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.