Research Area
My research is focused around the area of sustainable design strategies. Specifically, re-examining the effectiveness of structuralism in the modern era. What has changed, if anything over the past 50 years that could potentially make rule-based design a viable option again? Investigation done in semester one of the MArch programme revealed a gap in this area of research, with little information available on a new structuralism that capitalises on the advances in technologies that we have available today. Most, if not all of contemporary projects and texts that I have found that use the term structuralism, do so in a loose way that often refers to the design of complex physical structures that are made possible by modern parametric design technology, but yet lack the essential qualities of the structuralist architecture of the 1960’s and 70’s such as the inherent capacity for change and adaptability of structure. Hertzberger discusses this modern tendency to misuse the term ‘structuralism’ in his text ‘The ordering of space’ where he writes that
“if the term structuralism was the cause of many misunderstandings in those days, these have only increased. Everything in which structures play a part is automatically associated with structuralism and its original meaning gets overlooked” (Herzberger, 2015, p.32).
In the text, ‘Structuralism Reloaded – Rule based design in Architecture and Urbanism’, Thomas Valena also reflects on the modern tendency towards misuse of the term when he writes that in the modern era, many protagonists of structuralism
“appear to have neither a historical knowledge of classical structuralism nor any interest in reflecting on the cultural background of the phenomena.” (Valena, Avermaete, Vrachliotis, 2011, p.15)
Michael Durfeld provided much needed clarity on this issue. In his essay, ‘Ornamental Structuralism from Rhythm to Evolution’, Durfeld writes that a broad range of approaches to architecture and urban-planning in the modern era are labelled under the umbrella term – ‘Neo-Structuralism with a digital imprint’ but goes on to make the distinction between ‘evolutionary’ (or transformative) structuralism, and ‘ornamental structuralism’ which relates to the modern tendency towards complexity of structure and aesthetic. He writes that what they both have in common, is a “rule-based design process translated into mathematical algorithms and resolved” (Valena, Avermaete, Vrachliotis, 2011, p.297), but stresses that this is where the similarities end. He acknowledges that whilst each have a similar approach, in relation to ‘ornamental structuralism’, he writes that
“regardless of whether the design approaches collected under this label can even be described as structuralist, we are confronted with a far more interesting question: Are they potentially capable of once more taking up the failed project of 1960s and 70s structuralism in architecture and urban development with the help of the digital medium, of developing it further, and possibly perfecting it?” (Valena, Avermaete, Vrachliotis, 2011, p.297)
Durfeld’s writings provided a catalyst for me to delve further into this area of research. The question that he poses, whether ‘evolutionary structuralism’ can be developed further or even perfected using the digital medium is central to this project.
Structuralism and Technology
A failure of structuralism in the 1960’s and 1970’s was in part due to a misalignment between the construction technologies that were available at the time “in comparison to what the ambition of what structuralism was” (The Agency of Structuralism, 2013) Their flexibility goals for the most part had to be achieved with poured concrete. In some cases, leading to buildings that were intended to be as flexible as possible yet often times remained static. According to Avermaete, the paradox of structuralism is:
That structuralist architects “wanted to design buildings that were non-monumental, without style, without predefined form, yet paradoxically in the end they introduced a very clear aesthetic with their projects. This can be looked upon as the failure of structuralism.” (The Agency of Structuralism, 2013)
50 years on from the structuralism of the 1970’s and we are now in a very different position as the technological context has shifted. Sophisticated software and digital fabrication technologies have enabled us to create high strength, cost effective and energy efficient construction technologies. Advances in timber technology such as CLT, Glued-Laminated Timber and structural insulated panels (SIPS) over the past decades have created opportunities that did not exist for the structuralist architects of the 1960’s and 1970’s. Further, the technological advances seen in construction technology are equally matched by the innovations in digital technologies which carry huge potential for a digitisation of the mathematical, rule-based nature of structuralism.
Open Work
The reading of ‘The Ordering of Space’ by Herman Hertzberger inspired me to think about the project as system that could proliferate outwards from a starting point. In the text, he makes the distinction between open and closed systems. Open systems are receptive to interactions with their surroundings and in turn can be influenced by them. The unified whole is not compromised when individual parts can be added or taken away. An open system can thus perform the dual role of a finished composition whilst in a state of change. Closed systems on the other hand are unable to respond to external pressures. In effect, an open system can accommodate change and a closed system cannot. He writes that many buildings are in fact inward-facing fortresses, uncompromising in form and unable to respond to external pressures. He distinguishes between cities that evolve naturally from the inside out, and buildings which are designed from the outside in (Hertzberger, 2015). Since the number of refugees that would require housing at the Tempelhof site could range anywhere from 8,000 to potentially 100,000 over the next two decades, it was important that any system that is created should be able to respond to external pressures for growth. Herzberger writes that
“as a rule, cities cannot be designed – they design themselves, at most as patchwork quilts of designed units, but ultimately articulated from the inside outwards by powers in society that are difficult to control, if at all” (Hertzberger, 2015, p.56).
My research is focused around the area of sustainable design strategies. Specifically, re-examining the effectiveness of structuralism in the modern era. What has changed, if anything over the past 50 years that could potentially make rule-based design a viable option again? Investigation done in semester one of the MArch programme revealed a gap in this area of research, with little information available on a new structuralism that capitalises on the advances in technologies that we have available today. Most, if not all of contemporary projects and texts that I have found that use the term structuralism, do so in a loose way that often refers to the design of complex physical structures that are made possible by modern parametric design technology, but yet lack the essential qualities of the structuralist architecture of the 1960’s and 70’s such as the inherent capacity for change and adaptability of structure. Hertzberger discusses this modern tendency to misuse the term ‘structuralism’ in his text ‘The ordering of space’ where he writes that
“if the term structuralism was the cause of many misunderstandings in those days, these have only increased. Everything in which structures play a part is automatically associated with structuralism and its original meaning gets overlooked” (Herzberger, 2015, p.32).
In the text, ‘Structuralism Reloaded – Rule based design in Architecture and Urbanism’, Thomas Valena also reflects on the modern tendency towards misuse of the term when he writes that in the modern era, many protagonists of structuralism
“appear to have neither a historical knowledge of classical structuralism nor any interest in reflecting on the cultural background of the phenomena.” (Valena, Avermaete, Vrachliotis, 2011, p.15)
Michael Durfeld provided much needed clarity on this issue. In his essay, ‘Ornamental Structuralism from Rhythm to Evolution’, Durfeld writes that a broad range of approaches to architecture and urban-planning in the modern era are labelled under the umbrella term – ‘Neo-Structuralism with a digital imprint’ but goes on to make the distinction between ‘evolutionary’ (or transformative) structuralism, and ‘ornamental structuralism’ which relates to the modern tendency towards complexity of structure and aesthetic. He writes that what they both have in common, is a “rule-based design process translated into mathematical algorithms and resolved” (Valena, Avermaete, Vrachliotis, 2011, p.297), but stresses that this is where the similarities end. He acknowledges that whilst each have a similar approach, in relation to ‘ornamental structuralism’, he writes that
“regardless of whether the design approaches collected under this label can even be described as structuralist, we are confronted with a far more interesting question: Are they potentially capable of once more taking up the failed project of 1960s and 70s structuralism in architecture and urban development with the help of the digital medium, of developing it further, and possibly perfecting it?” (Valena, Avermaete, Vrachliotis, 2011, p.297)
Durfeld’s writings provided a catalyst for me to delve further into this area of research. The question that he poses, whether ‘evolutionary structuralism’ can be developed further or even perfected using the digital medium is central to this project.
Structuralism and Technology
A failure of structuralism in the 1960’s and 1970’s was in part due to a misalignment between the construction technologies that were available at the time “in comparison to what the ambition of what structuralism was” (The Agency of Structuralism, 2013) Their flexibility goals for the most part had to be achieved with poured concrete. In some cases, leading to buildings that were intended to be as flexible as possible yet often times remained static. According to Avermaete, the paradox of structuralism is:
That structuralist architects “wanted to design buildings that were non-monumental, without style, without predefined form, yet paradoxically in the end they introduced a very clear aesthetic with their projects. This can be looked upon as the failure of structuralism.” (The Agency of Structuralism, 2013)
50 years on from the structuralism of the 1970’s and we are now in a very different position as the technological context has shifted. Sophisticated software and digital fabrication technologies have enabled us to create high strength, cost effective and energy efficient construction technologies. Advances in timber technology such as CLT, Glued-Laminated Timber and structural insulated panels (SIPS) over the past decades have created opportunities that did not exist for the structuralist architects of the 1960’s and 1970’s. Further, the technological advances seen in construction technology are equally matched by the innovations in digital technologies which carry huge potential for a digitisation of the mathematical, rule-based nature of structuralism.
Open Work
The reading of ‘The Ordering of Space’ by Herman Hertzberger inspired me to think about the project as system that could proliferate outwards from a starting point. In the text, he makes the distinction between open and closed systems. Open systems are receptive to interactions with their surroundings and in turn can be influenced by them. The unified whole is not compromised when individual parts can be added or taken away. An open system can thus perform the dual role of a finished composition whilst in a state of change. Closed systems on the other hand are unable to respond to external pressures. In effect, an open system can accommodate change and a closed system cannot. He writes that many buildings are in fact inward-facing fortresses, uncompromising in form and unable to respond to external pressures. He distinguishes between cities that evolve naturally from the inside out, and buildings which are designed from the outside in (Hertzberger, 2015). Since the number of refugees that would require housing at the Tempelhof site could range anywhere from 8,000 to potentially 100,000 over the next two decades, it was important that any system that is created should be able to respond to external pressures for growth. Herzberger writes that
“as a rule, cities cannot be designed – they design themselves, at most as patchwork quilts of designed units, but ultimately articulated from the inside outwards by powers in society that are difficult to control, if at all” (Hertzberger, 2015, p.56).
DOWNLOAD THE FULL TEXT BELOW
Click HERE for my Research Dissertation:
PARTICIPATORY STRUCTURALISM IN ARCHITECTURE IN THE MODERN ERA
Click HERE for my Research Folio:
Click HERE for my Research Dissertation:
PARTICIPATORY STRUCTURALISM IN ARCHITECTURE IN THE MODERN ERA
Click HERE for my Research Folio: