used the example of the
simple courtyard house to hint at different methods of analysis and
representation.
What I would like to do now is
introduce three buildings in addition to the Tunis house, all of which may be
loosely categorized within the courtyard type, and all probably related to the
ancient Roman house, that will provide the material for analysis in the main
part of this paper. These examples present different issues of organization
and space, and comparison among various groups of them will help me to explain
the positive and negative aspects of each method of analysis.
First is the simple courtyard house
itself.
Second is a related building, in
Cairo. It is the Bayt Suhaymi, a well-known merchant’s house from the 18th
century. It too has a main courtyard, and an indirect entrance from the street.
It also has an open porch called the taktaboosh, between the courtyard and a
rear garden, and a three story, elaborately finished receiving hall off the
courtyard, called the qa’a. The indirect entry in both the Cairo house and
the Tunisian house is a typological transformation of the fauces in the Roman
house. The taktaboosh is a transformation of the tablinum in Roman house.
Third is a courtyard house several
hundred miles south of the Cairo merchant’s house, a building that was
documented before the construction of the Aswan dam and probably does not
exist any more. This is a Nubian house, belonging to a people who were
influenced both by the Islamic cultures to the north and the African cultures
to the south. In this house the courtyard takes up a larger percentage of the
house area than the urban houses we have already looked at. These houses are
usually oriented the same way relative to the Nile, they have shaded places
for water on the south side of the courtyard, and a special bridal hall for
newly married couples. They also had a tradition of being elaborately painted
on the outside. In these buildings it is often possible to see through to the
courtyard from the outside, and it may be that the much lower density of the
Nubian village obviated the need for the courtyard to be hidden. But even here,
we may compare the covered loggia with the taktaboosh of the Cairo house.
And fourth is a courtyard house in
Mexico, which may be related to the other houses through its own typological
ancestors in Spain. Its courtyard is entered through a passage known as the
zaguan, similar to the fauces, and has all of its rooms – more public rooms
including the estancia which is a living room and comedor which is a bedroom,
private bedrooms as well as service rooms – around the courtyard.
I would now like to make various
comparisons among these houses which point up the positive and negative
features of the various methods of analysis.
Privacy and Function
Let me begin with a comparison of the
Mexican house and the Nubian house, from the point of view of issues of
privacy.
Although the houses are both
courtyard buildings, and share the typological idea that the courtyard is both
for circulation and other uses, and also share an entrance room in between the
outside and the courtyard, there are many dissimilarities in form. The Mexican
courtyard is almost square with the suggestion of an axis of symmetry entering
the courtyard from the zaguan. The Nubian courtyard is much more rectangular
with no overall symmetry. The Mexican house is one room deep on four sides of
the courtyard; the Nubian house is two rooms deep on two sides of the
courtyard, one room deep on a third side, and has only a wall on the fourth
side. Although they are both clearly members of the courtyard typology, they
are formally very different.
But a comparison of the adjacency
graphs shows some interesting similarities. First of all the courtyards are
each approximately the same number of steps in from the outside – either 3
or 4. Second, the bridal hall in the Nubian house and the parent’s bedroom
in the Mexican are the same number of steps in from the outside
– 5 – and are in each case at the deepest level of rooms for human
habitation in the plan. And finally, in each case, at least some of the
stables are at the deepest or next-to-deepest levels in the plan – no doubt
to give protection to valuable animals.
There are several interesting things
about the Mexican house. One is that not all the bedrooms are at the same
depth inside the plan. In fact, the bedroom in the corner may be the bedroom
of the parents – one can see a similar relationship in other Mexican houses.
Another is that the kitchen and service rooms are quite deep into the house
and this accords even with what we know about more modern houses in Latin
America.
Now I do not want to claim that there
is a cultural connection that is causing the correspondence in these privacy
relationships between the Mexican house and the Nubian house. But what is
interesting here is that we have found a method of analysis that can uncover
facts that are not apparent with a casual reading of the plan. Of course, a
careful reading of the plan alone will yield the insights we get from the
adjacency graph. But that is just what the adjacency graph is – a way of
reading the plan that abstracts certain of its characteristics. As we have
already seen, in the case of much more complex plans, this turns out to be
critical.
What has not yet entered very much
into this discussion of privacy relationships is use and the function of rooms.
Neither the plan analysis nor the adjacency graphs tells us very much about
use.
In the case of the Mexican house, the
public rooms – the estancia and the comedor, along with the shops – are on
the right as you enter, and the bedrooms are on the left. The estancia is also
the biggest room and has two pairs of doors, but that doesn’t matter in a
space syntax analysis. We have a hint at the importance of this side of the
courtyard when we look at the paving pattern, and the size of the estancia –
but only a hint.
And it is with these issues, only
hinted at with the plan analysis and hardly dealt with by the adjacency graph,
that I would suggest that a graphic representation of Alexander’s patterns
might be helpful.
The two houses we are considering
here, both incorporate the idea of the intimacy gradient, but in different
ways, which show that the patterns have different cultural manifestations. As
with the typological approach, the way to see these differences may be
graphical. In the Mexican house, the existence of the continuous paving from
the zaguan to the estancia and comedor suggest that path for the visitor, and
make that side of the house seem more public, thus subtly indicating an
intimacy gradient which puts the bedrooms deeper into the house, even though
they are quite close to the front of the house.
In the Nubian house, there is
actually something quite similar going on, where the visitor entering the main
courtyard is drawn toward the loggia and away from the wall enclosing the
small courtyard. In addition, the door leading to the private courtyard is not
even visible from the main entrance to the house, reinforcing the increased
privacy of that realm of the house. The private courtyard and the large loggia
are at exactly the same depth in the plan, but the way the building is
actually made gives them quite a different status in the intimacy gradient.
So the various analyses are saying
slightly different things. They are not inconsistent with each other, but each
one is emphasizing something that the other is not.
If we look at what Hillier calls
"depth", and we look at what Alexander calls the "INTIMACY
GRADIENT," and we look at the subtleties in the plans, we see slightly
different aspects of just how the architectural space of the buildings are
arranged relative to their main entrances.
The Qualitative Character of Rooms
One of the most striking differences
among the several approaches is that concerning the qualitative character of
rooms and what that does to their role in the overall composition. Let us for
example look at the Cairo merchant’s house, and look at it in three
different ways: from the point of view of a plan analysis, from the point of
view of space syntax, and from the point of view of a field of centers in
Alexander’s formulation.
The room called the qa’a is
on the side of the courtyard, not on its main axis, but perhaps in a position
that corresponds with the alae or sometimes the triclinium in
the Roman house. Indeed, there is another interesting correspondence with the
Roman house, and that is that the taktaboosh, which is the porch in
between the main courtyard and the garden, is very similar in position and
function to the tablinum in the Roman house. This building was built
about 1300 or 1400 years after the fall of Rome, so comparisons are dangerous.
But if we look at this plan, it is as if the symmetrical plan of the Roman
house was relaxed, the direct axis in from the street disappeared, the shops
on the street went away, and that was the nature of the transformation. And of
course that accords with what we know of the social forces which helped to
shape the Islamic city.
But getting back to the qa’a.
The adjacency graph of the house does not say much. It is one room among many
and its adjacencies are similar to those involving less important rooms. If we
look at a plan analysis of the house, where we look at the relative size and
symmetries of rooms, the qa’a begins to assume more importance, since
it is one of the more symmetrical large rooms of the house and adjacent to the
courtyard.
This importance is reinforced when
the plan is extended to a section or perspective, since the qa’a is a
three-story high space.
But there is something that even the
plan or the axonometric diagram does not emphasize about this space, and that
is the fact that it has received the most investment in terms of materials,
ornament, local symmetries, and a major lantern in its roof which brings in
light. It has a very high level of architectural intensity, in my experience
of the building rivalling even that of the courtyard itself.
This may be represented by a
different sort of diagram, which is a simple diagram that illustrates the
distribution of centers and their intensity. With present day computer
techniques I’m not sure if this diagram could be analyzed as easily as the
adjacency graph. But it does immediately call your attention to the qa’a,
and immediately indicates the intensity of ornament and architectural
elaboration that may be present there.
Compare this with the estancia
in the Mexican house. The estancia is similar in that its importance in the
life of the house is only hinted at by the plan or by the fact that it is the
only room with two doors toward the courtyard, and the only room which has
niches built into the walls. It may have a higher ceiling and more
architectural elaboration, and it will almost certainly be felt as the most
important center of the house, of equivalent importance to the courtyard
itself. And this status would show on a mapping of the centers of the house.
Before I go on to the conclusion I
would like to show these drawings and corresponding analytical diagrams from
Rob Krier’s book on architectural composition. The diagrams are intended to
illustrate principal spatial characteristics of these buildings, by giving
emphasis to their major spaces and spatial sequences. At least that is how
they are described in the text that accompanies the illustrations. The text
does not make any mention of any differentiations within the spaces themselves,
no mention that in particular situations, for example, a wall or a column may
have an increased intensity or sense of focus. But in fact the way the
diagrams are drawn is suggestive of something which is not mentioned in the
text, and that is that within particular spaces, there may be an emphasis on
material or ornament or the surfaces themselves. In other words, these
diagrams are suggestive of the diagram I drew for the qa’a, illustrating how
the formulation of Alexander’s centers may help to interpret, in an abstract
way, aspects of buildings that may not be immediately extracted from the
orthographic drawings.
Conclusion and Applicability to
Contemporary Work
Within each of the methods of
analysis it is possible to compare one building to another, within particular
types.
Certainly the plan analysis itself
does this, and individual examples are often described as variations on an
archetype. This is commonly done in studies of architecture and vernacular
architecture.
Bill Hillier and Julienne Hanson have
shown, very rigorously, that a space syntax analysis of buildings within a
particular culture yields correlations among their adjacency graphs. So there
is, in a sense, a typical adjacency graph for certain kinds of buildings
within particular cultures.
In her work on the Roman house, Carol
Watts has shown, equally rigorously, that there is a recurrent set of patterns
that is characteristic not only of the domus but of the insula as well,
showing the persistence of patterns within a particular culture over different
conditions of density and formal typology.
Such a study has not yet been done
for Alexander’s formulation of centers and fields of centers. But the idea
that there might be culturally-specific features in distributions of centers
was hinted at in a dissertation done by Artemis Anninou. In teaching about
vernacular architecture, I sometimes refer to particular building types in
particular cultures as culturally specific and culturally shared fields of
centers.
I am describing all this to make the
point that all each of these ways of looking at architecture has its own rigor
that stands up well to detailed analysis. In this paper, I have rather less
rigorously shown that that on the one hand, these approaches are consistent
with each other, and on the other, they bring to light different but equally
important aspects of buildings.
So just to summarize:
The well-known typological and plan
diagram approach helps us to understand the features of buildings that are
related to formal archetypes, and which are sometimes connected to the global
meaning and symbolism of buildings.
The space syntax approach helps us to
accurately understand the detailed topology of configurations, which is often
connected to how buildings and cities reinforce their meaning through power
relationships, social distribution and human movement.
The pattern language approach helps
us to see the relationship between formal relationships in buildings and human
use and function.
And the approach of centers helps us
to understand the actual spatial presence and intensity of rooms, groups of
rooms and other entities in the building.
I have tried to argue, first, that
each of these approaches has its own strengths and weaknesses; second that
they are nevertheless compatible with each other; and third, our understanding
of buildings is increased greatly if we use all of them together. The title of
this paper, "Architectural facts in search of a language," refers to
the fact that there is not a common language of representation that includes
them all.
Such a common language might be
helpful in contemporary work, and particularly to the development of complex
configurations such as urban design schemes, housing, and large civic and
institutional buildings. Such projects need to have architectural beauty and
coherence, but they also need to respond very specifically to issues of human
movement, function and feeling which are often extremely difficult to
understand when looking at designs done only with typical representational
techniques.
Let me just show, without analyzing
them, two buildings which were published about five years ago. This is an old
persons’ home in Finland; the other, which I will show in a minute, is a
center for handicapped children in France. Both of these buildings are highly
complex, and as buildings for communities of people that are vulnerable in
different ways, they need to balance personal architectural expression on the
part of the architect with a high level of understanding of how the building
helps or hinders human encounters of different kinds, helps or hinders the
reinforcement of self-identity and self-worth that vulnerable people need to
feel, helps or hinders the healing that a well-designed room might contribute
to.
The old person’s home is described
in an article about it as fulfilling a need to have "a clear, economical
and reassuring overall pattern, and at the same time a gentle gradation of
privacy from the public route, through the semi-private space, to the privacy
of the individual space." And indeed, we might believe from the plan that
this intention has been met.
The children’s center is described
as having "a key area [which is] the main hall or common room, which is
open to everyone and where local people, notably the elderly and adolescents,
are encouraged to drop in. Conceived as a place of stimulating contact and
exchange between handicapped children, parents, friends, visiting school
children and the local community, it is designed on an open plan with an
island fireplace, and contains such attractions as a multi-screen TV wall, a
small lending library, an aquarium and a musical chequer-board floor."
And again, we see in the plan and photograph a space that might have the life
that is described.
These are both expensive buildings
with ambitious social agendas. There is no doubt that with these buildings,
there was a close relationship between architects and clients, and that
presumably the client group felt that they were in a position to criticize the
design based on their best knowledge of their own specialties of social
service or medicine. But what we have seen in this talk is that not everything
that needs to be known about buildings can be learned from a simple reading of
the ordinary design drawings – and so that even an enlightened architect and
client, working together with the best of intentions, are not necessarily in
the best position to predict success.
And although it seems as if the human
and social needs expressed in these buildings may only be important for
vulnerable groups or groups that need to be controlled in different ways, like
children or victims of Alzheimer’s disease, I would argue that in fact
vulnerable groups are like the canary in the coal mine for all of us. The
failure of much public housing and urban design often comes about because of a
failure to make accurate predictions about such matters as the relationships
between public and private space, or pedestrian densities, or the use of open
space. Over the last 10 or 15 years, these failures have resulted in a renewed
attention to the social aspects of design of complex configurations like
neighborhoods and housing schemes.
I would suggest that for such
projects, all four of these techniques be used for analysis during the design
phase. They emphasize different but essential issues in buildings and building
groups, and they offer the promise of representational systems that can allow
for good communication, and for success and failure to be understood and
shared. The use of contemporary digital techniques means that this should not
be as outlandish as it sounds. Systematic analytical methods, along with
traditional architectural judgment, would reinforce each other.
The language I have been talking
about is a language of design and configuration that is not always obvious in
usual techniques of architectural representation. Some of the ideas are
embedded in the culture and difficult to find at first sight in the
architectural drawings. Because they are difficult to find, they may be
neglected in design, and sometimes are. My point is simply that if we were
comfortable with simple ways of representation that could go along with
aspects of culturally-influenced language that might otherwise be hidden,
buildings might gain in their social and cultural appropriateness.