Matt Jennings' Design Manifesto

            At this point in my career, my design process focusses largely on the materials available to the architectural world.  Studying the evolution of modern architecture through the Architecture 329 class at Ball State University has only advanced this interest of materials driving the design process.  To me, the way a building is put together has the most potential to create a truly beautiful work of architecture.  The structural system and material used carries the most defining aspect to the overall characteristic of a building.  The choice of structural material begins shaping the limitations and possibilities of the building from early on in the design process.  Once this decision is made, others can be easier to determine by following the same characteristics of the already chosen material.

            To explain this process further, I have attached some of my work thus far in my academic career.  The first design project that shows this process comes from a riverfront restaurant I did my sophomore year of architecture school.  For this project I began with creating a structural form that supports what I was trying to accomplish with the building.  I needed a shape that would create overhangs yet allow for transparent façade materials. After finding a parabolic shape made out of steel pipes connected on a warped grid, I was able to further the design following the attributes this structure allowed. The shape this steel structure created was able to stand out as an expressed element architecturally.  The exposed structure also allowed for interaction with the users of the space and the environment.  The design shown is not very well explored due to the lack of experience I had at that point, but the process is still evident.

            The second design project that I designed using materials and structure was a church project also designed during my second year of schooling.  The main aspect of this project was the views out from the sanctuary space.  To create this space, I envisioned large portions of glass between strong natural materials.  Glulam members became my choice as a solution to the design problem.  These beams allowed for long spans, opening up the façade as much as possible and also framing views.  Once my material and structure was chosen I was able to focus on where views needed to be.  The structural system chosen helped inform these choices.

            For the ICMA competition second year we were challenged to use concrete masonry as the material.  This left a few options for structural systems and I ended up with concr­­­­­­ete masonry bearing walls.  I wanted to use the strength of the masonry walls to draw attention to the simplicity and sturdiness of the material.  The large bearing walls were able to support everything in the design from the roof, to the different floor levels, to the stairs.  By choosing to celebrate a structural system, I found many new opportunities the system provided that I had not known prior to the project.

            A project where I utilized this process the most was in a Green Workforce Training Center during my third year of school.  I utilized a grid structural system for the first time on this project.  I had always viewed grids as boring and only used for commercial purposes because of the simplicity.  While working on the project, I lost that mindset very quickly.  Using a grid, I was able to make a more complete project that is cohesive all the way through.  After I completed the competition, I had a new respect for the grid and felt that the choice of this structural system freed up a lot of my decision making allowing me the opportunity to spend more time elsewhere.  The grid influenced decisions about materiality, function of spaces, circulation, proportions, and site work.  This was the first time I completely devoted every design decision to a set structural system and I am very happy with the result.

            Looking back on my schooling so far, I believe this design process has allowed me to be as successful as I have been.  Every architect has the ability to determine their own style of design and I believe I have found mine.  After reflecting on my past projects for this blog post, I realize how much the design process has evolved.  Carrying this design approach into the future will allow me to continue developing as a designer.  I believe that as new technologies arise more opportunities will follow in architectural terms.  Determining the structural system early in a design allows for other design decisions to follow the same characteristics and creates a more complete design.  

Proportions in Design

One of the most interesting design decisions explored in the modern architecture movement is the proportions of space.  Each of the architects we explored in class had an opinion on how to address this issue.  On the two far ends of the spectrum are Le Corbusier and Mies Van der Rohe.  Le Corbusier’s designed were based on a modular system founded on the proportion of the human dimension.  Mies Van der Rohe based his designs on the enclosure of the function not based on a modular concept.  Both methods create very different spaces, each with their own positive and negative characteristics.

Let me begin with the work of Le Corbusier with his modular method.  This modular system used the golden ratio for the scale of architectural proportion.  He took as an example the Vitruvian Man from

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_l7zkwwO8Re1qd1uj5.jpg

Vitruvius.  This system used proportions from the human body to improve architecture.  Le Corbusier also used the Fibonacci sequence as a guide.  Armed with these scientific tools, Le Corbusier set out to change how the world views architecture.  The design project that displays this the most is Sainte Marie de La Tourette.   The image on the left is a picture of a room in Sainte

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/Sainte+Marie

+de+la+Tourette.jpeg

Marie de La Tourette.  Everything in the room is dimensioned based on the dimensions of the Vitruvian man.  The room width and ceiling height is chosen based on the proportions of a human body.  The bed size and desk are also sized on these proportions.  All of these rooms are identical at La Tourette, therefore the entire building is considered to be designed with this modular method.  All details of the building follow the same Vitruvian man proportions from hallway sizes to height of windows.  This proportioning system created limitations to the design ability for Le Corbusier.  The modularity prevented the freedom of larger spaces.  Rather, Le Corbusier chose to stick with the smaller proportions and repeat the rooms over and over again.

Mies Van der Rohe had a different approach when it came to proportions in design.  He was more concerned about the proportions of the space supporting the functions of the space.  Whether that function was connecting the interior and exterior spaces or the reflection of light, the proportions of the space are chosen in order to best accommodate the function desired.  My favorite example of this is the Barcelona Pavilion.  In this project, Mies Van der Rohe uses a system of planes to separate space.  The proportions of the rooms are not chosen based off of the proportions of a man as Le Corbusier did; rather Mies chose the

http://0.tqn.com/d/arthistory/1/0/Z/1/1/Mies-van-der-Rohe

-Barcelona-Pavilion-1928-29.jpg

proportions based on the desired effect he wanted in the specific space.  The image on the right shows a room from the Barcelona Pavilion where the dimensions of the space were chosen in order to best accommodate the reflection of sunlight off both the walls and water.  By choosing proportions that best suit the function, the space is able to live up to its full potential.  If Mies would have designed the space based on the human form rather than the function of the space, the reflection of sunlight would not be as strong of an affect.  This design approach allowed Mies Van der Rohe the opportunity to design spaces with any characteristic he desired.  The drawback of this approach was he lost the sense of human scale in some of his projects.  I look at the Crown Hall building, pictured below, and notice how large the space is.  The interior of this space

http://www.blueprintchicago.org/2010/06/24/crown-hall/

does not reflect the scale of a human at all.  A person is less significant to the design than the desired connection with the exterior space is. 

As I mentioned before, both design approaches contain potential for success as well as limitations.  Designs based on the human form have a lot of logical sense, but I feel that Le Corbusier didn’t carry out the idea very effectively.  His rooms at Sainte Maria de La Tourette may have been based of off the space a human form wants, but the rooms look very uncomfortable to be in for too long.  Mies’ buildings appear much more aesthetic.  Some of his designs may lose the human scale, but the end result is much more effective than Le Corbusier’s.  By looking at the function of a space to design the proportions, a building is better able to serve the functional needs of the building.  This leads to a more successful building design.  I think Mies Van der Rohe’s approach is more affective in creating strong designs.  His building leave a stronger impression on those that visit them and ultimately are better designed  in my opinion.  I credit this better design on his approach of allowing the function of a space drive the proportions. 

Modern Architectural Movements and Materiality

The development I want to trace through the emergence of modern architecture is materials.  The advancement in technologies and new materials led to new abilities to create larger spans and different forms.  Different materials led to varying characteristics between styles, resulting in a strong contrast between 1880 and 1930.  The difference is design comparing before and after steel was easily accessible is amazing to study.  Within these modern architecture movements, materiality is one of the main contributors to change.

Beginning in the Arts and Crafts movement, wood was dominant. Everything was detailed in decorated hand crafted wood.  The ideology behind the Arts and Crafts movement did not allow for the advancement and use of new technologies.  The acceptance of industrialization being evil prevented this movement from carrying into the future.  I think there are a lot of sound ideas from this movement, but its inability to adapt new technologies limits it.  If this movement carried the same concepts with the new materials, I think there would have been a lot of promise for the movement.  Imagine what hand crafted steel or concrete could look like.  It is hard to even visualize because we are so used to the machine made materials.  We know of some examples of how flexible concrete can be.  Maybe with some effort, a same methodology can be achieved with steel.  For the Arts and Crafts movement, I feel the ideology is strong but it is limited by the material strictness.

 http://www.achome.co.uk/architecture/pictures/wm1.jpg

The thought I had above about the Arts and Crafts movement can start being seen in the Art Nouveau movement.  The use of iron metal work is roughly what I was describing was missing from the Arts and Crafts movement.  By accepting industrial methods of production, the Art Nouveau movement was able to create more unique shapes that could be mass produced.  This allowed the iron forms to be used more frequently during the time period.  Back to my idea of the materials being what created new architectural movements; I believe the characteristics of metal are what defined this movement.  The ability to create thin, flowing, and nature inspired forms allowed the characteristics of the Art Nouveau movement to be shown.  This movement would not have been the same using wood or concrete.  I believe the movement was brought about and accepted due to the characteristics of the metal used.

http://urban.csuohio.edu/~sanda/pic/travel/belgium/brussels/brus01/an/horta/907brushorta901.jpg

The Amsterdam Expressionism movement was also based around a material.  The strongest characteristic of this movement is the way it used brick in a fluid or plastic way.  This façade method characterized the entire movement.  Again, like the other movements already discussed, this characteristic only works with brick.  The modularity of brick allows for infinite number of small changes creating a large effect on the façade.  Other materials at the time would not allow for the plasticity that brick provided.  Thus again, the materials used defined the characteristics of a movement.

http://www.iamsterdam.com/~/media/Oud/Amsterdam_School.jpg?mw=510&crop=1

The next movement that falls into my idea of materials defining movements is the Bauhaus movement.  This movement was all about transparency, clean and simple forms, and structure being expressed.  These characteristics are all accomplished with the use of steel and glass.  Transparency can be created with the less massive steel structure with glass fitting between the columns.  Simple forms are created with the grid work needed to make steel structure most successful.  Steel structure is also one of the easiest structures to architecturally express within the design.  No other material has all of these characteristics the way steel does.

http://classconnection.s3.amazonaws.com/80/flashcards/1506080/jpeg/dessau_05-0041335843454386.jpeg

From all of the examples I discussed above, I go back to my idea of movements came about because of new materials.  I don’t think materials were chosen based on the characteristics desired, but rather the other way around.  The materials chosen defined the modern architectural movements.  Movements died out once the next material was available to be used for production.  Once iron was controllable, wood was no longer as desirable due to the forms iron could make.  When brick was able to be used to make these plastic forms, iron was no longer as useful or special so architecture went to the plastic brick.  The same is true for once steel was understood and available.  No one needed plastic brick forms once steel forms were available.  This method of advancement from one movement to the next makes me believe material choice is the main decider in the characteristics and ideology behind that movement.

This makes me wonder what the next movement might be.  What material can come around that can trump what steel currently does for us.  Maybe it is a new use of steel.  We discussed in class the use of digital fabrication.  This allows for all sorts of new materials to be created to serve basics functions called for by digitally fabricated forms.  

Antoni Gaudi

Antoni Gaudi was an architect from the late 19^th century carrying into the 20^th century working primarily in Spain.  His architectural style varied from those that came before him mainly in the plasticity of his work.  Gaudi took traditional stone materials and used them in a new plastic way to create forms not used before with those materials.  Movement is created in his buildings by using flowing forms rather than hard, flat surfaces.

In Antoni Gaudi’s design of Park Guell many examples of using stone as a plastic element can be seen.  Benches, bridge supports, building facades, and ornamentation are all decorated stone objects in plastic forms.  Gaudi also was a firm believer in the use of color with these decorative forms.  He used color to make the ornamentation stand out and grab attention.  The use of forms and color make the park a much expressed space.  Every person who enters the park can experience it a different way. 

http://www.e-architect.co.uk/images/jpgs/barcelona/parc_guell_gaudi_6.jpg

http://www.greatbuildings.com/cgi-bin/gbi.cgi/Park_Guell.html/cid_park_guell_skm_002.html

The buildings Gaudi designed also express the new style of designing. Inspired by the arts and crafts movement, Gaudi’s buildings had an individual hand crafted feel to them.  Forms in his buildings, just as in Park Guell, used stone in a plastic way.  Facades appear to be waves of stone flowing across the building.  This can be seen in his building Casa Mila in Barcelona, Spain. 

http://www.greatbuildings.com/cgi-bin/gbi.cgi/Casa_Mila.html/cid_aj1076_b.html

These forms display Gaudi’s interest in keeping the spirit of the building alive.  This can be related back to the arts and crafts movement, specifically to Ruskin from the earlier 19^th century.  Ruskin was a strong believer in the spirit of the building as well.  His mentality kept the craftsmen as the most important aspect of the design.  To Ruskin, the beauty of a design could be found in the details of how the architecture is put together.  This definitely relates to Gaudi’s work as well.  His design process did not typically involve a floor plan until late into the project allowing him the freedom to focus on the details without restrictions.  Both of these designers had the philosophy of creating spaces that create emotion among the occupants. 

It is no surprise these two designers were so similar.  Gaudi followed Ruskin’s philosophy and just, in my opinion, improved upon it.  While Ruskin put more emphasis on ornamentation within the structure, Gaudi focused on using the structure as the ornamentation. The way in which Gaudi formed his columns, walls, and ceilings allowed the details to be expressed within the structure and building without having to  add extra ornamentation.  Ruskin differs in this area as he would add to a space leaving the structure of the building rather simple other than where people could interact with it. 

After studying both Ruskin and Gaudi, I can appreciate the groundwork Ruskin did to allow Gaudi to have the success that he did.  Antoni Gaudi’s designs are very similar to Ruskin’s designs when placed side by side as seen below.

http://bored-bored.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/antoni-gaudi-architecture-building.jpg

http://venice.umwblogs.org/files/2008/12/ruskin-41.jpg

The difference between the two comes when Gaudi takes Ruskin’s ideas to the next level by using the very detailed approach into the structure of the forms.  By using plastic forms in his designs, Gaudi separated himself from Ruskin by adding an extra element to his approach.  I don’t think Gaudi could have done this as successfully if Ruskin had not laid down the groundwork earlier in that century.  Ruskin’s philosophy on architecture must have impacted Gaudi and helped him with his designs.

In today’s world we view Gaudi’s work as iconic.  His designs are some of the most visited in the world.  I think they are so well respected because of the amount of detail involved in the designs.  The more we moved away from this style, the less attention we give to the use of structure as an expression of detail.  We don’t design thinking of what forms stones can take and how that can enhance a space when put together, but rather we design with a mentality that resonates more with Ruskin in that we decide what detail we can add to a simple structural system. 

After studying Gaudi, I think architects can take more away from his approach for the buildings of today.  Just as Gaudi applied curves to stonework, architects today could explore what forms more modern materials can take.  We could replace Gaudi’s stone with steel, concrete, or even wood structures.  Who knows what we could find if we explored the expression of a material the way Gaudi did.  Using materials in new ways is a great opportunity to discover a new style to apply to architecture and I for one plan to attempt this in my studio work.

Semper vs. Ruskin vs. Viollet-le-Duc

This first blog examines the theories and works of Ruskin, Viollet-le-Duc, and Semper.  These three men from the 19^th century each attempted to analyze architecture from their time period and earlier to determine how architecture should be approached from then on into the future.  Different methods were used by each of them to come up with their theories.  There are similarities and differences between the three great minds, which can be seen in their writings and architectural works.

            John Ruskin was a firm believer in the value of craftsmen in the field of architecture.  He valued the spirit of the building created by the people physically crafting the architecture.  The process of creation was more important than the final outcome of the building.  Ruskin was a fan of gothic architecture because of the craft that went into the gothic style.  “The Seven Lamps of Architecture” is an essay written by Ruskin outlining his principles of architecture.  The seven “lamps” are sacrifice, truth, power, beauty, life, memory, and obedience.  He felt these seven values kept architects moral in their work. 

            Viollet-le-Duc boiled architecture down to its basic components, mostly architectural forms.  He examined buildings based on features such as domes, arches, and other aspects found both in plan and section.  He studied these forms to see what type of space they created within the building.  From his studies he came to the conclusion of the building appearance needing to reflect the rational construction of the building.  He also believed the function of the building should be what dictates the style of the building.  Every visual aspect of the building should reflect some functional reason within the building.  The included image shows how Viollet-le-Duc approached using the new material.  The drawing below shows the new material being used to create a functional aspect within the space, just as his theory describes.  Viollet-le-Duc spent much of his career dealing with restoration.  His architecture theory carried into this work with the mindset of using the forms originally found in the building to enhance the restoration project.

http://www.studyblue.com/notes/note/n/lecture-4/deck/2692077

            Gottfried Semper viewed architecture in a very scientific way.  He first simplified architecture down to four main components.

            1. Hearth: social point in a building.

            2. Substructure: raise the hearth off of the ground.

            3. Roof: protect the hearth from rain and elements.

            4. Enclosure: keep wind and cold out of hearth.

The second major theory Semper came up with was an equation to explain architecture.  This equation stated the final result is equal to a formula including every aspect a building can contain including materials, culture of the area, and personal influences of the architect.  By viewing architecture in this way, Semper was able to better understand different aspects of architecture and how they work together to create a style.  An example of his work can be seen in the image below.  This image shows Semper’s support of ornamentation on buildings. 

http://www.smerus.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/111a3670.jpg

            After reflecting on the thoughts of these 19^th century thinkers, I was able to apply them to my own opinion of architecture.  Before studying these men I never gave much thought into the importance of what makes existing buildings successful.  By understanding the three methods explored in this post I am now better prepared to understand how the style of architecture is formed.  I can now apply this concept to use in my own work.