TEXTOS

Untitled Document Page 1 of 18
ON ARCHITECTURE
THINKING WITH YOUR HANDS
(Think with your hands, construct with your head)
Once again I wonder how I might convey, clearly, that what we architects do is construct ideas: That we erect ideas under the guidance of the
laws of Gravity and Light, ideas which have been conceived with our head, with reason; that we construct ideas. And that the possibility of
constructing these ideas should exist in the origins of our thought, from their inception, and that when we construct them, they will reveal all their
truth.
Architecture is not a vain attempt towards something unattainable that when it is materialized loses most of its initial inspiration. Very much on the
contrary, if the idea is valid, the culmination of the work tends to surprise us with a final result that actually strikes us. Then –we hope!– the poetic
breath appears, that “breath of a soft breeze” that architecture sometimes attains and that is not reserved only for the gods. Every architect knows
what we are talking about. You have to have at least one foot in the air in order to walk. And in order to jump, you’ve got to have both feet in the
air, knowing that later, you’ll return to the ground –oh, Gravity!– to gain momentum to jump again.
There is a lovely image which I believe synthesizes everything I’m proposing: an expressive drawing by Jørn Utzon, the master, which shows a
person who in order to write (or draw) dips his pen into the inkwell of his open skull. Someone who writes-draws-constructs with his head, with the
ink of reason. Someone, an architect, who constructs ideas. Jørn Utzon, at his age keeping a clear and lucid head, seems to be smiling from
Mallorca. I promise to look for a similar image to express our proposition for Architecture as a thinking with one’s hands.
Alberto Campo Baeza

Madrid, September 2004
THE FOUNDATIONS OF ARCHITECTURE
Construction of the Horizontal Plane
Man has always felt a special fascination for the horizon, that line which joins or separates heaven and earth. Along with Semper and Frampton,
we would say that the horizon is the mysterious line that separates the stereotomic world, bound to the gravitationally heavy world, from the
tectonic world, bound to a weightless sky and to light. But the line of the horizon is in fact no more than the visible image of the horizontal plane of
the earth, which, though spherical, because of its enormous size is horizontal in its relation to man. Man has always sought a horizontal plane on
which to settle and establish himself: from children’s games to monuments, which like Stonehenge are an exaltation and consecration of this
setting down on the horizontal plane.As children, and without knowing who taught us, as if dictated by natural law, the boys played a game with
sticks (“pincho”) and the girls played "house". And in both cases, a clear definition of the boundaries of the territory was established. First, the
chosen ground was cleared and leveled, and then the lines defining that territory were drawn.In the boys’ game, a rectangle was drawn which was
later divided according to wherever the spike happened to be placed. Then a straight line was drawn to provide the largest surface possible. In
the girls’ game, a house was outlined in a real floor plan. And I remember how they didn't let us boys enter those so innocently dominated
grounds. I imagine children play similar games in every country and civilization.In this essay, I would like to propose a reflection on man's most
primitive architectural operation, which occurred the moment he emerged from the cave, that maternal stone womb. It is an action still bound to
earth, on which he establishes the simple artifice of the horizontal plane in the most elementary manner. And it is this question of the horizontal
plane that we are going to analyze here. Why, how, where and when.
ANCIENT HISTORY When primitive man erected the dolmens at the holy site of Stonehenge, he had already found and cleared a level,
horizontal plane on which he could then organize that well-defined space.Beyond the extraordinary beauty of each of its temples, the Acropolis of
Athens is, as the masters who visited it understood so well, a proposal for an elevated horizontal plane situated on the highest point of that
mountain of the gods. The wonderfully expressive drawings Le Corbusier, Kahn, or Schinkel made of the Acropolis reflect the clarity of its
organization. Instead of focusing on the details of the temples, they viewed the Acropolis from a distance, allowing their drawings to encompass
the entire complex and thereby endorsing the fundamental operation entailed in creating the horizontal plane at such an elevation. Beyond its
brilliant composition, Villa Rotunda speaks to us eloquently of the establishment of a horizontal plane, what the Italians call significantly the "piano
nobile", where the powerful entrance stairways leading to it emphasize this idea of the podium.
http://www.campobaeza.com/ENGLISH/_pages/_09_writings__onarchitecture_princip... 11/3/2008
WORDS SPEAK Many words come to mind when we discuss this horizontal plane on which man settles, and it is impossible not to think of their
associations with this fundamentally architectural question.To establish oneself, table (French), table (English), tabla (Spanish), tavola (Italian).
To settle, to set, to alight, to sit, settlement, rest.
Podium, platform, base, foundation, pedestal, support, table, bench, terrace, flat roof.Thanks to architecture, man settles in a place in order to rest
there. The word "mesa" in Spanish or "table" in French means table or plateau: a plane on which to carry out various functions such as reading,
eating, working; it is like a cloth or rug or carpet thrown over the ground. Manet's painting "Le dejeneur sur l'herbe" with its figures reclining around
a blanket on the ground clearly presents an instance of how man dominates space in nature. It is something we all do when we go to the country
or the beach: we throw a blanket or a towel down on the ground, instantly creating that horizontal plane which limits and defines the space we
control.And once we have established ourselves, creating a simple, defined and limited space, we have to do a bit more. We need protection from
the elements, so we conceive a roof. And because this roof is material and is heavy, we must be able to support it with a structure that afterwards
allows for the enclosure of the space with walls. Thus, because of weather and for safety, we have to protect our surroundings, determining the
limits of that controlled horizontal plane.
To cover and to protect ourselves. Two basic architectural operations: to determine and define the limits of the space both vertically and
horizontally. The limits of the earth and the sky. Isn't the horizon precisely the limit between the earth and sky?
RAFT, BOAT, DOCKWhat is the Farnsworth house if not a well-tempered space between two horizontal floating planes? Mies Van der Rohe
makes the horizontal plane of its main floor float, and by raising it to eye-level, he creates the effect of equating the horizontal plane of the house
with the horizon. Because of this height, another, intermediate platform is needed for access and to make the approach slower and more
palpable, while the steps are themselves a series of floating platforms. Our way to the enclosed horizon is essentially the same as the end result.
And once we’ve reached the main platform, we feel as though we were on a raft or a flying carpet. The calm and serenity of the space can be felt,
not only thanks to the classicism of its composition, but above all to the elevation of the horizontal plane to eye-level and the maintenance of a
perfect horizontality. In fact, Mies had to invent a special mechanism to ensure that the floor would be perfectly flat: under the travertine slabs,
there are a series of inverted gravel pyramids for drainage. Obsessed with the notion of achieving perfect horizontality, the master would not allow
even the slightest slant under foot. And what is the Villa Savoie if not a space on a sailing horizontal plane? Le Corbusier places the main floor of
the Villa Savoie at a height well above the landscape, so that it feels like the deck of a boat, higher than that of Mies, one story above the ground.
And if Mies's raft didn’t need a balustrade or handrails (I have never seen any raft, not even Gericault’s Medusa, with a handrail), Le Corbusier's
boat does need protection. Thus we could read the embrasure of that "fenêtre en longeur" as a handrail that protects the high patio, open to the
sky, on which the Villa Savoie balances in space. Thanks to the circuitous route of the ramp leading to it, the house controls our pace as well as
our views of the surrounding nature. Providing a slower approach, the ramp acts as a functional connection rather than a spatial one. And it is still
faster than Mies’s earlier plan. Both masters, convinced of their outcomes, repeated these means of access, each his own, on numerous
occasions. At the end of the ramp, we finally reach the full height of the space and the box opens itself to the sky. By creating an unbroken vista
of the heavens, Le Corbusier ultimately recognizes the need to contextualize the view by creating the panoramic window that frames the horizon.
Inside, however, the interest is patently to open up to the sky above, like the deck of a boat. And what is the Utzon House in Porto Petro -
Mallorca if not a horizontal platform carved into a cliff overlooking the sea? Having dared to see the Farnsworth House as a raft and the Villa
Savoie as a boat, I will continue the marine analogy in this case as well. By clearing a horizontal plane at the edge of the sea and placing a
collection of built elements on this platform, Utzon effectively creates a house as a dock. The focus of the entire house is on the transition
between the earth and the sea. Once inside the building, views of the sea are framed to raise the horizon to the upper third of the “picture”, thus
directing us to look at the sea. Where Le Corbusier seeks to present More Sky, Utzon, by manipulating the boundary between sea and sky, seeks
More Sea. The Danish master wrote an interesting text about the platforms on which much of his architecture is based, that is, the fundamental
consideration of the horizontal plane we are now discussing. In this instance, on placing himself on this dock over the sea, it is as though Utzon
were looking for precisely the "distance and calm" he speaks of in that text. If Mies raises the plane as if on tiptoes, and Le Corbusier detaches
still more to construct his palafitte (lake dwelling), Utzon constructs his platform, his foundation with perhaps a more primitive sense. And once his
podium is defined out of stone, stone on top of stone, he raises his temples on it, also in the Greek manner.
GRAVITY, THE REASON BEHIND THE HORIZONTAL PLANE We don’t need a medical analysis of the sense of equilibrium and the Eustachian
tube of our inner ear to know that there is a physical relationship between our bodies and the condition of horizontality. In order to be, that is to
rest, to remain, to stay, we require a horizontal floor. A slanted floor is imposed only on certain prisoners to destabilize and make them
unbalanced. In order to work and to have a place to put the tools we use, we need the horizontal plane of a table; we less young architects know
well how things would fall off the old slanted drafting board. In order to sleep, we need (with greater or lesser softness) a horizontal plane on
which to rest. I have never seen beds on slanted planes, except for clinical cases in hospitals and for the worst prisoners in the most typical
movies. In order to sit down, we also need a horizontal plane, although afterwards this seat may come to include other ergonomic details. We
could continue in this line, observing how the question of the horizontal plane is something more than just a whim in architecture.
THE CAVE AND THE CABIN When man still lived in the cave, he sought or cleared different horizontal planes in it for different functions. The
primary horizontal plane became a general public space for the fire and other fundamental activities. From there, he would look for smaller,
slightly higher planes for seating and additional, more secluded horizontal planes for sleeping. It is easy to imagine the multitude of activities and
situations which require a horizontal plane, given the demands that gravity imposes on the life of the vertical human being. In the end, it is the
search for an ever-stable plane: the permanent home.
When man leaves the cave and conceives the possibility of a living space constructed entirely by himself, which he controls even in the selection
of location, he seeks a flat place. And he levels it, making it even flatter, and he sweeps it and marks it, perhaps as other animals do, as his own.
But unlike them, he marks it with geometry. Perhaps with the circle or with the square. And immediately afterwards, he covers it, and then he
encloses it, as in the Caribbean cabin Semper identifies in his Four Elements of Architecture. In the end, it is the search for a plan that can be
repeated and moved, thus gaining the freedom of choice of location: the nomadic home.
THE STEREOTOMIC PODIUM We could imagine the horizontal plane created by carving through rock as a foundation on which Architecture is
going to be based. This continuity with the earth leads to the construction of the podium arising directly from it, as if born from it: the stereotomic
podium will always be massive, heavy and stony. Adolf Apia’s suggestive images, which Le Corbusier liked so much, may illustrate this kind of
operation effectively. Mies van der Rohe’s podiums, at the Tugendhat House in Brno or the Barcelona Pavilion, belong to this genre of the clearly
grounded, stereotomic podium. And he reinforces this idea in the way in which the stairs leading to the buildings appear to be excavated, dug into
this powerful foundation. It is interesting to observe that when Mies decides to create the horizontal plane on a stereotomic podium, he always
carves the steps into the side of the podium, making a lateral approach. Conversely, when he elevates the plane to create a floating platform, he
also uses floating planes for the steps, which make a frontal approach. He will do this again in the main entrance to his last masterpiece in Berlin,
as Palladio had done so clearly in the Villa Rotunda or in the Malcontenta: frontal stairways at the Rotunda and lateral stairs at the Malcontenta.
THE TECTONIC PODIUMWe are no longer speaking of the podium but rather of the raised platform. When this “floatability” is sought in
Architecture, the main floor, the “piano nobile” appears to be a flying carpet, or a table, the effect Mies or Le Corbusier create in some of their
most paradigmatic works. The floating platforms of the Farnsworth House (which we’ve called a raft) or the Villa Savoie (which we’ve called a
ship’s deck) are clear examples of the elevated, floating horizontal plane. Today, this is made possible with steel or reinforced concrete, but
primitive man had made it with wood in his lake dwelling. Semper’s famous Caribbean cabin is a clear example. We have reviewed certain
questions regarding the horizontal plane, which we clearly see is neither ancient nor modern, classic or avant-garde. It is a fundamental question
relating to man’s most basic condition as a physical being dependent on the law of gravity. Or, in other words, since Architecture cannot help but
work with gravity as a necessary ingredient, the question of the horizontal plane will continue to be an unavoidably fundamental issue.
MIES UP!The elevated horizontal plane is a key component in Mies van der Rohe’s floor plans in their proposal of man’s mastery over earth for
us.All of Mies’s projects start with a very clear establishment of this horizontal plane, which he created using one of two tremendously efficient
methods. The first way is by creating the plane as the upper surface of a podium, or to use Semper’s terms, the stereotomic podium. The second
way is by creating a floating plane or a tectonic platform. In both cases, Mies will always place this plane at eye–level, from the start marking the
exact position of the horizon, where the horizontal plane becomes a simple line. Here we have yet another reason to understand the importance
that Mies gives to how one reaches that level: always by steps and never by ramp, in a tremendously interesting spatial operation. On the one
hand, in the case of a stereotomic and heavy podium, he always carves the steps into the side of the podium, making a lateral approach. The
stairs leading to the Tugendhat House or the Barcelona Pavilion come from the side and are restrained by a wall, thus accentuating their
grounded nature, that they have been dug out of the stone. On the other hand, in the case of a floating platform, what we have called the tectonic
podium, he uses floating planes and a frontal approach. The steps leading to the Farnsworth House or to Crown Hall are always frontal, loose and
light as if floating in air. It is also interesting to see how in the stairs he dug out in the sides of the stereotomic podiums, Mies presents a
continuous approach, without any landings or rest stops, or with only one rest on a small landing. The point is to reach the upper level as soon as
possible. Conversely, in the floating steps placed frontally as they lead to the upper tectonic platform, Mies creates a broad intermediate platform,
and he makes us stop there, encouraging us to contemplate the transparence and continuity of the architectural temple he offers us above. The
master sets the standard very high, at eye-level, where the plane becomes a line, so as to lead us, with great pedagogical sense, into the
elevated world of his Architecture.
FROM THE CAVE TO THE HUT
On stereotomics and tectonics in architecture
THE REASON FOR THE TERMS STEREOTOMIC AND TECTONIC.

Regarding their efficacy in making architecture
I am using the terms “stereotomics” and “tectonics”, which Semper calls “categories”, because they are extraordinarily effective in helping to
understand “what” we architects do as well as “how” we do it.
They are not, therefore, abstract concepts which can be applied to architecture, like certain philosophical systems which have been used so often
in architecture in recent years in an interesting but fruitless debate.
They are eminently “architectural” terms. Understanding that part of the building wishes to belong to the earth (stereotomic) and that part
separates itself from the earth (tectonic), or recognizing that the entire building works in continuity with the earth, or on the contrary, that it
establishes only minimal contact with it, helps in the production of the new architectural organism.
In seeking to clarify and explain these terms, which I have not invented but rather have learned, I am only trying to communicate something that
has helped me in the architecture I have constructed over the past years.
In his book, Labour, Work and Architecture, Kenneth Frampton dedicates a chapter to talking about this subject in an effective way. He heads it,
of course, with the famous engraving by Father Laugier of the Primitive Hut. He reprinted the text originally published in 1990 in Architectural
Design under the expressive title, "Rappel a l'ordre, the case for the Tectonic". Professor Frampton identifies Gotrfried Semper, in his most
significant works, as the source of these terms.
In the introduction to his book he notes, “Departing from the hypothesis that as far as the relative autonomy of architecture was concerned, built
form was as much about structure and construction as it was about the creation and articulation of space, I attempted to recover the 19th century
notion of the tectonic in an effort to resist the contemporary tendency to reduce architecture to scenographic effects.”
Later Frampton clarifies: “To evaluate twentieth-century architecture in terms of CONTINUITY and INFLECTION rather than in terms of
ORIGINALITY as an end in itself […] we may return instead to the STRUCTURAL unit as the irreducible essence of architectural form.” And in the
subsequent paragraphs, he provides clear definitions of the terms stereotomic and tectonic.
“Aside from these distinctions, Semper was to divide built form into two separate material procedures: into the TECTONICS of the frame, in which
members of varying lengths are conjoined to encompass a spatial field; and the STEREOTOMICS of compressive mass that, while it may
embody space, is constructed through the piling up of identical units (the term STEREOTOMICS deriving from the Greek term for solid
STEREOS, and cutting, TOMIA). In the first case, the most common material throughout history has been wood or its textual equivalents such as
bamboo, wattle and basketwork. In the second case, one of the most common materials has been brick, or the compressive equivalent of brick
such as rock, stone or rammed earth and later, reinforced concrete. There have been significant exceptions to this division, particularly where, in
the interest of permanence, stone has been cut, dressed and erected in such a way to assume the form and function of a frame.”
“While these facts are so familiar as to hardly need repetition, we tend to be unaware of the ontological consequences of these differences; that is
to say, of the way in which framework tends towards the aerial and the dematerialization of mass, whereas the mass form is telluric, embedding
itself ever deeper into the earth. The one tends towards light and the other towards dark. These gravitational opposites, the immateriality of the
frame and the materiality of the mass, may be said to symbolize the two cosmological opposites to which they aspire: the sky and the earth.
“Despite our highly secularized techno-scientific age, these polarities still largely constitute the experiential limits of our lives. It is arguable that the
practice of architecture is impoverished to the extent that we fail to recognize these transcultural values and the way in which they are latent in all
structural form.
“Indeed these forms may serve to remind after Heidegger, that inanimate objects may also evoke "being" and that through this analogy to our own
corpus, the body of a building may be perceived as though it were literally a physique. This brings us back to Semper's privileging of the joint as
the primordial tectonic element, as the fundamental nexus around which building comes into being, that is to say, comes to be articulated as a
presence in itself.
“Semper’s emphasis on the joint implies that fundamental syntactical transition may be expressed as one passes from the stereotomic base to the
tectonic frame, and that such transitions constitute the very essence of architecture. They are the dominant constituents whereby one culture of
building differentiates itself from the next.
“There is a spiritual value residing in the ‘Thingness’ of the constructed object, so much so that the generic joint becomes a point of ontological
condensation rather than a mere connection.”
APPROXIMATIONS TO THE TERMS “STEREOTOMIC” AND “TECTONIC”

An attempt at a more precise understanding
I understand STEREOTOMIC architecture as that in which the gravitational force is transmitted continuously, in a continuous structural system, in
which the constructive continuity is complete. It is a massive, stony, weighty architecture, which settles down on the earth as if it had been born
there. It is an architecture that seeks light, that perforates its walls so that light may enter. It is the architecture of the podium, the plinth, the
stylobate. It is, in short, the architecture of the CAVE.
I understand TECTONIC architecture as that in which the gravitational force is transmitted in a syncopated manner, in a structural system of knots
and joints in which the construction is articulated. It is a bone, wood and light architecture, which sets itself on the earth as if raised on tiptoe. It is
an architecture that defends itself from the light, that has to look after and veil its open spaces to be able to control the light that pours into it. It is
the architecture of the shell, of the abacus. It is, in short, the architecture of the HUT.
Clearly, this distinction is made on the basis of a “structural” consideration of architecture. The central importance of STRUCTURE is more
apparent to me every day, as the bearer and transmitter of loads and at the same time as the shaper and organizer of architectural space.
Structure is the material answer to gravity which, as I have so often repeated, “constructs space” in the same way that light “constructs time”.
GRAVITY
G, the force of Gravity.
I will not tire of repeating that gravity “constructs space”. The definition of the load bearing structure, its establishment, is a key moment in
architectural creation. We have already seen how Frampton defends this central role of structure, of the “structural unity as the irreducible
essence of architectural form,” because it is in this sense, in the sense of gravity and structure, that the concepts of the stereotomic and the
tectonic have their clearest meaning.
In a STEREOTOMIC architecture, “gravity is transmitted in mass, in a continuous manner, in a continuous structural system in which the
constructive continuity is complete,” in which everything works, basically, on compression.
Practically all the history of architecture is made up of buildings in which this is the case. The enclosures were made with massive stone or brick
walls, and upon reaching the roof, the arches of domes and cupolas appeared as formal inventions capable of making the whole constitute a
closed space in continuity. Then, with the same materials, stone and brick, an attempt was made to lighten the artifice in order to reach greater
heights. The powerful masonries of the Romans, with their “box” or “trunk” structures such as the Basilica of Magencio or in a more sublime
manner, that of the Pantheon, gave way to the delicate “basket” structures of the Gothic works. I already noted how the main idea of the Gothic,
lightening the stone construction with ribs and vaults, was no more than the will to reach greater height to take greater light from above. It would
seem a premonition of what in the 20th century constituted one of the central points of the architectural revolution: the separation of pillars and of
enclosure, of the load bearing elements and of the skin.
In a TECTONIC architecture, “gravity is transmitted in a syncopated manner, in a structural system of knots and joints, in which the construction is
articulated,” where one ceases to work only at compression and where the “moments” appear. And thus, as the key buildings of earlier historic
architecture belong to the category we have called Stereotomic (in their stony, massive nature), another important part of more recent
architecture, in buildings made with lighter materials such as wood, belongs to the Tectonic. When permanence in time has been sought, stone
was used because of the ephemeral nature of such light materials as wood; until very recently, when steel appeared.
One of steel’s most important qualities is its combined maximum durability with its light nature, in addition to its capacity to resist the concentration
of forces that pass through it. It is this capacity to resist structural forces that architects and engineers call “moments”. Mies Van der Rohe knew
this well when he erected all of his work with a clearly tectonic character. And the master also knew how ironic it was to look for permanence by
means of tectonic elements, which are more perishable than stereotomic elements. Perhaps to confirm that what remain are Ideas, above and
beyond forms. As would occur for so many years with his destroyed Barcelona Pavilion, which nonetheless was the object of continual study for
everyone, with as great a force as that of the most indestructible Greek temples.
LIGHT
The force of levity
I have written about light so often. And I have always suggested that light in architecture “constructs time” and also that light is the material
capable of putting man in relation to architecture. Hence, my insistence that “architectura sine luce nulla architectura est”. Thus, in this sense, in
their relation to light, the concepts of the tectonic and the stereotomic acquire their clearest reading.
STEREOTOMIC architecture looks for light. It perforates its walls so that, crossed by the suns rays, it can trap light within its interior. The windows
here will be excavations in the walls in order to carry that light inside. And, until flat glass makes its appearance in large dimensions, skylights
cannot be opened in its upper level. Only the Pantheon, a place reserved for the gods, dares to open this upper space to the open sky. Patios,
then, will be the intermediary mechanisms to bring light inside buildings, always by means of windows opened in their vertical perimetrical walls.
In many Romanesque churches, the cutting out of windows in the walls and the orientation of the building itself were made on the basis of a study
of the sun’s course throughout the year, so that the exact quantity and quality of the light, as well as the moment it was going to enter each space,
were known.
And if we have pointed out how, in regard to structure, the Gothic achieves a “tour de force” in giving a stereotomic organism the air of a tectonic
one, it also does so in regard to light. Gothic architecture opens its vertical vaulting to the highest and fills them with glass to allow light to pour
into those generous spaces. The beautiful Sainte Chapelle in Paris is a clear example of what we are saying. And after all, the Baroque is
basically a brilliant exercise in this search for light.
In contrast, a Tectonic architecture, pure bone, needs to protect itself from the light that inundates it. If with steel a delicate skeleton was achieved
at the limit of minimal expression, it is the added vertical enclosure that serves as mediator between the interior space and the sunlight that now
fills it everywhere. Here comes a collation: the beautiful glass skyscraper that Mies Van der Rohe never built. Pure structure, with fine narrow
pillars that are superimposed and the freedom in the form of its unmatched floor plan. And a glassing that is a hymn to transparence and whose
reflections testify to the formal freedom that it proposes. But all of it requires an effective control of light. Which is precisely what Mies will do
afterwards in his paradigmatic Crown Hall at Chicago’s IIT: the first half, the lowest part, of its glassing will be translucent. It is this, the
TECTONIC, an architecture that defends itself from light, that to control light must veil its apertures.
MY WORKS
When I suggest the usefulness of the terms STEREOTOMIC and TECTONIC, it is because they have been truly useful for me, in generating and
later in explaining the architecture I have been making throughout these years. Thus, I have referred to them in many of my texts and drawings
from this time. And I have done the same thing in my lectures. Also, the proposals for some of the works I have designed which were not built
(Casa Merigo) and the contests not won (the Library of Alicante, the Philharmonic of Copenhagen) were based very radically on these principals.
Like Casa Gaspar, Casa Merigo turns out to be a weighty Stereotomic box made out of stone open to the sky, on which some light Tectonic
boxes of fine steel float. Similar to the DBJC house, now under construction.
The Philharmonic of Copenhagen was like a rock carved in stone, like a great quarry of open stone, a strong Stereotomic piece of stone that
contained the auditoriums to “listen” inside it and on top of which a large and light Tectonic box was erected out of transparent glass to
“contemplate” the beautiful surrounding landscape.
These may have been the projects that left me with the greatest desire to build. Or the Library of the University of Alicante, where the weighty
Stereotomic part housed the thousands of books and served as foundation for the lightweight boxes filled with sunlight, the Tectonic devices
where one could read in silence.
But most important for me have been the works built over the past years that testify to the validity of these thoughts.
What is the Casa de Blas if not a light “tectonic” cloud that rises as if on tiptoe on the “stereotomic” base of the bellowing concrete?
And what is the Caja General de Ahorros de Granada (The Granada Savings Bank) if not a large, heavy, empty box turned out on the powerful
podium as if wishing to trap light and trapping it all inside… A large stereotomic box that contains another tectonic box inside of it.
And what is the Centro BIT (Technology Center) in Mallorca, if not an ample stereotomic box in Roman stone open to the sky where the white
columns that bear the light stone slab of the tectonic organism contained within it dance their delicate dance.
And the stone offices in Almería that are no more and no less than a pure and hard stereotomic box of lumaquela stone, so radical that one must
remove the very stones from its tense façade to allow light to enter it.
And the SM offices in Madrid, that are a long tectonic box of stainless steel, like a train which has been stopped on a strong stereotomic
foundation of concrete.
I will take a moment here to take a closer look at three constructed works which I consider most representative of these operations of the
“tectonic” and the “stereotomic”: the Centro BIT in Inca-Mallorca, the Casa de Blas in Madrid and the Caja General de Ahorros de Granada.
Centro BIT (Technology Center) in Inca-Mallorca
From its genesis, the building for the Centro BIT in Inca-Mallorca was a direct consequence of the application of these concepts.
In a triangle shaped terrain and on a relatively sharp incline, everything is resolved in an operation that seeks to resolve all of the problems at
once. A podium is constructed that establishes a single principal working floor that from the entrance remains at eye level, satisfying Mies Van der
Rohe’s most basic dictums. In the back part, thanks to the strong slope, one has direct access to the service basement. As the surroundings are
hostile, strong stone walls are erected continuously from the edge of the podium, creating what we have called the ‘box open to the sky’. All in
stone. All continuous. All weighty. A true cave. A genuinely stereotomic piece.
And alighting on this stereotomic organism, a 6x6 m. frame that organizes everything that is going to be raised there: a forest of white pillars
sustaining a delicate slab of exposed reinforced concrete that flies above this structure, providing shade for those working there. Everything light.
Like a simple hut. A truly tectonic piece.
And 24 fragrant orange trees that repeat the same arrangement of the pillars, thus materializing the organization of the frame in the patio around
which the life of the building takes place. Nonetheless, it is not so important that the triangle be a right, isosceles triangle (although it is more than
interesting in terms of perspective that it be the exact half of a square). Or that the interior covering of the box be Roman travertine marble. Or that
the outside covering be of local limestone of the Mares. Or many other details. All work together to the good result of the project, but the main
thing is the materialization of the heavy below and the light above. The cave below and the hut above. The stereotomic as support for the
tectonic.
The operation is evident in the very expressive sketches and plans that were made for the contest and its subsequent development. But the
document that most clearly expresses all of the above is probably the constructive cross-section that we developed for the building project.
Casa de Blas
In the case of this house, as well, the first visit to the location was revealing. Recognizing the clear components of the operation in terms of the
concepts of the tectonic and the stereotomic was of enormous help in its conception.
On the highest point of a hill, with an incredible view towards the north of the Sierra de Madrid as a distant horizon, the creation of a horizontal
plane on which to build imposed itself. For that, a concrete box measuring 9 x 29 m. on the ground and 3 meters high was constructed. The upper
floor was the plane we sought. Inside the box, the usual functions of a house were placed, two bedrooms, two bathrooms, kitchen, living room,
dining room, a library and a gymnasium. This box was arranged with service facilities in the back and with the serviced spaces towards the front.
And a pool was dug at the western extreme of the platform.
On the upper plane, facing the open landscape, we needed protection from the sun and the rain. For that we created a large shade, measuring 6
x16 meters, with a very low covering, only 2.27 meters high, supported by 8 white pillars on the edges, as if it were a large table. And for
protection against the cold, we glassed in a rectangle under the covering 4.5 by 9 meters with carpentry-free glass to accentuate its absolute
transparence. And that’s all. That simple.
In short, we did no more than create a tectonic piece erected on a stereotomic piece. A hut was erected on top of a cave. Although we could also
talk about how the landscape remains “underlined” above so that it comes towards us as if we were floating in it. And how, in contrast, within the
cave the same landscape appears framed through the square 2x2 meter glass window, as though it moved away from us so that we could
contemplate it better.
And Granada.
This dual operation was also proposed for the Caja General de Ahorros de Granada from its conception. First, the enormous 120 x 189 m.
concrete podium capable of collecting and resolving in a single stroke the entire plot and its slope of more than 2 heights. In it we “excavated” two
gardens, the one in front with linden trees and the one in the back with orange trees. And in the center, we raised a large concrete cube, a huge
stereotomic piece in continuity with the podium on which it rests. The walls of this cube, which is really a half cube, are so thick that one can see
the depth of the “brisesoleils” with which the two façades to the south are revealed. To sustain the whole device, we placed 4 large columns
measuring 3.30 m. in diameter and 30 meters high inside, in the center. The key is in placing a delicate tectonic box of glass and alabaster within
this immense stereotomic concrete crate. It is in that delicate glass box where the offices requested of us were located. The hut within the cave.
And then, all of it inundated with light in that surprising “impluvium of light” that is the patio, the immense space that organizes the entire building.
Conclusion
I believe that over the next few years, architectural analysis by means of the categories “tectonic” and “stereotomic”, in fact a mechanism
concretizing the issues of Light and Gravity, can be enormously useful to architects both in developing their ideas as well as in erecting the works
they create.
Notes
Semper proposes these categories as the “stereotomics of the earthwork” and the “tectonics of the frame”. Following Frampton, we have
preferred to avoid redundancy and use simply “stereotomic” and “tectonic”.
During the 1989-1990 academic year, I was gastdocent at the ETH in Zurich, coinciding with Professor Frampton there, who gave his class every
Monday morning at 10. As I traveled from Madrid on Mondays, I rushed through the airports in order to arrive punctually to this class in which
Frampton explained the terms “stereotomic” and “tectonic” with a clarity I wish I had now.
Not only should Kenneth Frampton be credited here, but also Jesus Aparicio. As a Fulbright Scholar at Columbia, Professor Aparicio spoke to me
about these subjects which Frampton was extracting from his studies on Semper. The terms “stereotomic” and “tectonic” soon became familiar to
the Escuela de Arquitectura de Madrid. In the book El Muro (The Wall), originally his doctoral dissertation, Professor Aparicio not only dedicated a
large part to these issues, he made them its “leit motif”. We sometimes remarked in jest how the students, more innocent than ignorant, asked us
to explain those terms, “stereophonic” and “stereotonic”.
With similar characteristics, there is an interesting study by the architect and professor Ana María León which includes some interesting graphs
and illustrations which synthesize the material effectively and which we recommend for those interested in the subject.
Semper’s most basic texts were first translated into English in Wolfgang Herrmann’s very interesting book: Gotfried Semper, In Search of
Architecture, published by MIT Press in 1984. The version in Spanish was published as part of the book La casa de un solo muro (The One-wall
House) by Juan Miguel Hernández León, Professor at the Escuela de Arquitectura in Madrid. Herrmann’s remark about Semper’s interest in
spreading his ideas in English is curious: “He gave a talk at Marlborough House, written in English, incidentally a language he never quite
mastered.” The old German revolutionary knew well the importance of the media and of the word to spread his ideas.
Labour, Work and Architecture. Kenneth Frampton. Phaidom. London, 2002. (p. 23). This is the same text that appeared in 1990 in Architectural
Design, no.60/3/4/pp.19-25.
Clarifying to what extent a building belongs to the stereotomic or to the tectonic is of great use conceptually. Thus, the architecture of the masters
is so expressive: Isn’t so much of Mies Van der Rohe’s architecture a clear exercise of the tectonic supported on stereotomic podiums?
The English have a curious expression “gilding the lily” to express the degree to which BEAUTY is something more than the sole perfection of the
creation. The expression implies that more can be done to creation, which is only perfect. That something more could be BEAUTY. Since I
understand that LIGHT in architecture plays a clear role, acting on the perfection achieved with GRAVITY alone.
I recall here a lovely and simple drawing by Saarinen which Alejandro de la Sota, fascinated by it, drew for us on the blackboard during my first
year as an architecture student in 1966-1967. There, in those two parts of the house, one buried and the other emerging, were without being
called as such, the concepts of the stereotomic and the tectonic.
ARCHITECTURA SINE LUCE NULLA ARCHITECTURA EST
On light in Architecture
"God said: `Let there be light´. And there was light. And God saw that light was good. And he devided light from darkness. He called light day and
darkness night; and there was afternoon and moming. Day came first “Genesis”.
The first written word of God.
“I traced the form of rny transit, not with ideas nor stones, but with air and light.”
Octavio Paz: “Sons of the Air”
LIGHT IS MATTER AND MATERIAL

(On the material nature of light)
When at last an architect discovers that light is the central theme of architecture, it is then when he begins to understand something, starts to be a
real architect.
Light is not something vague, diffused, which is taken for granted because it is always there. The sun does not rise every day in vain.
Yes, light with or without corpuscular theory, is something specific, precise, continuous, a matter of fact; measurable and quantifiable matter,
wherever it might be, as physicists well know and architects seem to ignore.
Light as well as gravity is something unavoidable. Fortunately unavoidable by architects since architecture definitively moves through history
thanks to those two primitive realities, light and gravity. Architects must always take a compass and photometer (quality and quantity oflight) with
them, just as they carry a metre, level and
plumb line.
If the fight to overcome and convince gravity continues as a dialogue with it, giving rise to the best of architecture; the search for light and the
dialogue with it is what makes common dialogue reach the most sublime heights. One then discovers the necessary coincidence that light is the
only one which can truly overcome gravity.
Thus, when the architect traps the sun and the light. having it pierce the space formed by more or less weighry structures, that need to be joined
to the floor to transmit the primitive strength of gravity; light breaks the spell and makes that space to float, to levitate, to fly. Hagia Sophia, the
Pantheon or Ronchamp are tangible proofs of this portentous reality.
Light in architecture has as much materiality as stone. We think and write that the Gothics accomplished marvellous sorcery with it making it work
to its utmost possibilities to reach light, more light. Properly speaking, we might think and write that what the Gothics did was to work with light as
matter. Since they knew the sun shone in diagonally, they stretched their windows, they raised them to be able to trap those diagonal, nearly
verrical rays knowing already what would be possible nowadays. More than organizing stone to trap light we might see gothic as a desire to
organize light, rnateriallight to provide spatial tension.
We know that matrer cannot be created, or destroyed, it is transformed. That is why, instead of modern materials, we should rigorously speak of
rnaterials used in the modem sense, it brings centuries of reflection which we enjoy decanting. As always, when all is said and done, it is a
question of thought, of reason.
Thus stone, that old rock was transformed into the most modem of rnaterials in the hands of Ludwig Mies van der Rohe. Steel and sheet glass
were not bom out of nothing. These two materials which have revolutionized architecture have always been latently there. Nowadays, conception
of new ideas rnakes them able to produce this spatial miracles.
Could we then consider that the clue is found in a profound understanding of what light is as rnatter, as material, as modem rnaterial? Could we
not understand that the moment has arrived in the history of architecture, this tremendously exciting moment when we must confront light? To
grasp light; to dominate light; let there be light! and there was light. The most etemal, the most universal of rnaterials is thus erected as the central
rnaterial to build with, to create space. Thus the architect again recognizes himself as the creator, as the rnaster of the world of light.
"The splendor and brilliance of the stone that apparently seems to shine only thanks to the SUN are the first in bringing the silence of the sky and
the darkness of the night to the light of day. THE SOLID SPROUTING OF THE TEMPLE MAKES THE INVISIBLE SPACE OF AIR VISIBLE"
Martin Heidegger. "The Origin of Artistic Forms"
SINE LUCE NULLA!

(On Light being the Central theme of Architedure)
When I propose this axiom “Architectura sine luce nulla architectura est” I am saying that nothing, no architecture is possible without light. An
indispensable material would be missing.
If I were asked for three recipes to destroy architecture I would suggest covering over the central opening in the Pantheon dome, to wall up the
glass block façade on the Maison de Verre or to close the coloured openings which illuminate the La Tourette chapel.
If, to keep rain and cold from entering the Pantheon in Rome the nearly 9 metre diameter central opening that crowns it were to be covered over,
a lot of things might or rnight not happen; its skilful construction would not change; nor would its perfect composition; nor would its universal
function cease to exist; nor its context; Ancient Rome would know it (at least on the first night). The only thing is that the most wonderful trap that
human beings have ever laid out for sun light every day, to which that regal heavenly body would joyously return day after day would be
eliminated. The sun would break into tears and with it architecture, since they are some what more than just friends.
Many things would happen if the grandson of Doctor D' AIsace had walled up the façade of the La Maison de Verre for security reasons. Or they
rnight not happen. Its construction would remain untouched. It would continue to function with good electric lighting, without a problem. Paris, its
context, would not know about it, even after the first night as La Maison de Verre is a private scarcely accessible place. AIl that would happen is,
that it would destroy the most wonderful container of clear and diffused light, which achieved its splendour thanks to that subtle and precious
glass block mechanism, without allowing to see or being seen, allowed light to pass through after transforrning it into pure glory. Darkness would
overcome it, and Architecture would plunge into utter sadness.
If a new dominican monk from La Tourette in search of greater concentration were to cover up the few cracks and holes in the convent chapel
many things would happen or cease to happen. Its strong construction would not change. Its composition would remain untouched. Its sublime
functions would continue although more “concentrated” perhaps by candle light. No one in the surrounding area would know, or they would take a
long time to do so. Only the alarming stillness of the pigeons alighting there after their flight would eventually inforrn the peasants of the sacrilege
perpetrated there. The more than concenttated space would have darkened and the monks would see with surprise how that lurninous Gregorian
chant would refuse to leave their throats. The monastery and architecture with it would have penetrated dark night.
Covering the central opening in the Pantheon dome, walling up the Maison de Verre glass block façade and patching up the cracks on the La
Tourette Chapel would mean we had put an end to architecture and history with it. And the sun would not want to come out again; whatever
would it want to for? The fact is that architecture withoutlight is nothing and less than nothing.
“More light!” Goethe said, laying on his death-bed. He sent his daughter-in-law Otilia to open the windows before closing his eyes forever.
Johann Wolfgang Goethe. The last words of Gothe before his death.
LIGHT TABLE
(On acurate control of light)
Lorenzo Bernini, a light magician among alI those there are, made his own tables to measure light accurately, which were very similar to those
now used to calculate structures: meticulous and precise. That master knew that light may be measured and classified, as all matter that is
evaluated, and may be scientifically controlled.
lt was a pity that on his return from that tiring and unfruitful trip to Paris to try to make the Louvre, his young and absent-minded son Paolo should
have lost them. On the 20th of October 1665, Bernini was quite relieved to leave the City of Light which had treated hin so badly, and to his
horror, he realised he did not have his tables, which were more valuable to him than the Law itself. Searching gave no results. Chantelou, the
punctual and punctilious chronicler of that French trip left everything related to that unfortunate accident out of his detailed narration.
It is known that, many years later, Le Corbusier was able to obtain some of the key pages of that valuable manuscript in a second hand bookshop
in Paris, and that he knew how to use it cleverly. Thus he was also able to controllight with such precise precision.
However, light is more than a feeling, although it is capable of moving men's feelings and making us tremble in our innermost being.
To change the small diameter of the skylights in the bathrooms of the Alhambra making them smaller or to change the height of the horizontal
superior plane ofthat "continuum" which is Farnsworth House making it larger would be sure formulas to destroy two brilliant pieces of our Culture.
This is because continuous space, and the Farnsworth House as its paradigm, is also a matter oflight. The break in tension produced by doubling
its interior height would not be so much an error of dimension or proportion but a break with the clear and exact amount oflight, of transparency
which makes that space hase something that speaks with certainty of continuity of space, achieved with such great effort by the Modern
Movement. It took Ludwig Mies van der Rohe many long years to build such a valuable piece. To achieve that difficult continuity of continuous
space, it must be controlled, its dimensions and proportions dominated so they can be efficiendy swept by light.
“The temple, (the Pantheon), open, secret, was conceived as a solar sundial quadrant. The hours would turn in the middle of the floor which
carefully polished by greek artisans. The disk of day wouldlie there like a golden shield.”
Marguerite Yourcenar. “Hadrian 's Memories”
THE FIRE TEST

(On different types of light)
We have already talked about the seduction ofthe Maison de Verre due to light, and how dark it would be with everything else intact: construction,
composition, function, and context but without light it is nothing and less than nothing but, can you irnagine that Doctor D' Alsace's grandson, tired
of so rnany visits and thinking litde of the amount of divine light, decided to change the great glass block wall for a technological and transparent
curtain wall with the biggest and flattest sheet glass existing on the rnarket? Many things would happen this time, perhaps too many. They would
go inside, they would go into that already disterided space into all the ugliness of the Parisian courtyard in which it is immersed.
To avoid this, looking at the disastrous results, it rnight occur to him to use the Gothic windows taken out of the demolition of St. Denis church,
things would take on another tint, or rather, other colours. The invasion of angels with trumpets and biblical characters on newly painted fabrics
would keep out the view of the bare courtyard and would change the well known space into pure celestial glory of a thousand colours.
Thus this identical\y dimensioned space, with the same construction, use and context have paraded in our irnagination dark at first, very clear
later and finally gloriously coloured; three different spaces and one true space, the original.
Changing only one rnaterial, light; changing only its quantity and its quality.
The architect of the Maison de Verre. Pierre Chareau. used light as a material, knowing that it had to be given a physical definition. To say light as
well as stone is to say almost nothing, that is only the beginning. Of course most architects never leave this first period of definition, which
explains the results they achieve.
There are many kinds oflight and we shall speak about some ofthem now.
In olden days, when people needed to take light from above, they could not do it because if they rnade openings in the roof, water and wind and
cold and snow would come in. It was not a case of dying to obtain tllat light. Only the gods in thc Pantheon darcd to do it. In their honour, Hadrian
had that lofty architecturc raised. Premonitin of the achievement of vertical light.
Thus, throughout the lenght of Architecture's History light has always been horizontal, taken horizontally, piercing the vertical plane, the wall, as it
is logical. Since the sun's rays fall diagonally upon us, a great part of the history of architecture may be read as an attempt to transform horizontal
or diagonal light into light that might appear vertical. This is what was achieved in the gothic, which may not be understood as just the desire to
obtain the greatest quantities of light but, fundamentally, how to obtain the most vertical light in this diagonal matter.
In this way during the baroque period they tried to twist light with ingenious mechanisms to convert horizontally taken light into a light that would
appear, and could upon reflection sometimes be vertical light. With one more step more verticality than that obtained by the gothic. The
magnificent transparent baroque by Narciso Tomé in the beautiful Toledo cathedral is a masterfullesson of what I have expounded.
I do not know if the architects of the Alhambra's Baths were aware of the incredible wonder they were causing when they rnade openings in their
domes. Those openings were used not only to illuminate an area which might be private but also it was basically a natural opening to let out
steam from the baths. However, above alI they were, perhaps without knowing, producing the opening for the arrival of solid light which would
filter through like a knife. It is fascinating to remain in those rooms for some rime, seeing the sun light move and change, touching them. It would
be even more exciting to bathe there (we shall continue trying). Even nowadays, it is stiII possible to see, in some Turkish baths in Istanbul with
spaces of that sort, where steam in its intersection with solid light makes the rnaterial nature of this white light more palpable.
I also do not know although I irnagine that Le Corbusier, who later used so much of that solid light, was conscious when he constructed the
unequalled Ozenfant studio that what he was really constructing was a theorem about diffused light. The ingenious construction solution of a
covered small toothed saw, produced a rnaterial plane of diffused light, across a continuous translucent roof. Then, converging the angle of
various panes of glass, after the necessary meeting oflines created that amazing trihedral of diffused light about which contemporary Architecture
has not yet reflected enough. That diffused light which reaches maximum state in the so often mentioned Maison de Verre.
It is obvious to point out that solid light can only be taken in when the architecture is oriented towards the sough to be able to receive spilled light
which is later apportioned at just the right measure. It is this southem solid, dramatic, spilled light, which produces those spectacular effects
capable of taking your breath away.
In this way diffused light will nomully be taken in by orienting architecture towards the north to obtain that serence and peaceful reflected, diffused
light. Light that produces effects of calrning tranquil rest.
With these facts in rnind, we understand we can search for and utilize the various qualities offered by light depending upon its orientation in space
and time. We can, therefore, tell the difference between clear and blue moming light, when we look towards the east and between the warm
golden light of dusk when we orient ourselves towards the west, knowing that both types of light are basically horizontal.
We could in depth study concepts and nuances related to light in architecture such as transparency, back lighting, shade, darkness or lurninosity
and colour.
"And one morning, rising with the dawn, he stepped before the SUN and spoke to it thus: Oh great star! What would your happiness be if you did
not have those for whom you shine?"
Friedrich Nietzsche. "Thus Spoke Zarathustra"
WITH MANY LIGHTS AT THE SAME TIME

(On the combination of different types of light within one single space)
Just as Edison would later invent electric light Gian Lorenzo Bernini, greatest master of light invented something so simple and full of genius such
as “Luce alIa Bernina”.
Using various sources of visible light he first crea ted a homogeneous environment with diffused light, generally from the north, with which he
ilIurninated and gave light to a space. Then, after centring it geometricalIy with the forrns, - bang! - he would break in at a concrete point, hiding
the source from the eyes of the spectator, producing a cannon of solid light -Luce gettata - establishing it as the star of that space.
The contrast, counterpoint between both types of light, furiously tensing that space, produced a first rate architectonic effect. Solid light in visible
movement dancing over an invisible diffused light in calm stillness.
The same thing was done by the orientals Antemio de Tralles and Isidoro de Mileto without need for the Neapolitan universal tables. Hagia
Sophia, that great rniracle, more oflight than of dimension is in its fabulous dome. The sun throws its rays in diverging dircctions and due to their
distance from the earth, they arrive as if they were parallel. What then happens within the interior of Hagia Sophia which receives light from all its
high windows as if many suns were illuminating it? What happens when the light rays converge inside, producing incredible effects? The simple
secret is found in the exact dimension and thickness of those windows, which make reflected light have nearly as much strength as direct solid
light, and the effect is what we have described. The wise combination of both sources, of direct and indirect light is the secret formula of the
miracle.
The appropriate combination of different types of light has, knowing them, infinite possibilities in architecture. Well knew it Gian Lorenzo Bernini
and Le Corbusier even before Antemio de Tralles and Alvar Aalto. Hadrian or even Tadao Ando.
FINALE
(On how light is the theme)
Finally. is light not the substance of architecture? Is the history of architecture not the search for understanding, and dominion over light?
Is not the romanesque a dialogue between the shade of the walls and the solid light which penetrates like a knife in its interior?
Is not the gothic, light's elation inflarning those unbelievable spaces into rising flames?
Is not the baroque an alchemy of light where the wise mixture of diffused lights brakes through light, sure, capable of producing in its spaces in
describable vibrations?
Finally, is not the modern movement, after throwing down the walls, such a flooding of light we are still trying to control? Is our time not a time
when we have alI means available to finally dominate light?
Depth reflection about light and its infinite ways must be the central point in the architecture of the future. If Paxton 's intuitions and the successes
of Soane were a prelude to the discoveries of Le Corbusier and of the investigations of Tadao Ando, there is still a long and rich road to follow.
Light is the theme.
When in my work I am able to make men feel the rhythm rnarked by nature, harmonizing spaces with light, mitigating them with the passing of the
sun, then I believe it is worthwhile.
A MOMENT BEFORE THE LAST EXPLOSION
The Future of Architecture
The Future of Architecture is in Ideas
A moment after the last explosion more than half of all human beings will be dead, and the dust and the smoke of the continents in flames will
vanquish the sun’s light, and absolute darkness will reign the world again; a winter of orange rains and frozen hurricanes will switch the oceans’
time and turn back the rivers’ course, whose fish will have died of thirst in the burning waters and whose birds will not find the sky; perpetual snow
will cover the Saharan desert and the view of the Amazon will disappear from the face of the earth, destroyed by hail, as the era of rock and heart
transplants returns to its glacial infancy; the few human beings that survive the first shock, and those that had had the privilege of a safe refuge at
three in the afternoon on that sad Monday of the greatest catastrophe, only to have saved their lives to die from their memories. CREATION WILL
HAVE ENDED.
So tremendously begins Garcia Marquez’s El Cataclismo de Damocles, a very beautiful and tenderly demanding text which is always worthwhile
to reread, and each time moves one deeply.
Thus, a moment before this last explosion, and at the same moment as the explosion, an artist will be creating, an architect will enthusiastically be
building his best work, his masterpiece, with all of his soul, trying to complete Creation.
When one questions about the Future of Architecture, one can give only one answer, and it can not be any other, that the future is in Ideas. That it
is in the thoughts and the hands of the architects capable of generating these ideas and of materializing, raising, building them.
The Cataclysm, the big explosion, could destroy the earth, and with it the Forms built by man, and perhaps man himself. Yet it could never, never,
destroy IDEAS, for ideas are indestructible.
The History of Architecture, and the Future is History, is more than a history of forms, styles, it is a History of Ideas which are translated into these
known forms. And to inquire about the Future of Architecture will be a task of investigating the ideas which make possible this future and the men
capable of realizing it.
LIGHT AND GRAVITY:

THE QUID OF THE QUESTION
It is man who creates Architecture for man. Through time man and space are related, materially translated in Light and Gravity. GRAVITY builds
space and LIGHT builds time. Both the control of gravity and the dialogue with light are questions central to Architecture. The future of
Architecture depends on the possibility of a new comprehension of these two phenomenon, or better than new, a clearer and deeper
understanding.
The revolution which the new materials, glass and steel, have stimulated in these past years, has been a revolution relative to a different
comprehension and resolution of the themes of light and gravity. Both topics are fortunately inevitable in Architecture.
The fight against Gravity, to tame it and at the same time Space, will continue being the central theme of Architecture. Fortunately this battle is
ineludible and consists entirely of maintaining its control, perhaps with new techniques. If steel and reinforced concrete have made possible
contemporary architecture, we can believe, although it may be difficult, that newer technologies may appear. The question will be, simply, to
control this “G” which as children we studied in Physics. This “G” is as real as the earth itself, to which all matter tends to return, and always does.
The dialogue with light will be the other main theme. When the control of light has been the raison d’ètre of the History of Architecture, only now,
that we have greater means to control it, it seems that the majority of architects have forgotten it. The industrialized production of plate glass in
large dimensions along with steel, makes possible that old utopia of vertical light. And also makes possible the creation of horizontal spaces in
continuity with horizontal light. The Future of Architecture will improve when architects think more rigorously and act in consequence.
One then discovers a precise and precious coincidence, that light is the only truth capable of conquering and convincing gravity. And thus when
the architect employs traps for the sun, for the light, which pierces the space formed by the structures, either heavier or lighter, that need to be
connected to the ground in order to transmit the primitive force of gravity, thus breaking the spell, and allowing the space to float, to levitate, to fly.
Hagia Sofia, the Pantheon, or Ronchamp are palpable examples of this portentous reality.
MAN AND ATTAINING BEAUTY
How can we translate this relationship, this taming of gravity and light by man? The conclusion of this relationship is to attain Beauty, the
“Pulchrum.” If truth, the “Verum,” makes intellect yield, as goodness, the “Bonum,” does will, in the realm of sentiment man yields to Beauty.
Zubiri, a twentieth-century Spanish philosopher, explains this with absolute clarity in his last writings that in their precise reference to matter, to
materials, seem to speak about Architecture.
The Future of Architecture can not be any other than what it has been, is, or will be: the creation of eternal Beauty whose most concrete and
convincing expression is perhaps Architecture. This desire for Beauty does not imply only one possible Architecture. Beauty in its multiple facets
can be molded in Architecture in many different ways, in very different forms, through diverse styles. Le Corbusier and Gaudi were
contemporaries, working on their respective masterpieces at the same time: which is the more beautiful, the Villa Savoye or the Church of the
Holy Family?
To serve the needs of man (Function), to adequately respond to the surrounding landscape (Context), to build rationally (Construction), and
accessible to all (Economy) etc.., should be qualities of Architectural creation. Given the anterior, and freely added, like a gift, Architecture must
offer man a mysterious but real “something more,” Beauty. Intelligent Beauty is the consequence of buildings which are built ideas, something
more, much more than mere construction.
To manifest to man the unknown facets of this Beauty through the taming of gravity and light, will be the central question for the future of
Architecture.
ARCHITECTURE AND RICE: TIME AND ARCHITECTURE
Architecture needs a precise amount of time to be well made; a time and a tempo, a length and a rhythm.
Rice made in five minutes always turns out a little hard, and rice that is on the stove more than half an hour turns out too soft. The cooking time
for rice is twenty minutes, no more nor less, and over a low flame after having first reached a boil. If not it will be ruined, here as in China, at
present and in the Future.
Architecture, with more serious and profound reasons than rice, also needs its time and its tempo. Time to study and analyze, to understand well
the data of the problem. Time to reflect, to arrive at a synthesis, a rigorous solution, and an adequate amount of time for its construction.
Yet, despite this being so evident, humanity has never fabricated so many and such large stupidities, so well and so solidly built. The haste of
necessity, with its vain logic, results in so many useless buildings. Overcooked in the haste of their conception as if they were doughnuts. Built in
a snap, everything goes. It is the disposable architecture of the Kleenex. These are the buildings which surround us, designed by salesmen, who
with degrees in Architecture received from who-knows-where and who-knows-how, cheapen Architecture. For them it does not matter, and they
respond to a society to which it also does not matter, a society who in its ignorance hates Architecture. Our society, whose spiritual nourishment is
soap operas and whose material nourishment is fast food. They do not know what a good rice is, so rich and so economical. Neither do they know
what poetry is, so much with so few words, nor what is Architecture, so simple; its so, so simple.
WATER CAST INTO PUDDLES

FORM: WHY AND FOR WHAT
As the poet so firmly expresses: “These forms say nothing, water cast into puddles.” Just as the words in poetry, in the eternal debate about form
and content, the forms of architecture should translate ideas. And express them firmly, with the force that only architecture has.
Thus we are surrounded, inundated in useless forms, a flood of what is called “design.” From the plans overflowing with “design” shifts, cranks,
rotations, waves, slashes, snot, etc..., emerge in plan as in section as in elevation.
And later the built reality, as if it were a bazaar; handrails, doorknobs, banisters, counters, door jambs, etc...; what can one say?
The overabundance of elements, this overwhelming array of ornament, tries to distract us with a great deal of special effects from the emptiness
of its intentions. Not even that. It is water cast into puddles.
If all of this excess design, ornament in the Loosian sense of the term, is only in reference to the superfluous, it is even worse when this occurs
employing Technology.
Architecture progresses supported by advances in Technology. Without steel or plate glass the continuity of space would never have been
possible, neither would the control of vertical light.
And these marvels of Architecture, these Copernican shifts, are only possible when Technology is the basis for illuminating new ideas: when
Technology serves as the “how,” and does not try to be the “what.” When Technology bypasses Architecture and is established as the
protagonist, it is only form. More sculpture than Architecture it is a beautiful and interesting skeleton, yet just bones and not a “living being.” These
are the new “machinisms” and “deconstructivisms” and “fracturings,” supported by solder and silicon, and adorned with bright and photogenic
plastic colors. And later with a ventriloquist’s voice they are hung with sharp theories: “repetition,” “poli-rhythm” of materials, “fractures” never
seen, or the already exhausted “deconstruction.” And the architects move happily through history hand-in-hand with Derrida or Deleuze like boy
scouts through the mountains.
Clearly these infractions by design, these outbursts of technology and furious attacks by lent voices, are no more than the useless defense of the
useless. They are mirrors to which the vain and narcissists look constantly in order to forget that they are incapable of moving on. They remain
before the mirror instead of moving through it, like Alice, or breaking it, like the stepmother of Snow-white.
Passing through it one enters, as did Alice, the land of dreams; wonderland, the wonder of Architecture. Breaking the mirror, they would learn, like
Snow-white’s stepmother, from the thousands of shards repeating thousands of times: “its not you, its Snow-white.” They would learn that
Hadrian, Bernini, and Le Corbusier continue being architects today and for the future, that their ideas and their buildings were ahead of their time,
are beyond time, and are timeless.
We have seen the themes central to the Future of Architecture: Man, Beauty, Light, and Gravity. And we have also seen some of the
demonstrable errors of our runaway century: the lack of Time, the excess of Design, and the inadequate use of Technology. We thus need to
consider who will be the people, the architects, capable of facing the Future of Architecture.
SOCIETY’S CRASS IGNORANCE: SOCIETY AND THE ARTIST
In olden days, it was the ruling class, the patrons, who commissioned works of art. They demanded that Architecture, with a capital “A,” be in their
service and for their delight, as a patent sign of their power. But logically and luckily, with the passage of the centuries, these works have become
the inheritance of all of Humanity, at the service of all.
In contrast, as if against time, today, when Society is unanimously democratic and the State representative of all, the opposite is true. Aside from
some limited exceptions, when those who commission works of art as well as, and especially, Architecture, select the artist or the architect, they
never, almost never, select the best. Its almost always the worst.
And so are our cities, dissolved. They are like museums of all imaginable horrors and whims. And why is there always such a rush to build these
damn monsters? Could it be that if someone warned this ignorant and materialistic Society that they would not be permitted to continue with their
infamous outrages? In the face of this, what can one say about the Future of Architecture?
I would like to be optimistic and remember that in this Society there exist architects, consecrated masters, and angry youth, who are willing, if they
are allowed and are given time, to right the wrong.
THE DESIRABLE HAPPY ENDING
Finally the Future of Architecture is in ideas. It is in the architects that think, in those that have ideas and are capable of building them, and
dedicate the necessary Time. Those that are capable of taming Gravity and controlling Light, and always placing Man at the center. To search for
Beauty and give it to man, and make a Society able to enjoy Culture and permit the simple wonder that is Architecture.
García Marquez states, and how well he does, that the cost of just one nuclear warhead would serve, if only for one autumnal Sunday, to perfume
with sandalwood Niagara Falls. Thus this same amount, and even much less, would serve, for all the Sundays of all the autumns, to perfume the
Architecture of the entire world. And all of the springs, winters, and summers. For the true Architecture, the built idea, is forever, making real the
lasting desire to last, with the aroma of eternity.
THE RIGHT WHITE
On the white color in Architecture
Great painters have utilised white to represent light, to materialise it. The very pure white that adds fury and sarcasm to the eyes of Goya's
figures. The dense, dull white that makes the robes of the friars of Zurbaran more real and palpable. The white, masterfully diluted in smoke by
Velazquez to make the air concrete in his scenes.
The colour white in architecture, more clearly than in painting, is something more, much more than a mere abstraction. It is a solid, secure,
effective base for the resolution of problems of light: to entrap it, to reflect it, to etch with light, to shift it. Once the light is controlled and the white
planes which shape it are illuminated, the space is controlled. What is architecture's magic if not that of the creation of this prodigious rapport
between man and space through light? But to go beyond the level of anecdote,
the use of the colour white, the right white, is the correct instrument with which to dominate the spatial mechanisms of architecture. This was the
understanding of the masters who made the history of architecture.
The best of Mies van der Rohe, of Farnsworth, is white. The most paradigmatic Le Corbusier, that of the Villa Savoye, is also white. The
Parthenon, with the aide of the
passage of time which has consacrated it, is white, as it was when Ictinus and Callicrates saw it before the application of its poor polychrome
finish.
White is the circle of divine light produced by the sun when it passes through the eye of the Pantheon running across its surfaces, vibrating within
the sublime architecture of the Emperor Adrian.
White is the touching Bernini of Sant' Andrea, the serene Terragni of the Casa del Fascio, the luminous Wright of the Guggenheim, the fascinating
Melnikov of his cylindrical house in Moscow, the natural, difficult simplicity of Utzon in the white Bagsvaerd church in Copenhagen. The colour
white is the symbol of the everlasting, of the universal in space and of the eternal in time. And time always ends up making hair, and architecture,
turn white.
White, silent like music in the face of the noisy superficialities that disturb us. Silence after all kinds of deafening cacophony. Nudity after too much
sensless ornament. Rectitude after complication. Absence after so much empty presence. White, sincere architecture which seeks to achieve
everything with almost nothing: more with less.
As Melnikov explained, speaking of his white Moscow house: "When I could do as I pleased, I begged (the architecture) to remove for once its
raiments of marble, to remove its make-up and reveal itself as it is: naked as a young, graceful goddess. And as always happens with true beauty,
it would have given up being pleasant and ingratiating".
ESSENTIALITY
“More whit less”
Manifest
I propose an ESSENTIAL Architecture of IDEA, LlGHT and SPACE. Of a built IDEA, materialized in ESSENTIAL SPACES animated by the
LlGHT.
An Architecture which has the IDEA as an origin, the LlGHT as a basic material, and in the ESSENTIAL SPACE the will to get MORE WITH
LESS.
An IDEA being called to be built, an ESSENCIAL SPACE with the capacity to translate efficiently these ideas, and the LlGHT which put the man in
relation wIth those SPACES.
IDEA
The IDEAS which give origin to the Architecture, are complex concepts. Complexity in Architecture is properly of the IDEA. An IDEA capable of
synthesizing the very specific factors which come together in the architectural fact. CONTEXT, FUNCTION, COMPOSITION and
CONSTRUCTION.
The CONTEXT bears relation to the place, to the Geography, to the History. To the “where”. The UBI.
The FUNCTION is always in the origin of Architecture with its “for what".
The COMPOSITION which organizes the SPACE with its “geometric how". With the Dimension and the Proportion. With Scale.
The CONSTRUCTION which builds the SPACE with its “physical how”. With the Frame, the Materials and the Technology. Driving the Gravity.
With Material.
The IDEA will be more correct when better answers these: where, for what, and how.
LlGHT
The LlGHT is an essential component of all possible understanding of the quality of the SPACE. Isn't the History of Architecture a History of
different understanding of the LlGHT? , of searching for the LlGHT? Adriano, Bernini, Le Corbusier! Isn't the LlGHT the only way to transform the
unbearable gravity of the materia into lightness?
The LlGHT is the basic material of Architecture. With the mysterious but, real, magical, capacity of putting the SPACE in tension for man. The
capacity of producing the INTENSITY of the SPACE, which makes it efficient for man. With the capacity of giving QUALITY to this SPACE to
emote men.
SPACE
The SPACE shaped by Ihe form, which certainly translate Ihe IDEA and which is tensed by the LlGHT, is the material, palpable, tangible result of
the Architeclure. The use of elementary forms, intents to get, in the most direct way, the SPACE which I call ESSENTIAL. And after being tensed
by the LlGHT, it is capable to be understood by the man. Rather than the elementarity of the forms, the ESSENTIALITY of those SPACES. lt is
the translation of IDEAS, with the most conceptual richness through only the precise number of elements thal will be make possible its better
understanding. Something much more profound and more positive than a mere minimalism.
In the same way that Poetry uses words. Looking for the poetic haloe in these SPACES for man. Trying to find the BEAUTY, the intelligent
Beauty.
An Inclusive Architecture in the conceptual order and Exclusive in the formal order. An Architecture which is a BUILT IDEA, which is materialized
in an ESSENTIAL SPACE, which is being brought to of the time: the EMOTION.
MORE WITH LESS!
PRECISIONS I
About ESSENTIALITY
ESSENTIAL Architecture (Not Essentialist)

is NOT MINIMALISM
ESSENTIALITY is NOT Essentia IISM

is NOT an ISM
is NOT a Minimal ISM
is ESSENTIALITY
is Precision
is something more than only a question of Form
is a BUILT IDEA
is POETIC
is MORE WITH LESS
ESSENTIAL ARCHITECTURE
is NOT cold and cruel
is NOT perfectionist and untouchable
is NOT imposing and overwhelming
is NOT only to be photographed
is CLEAN and SIMPLE
is NATURAL and OPEN
is FREE and LlBERATING
is FOR LIVING
I would like my ARCHITECTURE to be

as PRECISE as Bernini's, as luminous.
as NATURAL as Barragan's, architecture for the man.
as “DESHABILLÉ” as Le Corbusier's, as strong and powerful
not for the purpose of becoming famous
but making man happy
not only for this time but forever
notto be photographed
but to be lived
PRECISIONS II
About the perfect perfectionist work

(Praise of IMPERFECTION)
I think, like Heidegger that architectural spaces tensed up by the LlGHT are to be inhabited by the man.
I think, like Barragan, that the creation of cleaner and more free spaces, it's not the creation of hard, cold and untouchable ones. Architectural
spaces are to be inhabited (they are not freezers).
I think, like Le Corbusier, that the creating of spaces for man calls for a level of imperfection (deshabillé) which underlines the power of
architecture.
Architectural spaces should house man not expulse him. In this way the Parthenon, the Hagia Sofia, or the Pantheon have all housed man in
History (they are admirable corroded).
And even more than perfect and unpolluted houses I prefer:
The imperfect Ville Savoie by Le Corbusier

The decortinated houses by Barragan
The huddled Villa Malaparte by Libera
and
Melnikow's own defective house in Moscow
Utzon's own corroded house in Palma.
And I discover in them that the History of Architecture is the History of IDEAS, of BUILT IDEAS, of magnificent imperfect works with magnificent
LlGHT which provokes a magnificent life, Emotion in man and intelligent Beauty!
EVIL IGNORANT JUDGES
On Restaurations and Preservations in Architecture
And those judges condemned Hadrian. For daring to completely rebuild the Pantheon. History tells us that, when Agrippa's Pantheon in Rome
was destroyed by fire, Hadrian's great love of the gods, inspired him to do something more than just restore it.
He completely rebuilt it, giving it the depth, supplied by culture, which goes beyond erudition. How fortunate we are that the foolish emperor
decided to do that.
Those judges gathered, urged on by corrupt senators and advised by eminent historians and archaelogists. And they laid traps. The judges
decided that the remains, after the fire, extoned by their abettors and advisers, had been magnificent. They then
praised the beauty of the architectural corpse which the foolish Hadrian had dared to resurrect. He had erected to the gods the finest architecture
even built by man. What is more, he had used new materials.
They thought that the emperor, like his predecessors, should build basilicas to impart justice - justice for the judges. They felt affronted by the
insulting beauty of Hadrian's imposing edifice. Those judges, however, held the keys of the law in their hands. And they certainly knew how to use
them. Not to open up anything, but to prevent anyone from crossing the threshold of their all-embracing power. How adept they were at giving
their dogmatic opinion, with pedantic erudition, on all manner of things about which they knew practically nothing. But they were always clever
enough to wrap it up in the letter of the law.
Thus, everything they did was nice and legal. Altbough it was also nice and immoral. Or, what is worse, unjust, for injustice is tbe fruit of
ignorance. And so they decided to ensnare Hadrian.
The emperor, in his great wisdom, withdrew in an eloquent silence. He I sought help from the gods. And the gods, in whose honour Hadrian had
erected that most beautiful temple, decided that they had to act. Chronos, filled with divine anger, shook his hourglass so that the sands ran
unusually fast. In a flash, time had passed so quickly that, before their evil sentence could he carried out, the judges had died and passed into
oblivion.
Everyone knows that, in time, justice will always prevail despite the judges. And so the Pantheon stands there, its insulting beauty, for the glory of
the gods and the pleasure of mankind.
However, those judges, evil and ignorant as they were, have reappeared through the course of history, for evil a never seems to die.
In Cordova, their descendants were shocked to see a cathedral, built wíth new materials, on the petrified Omeya palm wood. The judges, full of
their affected orthodoxies, condemned Hernán Ruiz for daring to combine the Great Mosque with his fantastic cathedral. They might just as well
have extended their judgement to include Abd ar-Rabman I, who had erected the beautiful mosque over the Visigothic shrine of St. Vincent,
rebuilding it wíth new materials.
Then, in Granada. their descendants were dumbfounded at the sight of a Renaissance palace, built with new materials, on the site of the
lamented Alhambra. The judges. innated wíth their nationalistic conceits, condemned Pedro Machuca for daring to erect the incredible Palace of
Charles V over the Nasrid paradise of the Alhambra. Their judgement did not include the mannerist Giulio Romano, because there had not yet
been bom a Tafuri to think up the presumed Italian patemity of the renascent jewel of Granada.
And there came to pass many other things, some of them very recent, which prudence prevents us from referring to here. However, neither those
ignorant, evil judges, nor their descendants, ever came to know that time, history and justice eventually acclaimed Hadrian, Hemán Rui, and
Machuca, and all those other fine architects, who, like them, built for history, who built and are building history itself.
And the serene cathedral of Cordova proudly proclaims that, if it had not been built, the perfect preservation of the impressive Great Mosque,
which is the envy of the unrestored ruins of Medina Zahara, would not have been possible. And the exquisitely beautiful Palace of Charles V in
Granada, the most splendid renaissance jewel ever built in Spain, today appears so radiant that, Tafuri, who has now been born, is not satisfied
with the paternity of Pedro Machuca and endeavours to attribute it to Giulio Romano, the discipIe and friend of Raphael.
And each morning the sun continues to shine on the Pantheon, the pride of Rome and the entire world. Each day the celestial king walks around
inside it, in his golden mantle, to enjoy the sight of the people who come to contemplate its magnificence and splendour.
They come to admire the marvellous building, erected with new materials by Hadrian, the emperor who was condemned by the judges. Each day,
people experience there the tremendous emotion that can only be evoked by the finest of the Fine Arts: architecture.
THE HORIZON-TAL PLAN
The Foundation of Architecture

(Trevor Atwell - treacherous)
The ability of man to control his surroundings, in effect to dominate the Earth, is found in his constant reference of the existence of all things
through his own being. Taking the argument further is to say Man is able to understand the Limits of the World, the boundary between the
grounded Earth and ephemeral Heavens, as a simple line, the line of the Horizon. As an investigation of the position of Man within the world one
can understand his security when supported by a firm, stable ground from which to ponder the ends of this grounded state. By clearing and
leveling a space on the ground Man is defining for himself and those around him a bounded region over which he has control. In this argument, by
defining a region one is creating limits to the extent of the space and in a sense has created a “close horizon” at the boundary between the space
that is controlled and that which is foreign. The Acropolis is an example of an elevated horizontal plane, which affords Man the ability to control his
surroundings through the reference of the Horizon as a boundary, while providing him with a stable ground on which to sit.
Mies van der Rohe is an example of and individual who had a very clear and precise vision of these limits and went to great lengths in his
investigation of the creation of such limits. For Mies, ever element of the building was integrated into his thinking within this framework. When the
building is one which is grounded on the earth, a clearing of the land, Mies makes efforts to articulate the procession into the building by carving
the steps into the platform. Conversely, when the building is a floating plane, he creates steps which hover, never touching, a series of floating
planes for ascension into the building.
This discussion about the horizontal plan is a fundamental one, as it is the key to the establishment of a space. It is the origin of Architecture.
When the primitive man erected the sacred stones of Stonehenge, to create this monument, he first had to clear a level plane, and to establish a
horizontal plan that would order their arrangement. Additionally, the Acropolis in Athens, more than the sublime beauty of its individual temples, is
a proposal of an elevated horizontal plan, at the highest point of that divine mountain. The clarity of its organization shows very obviously in the
way the masters drew it when they went to visit. Le Corbusier, Louis Kahn, and Karl Friedrich Schinkel, instead of focusing on the individual
temples, or the details ornamenting the various structures, all viewed the Acropolis from a distance, allowing their drawings of it to encompass the
entire complex, to take in the general view, underlining the basic operation of the creation of the horizontal plan at the highest point of the city.
Additionally, Villa Rotunda, more than its brilliant composition, is clear in its establishment of a horizontal plan, the “piano nobile,” to which a series
of grand staircases ascend, emphasizing the idea of the podium.
The beautiful “Breakfast on the Grass,” painting by Manet, is a portrait of a group seated on a tablecloth, establishing a special link with nature.
This simple decision of defining a space on the ground with the use of a tablecloth, or a towel when at the beach, is the creation of a horizontal
plan, indicating the limits of the space over which one has control. Once the space has been defined, and the limits clearly articulated, we
recognize that we need protection from the weather, and from other natural elements. We need to be covered by an upper level, by something
more than an umbrella, by a roof. And, because it is material, and as it must be elevated to resist gravity, we must support it in some manner with
a structure that allows for the enclosure of the space with walls. To cover, and to enclose: two basic architectonic operations, to decide the limits
of the space in both the horizontal and vertical directions. The limits of the heavens and the earth. Is the horizon not the boundary between the
heavens and the Earth?
Raft, Boat, Dock
“Is the Farnsworth House not a well tempered space between two horizontal floating planes?” By elevating the principle plane of the house to the
precise height of the eye, Mies van der Rohe, in a sense, creates the effect of equating the horizontal plan of the house with the Horizon, that
indefinable boundary between the earth and the heavens. The ascension to the primary level is slowed by another intermediate plane, while the
steps themselves are in effect a series of floating planes. The progression to the enclosed Horizon is essentially the same as the end result. On
the primary plane of the house one feels as though one is on a raft floating lightly on the water with nature quietly passing by. The serenity of the
space can be understood to be the result of the elevation of the horizontal plan to the precise height of the eye, and the maintenance of a perfect
horizontality. Ever concerned with the perfect horizontality of the boundary line of the Horizon, Mies invented a series of inverted pyramids in an
effort to eliminate even the slightest inclination of the floor under foot. The Master, obsessed with the notion of achieving the perfect horizontality
would not allow for even the slightest inclination under foot.
“Is the Villa Savoie not a spatial artifact on an elevated horizontal plan?” By elevating the main level to such a height and by framing the views out
of the house in a particular manner, Le Corbusier creates the effect of standing on the deck of a boat when one is standing in his house with its
open views to the sky. Accessed by the circuitous route of the ramp the house controls the pace of ascension as well as the views to nature until
one reaches its ultimate height and the box opens itself to the sky. By creating, in a sense, an unbroken vista to the heavens, Le Corbusier
ultimately recognizes the necessity to contextualize the view through the creation of the panoramic window which provides a framed view of the
connection between the sky and the earth, the boundary, the Horizon. The interest inside, however, is clearly to provide the most direct access to
the sky above, in a like manner to the space of the deck of a boat.
“And what is the Utzon house in Porto Petro-Mallorca but a horizontal platform carved into a cliff overlooking the sea?” Engaging the marine
analogy further, as Mies created a house as a raft, and Le Corbusier created a house as a boat, Utzon effectively created a house as a dock, by
clearing a platform at the edge of the sea, and placing a collection of built elements on the platform. The focus of the entire act of the house is the
transition between the earth and the sea. Once inside the house, views to the sea are framed in such a way to raise the horizon to the upper third
of the opening, in an attempt to focus the eye to the sea. Where Le Corbusier was interested in the presentation of More Sky, Utzon, by
manipulating the boundary between the sea and the sky, has as his interest the presentation of More Sea.
Gravity: Why the Horizontal Plan
Without attempting to make a medical analysis on the sense of equilibrium and the Eustachian tube of our inner ear, it is clearly known that there
is a physical relationship between our bodies and the condition of horizontality. In order to remain seated in a comfortable, stable manner, we
demand a horizontal floor. In fact, as a means of disturbing the stability and equilibrium of prison inmates, prisons will often create inclined floors
in the cells. Additionally, while working we require an horizontal plane, or table. Older architects will remember how easily the instruments would
fall from the table when using inclined tables for drafting. Finally, in order for a restful, fulfilling night’s sleep we require a comfortable, horizontal
plane.
When the primitive man was still dwelling in the cave, he sought various planes that he could clear in order to create surfaces for his various,
necessary functions of living. The primary horizontal plane became a general public space for the fire and other fundamental activities. From there
he would look for smaller, elevated planes for seating, and additional, more enclosed horizontal planes for sleeping. It is easy to imaging the
multitude of activities and situations, which require a horizontal plane having the capacity to control gravity in the life of the man, who is a vertical
being. It is the point at which primitive man leaves the cave and imagines building a room of his own in nature from the ground up that he
discovers the freedom to control his environment. The primitive man now simply has to identify a horizontal plane, to clear it, and to mark it in
some manner, as his own. Similar to the act of animals, although with the key difference of the default geometry of the space as a square, or
possibly circle. Finally, in order to create shelter, he creates a roof and holds it up with vertical elements, which also allow for the vertical
enclosure, and is left with a creation similar to the Caribbean Hut, which Semper identified, in his Four Elements of Architecture.
The Stereotomic Podium
We could imagine the horizontal plan created through the act of slicing the top of the rock, to ground the architecture in nature. This theory of
continuity in constructions creates a podium that is linked to the earth, as though it is born from it. The stereotomic podium is always massive,
heavy, and connected materially to the stones of the earth. The podiums by Mies van der Rohe, at the Barcelona Pavilion and the Tugendhat
house are very clearly grounded, stereotomic podiums, which he reinforces by carving the steps leading to the house out of the podium. It is
interesting to note that when Mies decides to create the horizontal plan on a podium he always carves the steps into the side of the podium.
Conversely when elevates the horizontal plan to create a floating platform, he also uses floating planes for the steps and locates them in a frontal
position. He will do this in his final masterpiece in Berlin, similar to Palladio in the Villa Rotunda and La Malcontenta.
The Tectonic Platform
The main plan, the “piano nobile” appears like a flying rug, or like a table, when the primary horizontal plane is elevated. The platforms of the
Farnsworth house (which we referred to as a raft) or the Villa Savoie (which we referred to as a boat) are clear examples of elevated planes
floating, an effect which has been made possible with the use of steel and reinforced concrete. The clear idea of the horizontal plan is not a
question of old or new, nor of classical or avant-garde, it is a fundamental question relating to the most basic physical condition of man and his
attempt to control gravity, and to use it to serve his means. The question of the horizon-tal plan is a universal one, one that is fundamental to our
existence.
Mies Up!
The elevated horizontal plan was a key component in Mies van der Rohe’s plan for his proposal of the human domain of the world. Every project
by Mies started with a very clear establishment of a horizontal plane, and he would create this using two very clear and efficient methods. The first
way is by creating the primary plan as the upper level of a podium, or rock, similar to Semper’s notion of the stereotomic podium. The second way
is achieved by floating an isolated plane, creating in a sense a tectonic platform. In both cases, Mies will, very carefully, place this plan at the
precise height of our eyes, marking from the very beginning the clear position of the horizon, the point at which the horizontal plane, becomes, like
the horizon, a simple line. The procession onto this primary plan was equally important for Mies as he created an ascension always using steps,
never a ramp, in a very precise spatial operation. When using the operation of the stereotomic podium he always carves the steps into the side of
the podium. In the Tugendhat House and the Barcelona Pavilion the steps are on the side and restrained by a wall, which emphasizes the
condition of the excavation of the steps from the earth, of the podium. On the other hand, when using the operation of the tectonic platform, Mies
always creates the procession onto the primary plane in a frontal manner. The steps leading to the Farnsworth House or to Crown Hall are both
frontal, isolated planes, appearing as though they are floating in the air. It is also interesting to note that in the stereotomic condition, when Mies
would carve the steps into the podium, he would always do so without an extended break, or with only a small landing. It is a question of arriving
as soon as possible. Conversely, in the tectonic condition, with the floating steps in the frontal position, Mies always created an intermediate
platform which allowed him to control the pace of ascension and to allow us to contemplate the transparency and continuity of his architectonic
temple, which he is offering. The Master very precisely, places the primary level of his buildings, at the elevation of our eyes, and very carefully
controls our ascension into his elevated world of Architecture.
THE ARCHITECT WHO WANTED TO CAPTURE THE CUBE
Dimensions in Architecture in Relation to the Dimensions of Man
The architect saw it clearly. He wanted to master space and with it architecture. And he thought that this would be possible if he could only control
the form and dimensions of the architectural space. And then he wanted to understand what this space was and what it was like.
So he placed himself outside of the cubic form, in front of a cube that was somewhat larger than he was. The great squared vertical plane
seemed to overpower him. He walked to the corner and the two, vertical orthogonal planes impressed him with their force. But he wanted to be
the one controlling them. He imagined that he moved away into the distance. He knew that the cube was formed by six planes and he only saw
two. And while he knew that there was a plane up there above him, on the roof, that formed a trihedral with the two planes that arose before him,
he had no way of seeing it. He climbed up onto a tree in front and from there he could finally make out the three planes.
Surely it’s just a matter of dimensions, he said to himself and he looked for a cubic figure that was somewhat smaller than himself in an attempt,
or so he hoped, to be able to control the entire space. Proudly, he discovered that in a single glance, he could take in the three faces that formed
the trihedral. One side more than at first. But as he walked around the cube trying to capture a fourth side, one of the others disappeared. After
multiple turns around the cube that ended up making him dizzy, he figured that he would never succeed in seeing more than three sides of the
cube at a single glance. And it was not easy for him to calm down.
Surely it’s just a simple matter of dimensions, he said to himself once again, just like the first time. And he looked for an even smaller cubic figure.
He held it in his hands and said to himself that now he had dominated it, since all of it fit into the palm of one hand. And he continued his game.
He raised it, lowered it, turned it around, but no matter how many times he turned that form, he couldn’t capture it. He never managed to see
more than three sides at one time. And he knew that it had six.
Thus, in front of the three cubic figures, the large, the medium and the small, he sat down, desperate, and reflected on his impotence. He would
never be able to control space!
And he thought and he thought and he thought when, exhausted, he fell asleep. And suddenly, he saw Alice by his side. She took his hand and
led him up to the large cubic figure and, through a small hole, she knew it well, and they entered inside. There, the architect saw that at last he
could take in up to four planes at the same time and even five, if he stood with his back against one of the vertical planes. And even up to the six
planes if he put himself in an angle, diagonally.
Suddenly, the light that was bathing the inner space, which he hadn’t paid any attention to and hadn’t noticed where it came from, disappeared
and everything remained in the dark. That powerful sense of dominating the space disappeared. And he was disconcerted. Alice smiled at his
side. Once the eclipse passed, the light returned. And with it, his senses awakened once again and the architect recovered his domination of the
space.
He looked up to see where that light had come from and he woke up under the rays of a powerful sun, without Alice, who had stayed behind in his
dream. And now, back in reality, he found himself again in front of those cubes that had given him so much trouble.
The architect concluded, once fully awake, that Architecture, the domination of space, is a simple matter of measurements, of controllable
dimensions, to be put into relation to the dimensions of man. He also concluded that it was a matter of light, without which architecture was
nothing.

TEXTOS

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

TEXTOS

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Untitled Document Page 1 of 18

THINKING WITH YOUR HANDS

(Think with your hands, construct with your head)

Alberto Campo Baeza

THE FOUNDATIONS OF ARCHITECTURE

Construction of the Horizontal Plane

To settle, to set, to alight, to sit, settlement, rest.

FROM THE CAVE TO THE HUT

On stereotomics and tectonics in architecture

THE REASON FOR THE TERMS STEREOTOMIC AND TECTONIC.

APPROXIMATIONS TO THE TERMS “STEREOTOMIC” AND “TECTONIC”

Centro BIT (Technology Center) in Inca-Mallorca

ARCHITECTURA SINE LUCE NULLA ARCHITECTURA EST

LIGHT IS MATTER AND MATERIAL

SINE LUCE NULLA!

THE FIRE TEST

WITH MANY LIGHTS AT THE SAME TIME

A MOMENT BEFORE THE LAST EXPLOSION

The Future of Architecture

The Future of Architecture is in Ideas

LIGHT AND GRAVITY:

MAN AND ATTAINING BEAUTY

ARCHITECTURE AND RICE: TIME AND ARCHITECTURE

WATER CAST INTO PUDDLES

SOCIETY’S CRASS IGNORANCE: SOCIETY AND THE ARTIST

THE DESIRABLE HAPPY ENDING

THE RIGHT WHITE

On the white color in Architecture

“More whit less”

ESSENTIAL Architecture (Not Essentialist)

ESSENTIALITY is NOT Essentia IISM

I would like my ARCHITECTURE to be

About the perfect perfectionist work

The imperfect Ville Savoie by Le Corbusier

EVIL IGNORANT JUDGES

On Restaurations and Preservations in Architecture

THE HORIZON-TAL PLAN

The Foundation of Architecture

Raft, Boat, Dock

Gravity: Why the Horizontal Plan

The Stereotomic Podium

The Tectonic Platform

THE ARCHITECT WHO WANTED TO CAPTURE THE CUBE

Dimensions in Architecture in Relation to the Dimensions of Man

You might also like