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.