|
A CHOICE BETWEEN
HARMONY AND DICHOTOMY
PART I: MY TAKE ON REGIONAL DESIGN
Choice.
Choice is the single greatest aspect of architecture which empowers its
designers. Conceptualization, materiality, path, function, façade,
connectivity, et al are all necessary choices made during the design process. In
every choice, decisiveness is critical. A designer must be neither hesitant nor
urgent, as hesitance portrays weakness and inadequacy, while urgency displays a
lack of thoughtful analysis. If given the opportunity, a designer must be
decisive and have the ability to formulate something distinctly their own. The
question which arises pertaining to choice with site analysis and design is, as
designers, how responsive must we be to our surroundings? Do we seek harmony
with direct relation and response to the region and the architecture of that
region, or do we annihilate all previous thought in a given region and attempt to
establish an entirely new paradigm? In reality, the answer to this question
varies among each phase of design and must be analyzed as such.
Economics. Directly
opposed to choice, economics is the single greatest aspect of architecture which
limits its designers. Somewhat unfortunately, economics are greatly dependent
on regionalism and can immobilize architectural progress and possibility in
some areas of the world. For example, it would not be economically logical to
place a skyscraper in Kent, Ohio because there would not be enough willing
renters for the floor space gained in construction, nor would it be
economically logical to place a one story factory in downtown New York because
the property values are far higher than the dividend such a structure could
provide. It is this type of logic which typically undermines all designs and
seeks to limit the scope of architectural design projects. The fortunate aspect
of this reality comes to fruition after the built work is completed when, due to
proper economical analysis, the structure is not left empty and unusable, and
the land is not left barren. If left untouched, these are the obvious economic repercussions
which could be left to the owner of such a structure to deal with. With this in
mind, it is entirely illogical to disregard regionalism pertaining to the
economic impact and possibilities structures can provide or sustain in an area.
Environment.
Regional
climactic conditions provide a baseline for the design of structures which simply
cannot be ignored. Factors such as wind direction, diurnal temperature
differences, average temperatures, and time outside the comfort zone need to be
incorporated into passive design strategies from the beginning of the design
process to optimize the efficiency of the building as it pertains to the site.
For example, adobe buildings using thermal mass for passive cooling and heating
would not function well in the humid climates of Ohio and Pennsylvania, and
light frame construction using a permeable envelope would not function
extremely well in the hot dry climate of areas such as Arizona and New Mexico.
Any designer who attempts to design without first considering the repercussions
of placing a structure which works against the climactic conditions of its
regional place risks critical failure of the built work as it takes merely one
large mistake to make a building unbearable, undesirable, and near uninhabitable.
Analyzing merely the overarching climactic conditions of a region is not
enough, however. Every site has its own idiosyncrasies where factors such as
steeper topography, or relative distance from a body of water, can influence
microclimate and have a large impact on the necessary design of a structure. In
this aspect, regionalism is again undeniable as an influence on the architect.
Materiality.
Although
the choice of which materials to use in a structure seems to some as an
afterthought and a particularly easy choice in comparison to many of the more
intensive design challenges projects can produce, it is far too relevant to
ignore in design and the improper choice of materiality can render a building
sterile and out of place. Materiality is the area of design which is most
easily influenced by regionalism. Regions can influence materiality in two main
ways: locally produced materials and commonalities in material use.
Psychologically, human beings enjoy the senses of home and continuity as they provide
mental comfort. If materials are produced locally within a region, such as stone
quarrying, they can provide local residents this sense of home which creates warmness
in the built work and increases the successfulness of the project because
people want to be in the space. Additional economies are also provided from
using local materials as they often cost less to use and are much easier to
transport to the building site. This can become extremely useful to designers
as it can allow for additional aspects of the project to be explored which
could have possibly not been touched on if additional costs were endured simply
for materials. Regionalism in materiality can, then, be an invaluable resource
to designers if used properly with its advantages capitalized on.
Economics, environment and materiality provide the largest
arguments for harmony in design. The economics and environment of a region are
unavoidable and must be considered in design to ensure success. Without these
considerations and a proper logical analysis, a structure might as well never
be built because it is doomed to be a failure. Local materiality can also
provide a strong argument for the use of regionalism in design. As mentioned
previously, human beings tend to feel most comfortable in structures which
provide continuity and a sense of home and warmness. The sterile glass boxes
which are often produced in modern architecture are not necessarily desirable for
the human race to inhabit because they tend to be uncomfortable to spend long
periods of time in. This aspect of human comfort tends to lean the argument of
critical regionalism strongly for harmonic design.
The most interesting element which has not yet been
considered, however, is the variable of human intrigue. We, as humans, are
invariably curious beings who thrive on the idea of change and distinctiveness.
Successfulness in all aspects of human life is largely dependent on
inventiveness and ideas which have never been seen before. This assertion can
be supported in architecture since the beginning of recorded time. From the
standing post and lintel construction at Stonehenge, to the ancient wonder of
the massive pyramids of Giza in Egypt, to the Roman baths and coliseum, to the
Greek temples, to the massive interiors and exterior detailing seen on Gothic
cathedrals, to the compilation of architecture and fresco painting of the
baroque period, to the grain silos and origins of the flat roof on American
factories, to the founding of the steel frame for buildings in Chicago, to urban
high rise buildings, to modern architecture, to postmodernism, to green architecture,
to super tall structures, and beyond, success has always been, and likely will
remain, most prevalent during periods of variation.
The phenomenon of success through variation can be
better explained through the Hawthorne Effect. From 1927 to 1933 various experiments
conducted at the Hawthorn Works plant sought to investigate correlations
between variations in conditions at the plant and the productivity of the
workers present there. The primary experiment concerning variation was
conducted using various lighting levels in the factory and attempting to
determine whether the employees worked better under better lighting conditions.
From these experiments, Fritz Roethlisberger and Elton Mayo found that when the
lighting was increased to a higher level, an immediate increase in productivity
was established. To their surprise, however, another increase in productivity
was present when the lighting levels were then changed from well lit back to
where they began. It was not until lighting levels were maintained for a period
of time that production began to fall again. These results allowed
Roethlisberger and Mayo to hypothesize that “changing a variable usually
increased productivity, even if the variable was just a change back to the
original condition.” This sentiment was directly followed in the modern and
postmodern movements in architecture.
Modernism, in its proliferation of steel frame
construction and curtain wall systems, provided a stark contrast to the masonry
construction methods which had been present for lifetimes before it. Projects
such as the Lever House, designed by Gordon Bundshaft of Skidmore Owings and
Meril, and the Seagram Building, designed by Ludwig Mies Van Der Rohe and
Philip Johnson, both in New York, had immense success both because they were
well designed and because they were so different from anything else which had
been built before them. The modern movement in architecture correlates well
with the first increase of lighting levels in the Hawthorne experiments. Here,
success was predictable and inevitable because modern architecture was better
than the alternative of masonry construction in both economy and appearance,
just as better lighting levels make tasks easier to see and complete so
productivity should rise. Rental rates in modern buildings skyrocketed and soon
enough every new structure being erected was modern in nature because of its
success. As seen in the Hawthorne experiments, however, maintaining success
when the environment becomes stagnant and unchanged is not plausible. Modern
steel and glass structures had become commonality and one was no longer truly
distinguishable from the other. The anomaly which was seen in the Hawthorne
experiments when the lighting levels were dropped and productivity rose again
correlates with the period which followed the stagnation of modern
architecture, postmodernism. Architects of this period sought a return to
classical forms, although often over exaggerated, and also a release from
construction methods using only steel and glass, with some even returning to
masonry construction such as is seen on the iconic (or notorious) AT&T
building in New York City, designed by Philip Johnson. Post-modernistic
buildings became extremely successful economically because although there were
hardly the most aesthetically pleasing structures, they were highly
distinguishable among their modern counterparts and tenants wanted to be
located in those types of structures due to the self advertising they provided.
It is this type of thought logic which constitutes
an argument for the adverse of regionalism, and consequently dichotomy across
design in an area. As was proven by the Hawthorne experiments and the previous
architectural precedents, stagnation and continuity are unsuccessful
adventures. Buildings will not continue to be successful if they are simply
relatable to their regional counterparts, or entirely reliant upon precedent. Although
critical regionalism proposes variation in architecture from place to place, and
argues simply placing modern architecture in every facet of the world will
become inherently unsuccessful and unwanted, it does not go far enough.
Modernism in New York City, with the proliferation of the glass box, showed us
that even within a place or region, dichotomy is essential for success. Each and
every place we visit must be distinct and, in some manner, self advertise.
Form. The
greatest element of a structure which should be absent of influence from
regionalism is its overall formal composition. As the great Louis Sullivan
said, “form follows function.” Building forms should not be dependent upon
regional aspects of an area, or the desired appearance of the architect, but
should be entirely reliant on what the building seeks to accomplish
functionally and the goals which it looks to achieve. If this formal expression
of function is achieved, no two buildings should truly look alike due to their
individual and distinct expression of the needs of the individual structure.
For instance, one would never expect a marketplace and restaurant to be
visually similar because the marketplace needs to be designed to sell its
product to an audience who is passing through, while the restaurant needs to
thoughtfully place and seat its guests for in house serving. Because of this,
form makes the argument for dichotomy and an absence of regional impact on
structures across an area. Regionalism seeks to achieve commonalities among
such formalities in given regions, yet how can a building reach its greatest
economic and aesthetic capacities if it is hampered by regional qualities
attempting to impose their standards on possible innovation? The simple answer
is it cannot.
Façade. The façade of
a structure, similar to the form, does not have any distinct reasoning behind
becoming entirely based on regional qualities. Although in some small complexes
similarity in façade across buildings can have a relatively nice quality,
again, buildings need to truly be distinct from one another to achieve their
full capacity of successfulness. Façade should be a response to both the form
of the building, as well as the activities, functions, and composition of the
interior behind it. It should be an outward expression of the interior which
seeks to intrigue and invite passersby into the building to purchase into its
functionality, whatever it may be. Most importantly, façade should not be an
element of design which is seen continuously repeated among various structures
simply because it is what has been done before. The glass box became monotonous
because there are limited possibilities of what can be done on a building façade
scale with glass and mullions. The façade design of a structure is arguably as
important as the design of its interiors and function and must be treated as
such, it is not an element to be left marred in the regional graveyard of
simply what has been done before.
Regionalism then, when used correctly, is an element
of design which should be used as an undercurrent for what can actually be done
with a structure and is used visually for smaller detailing than the overall
form or façade of a building. As has been mentioned, designers cannot ignore
the regional impact of factors such as the economics of a place or the climate
and microclimate which will affect a future built work. Regional material
choices which use the resources of nearby production to their advantage are an
element which should be capitalized on when possible for detailing; however,
caution should be used so as to not take such action only for the reason of
doing what has been done before. These materials must provide a sense of place,
home, and comfort. In direct contrast to economics, climate, and materiality,
form and façade should allow little to no influence from regional counterparts.
Both form and façade, the two largest elements of designing a structure, should
be both decisive and distinct, providing the greatest potential for future
success due to variation from the existing.
