A Theory of Architectural Design (original) (raw)
Related papers
A New Model for the Research of Vernacular Architecture
The goal of this study is to create a new formula for analyzing individual samples of vernacular architecture in details and to test the formula by processing the distinctive architectural samples. Therefore, the boundaries of the study include any structure within the definition of vernacular architecture; "any process of space defining without employment of a professional designer", "indigenous or so called ethnic architecture", and "architecture without architect". The formula anticipates determining both the inputs and the outputs of vernacular architectural design. Predictive inputs shaping the vernacular structure are climate, economy, and culture respectively. These are all external, intangible and somehow abstract factors for understanding the reasons behind the vernacular design. Climate is the main challenge of the architecture. However, when a vernacular structure errs the owner faces the harsh nature. Therefore, vernacular architecture reveals a very high level of performance in dealing with the climate. For example, the "igloo" on the circumpolar region is a one-of-a-kind thermal device for this unique region. Certain climates allow certain 'endemic' lifeforms and each climatic zone has a unique ecosystem or biome. And the mankind is the only one organism that spread all climatic zones. They introduced several economies according to local species, as hunting (fishing included), gathering, horticulture, husbandry, and some mixed types. For example, when hunting is the main economy in Great Plains or herding as in Siberian steppes, the architecture should be detachable and mobile-the "tent". Culture is the outcome of these local lifestyles and directly affects vernacular architecture. For example, some African tribes place the door of the "hut" towards east to welcome sun, Chinese people make placement decision according to Feng Shui, and some polygamic cultures place additional "harem" units into their residences. Predictive outputs, on the other hand, of the formula are (building) material, (building) technique, and form respectively. These, on the other hand, are the internal, tangible and concrete evidences of the structure and all obviously observable. The environment is scarcely ever genial, and the building materials are often appallingly meager in quantity or restricted in kind, in terms of vernacular architecture. These materials are mainly gained from the local economy. For example, yak fur is used for the coating of the Tibetan "black tent" where buffalo leather if for Native American "teepee". Certain materials allow certain building techniques. Even though the scarce in resources, vernacular structures still display an inspiring way of interpretation of materials. The form and the reasons behind give valuable hints for a structure. For example, the "stilt house" of Malaysia with hollow façades are obviously designed to prevent heat gain and the hemispheric shape of an igloo means that they have searched for the geometry with minimum surface/volume ratio in order not to lose heat. All six components from both input and output groups are going to be defined in detail and use of them in vernacular design, likewise in the formula concept are going to be depicted over the analyses of distinctive vernacular architecture samples as some examples mentioned above.
Archintorno is a non-profit organization of young architects based in Naples, that has been promoting initiatives of development cooperation with indigenous communities in the Mexican State of Oaxaca since 2005. These initiatives involve universities, associations, local governments, and professionals in and outside Italy and rely on a didactic format, internationally known as Design-Build Studio, that includes the direct involvement of students from the Schools of Architecture and Engineering in designing and creating buildings in the developing contexts. Our projects aim at using local materials and resources through low-cost, repeatable technologies, that are also consistent with local climate, social, and cultural context. Decisions on how to realize the projects are the result of a careful, shared analysis of lifestyles, housing culture, and local construction techniques. The cultural exchange between students and local populations is another relevant factor playing a major role in these projects. Therefore, in the context of the current debate about different approaches to architectural design in international cooperation, the experience of Archintorno is in close continuity with the local vernacular culture. This article describes the strengths and weaknesses of the proposed approach through the analysis of the three cooperation experiences of Archintorno in Mexico. The topics discussed cover forms of participation and capacity building, project impact on the local community in terms of economic, socio-cultural, as well as environmental and landscape aspects, in addition to the transposal of technological and architectural innovations and may represent a starting point for discussion within the context of the community operating in this field.
Introduction to Architectural Theory
2018
“Architecture is a thoughtful making of space” -- Louis I. Kahn If theories are a set of systems or suppositions that undergird how a certain thing operates, the theory of architecture, according to the architect Louis I. Kahn, must entail a thoughtful making of space. So, what then constitutes a “thoughtful making of space?” And a thoughtful making of space for whom? Many scholars, architects and thinkers have been trying to answer this question. The fundamental problem with answering this question lies in the nature of architecture as a “practical” rather than a theoretical discipline. What does it mean for space to be thoughtfully made – comfort, function, and aesthetics? All of these qualities are not merely architectural: Comfortable buildings can be designed by engineers who understand conventional and artificial ventilation; in a similar way, aesthetic edifices only need to be designed by those trained in the fine arts of composition and motif replication. Is there mere theory of architecture? It is an accepted norm that architects “make” things -- buildings, spaces, landscapes; yet, the difference between “simply making something” and “thoughtfully making something” is enormous. Unlike the natural sciences or mathematics, architectural can hardly be undergirded, explained, or experienced by a set of fixed ideas or suppositions. As the historian and theorist Stanford Anderson argues, architecture is “quasi-autonomous,” which may explain why any attempts to see architecture as something else often, if not always, fail. The prime example being that any architectural approaches that end, stylistically, with “-ism,” such as modernism, postmodernism, deconstructionism, to name a few. In this course, we will focus on this very quasi-autonomous quality of architecture in its capacity to “make space” thoughtfully.” In the spirit of skepticism, we will investigate the claims that (a) architectural theory exists and (b) the central elements of such claims are humans and their social relations. By oscillating between reading closely related ideas and oppositional ideas, students will be exposed to a selected range of concepts developed by philosophers, historians, and social theorists in their attempts to come to terms with what they believe to be architecture. These attempts are something we may call “architectural theory.” Chronologically, we will examine socio-cultural ideas in which architecture plays a role as either the source or the outcome. In this course, we will seek to understand architectural theory through the exploration of the economic, political, and cultural roles of architecture. Two sets of readings will be introduced for each topic: classic theoretical and philosophical writings, and writings specific to architecture.
Taking the Pulse of Bluff: Design Build Practices in Native American Communities
The School of Architecture at the University of Utah has hosted a design Build Program in Bluff, Utah for ten years. The emergence of the program at the same time as the consolidation of digital technologies in architectural schools is no coincidence. Favoring the conceptual, rather than the practical, modeling software and digital fabrication, have introduced notions of space, materiality, and locality that take little notice of the capacity of the building industry to realize them. They have drawn a wedge between the high and low design opportunities available in the marketplace; and have created graduates alienated from the dominant conditions of the material production of the built environment. Design Build Bluff, in contrast, is conceptualized around the desire to immerse students into the realities and exigencies of construction industry. It encourages a more lateral relationship between the ideas on paper and “nuts and bolts” on site. Every spring a number of graduate students move more than 300 miles away from the school of architecture and form a tightknit commune to build a small single family home for a beneficiary on the Navajo reservation near Bluff. This paper will access the successes and failures of the pedagogy of learning-by-doing as practiced at Bluff by taking a closer look at the three most interesting houses built by the students of Utah in the past ten years. It will think through Rosie Joe (2004) that put the program on the map, Sweet Caroline (2006) a playful exploration of the geometry of a Hogan, and Rabbit Ear (2013) the last completed expression of its teaching philosophy. Taking the pulse of the school’s decade long involvement with the reservation, the paper will argue that moving into its second decade, the critically acclaimed program needs to transcend the object-centric architectural education for it leads to an impossibly narrow, technocratic, and ironically, market-driven pedagogy and understanding of the role of the future architect.