Classifying the Elements of Architecture - Part 2: Elements Working Together

In the last post here, it was supposed that elements of architecture could be viewed as either analytical or creative. Elements that are analytical can sometimes overlap with those that are creative. For example, a wall on its own can be analysed but also represents the most deconstructed "chunk" we can define to usefully create architecture. (Obviously a wall can be deconstructed further to a series of planes, or even further to a series of points, but these are not useful in a creative sense because it is impossible to build a plane - every physical object must have a thickness).

Take for example a colonnade. This is a series of columns joined by their entablature and is an example of an analytical element. It is viewed as a single analytical element, however, it is constructed of many creative elements: columns. In this way, the manner in which creative elements act together can create analytical elements.

Let's take this example further. Often a colonnade will have a wall close by. A wall: another creative element. If this wall represents the front of the building, the colonnade becomes a portico. However, if this wall represents an internal courtyard it becomes a peristyle.

This is a clear demonstration of how the arrangement of different creative elements can form different analytical elements. Further to this, it shows how one elements may perceptively change by the arrangement of other nearby elements.

Why does this matter? What is the difference between a creative and analytical element to someone using a building? Aren't colonnade, portico and peristyle just names that we have invented?

I will consider these questions in the next post.

Classifying the Elements of Architecture - Part 1: Two Approaches

If any discussions are going to be had on the legibility of architecture and architectural language, we must be able to speak of the "parts" of architecture in a meaningful way. I find the simplest heuristic to break-up the parts of a building is what people practically use and describe already. For this, I believe there are two main approaches:

Analytical 

or

Creative

Please see the below list of elements, illustrated for example, of the first approach - Analytical.

Barrier

 

Raised Platform

 Roof or Canopy

Supporting Post

Doorway

Openings

Glasswall

The above list is based on Simon Unwin's book, Analysing Architecture (2003, pp29-33). This is my favorite (and first) textbook I ever read on architecture. This is because, in those early days of architecture and theory, this was simply the most practical. There has probably been many more editions of this book since this time, but I recommend it if you have never read. These types are based on elements that can be used in analysing architecture. That is, once it is designed, how you can conceptually break it apart and make sense of it. This is the first approach of classifying elements.

For the second approach, image you wanted to go to the extreme or practicability in determining the constituents of architecture. This is the challenge that would be faced by someone trying to build 3D modelling software for the documentation of buildings - for example, Autodesk Revit. For this, the designers have had to break the "typical" building down into the most basic elements that can be created, whilst maintaining meaning (not just being modelling software where individual polygons, points, lines and shapes are created and edited) but also allowing the user to create any architectural form. So, let's look at the list of elements in Autodesk Revit, compared to the elements already listed above in bold:

• Wall  (Barrier)
• Floor (Raised Platform)
• Roof (Roof or Canopy)
• Ceiling (Roof or Canopy)
• Column (Supporting Post) 
• Door (Doorway)
• Window (Openings)
• Curtain Wall (Glass Wall)
• Stair (described as an arrangement of platforms)
• Railing
• Component
• Room (described as an arrangement of walls)

This Revit-based list represents the second approach. If Unwin's elements are based on analysing, then the Revit elements are based on creating. I.e. they are the most primitive elements to construct (rather than deconstruct) a piece of architecture.

The most immediate thing about looking at these two lists is the amount of similarity between the two. We can look at these duplications as confirmations of these elements. In addition to this, if we view these two lists as analytical (concerned with deconstructing) and creative (concerned with constructing), we can learn things about the elements that are not included in one and not the other.

You can argue that the elements not found in the Creative list are because they are conceptual arrangements of other elements. For example, a room is the specific arrangement of four walls.

It is important to note that the items presented above in lists are not exhaustive. There are many other different methods by which you could create these lists. Especially concerning the analytical list, there are numerous items one can add - for example: a corridor (a arrangement of walls), a porch (arrangement of one wall, two columns and a roof).

In such examples the distinction between analytical elements and creative elements is very strong. This distinction will be discussed further in the next post.

The Legibility of The Built Environment

The world in which we live needs to be legible. Most countries have, for example, standards for colour contrasts to help the visually impaired. We have braille and tactile indicators to make our environments legible to those who cannot see.

These are examples of standards that exist to make our world more accessible for those with special needs. The point of legibility is that it doesn't stop there - it makes our world more accessible for everyone.

Multi-lingual stop sign in Canada. It is important for signs to be easily recognisable or accidents can happen. Photo courtesy of Wikipedia: P199.

Road signs are virtually the same all over the planet (check out this page for a comparison) so as to allow people to drive in countries in which they never have before without incident. Whilst they likely only look the same because they were constructed in the same era, corner pubs are easy to spot from a mile away as a place you can get a drink.

Take for another example, the English telephone booth. Many people will recognise the iconic red telephone booth. The first functional criteria of a telephone booth is to be able to use it to make a phone call. The second functional criteria of a telephone booth is to be found. Even if it many not have been the original intent, the bright red design certainly makes it easier to spot. This feature of use has now become a feature of familiarity. Before the red colour may have been easy to spot but we didn't instinctively know what it was - now the red colour signifies "telephone booth."

Classic United Kingdom telephone booths. Photo courtesy of Wikipedia: Quadell

No one could argue against the fact that a more recognisable telephone booth is a better telephone booth. What we are really speaking of here, however, is not a more recognisable telephone booth, but rather a more legible environment. Public telephones are a part of the world in which we live (well, less and less these days.....), just like footpaths, street lamps, zebra crossings. Making them more recognisable is synonymous with making the entire system more legible.

One can make the exact same case for a building. To be useful it must be legible.

You could argue there is great architectural potential in tipping these norms on their head. Take for example the spectacularly extravagant restaurant whose entrance is through a tiny door in a back alley. Consider the sense of awe one might feel upon discovering such a space after such a humble entry. However, if we've learned anything from goths it is that we can't be different by everyone being different. That is, the tiny door in the back alley is only exciting because it is different. It requires a definition of expectations for 'restaurant' to break in order to be 'different.'

So, what might be a way in which we can define such things? And how can we introduce a sense of Delight (Vitruvius: Firmness, Commodity and Delight) in producing legible buildings?

What This Blog is About - An Architectural Language

In the article entitled "Towards an Understanding of Form in Architecture," Peter Eisenman states:

This need for individual expression is a legitimate one, but if it is to be satisfied without prejudice to the comprehensibility of the environment as a whole, a general priority system must be proposed, and it will be argued here that such a system must necessarily give preference to absolute over temporal ends.

This is based on the argument that architecture, like any form of communication requires clarity and comprehensibility to be effective. No message, if not understood, will get any point across. In fact, he goes further to state that the form of a building need not have any direct relation to its intent or function, just so long as it "contributes to the order, scale, harmony and pattern of the total environment."

A statement such as this, is likely to be contentious among many architects, but if we rephrase what the true "function" of a building is, to include integrating its environment, most should be able to see how relevant this is.

My contention is that the "total environment" mentioned here, is perhaps often larger than we think it is. It should not mean only our immediate built environment. It should extend further to encompass the entire human experience - our shared experiences, our collective unconscious, our very nature and our spirit for the future.

This blog, then, can be said to be a sort of Architectural Review, seen through this lens. I will post analytical views of remarkable (in all meanings of the word) buildings and how they contribute to the pattern of their total environment.