Theories of Architecture 

Page 2:

Thematic Theories of Architecture

      

Thematic theories are treatises which aim at the fulfilment of one principal goal,
usually at the cost of other customary goals of building. Theories which aim at
fulfilling simultaneously several goals, perhaps allthe goals that are known, are
discussed on the page Theories of architectural synthesis.

Paradigm (=style) of architecture: Basic presentation of its theory:

Doric, Ionian and Corinthian style and
their varieties in ancient Greece and
Rome
Romanesque and Gothic styles. 
Renaissance, baroque, rococo, neo-
classical style
Large constructions: bridges and
halls. "Structuralist" styling (=which
emphasizes the structure).
l'Art Nouveau. Personal styles of
architectural geniuses: Gaudi, Le
Corbusier etc.
Functionalism.
Systems Building from prefabricated
components
Ecological architecture (energy
collectors etc)
Symbolic architecture.
Postmodernism and Deconstruction
Vitruve: De Architectura libri decem. It was mainly
documentation of earlier architectural traditions.
Medieval anonymous tradition of trade guilds has
not survived to us; minor fragments are the
following: Villard de Honnecourt and
Schmuttermayer.
Alberti: De re Aedificatoria. Serlio, Vignola,
Palladio...
Galilei: Discorsi e dimostrazioni matematiche
intorno a due nuove scienze. Hooke, Bernoulli,
Euler...
Viollet-le-Duc: Entretiens sur l'Architecture. The
book showed logical basis for new form languages
but it did not create them yet. Notice also Owen
Jones and John Ruskin.
The teaching of Gropius and Bauhaus. Adolf
Loos. Neufert (1936): Bauentwurfslehre
The lectures and exemplars given by Mies van der
Rohe and others. Habraken.
Eco-philosophy by Henryk Skolimowski was one of
the pioneering works.
Norberg-Schulz: Intentions in Architecture, Jencks... 
Robert Venturi: Complexity and Contradiction in
Architecture

Some of the theories in the table are now certainly outdated and have little interest
to a modern builder, but some contain still valid information about important goals
of building, notably on the questions of functionality, construction, economy and
ecology. The last-named, still valid theories can be seen as building-
specific branches of the general goal-specific theories which pertain to all types of
products and are listed in Paradigms Of Design Theory.

Vitruve
Marcus Vitruvius Pollio, the
author of the oldest research on
architecture which has remained
till this day, worked during the
reign of emperor August. He
wrote an extensive summary of
all the theory on construction that
had been written so far: Ten
Books on Architecture (De
architectura libri decem). He
seems to have been a learned
man, he had a thorough
knowledge of earlier Greek and
Roman writings that have now been lost. There is a list of these works in the
introduction of book VII; most of them described a temple. Two of the writings
were about proportions, and as many as nine writers spoke about the "laws of
symmetry", which in modern terminology mostly mean the systems of module
measuring.

Vitruve's book consists almost only of normative theory of design. His rules are
usually based on practical points or reasoning; sometimes he also motivates them
by saying that this has always been done, i.e., with historical tradition.

Vitruve discusses not only one theme but several practical goals of building, each
one of these in a separate chapter of the book. The treatise can be seen as a
collection of parallel thematic theories of design. Vitruve gives no method for
combining these into a synthesis, he only presents a classification (I:3:2) of all the
requirements set for buildings:

 durability (firmitas)
 practicality or "convenience" (utilitas)
 pleasantness (venustas).

This remained a model for almost all posterior research of architecture: buildings
are researched mostly as combinations of characteristics, rather than as holistic
entities. In the course of time, a particular, rather independent theory was
developed for every group of characteristics, as we will see later.

The aesthetic form rules of Vitruve influenced greatly all subsequent writers. The
are based on Greek traditions of architecture, and also on the teachings of
Pythagoras (ca. 532 BC), according to whichharmony is created by applying the
proportions of whole numbers. This was based on earlier observations of the tuned
strings of instruments and also on the proportions of the human body; and now
Vitruve wanted to apply the same proportions to architecture as well. The supreme
criterion was, however, the estimate the public gave of the work. A building was
beautiful if its appearance was pleasant, it was in accordance with good taste, and
its parts follow proportions (lat. proportio) and the "symmetry" of measures (the
unusual definition of symmetry is found in I:II:4).

The Middle Ages

Most
documents
remaining
from the
Middle Ages
have to do
with the
monastery
institution.
The convents
erected a
great number
of buildings.
However,
their archives
contain
surprisingly few descriptions of buildings or projects. There are numerous building
contracts, but usually the building is only defined by stating its size and that it shall
be made "according to the traditional model". 
On the whole, there was little interest in mundane values like the qualities of
architecture. "There's no accounting for tastes" (lat. de gustibus et coloribus non
disputandum) was the rule of thumb of Scholastics, which did not favour the
development of the theory of arts (however, you could see St. Augustine on this).
Fortunately, the libraries of the monasteries preserved at least some fragments of
the architectural theory of antiquity.

The practice of architecture was, first of all, based on

tradition dating back to antiquity, and, starting from
this tradition, both the Romanesque and the Gothic
building style developed over the centuries,
presumably with hardly any or no literary research.
The only documented presentations that have
remained till this day are the "sketchbook" by Villard
de Honnecourt from 1235 and the "Booklet on the
right way of making pinnacles" (Büchlein von der
Fialen Gerechtigkeit, picture on the right) by
Roritzer, printed in Regensburg in 1486.
When the knowledge of Latin and even literacy degraded, the importance of
traditional knowledge in building increased. Traditional knowledge was learned by
doing, in the guidance of old masters, and it was probably not written down
anywhere. But tradition could be rather binding and precise in the closed guilds of
builders. It also became rather homogenous throughout Europe because builders
apparently moved from one town to another, depending on where the building sites
were.

Since the beginning of the 13th century, craftsmen in the building trade started
forming guilds (German: Bauhütte). These guilds probably gathered a great deal of
traditional information related to construction, but it seems to have remained a
professional secret of the guilds and the masters, and they preferred not to publish
it. Even if it was written down, these notes have been lost.

Classical Theory of Forms

Renaissance brought about a new
interest in the feats of antiquity,
especially in Italy. Ancient works
of art and survived buildings
became objects of study, and a
search for writings dating back to
antiquity started.

In 1418, a copy of Vitruve was

found among the manuscripts of
the monastery of St. Gallen. The
word about the manuscript spread
fast to the circles of architects in
Italy and was soon met with
enthusiasm there.

Leon(e) Battista Alberti (1404-72) belonged to universal geniuses of Renaissance;

he was a gifted playwright, mathematician and sportsman. As the person in charge
of the constructions commanded by the Pope, he had the occasion to write one of
the greatest works of the theory of architecture:De re aedificatoria (On Building).
Most of it was completed in 1452 and printed in 1485.

Like Vitruve, Alberti

wanted his book to include
all that was needed in the
design of buildings and all
the knowledge that was
generally known and
applied at that time. But
what he emphasized most was the decoration of building exteriors which was a
usual task of architects at that time. That is because a great number of modest
medieval churches and dwellings had to be modernized in such a way that at least
their facades would be representative and fashionable. The architectural style of
imperial Rome (like the triumphal arch above) was usually preferred in these
renovations. 
To give structure and decoration to facades, Alberti developed a clever system of
classical pilasters and architraves which could be superimposed on any earlier
smooth surface. Alberti used the name "ornamentum" ('equipment', 'decoration')
for these architectural elements.
On the right, you can see an example of this "ornamentation": the church of San
Francesco in Rimini. Parts of the original, plain building are still visible, because
the commissioner, Lord of Rimini Sigismondo Malatesta, died in 1466 before the
work was finished.

For a long time, the classical system of the

"orders" (on the right) became the most
visible contents of architectural theory,
although it also emphasized the
composition of building masses and rooms
and the concepts of proportion and
harmony. The classical style is aptly called
'mannerism' in some countries.

Writers after Alberti complemented their

works with still richer illustrations, in
which the precision and glamour of
classical form details was brought to
perfection. Theory books of architecture
started resembling fashion magazines. The
purpose of the works was usually to present
the "rules of art" to designers in as easily
applicable form as possible, and the reasons
were only briefly commented on. This
purpose was often stated in the name of the
book, too. For example, the name of the
work by Sebastiano Serlio was Regole
generali di architettura, picture on the right.
 Giacomo (Jacopo) Barozzi da Vignola is
another distinguished author. In his
book Regola delle cinque ordini(1562) he
wanted to present the "concise, fast and
easily applicable rules of the five column
systems." But what Vignola was presenting
was not in fact rules but outright
standardized columns and decorations. The
basis for their measurements was the module
measurement used by Vitruve, i.e. the eighth
part of the diameter of the pillar served as a
measurement unit. A typical picture on the
left.

In the foreword, Vignola tells how he came

by these "rules of art":

"In order to be able to set up the instructions

for the Doric system, I used the Marcellus
theatre as a model because it is praised by everyone. First I measured the main
parts; but if some smaller part would not obey the [Vitruvian] proportions of
figures -- which may have been caused by the imprecision of
the stonecutter or by other occasional reasons -- I made it
follow the rule." (From Germann 116.)

Vignola based his design instructions on four things, which

were:

 the idea of Pythagoras that the proportions of small

integers meant harmony
 the proportions and other instructions provided by
Vitruve
 the example set by earlier buildings and
 general good taste, whatever that meant when interpreted
by each writer.

I quattro libri dell'architettura by Andrea Palladio (1508-80) is

the father of modern picture books of architecture. It contains
little theory but all the more pictures on buildings skilfully
designed by Palladio. They were there for even less literate
architects to copy.

It is not surprising that Italian architects took the architecture of

their Roman ancestors as their ideal. Likewise, it is natural that
French theorists were more critical. The first of them, Philibert
de l'Orme (ca. 1510-1570) proved with measurements that in the Pantheon the
Corinthian columns were dimensioned according to as many as three different
proportions. He therefore rejected the doctrine of the absolute beauty of measures
and explained that the measurements of a column depended on whether the column
was large or small in size or whether it was placed high up or downward in the
building. This meant that the actual form of the column did not alone determine its
beauty; the final impression of beauty was only created when somebody was
looking at the column. This principle which later developed into perceptive
psychology inspired de l'Orme to continue the list of ancient column models with
his own inventions (there is one example of such a column on the right).

According to the model provided by Renaissance theorists, general presentations of

the classical rules of architecture were issued especially by teachers of schools of
architecture. Works printed in France were widely read in other countries, too. The
most important of these were:

 François Nicolas Blondel: Cours d'architecture (1675)

 Claude Perrault: Ordonnance des cinq espèces de colonnes (1683)
 Jean Louis de Cordemoy: Nouveau traité de toute l'architecture (1706)
 Marc-Antoine Laugier: Essai sur l'architecture (1753)
 Jacques-François Blondel: Cours d'architecture (n.1770)
 J-N-L. Durand: Précis des leçons (1802-5)
 Julien Guadet: Eléments et théories de l'architecture (1902).

Alongside with listing classical "orders" of columns, the writers analysed other
formal characteristics of architecture, such as the balance, scale and rhythm of
building blocks, rooms and components. Requirements of usage and maintenance
were covered fairly briefly. 
Many of the theorists of architecture successfully tried out their hypotheses in the
buildings they designed. However, they knew no method for inspecting
systematically the results provided by these experiments. That is why the classical
architectural theory progressed fairly slowly and eventually failed to correspond to
the requirements of modern society.

Construction Theory
From times immemorial, available building materials and tools have determined or
at least modified building forms, as can be seen in many surviving examples of
vernacular architecture which have been created without the help of architects or
theory. Examples:

Building material: Ensuing architectural form:

Amorphic material: soft Spherical vaulted construction: the igloo, trulli (South Italy),
stone, snow nuraghi (Sardinia)
Sheets of skin or textile, and
Cone shaped tent-like constructions.
poles.
Logs of wood Box shaped construction

The era before written construction theory produced some admirable buildings. For
example in Mesopotamia a stone vault with a span of over 20m has been standing
well over two millennia and exists still today. Because its shape exactly duplicates
that of a catenary curve, we can assume that its design was based on the invention
that, whenever a catenary is turned upside down, the original stretching forces
become replaced by compression only and all sidewise forces remain absent. This
means that the shape can be copied to stone masonry which is well able to resist
pure compression but not stretching tension. It thus seems probable that the
builders used a mechanical analogous model instead of those mathematical
algorithms that we use in modern construction. The method certainly necessitated
some verbal instructions which today would merit the name "design theory" even if
it was never written down.

The semi-circular vault was known to ancient Romans, while its theory was still in
rudimentary level as Vitruve has only one sentence to say about it:

"When there are arches ... the outermost piers must be made broader than the
others, so that they may have the strength to resist when the wedges, under the
pressure of the load of the walls, begin to ... thrust out the abutments (VI:VII:4).
Not a sentence has survived to us about the theory or the models which were used
in erecting the magnificent vaults of medieval cathedrals. The treatises that survive
are of somewhat later origin: Le Théâtre de l'art de charpentier (1627) and Le
secret d'architecture découvrant fidélement les traits métriques (1642) by
Mathurin Jousse. The former deals with wooden constructions and the latter with
stone vaults. Both describe mainly traditional structures and do not yet present any
tangible theory for their design. However, as the shapes of gothic vaults often
resemble fragments of inverted catenaries, we perhaps can assume that the catenary
model (see above) was known to some architects.
In antiquity and in the Middle Ages, architects designed not only the layout and
decoration but also the construction and stability of the buildings. Architects were
also in charge of the construction work itself. From Alberti onwards, architects
tended to specialize in the "disegno" of buildings, i.e., the design of the exterior
and the layout of the buildings. Therefore, the mechanics of materials and
construction started to become a field of study of its own. The methods of creating
mathematical models and verifying them through experiments were adopted from
Francis Bacon (1561-1626) and Galileo Galilei (1564-1642). 
Galilei himself already put the method to
practice in the field of construction in his
work Discorsi e dimostrazioni
matematiche intorno a due nuove
scienze(1638, a graphic from it is on the
right). Our modern construction theory is a
fairly direct successor of the theory on the
solidity of constructions presented in it.
Unfortunately the research of constructions
was detached from the rest of architectural
theory for centuries, and even a separate
guild of engineers was created.

The name "engineer", which comes form

the Latin word ingenium = "genius" or "a
product of genius", "invention", had
already been used in the Middle Ages for
skilful architects. Now this word was adopted by Marquise de Vauban when he
founded a building department, Corps des ingénieurs, in the French army, in 1675.
In that time, it was usual for military engineers to design castles, town plans and
even churches. This new profession specializing in construction questions got
organized fairly quickly and in 1747, a special school, Ecole des Ponts et
Chaussées, was founded in Paris.

Central figures in developing the mathematical construction theory were Robert

Hooke (1635-1703), Jakob Bernoulli (1654-1705) and Leonhard Euler (1707-
1783). All of them published several books. From Euler onwards, the theory of
elasticity of structures developed side by side with mathematical theory. 
On the other hand, new
innovations of practical building
were made and published in
books, e.g.:

 Pierre
Boulet: l'Architecture
pratique (1691)
  William Halfpenny: The art of sound building (1725)
 Francis Price: The British carpenter or a treatise on carpentry (1733)
 William Pain: The Builder's companion, and Workman's general
assistant (1758)

The publication of theoretical progress and inventions started also in building

magazines in the 19th century. Thus the most important publisher of the theory of
the reinforced concrete technique used to be the journal of Francois Hennebique's
construction company, Le Béton armé.

The most consequent

applications of construction
theory are today large
edifices like bridges and
industrial halls. The shape
of any large construction
must be simple and healthy,
or else the costs skyrocket.
Examples of lofty
constructions which also are
great architecture created by
engineers are the bridges of Maillart (on the right) and many exhibition or athletics
halls. On the left, a restaurant building with a span of 30m, constructed by
Weidlinger and Salvadori.

The situation is slightly different in the design of modern office or residential

buildings. Their architecture is not as much dictated by constructional principles.
The reason is that modern building materials, notably steel and reinforced concrete,
are so strong that almost any architectural form is equally feasible. Anyway, many
architects have wanted to create distinctively structural or "constructivist" forms;
CurtSiegel (1960) presents an excellent overview of these in the
book Strukturformen der modernen Architektur which is also the source of a
couple of graphics here.

Personal Styles
Since the times of
Renaissance, all the
renowned architects
and theorists in
Europe had taken it
for granted that the
"form language" of
new buildings, i.e.,
the systems of
columns and
decorations had to be
copied from
antiquity, where they
had already been
brought to perfection.
The only thing
designers of new
buildings then had to
do was to combine
and modify these
elements in order to
fit them to the
practical
requirements and
resources of each
commissioner. 
Some sporadic
protests (e.g. the
defence of the Gothic style by Goethe: Von Deutscher Baukunst) had been heard.
But they did not affect the mainstream of design.

The first theorist who set out to create a totally new system of architectural forms
independent of antiquity was Eugène Viollet-le-Duc (1863). In his book Entretiens
sur l'architecture (lecture 1, p.29), he states that "what we call taste is but an
involuntary process of reasoning whose steps elude our observation". "Authority
has no value if its grounds are not explained" (p. 458). Given the fact that the
foundations of modern architecture cannot possibly be the same as those prevalent
in Greece 2000 years ago, Viollet-le-Duc saw as his mission to develop a new
architecture which would be based, in the same way as Descartes' philosophy, only
on facts and reasonable conclusions reached on the basis of them. Examples of his
deductions (idem):

 "A door ought to be made for the purpose of going into a building or going
out of it; the width of such door ought therefore be accommodated to the ...
number of persons who have occasion to go in or out; but however dense a
 crowd may be, the persons are always under seven feet in height; ... To
make a door five yards wide and ten high is therefore absurd."

"A column is a support, not a decoration, like a frieze or an arabesque; if

then you have no occasion for columns, I cannot understand why you
furnish your facades with them." 
"A cornice is intended to keep the water from the face of the wall: if
therefore you put a projecting cornice in an interior, I cannot but say that it
is unmeaning."
Viollet-le-Duc tried to put his
theories to practice in his own
design as well. In it, he was
carried on to bring the theoretical
logic of the constructions so far
that few people would consider
the product beautiful. On the
right, you can see a sketch of a
concert hall which would be built
of brick and cast iron elements.
On the left, there is a detail of
steel constructions in which a
striking impression of beauty has
been created by the clever design
of the indispensable diagonal
trusses. The decoration has thus
a rational foundation, as Viollet's theory dictates.

Although Viollet-le-Duc could not create a timeless architectural style himself, he

showed others the philosophical foundation and method that they could use to
develop even radically new form languages.

Owen Jones was another important writer that inspired young architects to create
new formal styles. He studied the methods of exploiting an eternal source of
architectural forms: nature and especially the forms of plants. The result of his
studies became the first design instruction on the use of ornaments originating in
nature: Grammar of Ornament (1856). One of its 37 rules (no 13) states that
"flowers or other natural objects should not be used as ornaments", instead
acceptable are "conventional representations founded upon them sufficiently
suggestive to convey the intended image to the mind, without destroying the unity
of the object they are employed to decorate." And rule 35 says that "imitations,
such as the graining of woods, and of the curious coloured marbles [are] allowable
only when the employment of the thing imitated would not have been
inconsistent."
After the Gothic style, the first architectural style independent of the tradition of
antiquity in Europe was l'Art Nouveau. Its origins included the philosophy of
Viollet-le-Duc and the rules and examples of Owen Jones but no considerable
theoretical research was done by the creators of this style. It may even be that,
because of the world war, the hegemony of "Jugendstil" became so short that
people never got as far as to do research. In art, it is often so that the works of a
new style first come about without any explicit theory, guided by the intuition, and
only after a few years do their principles become clear to such an extent that they
may be worded.

The example set by l'Art Nouveau encouraged some of the most skilful architects
of our century to create their private form languages. The first of these was Le
Corbusier, who also presented a short written foundation to his system of
proportions (based on the Golden Section) in the book Modulor (1951). Its
fundamental perceptive psychology base was presented already 1923 in the
book Vers une architecture:

"Architecture is a brilliant, orthodox and original jigsaw puzzle of masses

combined in light. Our eyes were created to see the forms in light; light and
shadow reveal the forms. Cubes, cones, balls, cylinders and pyramids are primary
shapes that light so excellently reveals; the picture they give to us is clear and
perspicuous without indecision. That is why they are beautiful forms."

Alongside with l'Art Nouveau, Le

Corbusier based his style on the
study of natural forms of plants.
Characteristic of Le Corbusier is
that buildings are understood as
giant sculptures (see e.g. the
Ronchamp chapel, on the right).

As a contrast to many other

creative talents, he also tried to
write down the theoretical
postulates that he followed in his creation, although this research was mostly done
rather subjectively, without verifying how the new doctrine or the ensuing new
forms were received by the general public of architecture. He published in 1926 a
paper Les 5 points d'une architecture nouvelle where he declared the cardinal rules
of "new architecture". They were (as explained by Kenneth Frampton, 1980, p.
157):
 1. "Pilotis" or columns elevating the
building body off the ground,
2. The free plan, achieved through
the separation of the load-bearing
columns from the walls
subdividing the space,
3. The free façade, the corollary of
free plan in the vertical plane,
4. The long horizontal sliding
window or fenêtre en longeur,
5. The roof garden, restoring,
supposedly, the area of garden
used up by the house.

Le Corbusier illustrated his "5 points"

by pairs of sketches (above) where the
traditional model was shown on the
right and the new style on the left.

The theoretical proposals of Le Corbusier, and also his sculptural buildings,

received at first much attention among Functionalist architects, but fresh theories
were soon put forward by other authors. Some of these pronounced an exactly
opposite notion: the core and crux of architecture is not the sculptural pattern, but
instead the building interiors. These can be seen as "negative solids", as voids
which the artist divides, combines, repeats and emphasizes in the same way as the
sculptor treats his "positive" lumps of substance. The most notable treatise on this
topic is Architecture as space by Bruno Zevi (1974).

The "personal styles" of architects are not necessarily based on laws of nature or on
logical reasoning. More important is that they exhibit a coherent application of an
idea which also must be so clear that the public can find it out. An advantage is
also if the style includes symbolical undertones.

Functionalism
The intended uses of new buildings have certainly influenced their architecture
long before the emergence of first architects or theories. Examples of this can be
seen in ancient vernacular buildings: 
 

Arrangement of building, 
Intended use of building:
as generated by the use:
An independent family; co-operation with
One room detached house.
neighbours is coincidental
A group of families in collective A group of sleeping rooms around a central
housekeeping kitchen/dining room
A space for people and another space for the
A family and domestic animals.
animals in close connection.

Many of these ancient tacit traditions of building became documented already in

the first treatises of architecture. The usability of buildings is one of the three
cornerstones of Vitruve's theory, and he writes tens of pages about it. From
Renaissance onwards it did not receive as much attention from researchers; most of
them just mention in one sentence this requirement. At the beginning of the 20th
century, some more extensive studies on it appeared, e.g. the following:

 Louis Sullivan (1856 - 1924): Ornament in architecture (1892)

 Otto Wagner (1841 - 1918): Moderne Architektur (1895) among others
 F.L. Wright (1869 - 1959), several short writings.

Despite the influential

slogan of Sullivan, "Form
follows function" no
coherent theory of
functionalism was created
before the 1920s when it
started to unfold in the
Bauhaus school headed by
Walter Gropius (1883-
1969). The results are well
presented in the
bookBauentwurfslehre (19
36) by Ernst Neufert who
worked as an assistant to Gropius. On the right is an illustration from it, showing
functional space needs in a hospital.

"Function" of the building meant to the first developers and supporters of the
Functionalist theory mostly the physical requirements (primarily dimensions) that
were necessary to carry out the practical corporeal activities in the
building. Psychological needs of the great public were largely ignored. When it
thus became necessary to refer, for example, to the concept of "beauty" it was
usually defined on the basis of the functionalist doctrine, for example as being
equal to good functionality or to high quality of fabrication. Gropius defined:

'Beauty' is based on the perfect mastery of all the scientific, technological and
formal prerequisites of the task ... The approach of Functionalism means to design
the objects organically on the basis of their own contemporary postulates, without
any romantic embellishment or jesting (The Bauhaus Book no. 7 pp. 4 - 7).
If a layman happened to have other ideals of beauty and he or she wanted to have
more decoration on a building, these wishes were often disregarded as "bad taste".
A manifesto by Adolf Loos (1908),Ornament and Crime, had great influence on
architects. Loos declared that people who liked ornamentation (for example, if they
wore tattooing) were either immature, primitive or even antisocial. In contrast,
cultivated people prefer unadorned, plain surfaces, he said. Accordingly,
functionalist architects avoided decoration of buildings and favored simple
geometric forms.

Functionalist architects understood how essential it is to base their design on

empirical research. Many findings of these studies are still valid and widely
applied even by those architects who have long ago abandoned the rectangular
formal language of functionalism. However, research on the psychological needs
of building users was slow to speed up, which was regretted by several of the
pioneers of Functionalism (like Sullivan, Gropius and Breuer) in their more mature
age. For example, Alvar Aalto wrote in 1940 in the journal The Technology
Review:

During the past decade, Modern architecture has been functional chiefly from the
technical point of view, with its emphasis mainly on the economic side of the
building activity... But, since architecture covers the entire field of human life, real
functional architecture must be functional mainly from the human point of view. ...
Technic is only an aid ... Functionalism is correct only if enlarged to cover even
the psychophysical field. That is the only way to humanize architecture.
(Aalto 1970, p. 15 - 16).

Systems Building from prefabricated components

In accord with the vigorous tradition of handicraft of
Bauhaus, Functionalist architects tried to respect not only the
functional requirements of the consumers but also those of the
construction industry. They soon learned that the productivity
of building was greatly improved when as many building
components as possible were produced in permanent
factories, instead of making them on the building site in
awkward places and in unpredictable weather. The economy
of mass production, in turn, advocates designing the products
so that they do not vary too much. The corollary regarding the
completed building is that it should be composed from
identical components as far as possible. At least the
components should have uniform dimensions and if there
must be variation between them it should be of a kind that
creates minimal problems for the factory.
The theoretical basis for architecture using prefabricated identical components was
largely adopted from the science of normative economics about which a
description is found elsewhere. The philosophy is very much the same as was used
in industrial conveyor belt production of cars, for example. There were even
architects who wanted to turn this into an aesthetic ideal. The new prefabrication-
oriented style of architecture propagated itself not through an explicit theory or
treatises, but instead through the medium of exemplars, bold novel designs by
innovative architects. Among these perhaps the most influential was Mies van der
Rohe, director of Bauhaus from 1930 to 33 and of the department of architecture at
the Illinois Institute of Technology from 1939 to 1959. He had designed all the
main buildings of the school and had ample opportunities to profess the philosophy
behind their architecture. His catchphrases "Less is more" and "next to nothing"
describe his attitude to surface decoration.

Most of Mies' followers were gifted with less subtle taste of detail and the
prefabricated style of building soon became known as "match-box architecture".
The design of many a suburb was largely dictated more by the radius of the crane
than by the needs of the future inhabitants.

Above it was said that several Functionalist architects wished to have more
research on the psychological needs of customers, but the work was slow to catch
on. Only lately some architects have realized that for gathering people's
preferences there are easier methods than surveying large populations and
translating the findings into theoretical standards. Particularly in the context of
systems building there is a unique possibility of inviting the future building users
to participate in design so that they select suitable prefabricated components
among the range that has been prepared by the architect. The method is discussed
under the title Collective Design, and in many countries it is already in operation in
the commercial production of one-family houses. For high-rise apartments the
method is not as common, despite of the proposals published by
N.J. Habraken (1972).

Ecological Architecture
Making a shelter from bad weather was certainly one of the earliest goals of
building, and it has also later affected the building forms. Some examples:

Climatic incentive: Ensuing architectural form:

Airtight, isolating outer skin. 
Excessive cold
In the centre a source of warmth
Large roof to give shadow; 
Excessive heat
large openings in the walls to allow ventilation
Too hot in daytime 
Thick heavy walls
and too cold during the night
In the Western countries room air
conditioning is now so common
that we have almost forgotten the
above foundations of
architecture, see
e.g.Mechanisation Takes
Command, by
Sigfried Giedion (1950). 
Nevertheless, lately the
ecological imperative has again
come to surface, the natural
resources of earth dwindling and
the people in developing countries starting to contend their share.
Henryk Skolimowski was one of the first to examine the practical conclusions
from the situation. There is not yet much literature on the principles of ecologically
sound architecture, but more is certainly in preparation. It goes without saying that
the theory of ecological architecture can be based on the findings of industrial
ecology which lately has made great progress.

The physical appearance of ecological architecture is often dominated by large

sloping panels which gather solar energy. These are placed on the roofs and along
the southern walls. As a contrast, the cool side of the building is characterized by
the absence of large openings, and the windows on this side can be covered for the
night. A diagrammatic example of such a building is seen on the right, from the
book Energiakäsikirja [Energy Handbook] (1983).

Another approach in ecological design deals with building materials and aims at
minimizing the use of not replenishable raw materials. This means preferring such
building materials as wood, stone, earth and recycled material like used boxes and
barrels, and naturally it necessitates a peculiar style of architectural design as well.

Building as a Message
The oldest notes on architectural symbolism preserved until this day were
issued by Vitruve (I,II,5). The instructions told about a suitable (lat.
proprius) style of architecture for the temple of each god. The style suited
to the temple of Mars, the god of war, was the austere Doric system,
whereas the graceful Corinthian style decorated with leafy branches
corresponded to the flexible nature of Venus, the goddess of love. On the
right, you can see a drawing from the 15th c. by Giorgio Martini reflecting
Vitruve's idea.
 Allegorical symbolism was popular in several fields
of medieval culture, but hardly any original writings
exist on how this symbolism was precisely
understood in architecture. What is known is that
some church buildings were built to symbolize either
the "vault of heaven" or "heavenly Jerusalem". In
other cases, the model was the temple of Solomon or
the liturgical calendar. The pillars of the church were
put there to symbolize the prophets and the apostles.
Proportions were sometimes considered important not
because of their beauty but because of the numeric
symbolism hidden in them.

During Renaissance, symbolism suited to church

buildings was developed further. Palladio (IV,II)
thinks circular forms are fitting for churches because
they symbolize the unity, infinity and justice of God.
Others thought that proportions and forms of the
human body were suitable for a church because, according to the Bible, the human
being had been created in an image of God. Giorgio Martini explored this idea in
the sketch on the left.

Etienne-Louis Boullée (1729-99), teacher of architecture at the Paris school of

construction engineering (Ecole des Ponts et Chaussées) presented rather original
ideas on the symbolism of building. He told his students to design "talking" (Fr.
parlant) architecture, i.e., for example, the house of a saw owner had to be
designed to resemble the blade of a saw. "Buildings should be like poems. The
impressions they create to our senses should produce analogous feelings to those
produced by the use of those buildings." (Arnheim 1977, 275).

In the 19th and 20th century, architectural theorists did not write much about
symbolism, but architectural design got a number of symbolic models of forms of
buildings, which became conventionalized. Wayne O. Attoe (1979 p. 23...31) has
written the following list of them:

 Mathematical analogies -- geometrical shapes (cone, ball etc.)- proportions

 Biological analogies -- organic shapes (shell, mushroom etc.)- vigorous
(expanding) style of construction
 Romantic architecture (which appeals to feelings)
o exotic language of form
o ancient morphology
 Linguistic analogies
o architecture = words + grammar
o expressionism and symbolism
  Mechanical analogies (a building is a machine)
 Ad-hoc analogy (a building is a combination of such material which can be
found on the site)
 Stage analogy: the building is a stage of life.

Günter Bandmann gives in the book Ikonologie der Architektur (1951, p. 60 ... 61)

the following list of typical architectural symbol-vehicles and of the methods of
their study:

 The architects' intentions of creating symbolic works are often best visible

in the first sketchy proposals for the building.
 The builder's intentions regarding symbols and signs are sometimes
explained in his letters to the architect and in his selection between
alternative proposals.
 Symbolically salient properties of buildings include:
o The physical position of the building in respect to neighbours and to
the rest of the community.
o The orientation in respect to compass bearings (especially churches,
where the entrance normally faces west).
o The decoration of the building, especially on the western and eastern
facades.
 The typical symbolic forms for various types of communities can be found
by studying extensively the historical periods and geographical areas where
these architectural forms occur. The next question is why a certain form was
so popular in certain communities.
 The phylogenetic development of a certain architectural form (i.e. its
development from a building project to the next one) can be worked out by
historical-morphological studies. In such a study it may turn out that the
form was originally motivated by factual use of the building. Eventually this
original use may have ceased and thereafter the remaining architectural form
may gradually have accumulated symbolic meaning.

Architectural signs often refer to social or political relations. An introduction to

such studies can be found in Politische Architektur in Europa vom Mittelalter bis
heute edited by Martin Warnke (1984).

Pentti Tuovinen (1985) has studied the

symbolism used in architecture. He has
presented a fairly simple method to design the
symbolism of the town. The model has been
adapted to the scale of town planning but its
principle could probably also be used in the
design of the symbolism of one single building.
Tuovinen (129...) states that expressive, that is, explicit symbolism is one aspect in
town planning. It can be defined with words and designed by an architect. In the
process of design, this verbal description is first turned into an "ideal model of the
symbolic system" and in the end, in his artistic design work, the architect once
more recodes the message into the geometric form language of the town.

Tuovinen (130) suggests that the ideal model of town symbolism be achieved in
such a way that the symbolic elements at hand are first made into a chart, see
picture on the left:

In the next phase, the combinations chosen

for the chart are made into a diagram
showing the symbolic system; part of the
example can be seen here on the right (ibid
132), the basis of the diagram is the
schematic division of the town into
quarters, into which the symbols planned
for the town are then inserted. In the end,
the structure of the symbols shown by the
diagram is transferred to the town plan, to
be eventually carried out.

Rudolf Arnheim (1977) has studied the

subconscious symbolism of the forms of
buildings. "The strongest symbols are derived from the most elementary perceptual
sensations because they are connected with such basic experiences of the human
experience which serve as a basis for everything else." (209) Arnheim found that
dynamic forms which referred to movement were the most expressive forms of
architecture, whereas if architectural forms imitate the forms of other objects too
clearly (e.g. if a church is built in the form of a fish), this is bound to disturb
dynamics and expression.

Sometimes you hear people say that consciously planned symbolism is bound to
remain trivial and that in the end, it decreases the artistic value of a work. In fact,
psychological research of art has shown that "too easy" symbolism is not valued
aesthetically; in other words, the intensity of the aesthetic pleasureproduced when
one perceives a symbolic message depends on the intellectual effort preceding the
moment of discovery.

The problem a researcher taking an interest in symbolism constantly faces is that

the capacities of individuals in the general public to interpret symbols vary a great
deal. Some symbols are "archetypal" or common to all people, but most of them
are learned in communal living, and these differ a great deal from one individual to
another. The problem is that a work of art should deviate from the expectation of
the public to some extent (otherwise it would be trivial) but not too much (then it
would be incomprehensible). In many art forms, this has meant that there are two
genres of art: "the art of the people" and "the art of critics". Another solution has
been to design the symbolism of works in such a way that it is "double coded":
certain messages are directed to the general public and others to art connoisseurs.
Works are thus made multicoded and multisensed in such a way that it allows
different personal interpretations.

Postmodernism and Deconstruction

In his bookComplexity and Contradiction in
Architecture (1966), Robert Venturi opposed to simple
"matchbox architecture". He analysed numerous esteemed
historical architectural masterpieces starting from the works of
Michelangelo and noticed that Mies' motto was
mistaken. 
It was the other way round: "Less is a bore", said
Venturi. Architects have always pursued contradictory
aims and it is this exactly tension that creates the final
enjoyable, exquisite result, Venturi explained. It would
be too trivial to follow simply and logically just one
goal, for example the clarity of construction, as did
the structural school of architecture. On the contrary,
many famous architects have wanted to show their
skill by hinting that all the rules are there to be broken.
Historical examples are the Baroque columns in the
sketches on the left and the right (from Siegel 1960 p.
9).

"I welcome the problems and exploit the uncertainties.

By embracing contradiction as well as complexity, I aim for
vitality as well as validity." "I like elements which are hybrid rather than "pure,"
compromising rather than "clean," distorted rather than "straightforward,"
ambiguous rather than "articulated," ... redundant rather than simple; inconsistent
and equivocal rather than direct and clear." ... "I am for richness of meaning rather
than clarity of meaning ... A valid architecture evokes many levels of meaning ...
its elements become readable and workable in several ways at once."

Venturi's aesthetics demands a lot of the spectator: if the spectator is to read the
message of architecture in several parallel ways, he should know the conventional
interpretations, i.e., the main points from the history of architecture, in advance.
Architecture becomes thus an art which can be fully appreciated only by other
artists and educated critics, not by laymen -- a deplorably usual case in modern art. 
If the spectator is up to his task, he has expectations of the object of art. He relates
the work to known references: to other comparable works of art and historical
styles. The "competent" observer is also able to estimate if the work obeys these
styles or if it deviates from them on purpose; and if there is such a deviation, he
knows that he is supposed to find out the purpose and the message of the deviation.
Finding this kind of clues, especially if it is not too easy, is conducive to the
feeling of "eureka" which is one of the basic factors of aesthetic pleasure.

The pleasure is still more exquisite if, in addition, the

clue is "double coded": for instance that it
simultaneously includes a boring, matter-of-fact
statement and an "ironical" hunch which tells that there
is something hidden and unusual to be found behind
the "boring" element. 
This trick has been used in music for a long time; it is
not uncommon that a juicy tango is simultaneously a
parody of all previous tangos. Theweaning effect used
by the theatre of Brecht serves the same purpose: it makes the spectator not
identify himself too trivially with the work and implies: "this is not reality, this is
art" and thus makes the spectator do some personal, aesthetic thinking. 
Venturi exemplified his ideas with a witty series of sketches called "Entrances"
(1977). One of them is on the right. Moreover, he applied his theory to numerous
new buildings and thus became the founder of the architectural style called
postmodernism.

Deliberate contradiction received some philosophical support in Jacques Derrida's

several writings between 1967 and 1972, where he points out the inevitability of
ambiguity in all human activity and especially in written texts. When applied to
architecture (cf. Broadbent's analysis of it, 1991), Derrida's ideas were taken to
mean that there is no need to aspire to consistent and harmonious general pattern
for a building. Instead, the principle of deconstruction (or 'deconstructivism')
states that it is all right if the architect lets the eventual contradictions in the
builder's goals shine through the finished design as well.

Even
when
the
briefing documents (i.e. the building programme) include no apparent
contradictions, the trendy architect may concoct artificial contrasts in his creation,
just to make it more interesting. Typical contrasting features in avant-garde
building in late 20 century were beams, detached rooms and other large building
elements positioned so that they clash or penetrate each other at odd angles,
creating an illusion of a recent collision with an aeroplane. On the right, Zaha
Hadid's proposal for "Zollhof 3" in Düsseldorf (from Broadbent 1991, 26).

Another usual trick was to manipulate the grid of construction which since
Functionalism had become a conventional instrument of design giving crystalline
structure to modern buildings. Typical for deconstructivists was to use
simultaneously two (or even more) interlocking grids which departed from each
other by a few degrees. This created at once a multitude of clashing points, each of
them then presenting to the architect a new and unique problem to be solved
ingeniously. Regrettably, the building grid itself disappears in the finished
building, and consequently most of the sophistication around it remains visible
only for connoisseurs.

Pages about architectural theory:

1. Overview of architectural theories
2. Thematic theories (this page)
3. Theories of synthesis

      

August 3, 2007. 
Comments to the author: 
 
Original location: http://www2.uiah.fi/projects/metodi

Theories of Architecture Page 3:

Theories of Architectural Synthesis

 Universal Metatheories
 Design theories for Building Types
 Procedures for Subjective Arbitration of Goals

      

In the section Thematic Theories of Architecture, we have presented a series of

theories of architectural design. Each of these thematic theories of architecture is
aimed at the fulfilment of one certain type of goal which is different in each theory.
These theories have thus little in common, and they do not give much help if the
problem is to find a resolution which fulfils several contrasting goals as far as
possible. Such a divergence between goals is an obstacle to the work of an
architect, and it is likely to complicate and slow down the design task. It would be
advantageous to remove or settle down these divergences already before the design
phase.

Could research help in the problem of conflicting goals? When each of the goals is
well accounted for in a specific theory, could we not go a step further and create a
theoretical link between these sub-theories, a meta-theory?

Such attempts have been made. No one of these has been a complete success, but
some of them are serviceable enough to be used in practical design projects.
Therefore it is motivated to give them, too, the name of "design theory". Below,
some of them are presented, grouped as follows:

 Universal Metatheories
 Design theories for Building Types
 Procedures for Subjective Arbitration of Goals

These theories of architectural synthesis do not encourage creating such unique

monuments or architectural styles as do the thematic theories, each aiming at one
goal. Instead, they can help at producing practical and useful buildings for average
people.

Universal Metatheories
Sciences can sometimes merge seemingly separated areas of knowledge into one
larger theory, as explained under the title Maturation of a New Branch of Science.
In the beginning, any field of science consists of only a few studies and the
knowledge produced by them contains just detached islands. Later, when the
number of studies grow, the researchers cannot avoid using common definitions
and recurrent methods of measurement. This creates bridges between the studies.
Eventually one of the researchers perhaps succeeds in presenting a more extensive
theory which then includes most or all of the earlier findings.

Could a similar process eventually unify some or all of the thematic theories of

architecture? One can think of several possible ways of achieving it.

One alternative would be uncovering a higher, more compelling general goal

which includes the all normal goals of building.

Indeed, during history several authors have professed having found such higher
goals. During the Middle Ages most authors agreed that there is only one goal for
all human activities: the religious salvation of man. All the arts, and among them
architecture, were supposed to serve only this purpose. See e.g. St. Augustine.

In 18C and 19C there were several philosophers who tried to explain all the human
activities on the basis of a few general laws. One of the first was Immanuel Kant.
The basic force in his system was the conscience of man, the "categorical
imperative" as he called it. Other proposals for general philosophies were made by
Hegel and Marx, among others, although no one of these "generalists" discussed
architecture in any length.

Many architects, too, felt a similar desire to clarify all the parallel goals of building
and arrange them into a system. For example, Alvar Aalto writes in 1935
(published 1970 p. 37...38):

"We shall have to analyse more characteristics of objects that we have done so
far. All the different requirements that could possibly be made with respect to the
quality of an object constitute in a sense a scale, perhaps resembling the
spectrum. Social aspects fall in the red field of the spectrum, matters concerning
construction in the orange one etc. up to the ultraviolet field that is invisible to
the human eye; all the requirements which shun any rational definition may be
hidden there, those that could be called individually human mostly. ... Taking the
psychological requirements into consideration, as soon as we can do it, will widen
the rational approach and help us to prevent inhuman results."

In 1972 Arne Nevanlinna made an attempt to deduce the goals of architecture from

the basic values of modern Western culture, which he defined as (p. 108):

 Humanism, or appreciation of man. This gives man a privileged position in

respect to other nature,
 Objective truth,
 Prosperity (which materializes as technology), and
 Balance of the whole system.

Likewise, Ilkka Niukkanen (1980, p.20) arranged the goals of building into a

logical tree:

SATISFACTION / FIT

Inputs Outputs

Costs / Resources Usefulness / Function Experience / Perception

Building costs  Spaces  Environmental factors 

Costs of use  Indoor environment and climate  Exteriors 
Decrease to output Equipment and durability Interiors
Some researchers have tried to explain human goals with the concept of need. The
"hierarchy of needs" suggested by Abraham Maslow (1954) has often served as a
model. Pertti Vuorela (1970) has tried to outline a sequence of the goals of
building. His proposal lists first the critical needs and then the other, less and less
significant needs which become important only when the first mentioned ones are
satisfied:

1. Physiological needs: Dwelling and its equipment. Shops. Health services.

Privacy. Air. Sunlight. Heating.
2. Needs of security: Traffic hazards. Police, fire guard etc. Risk of
unemployment. Communications. Absence of excessive noise. Hygienic
conditions of the area. View out of the windows. Contacts to nature.
3. Need to belong and be accepted in a group: Social values prevalent in the
area. Physical distance between dwellings. Functional distance between
dwellings. Segmentation of leisure time. The social organizations.
4. Need of self-fulfillment: Possibility to spend leisure time in the area.
Timing of free time. "Democracy" of the area.
5. Cognitive and aesthetic needs: How easy it is to find your way in the area.
Schools. Communications.

Others have tried to exploit Frederick Herzberg's findings, where the

human factors of motivation are classified into two groups: "dissatisfiers", and
"satisfiers". These are not simply opposites, but rather like sensations in the same
way as pain and pleasure. If there are strong dissatisfiers present, they are not
compensated by strong satisfiers: both must have an adequate level for the
person to be contented.

Herzberg's study did not concern building but motivation in work.

Briitta Koskiaho (1974 and 1977) has used an analogous model for the evaluation
of environments. She (1974, p. 84) declares as positivefactors e.g. the "basic
possibilities of activity" such as easy access to work, school and shops; nearness to
nature; beautiful, pleasant and stimulating environment. Negative factors are e.g.
pollution, noise and the hazards of traffic. The common resultant of all factors can
be called the human welfare. A subjective appraisal of it is satisfaction or
happiness.

Summing up, it seems that since Middle Ages no philosophical structure for the
goals of building has reached universal acceptance. The few proposals that were
made in this direction also seem to have stayed somewhat detached from the
customary ambitions of man and do not cover all the targets of the previously
discussed thematic theories of architecture let alone all the ordinary practical
targets of modern building. Some of the typical goals of building today can be
systematized through them, but not all.
Design Theories for Building Types
The preceding paragraph shows that no one has yet been able to construct an
objective synthesis of all the goals of building which would be acceptable
to all people. The reason is that people have incompatible opinions and targets for
building, and the same is true for individual building projects, if we take a total
view on all of them.

As a contrast, arbitration and endorsement of dissenting goals in

any single individual building project is seldom very difficult. In fact, it is
everyday practice for any architect, and there are well-proven methods for it
(see later on). In other words, arbitration is possible for one project, but not all of
them together.

The question now is, are there classes of buildings, or classes of people, for which
the structure of goals is homogeneous enough to allow writing contradiction-free
design theory specifically for this group?

Such classes of buildings can, indeed, be devised. Because the majority of

requirements for a new building usually pertain to the intended use of the building,
it is reasonable to select this for a basis for the classification. The usefulness of
classifying buildings on the basis of their use is further enhanced by the fact that
also the users of a given building type often belong to a definite category of
people, in other words most of the users of buildings are classified at the same
time.

Classes of buildings for which now exist substantial amounts of design theory,
include residential buildings (further divided into houses and flats), schools (of
different types), industrial and commercial buildings of various types, and several
others. In practice, many authors of design theory are explicitly or tacitly thinking
about buildings in their own countries, which means that beside the division to
building types there is sometimes an additional sub-division on the basis of
country. This sub-division is less definite and the user of the design theory can
often elect to apply it in another country.

The format of design theory for building types does not much differ from
the general pattern of design theory and includes thus following items:

 governmental regulations,
 standards,
 tools to assist design, like algorithms, advises and rules of thumb,
 exemplars, i.e. descriptions of existing meritorious buildings or their details,
 prefabricated components for buildings in the case that they are based on
research and they thus can be said to "contain" theoretical knowledge.
Standards for a building type sometimes define an entire building, like a house for
one family. More often they specify only smaller segments usable in the buildings
of the particular type, like typical bearing constructions, rooms or furniture. These
standards are usually voluntary. They can be endorsed by regular organizations for
standardization, or simply written by solitary researchers and published as guides
and handbooks bearing names like "The modern office building", "The flexible
school", "Your solar heated home".

An example of voluntary standards or recommendations for design, for one type of

buildings (residences) is A Pattern Language (1977) developed by
Christopher Alexander et al. It is based on rather extensive research both with
regard to practicality and to comfort. Alexander's "pattern language" consists of
253 design instructions although the writers cautiously state that they, too, are only
an example: each single community of people has a pattern language of its own,
and so does even each individual. On the other hand, many patterns are archetypal,
or common to all human beings.

Every pattern of Alexander

follows the same formula
which has been described on
page x of the book:

The first picture shows an

archetypal example and a list
of those other patterns that it is
related with.

This is followed by a caption

that clarifies what this pattern
is all about. For example,
Pattern no 133, Staircase as a
stage, has the following
heading:

"A staircase is not just a way of

getting from one place to
another. ... Changes of level
play a crucial role at many
moments during social
gatherings; they provide special places to sit, a place where someone can make a
graceful or dramatic entrance, a place from which to speak, a place from which to
look at other people while also being seen... The stair is one of the few places in a
building which is capable of providing for this requirement" (638).
After this, an account is given of the empirical knowledge about the pattern and the
variations of its application.

Finally, a general solution of that particular pattern is given

together with a clarifying picture. In the case of a staircase, it is
the following:

"Place the main stair in a key position, central and visible. Treat
the whole staircase as a room (or if it is outside, as a courtyard).
Arrange it so that the stair and the room are one, with the stair
coming down around one or two walls of the room. Flare out the
bottom of the stair with open windows or balustrades and with
wide steps so that the people coming down the stair become part of the action in
the room while they are on the stair, and so that people will naturally use the
stair for seats" (640).

Prefabricated components of building are often based on research and in this

case they can be said to "contain" theoretical knowledge. For example, there are
heavy concrete slabs and other structural parts where theory of stability has been
applied to produce exactly optimal bearing capacity for each type of building
(heavier components for industrial buildings, lighter ones for apartments). Once
selected, the set of structural components tells the architect how much load the
structure can bear, and the architect needs no more do the theoretical calculations
himself. The prefabricated parts become thus a substitute of theory.

Other sets of prefabricated components for buildings include the surface elements
like floorings and light walls, doors, windows, furniture elements for kitchens etc.,
most of which have been designed on the basis of research findings.

Tools for design are those advises, rules of thumb, tables, diagrams, algorithms,
checklists and other material which can be found in the handbooks of architects
and building engineers. Another, more modern way of presenting them is to
integrate these tools in the CAD programs for architects and other designers. In
this way some elementary procedures of design can even be made automatic,
which saves time.

Finally, exemplars are earlier produced meritorious buildings or their details. They

are published in professional journals and exhibitions, and they are also much used
in the education to the profession. They are still used as a complement of theory in
architecture and other artistic design professions for topics for which it is difficult
to develop more explicit doctrines, especially in questions of style and taste. They
can provide useful points of reference in various stages of product design project,
particularly when preparing a detailed product concept.
How to Make Design Theory for a Given Building Type

When developing design theory for a building type, the population to be studied is

in principle equal to the class of existing buildings of this type. This class is often
very large, and for practical reasons you may have to restrict it, for example by
defining the size, age, material, country etc. of the buildings. Moreover, it will
often be necessary to use a sample.

Another population that the study often necessitates, are the users of the building
type, a sample of which are often invited to assess alternative proposals from the
researchers, with the methods of evaluation described in Normative Analysis. Real
future users are almost never available, and you have to content yourself with the
users of existing buildings and try to evaluate the possible difference to the future
ones (cf. How to evaluate a thing in the future).

When making product-oriented design theory the object is often regarded as a

holistic entity, from which you should not extricate some of its characteristics
(variables) as is usual when making goal-oriented design theory (for usability,
beauty etc). Methodologically this means that Normative Case
Study and Normative Comparison are relatively often used, as a contrast
to Normative Study of Variables which suits better to the study of goals.

Procedures for subjective arbitration of goals

It seems to be impossible to combine the inconsistent goals of building on
a universal level. As a contrast, on the level of a single building project it is
everyday practice. On this level, the goals are estimated simply from the subjective
viewpoint of the builder. If an architect and other experts are used, even they are
supposed to adopt a matching perspective.

Because most buildings are relatively large, complicated

and expensive products, it is normal that they must fulfil
quite a number of goals and requirements. It is unusual
that a satisfactory compromise between all the goals
could be found as one operation, and the normal process
therefore consists of three or more successive phases in
which the future building takes shape, first as a list of
rooms and requirements, then as preliminary drafts and
finally as detailed drawings and specifications. Each of
these phases includes analysis of requirements, a
proposal for fulfilling them, and evaluation, and the
process thus resembles a spiral (on the right) which
repeats itself but all the time approaches the final resolution.
The methods used in arbitrating the goals and preparing the proposals can be
divided in two broad classes, depending on how much the future users of the
building participate in the design activity:

 Professional Design
 Collective Design

Arbitration of Goals in Professional Design

In professional design the architect, together with a team of engineers, prepares the
proposals without daily contact to the customers. The proposal is then evaluated at
a meeting with the customers, and the architect prepares renewed outlines until the
customers and other involved parties become satisfied with them. The principle
does not much differ from normal industrial design (see Synthesis in Product
Development: Professional Design) though the number of products is only one.

The exact procedure of building design is a little different in each country. It is

usually documented by the professional associations or by research institutions
related to these organizations.

The task of combining the goals into a synthesis is initially carried out by the
architect while he creates his proposal, and at the next meeting the customers have
the option of endorsing or rejecting it. The architect's tasks are, however, arduous
already in itself, and they should not be burdened with such extra operations that
can be done separately. It is therefore usual that as much as possible of the work of
defining and arbitrating of goals is done already before the architect begins with
the design. This initial phase of the building project is often called a feasibility
study.

Typical results of a feasibility study include:

 lists of the intended activities that are to take place in the future building;
lists of people to be accommodated; lists of the rooms or spaces for these;
positioning and connections of the spaces,
 definitions of quality level. These can relate to e.g. safety, durability,
finishing, intended life-time of the building
 time-table,
 calculation of costs.

It is not unusual that goals of quality and cost, or

other targets for the future product, are more or
less in conflict. Sometimes it is possible to
arbitrate the goals that are ostensibly conflicting
by uncovering their mutual relation. An example
of this method is finding the optimal thermal
insulation for a building. When selecting the thickness of the insulating layer, the
cost of building materials (B, in the figure on the right) and the future heating costs
(A) seem to conflict. Nevertheless, the annual values of both of these expenditures
can be added up and the minimum of the sum A+B is easily found.

The science of operations analysis includes other comparable analysis methods

like for example the algorithm of linear programming which can be used to find
the common optimum of several quantifiable attributes of a product. Most of these
methods accept only quantitative variables. Of course, it is possible to
"operationalize" any qualitative attribute and transform it into a quantitative
variable; but the conversion often overlooks some subtler aspects of the attribute
and an optimum between the goals is then never found.

When it turns out that the objectives are in real conflict, it can be useful indicate
the priority of the goals. This can be done with words or with a table which
indicates the mutual weights of goals (see Scales of weights). Altogether, the
methods have much in common with the ones of product design, see e.g. Product
Concept or Evaluating a Design Proposal.

Feasibility study can seldom point out all the conflicts between the goals of a
building project. More usual is that some conflicts become visible first when a
proposal for a building is at hand. For this reason the normal practice is to make
the proposals at least twice, i.e. as first preliminary sketches and then as detailed
drawings, but it is not uncommon to make several successive proposals until a
satisfactory one is found.

The more detailed the architect's proposal is, the more laborious is to make
changes to it. The reason is that every proposal to a building is holistic in the sense
that its parts constitute an entity, i.e. they contain innumerable mutual
relationships. When a detail is changed, you will have to change several other
things, too. Therefore modifications often take time and are expensive, especially
in the later stages of design.

Arbitration of Goals in Collective Design

In some cases it is possible to arbitrate the contrasting goals of a building project

by the method of collective, or participating design. It is of course possible only
when the users of the buildings are known already in the beginning of the design,
and it is thus particularly relevant in alterations to existing housing, or in new
building projects where the builders have already organized themselves.

The first theoretical studies and experiments of collective design were made in
large town planning projects. Their methods are characterized by the assistance of
a "technical team" -- a group of professionals that shall produce studies of
available alternatives. The technical team may be a governmental or local agency,
or a consulting firm.

Typical phases in participatory planning are:

1. Initial survey. The technical team finds basic data and develops an
understanding of the interests, needs and desires of all potentially affected
interest groups. It creates an initial statement of issues and goals. It
assembles data that will later help generating some initial, alternate project
ideas.
2. Issue analysis. In this phase, both the team and the interest groups shall
develop a clear understanding of the general goals, interests, and
problems. The technical team shall develop alternatives that may represent
widely different assumptions of the project's objectives. These help the
various interest groups to clarify their own objectives. 
The technical team shall present the evolving alternatives and their impacts
several times to the interest groups (and perhaps also to the general
public).
3. Design and negotiation. The objective of this phase is to produce
"substantial" (= not necessarily total) agreement on a single alternative. To
reach an agreement, it may be necessary to include compensating actions
that do not strictly belong to the initial project. 
In this phase, the technical team produces basically similar alternatives (to
the ones in the preceding phase) but with minor variations to help the
negotiations.
4. Ratification. The participation process normally finishes with a public
hearing, where the technical team presents the final proposal, the main
interest groups present their views, and a possible agreement can be
confirmed. 
If there is no agreement, the technical team presents its own
recommendations and its views of the advantages and disadvantages of
the alternatives. 
The final decision is then up to the legal (or commercial) authority
responsible for the project. (From: Marvin L. Manheim, in Man-made
Futures, ed. by Cross.)

The above described process is typical of town and land use planning projects
where a single decision affects the lives of a great number of people. Another
variant of joint decisions is appropriate in the smaller scale projects of product
development. They are discussed under the title Collective Design.

In the scale of buildings, a pioneer work was the concise book Toward a Scientific
Architecture (1975) by Yona Friedman. The writer states that to assist self-design,
the designer must, in advance, prepare a repertoire that shows the user all the
possible alternatives he has. Moreover, the repertory must
contain warnings pertinent to every choice, e.g. its benefits, inconveniences and
costs. But it is not up to the designer to criticize the choices of the user any more
than the waiter of a restaurant criticizes the dishes his client chooses.

"The future user encounters a repertoire of all the possible arrangements

(solutions) that his way of life may require. This repertoire, which is necessarily
limited, must be presented to him in a form he can understand. Thus, for each
item in the repertoire there is a warning. It tells the future user -- again, in terms
he will understand -- the advantages and disadvantages, in terms of use, of
picking a particular item. (The warnings ... are not based on any particular value
system, but on the intrinsic properties and the logic of the projected solution; it
may happen that the same warning can represent an advantage to one user and
an inconvenience to another...)" (p. 8).

"It is really not the architect or planner who has been eliminated from the process,
but rather his old role. He has a place, a new role, in the new system: he constructs
the repertoire" (p. 9).

Friedman emphasizes one advantage of collective planning: it changes

architecture into a self-correcting and developing science. Another benefit is that
teaching architecture also becomes more effective (seeLogic of Development)

"Architectural repertories" intended to laymen are nowadays for example the sales
brochures of factories producing prefabricated houses. One disadvantage of them is
that they are seldom based on profound research, so it is quite possible that none of
the given alternatives satisfy.

To understand and process theoretical models and plans, participants need certain
training and practice, and to make this easier, methods using a television picture
have been developed. In addition to the TV, Yona Friedman (1975B) and Nicholas
Negroponte have tried to use a computer and design algorithms programmed into
it. They use the
name architecture
machine for this
computer. Their
purpose is to
develop some sort
of "design maker"
(cf. coffee maker).

Another usual
way of collective
planning is based on collective meetings of the builders and the designers. A
common "design language" is needed so that technologically unskilled inhabitants
could describe things that they expect from the plans and so that they could to
some extent even design houses themselves. In Finland, this kind of language has
been developed by MarjaGranlund (1981) and especially by
Heikki Kukkonen (1984). In the method proposed by Kukkonen, the common
language of design meetings consisted of two systems of miniature models:

 miniature model system in the scale 1:100; this was used to place the
buildings on the plot (picture on the left)
 miniature model system 1:15, for the design of the interior of the dwelling
(picture on the right). This scale has the additional advantage that ready
made doll house furniture could be used in it

The design
language was
completed with
a series of
instructions
concerning the
process in
which each
phase of
the self-
design process
(as Kukkonen
called it) was
described, as well as the initial information required for each phase and the
results that were expected.

In practice, Kukkonen's project produced a group of terraced houses in Helsinki.

Results of self-design are seldom published in architectural magazines, maybe
because they usually lack the inclusive perspectives and sweeping lines that are
appreciated within the profession as showing the skill and strength of the architect.
So it is not surprising that the method has been underestimated among architects so
far.

Collective planning is by no means contradictory to any of the theoretical

paradigms explained above; on the contrary, in collective planning, it is perfectly
all right to base the work on any accessible theoretical knowledge, in the same way
as architects always have done. For the benefit of collective planning, theory
provides models and formulas. Moreover, theoretical definitions of concepts
facilitate discussions between the parties involved.
A special advantage of collective planning is also the fact that the theory which is
applied does not even have to be objective or exact: in collective planning,
all kinds of human knowledge can be exploited: besides theoretical, explicit
knowledge also knowledge gained through experience, subjective values and
beliefs may be useful. Even in cases when the conjectures proposed for a basis of
design were outright erroneous, these mistakes are mostly eliminated during the
discussion. Thus the principle of self-correction, so important to the progress of
modern science, is in a way put to practice also in architectural design.

Pages about architectural theory:

1. Overview of architectural theories
2. Thematic theories
3. Theories of synthesis (this page)

      

August 3, 2007. 
Comments to the author: 
 
Original location: http://www2.uiah.fi/projects/metodi