UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Application and testing of modern critical theory of architecture at the Sedgewick Library Martinson, Thomas 1983

You don't seem to have a PDF reader installed, try download the pdf

Item Metadata

Download

Media
[if-you-see-this-DO-NOT-CLICK]
UBC_1983_A7_3 M37.pdf [ 16.54MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 1.0095662.json
JSON-LD: 1.0095662+ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 1.0095662.xml
RDF/JSON: 1.0095662+rdf.json
Turtle: 1.0095662+rdf-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 1.0095662+rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 1.0095662 +original-record.json
Full Text
1.0095662.txt
Citation
1.0095662.ris

Full Text

APPLICATION AND TESTING OF MODERN CRITICAL THEORY OF ARCHITECTURE AT THE SEDGEWICK LIBRARY by THOMAS MARTINSON D.Arch., The C a t h o l i c U n i v e r s i t y , 1966 M.B.A., The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia, 1982 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARCHITECTURE in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES School o f  Architecture  We accept t h i s t h e s i s as conforming to t h e r e q u i r e d  standards  THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA October 1983 (c) Thomas M a r t i n s o n , 1983  In p r e s e n t i n g  t h i s t h e s i s i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t of  requirements f o r an advanced degree a t the  the  University  o f B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree t h a t the L i b r a r y s h a l l make it  f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r reference  and  study.  I  further  agree t h a t p e r m i s s i o n f o r e x t e n s i v e copying of t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y purposes may  be  department or by h i s or her  granted by  the head of  representatives.  my  It i s  understood t h a t copying or p u b l i c a t i o n o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l gain  s h a l l not be allowed without my  permission.  Archi tecture Department o f The U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h 1956 Main Mall Vancouver, Canada V6T 1Y3 Date October  -  f  i  9  8  3  _  Columbia  written  -iii-  ABSTRACT  The t h e s i s d e a l s w i t h the a p p l i c a t i o n and t e s t i n g of modern c r i t i c a l t h e o r y o f a r c h i t e c t u r e a t the Sedgewick L i b r a r y .  Through t h e works o f John R u s k i n , Ludwig Mies van der Rohe and Robert V e n t u r i , s e l e c t e d as p r o t o types of modern a r c h i t e c t u r a l thought from the ext e n s i v e l i t e r a t u r e t h e i r f o r m u l a o r code f o r good a r c h i t e c t u r e was determined.  These formulas or codes were then a p p l i e d t o an assessment o f the d e s i g n o f the Sedgewick L i b r a r y , an  award w i n n i n g d e s i g n r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of the b e s t  a r c h i t e c t u r a l work i h Canada d u r i n g the contemporary architectural period.  -iv—  TABLE OF CONTENTS  T i t l e page Authorization Abstract  i i i i i i  Table o f Contents  iv  L i s t of Figures  vi  Acknowledgement  ix  Introduction  1  PART I John R u s k i n , Pre-modern c r i t i c  5  Chapter 1 Lamp o f s a c r i f i c e  8  Chapter 2 Lamp o f t r u t h  14  Chapter 3 Lamp o f power  25  Chapter 4 Lamp o f beauty  32  Chapter 5 Lamp o f l i f e  40  Chapter 6 Lamp o f memory  46  Chapter 7 Lamp o f obedience  51  PART I I Ludwig Mies van d e r Rohe, Modern  53  Architect Chapter 8 Form f o l l o w s f u n c t i o n  56  - v-  Chapter 9  The s k i n and bones a r c h i t e c t u r e  Chapter 10  The i n d u s t r i a l i z a t i o n o f a r c h i -  64, 69  tecture Chapter 11  God i s i n t h e d e t a i l s  73  Chapter 12  Less i s more  77  Chapter 13  The u n i v e r s a l space  83  PART I I I  Robert V e n t u r i , Post-modern  88  a r c h i t e c t and c r i t i c Chapter 14  C o m p l e x i t y and c o n t r a d i c t i o n  91  Chapter 15  Ambiguity  97  Chapter 16  D o u b l e - f u n c t i o n i n g elements  101  Chapter 17  The phenomenon o f both-and  105  Chapter 18  Contradiction  109  Chapter 19  The i n s i d e and t h e o u t s i d e  113  Chapter 20  The o b l i g a t i o n towards t h e whole  117  PART IV  adapted  Summary o f t h e a n a l y s i s  120  Bibliography  127  Appendix No. 1  H i s t o r y o f Sedgewick  132  Appendix No. 2 <  P e r m i s s i o n t o reproduce copywright drawings -  135  Appendix No. 3  Figures  Biographical  form  1  136  - vi-  LIST OF FIGURES  Page  Figure  1  Skylights  136  Figure  2  Skylight  137  Figure  3  Lettering  138  Figure  4  Graphic  139  Figure  5  Vancouver A r t G a l l e r y  140  Figure  6  Carpet on w a l l o f s k y l i g h t  141  Figure  7  Brick wall  detail  142  Figure  8  Ceiling  structure  143  Figure  9  Caissons  144  Figure  10  Planters  145  Figure  11  Roof garden  146  Figure  12  B i r d ' s - e y e view  147  Figure  13  Roof garden  148  H i l l shaped facade  149  Figure  .<  1  4  Figure  15  Structure  .150  Figure  16  Drain d e t a i l  151  Figure  17  Oaks on the M a l l  152  Figure  18  Main s t a i r w a y  153  Figure  19  . Main s t a i r w a y  154  Figure  20  B r i c k work  155  Figure  21  Partitions  156  - vii -  Figure  22  Partitions  157,.  Figure  23  P r e - c a s t -concrete c e i l i n g  158  Figure  24  Main s t a i r w a y  159  Figure  25  Columns and Beams  160  Figure  26  Roof and facade  161  Figure  27  B i r d ' s - e y e view  162  Figure  28  Fenestration  163  Figure  29  Curtain Wall  164  Figure  30  Skylight  165  Figure  31  Pre-cast structure  166  Figure  32  Facade  167  Figure  33  Main S t a i r w a y  168  Figure  34  Detailing  169  Figure  35  Detailing  170  Figure  36  Floor Plan  171  Figure  37  Site  172  Figure  38  Floor Plan  173  Figure  39  Floor Plan  174  Figure  40  Elevations  175  Figure  41  Facade  176  Figure  42  Axonometric  177  Figure  43  D e t a i l o f t r e e drum  178  Plan  - viii -  Figure  44  Section at roof  179  Figure  45  Symbol  180  Figure  46  Facade  181  Figure  47  Main S t a i r w a y  182  Figure  48  Facade  183  Figure  49  Roof and facade d e t a i l  184  Figure  50  B i r d ' s - e y e view  185  Figure  51  C a i s s o n s and P l a n t e r s  186  Figure  52  Planter detail  187  Figure  53  Planter detail  188  ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS  My most s i n c e r e thanks t o my mentor P r o f e s s o r Abraham R o g a t n i c k , Chairman o f t h e Graduate Programme o f t h e School o f A r c h i t e c t u r e , and t o t h e members o f t h e committee P r o f e s s o r Douglas S h a d b o l t , D i r e c t o r o f t h e School o f A r c h i t e c t u r e and A r c h i t e c t Randle I r e d a l e , p a r t n e r i n t h e f i r m Rhone and I r e d a l e , d e s i g n e r s o f t h e Sedgewick L i b r a r y .  -1-  TNTRODUCTION T h i s essay attempts t o t e s t , a t t h e Sedgewick L i b r a r y B u i l d i n g , three theories of architecture propounded d u r i n g t h e l a s t one hundred y e a r s o r so. These t h e o r i e s were f o r m u l a t e d by John R u s k i n , Ludwig Mies van d e r Rohe and Robert  Venturi.  A r c h i t e c t u r e i s d e f i n e d by W a l t e r Gropiusas the " c r y s t a l l i n e e x p r e s s i o n o f man's n o b l e s t t h o u g h t s , his  a r d o u r , h i s humanity,  hisfaith, his religion."  In t h i s c o n t e x t , many t h e o r i e s have been p r e s e n t e d i n d i c a t i n g a formula t h a t produces  "good a r c h i t e c t u r e " .  From t h e e x t e n s i v e l i t e r a t u r e I have i n v e s t i g a t e d a score o f authors from d i f f e r e n t p e r i o d s . Quotes of each c r i t i c ' s views a r e g i v e n i n t h e t e x t w i t h f o o t n o t e s . A l l these a r c h i t e c t s and a r c h i t e c t u r a l c r i t i c s have g i v e n us a r u l e as t o what they c o n s i d e r e d  i  W a l t e r G r o p i u s , "New Ideas on A r c h i t e c t u r e " , An e x h i b i t i o n f o r unknown a r c h i t e c t s , B e r l i n : A r b e i t s r a t , 1919.  -2-  should produce "good a r c h i t e c t u r e " .  I have s e l e c t e d t h r e e i n f l u e n t i a l t h e o r i s t s whose r e s p e c t i v e p h i l o s o p h i e s have stood out at d i f f e r e n t p e r i o d s d u r i n g the l a s t c e n t u r y  and have  summed up l a r g e areas of t h i n k i n g a s s o c i a t e d these p e r i o d s . I am a t t e m p t i n g  three  with  t o examine the use-  f u l n e s s of t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e t h e o r i e s i n our age a guide f o r contemporary d e s i g n e r s  and  critics  as of  architecture.  John R u s k i n i s s e l e c t e d as c o v e r i n g the  pre-  modern a r c h i t e c t u r a l p e r i o d , Ludwig Mies van  der  Rohe as the most i n f l u e n t i a l modern a r c h i t e c t and Robert V e n t u r i as the post-modern p e r i o d ' s most spokesman.  fore-  I am going t o t e s t each of t h e i r  t h e o r i e s by a t t e m p t i n g  t o use t h e i r  respective  c i r t e r i a i n a n a l y z i n g the a r c h i t e c t u r a l i n t e n t i o n s and the q u a l i t a t i v e r e s u l t s of a p a r t i c u l a r b u i l d ing.  I have s e l e c t e d the Sedgewick L i b r a r y i n the  -3-  U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia ( f i n i s h e d i n 1970; a d e s i g n t h a t has r e c e i v e d  s e v e r a l awards), t o  t e s t t h e v a l i d i t y o f t h e formulas f o r "good a r c h i t e c t u r e " suggested by R u s k i n , Mies andi: V e n t u r i .  A f u l l c r i t i q u e o f the b u i l d i n g form each o f the t h r e e p o i n t s o f view i s not i n t e n d e d - The c r i t i q u e s t h a t do occur a r e g i v e n o n l y as examples of t h e approach t h a t each t h e o r y  instigates.  Each has induced me t o t a l k about p a r t i c u l a r aspects o f t h e work o f a r c h i t e c t u r e under d i s c u s s i o n . I t was e s p e c i a l l y i n t e r e s t i n g when each o f t h e theor i e s c o u l d be a p p l i e d t o the d i s c u s s i o n o f the same aspect i n t h e b u i l d i n g .  The purpose o f t h e e x e r c i s e i s t o t e s t  (unscienti-  f i c a l l y ) t h e r e a l t i v e u s e f u l n e s s o f each t h e o r y when a p p l i e d t o a contemporary i s s u e .  In o r d e r t o permit the reader t o f a m i l i a r i z e hims e l f w i t h the Sedgewick L i b r a r y B u i l d i n g , a h i s t o r y  -4-  of i t s planning and Appendix  No.1.  c o s n t r u c t i o n i s presented  in  -5-  PART I  JOHN RUSKIN  PRE-MODERN ARCHITECTURE  Summary o f t h e p r i n c i p l e t h e o r y o f R u s k i n  Ruskin's formula f o r good a r c h i t e c t u r e i s con2 t a i n e d i n h i s book, The Seven Lamps o f A r c h i t e c t u r e . Good a r c h i t e c t u r e i s e n l i g h t e n e d w i t h seven p r e c e p t s 3  which he r e f e r s t o m e t a p h o r i c a l l y  as "lamps".  lamps a r e the lamps o f S a c r i f i c e , T r u t h ,  His  Power,  Beauty, L i f e , Memory and Obedience. R u s k i n was concerned about t h e advance o f modern techn o l o g y . He b e l i e v e d t h a t t h e changes t h a t i t was b r i n g i n g about were d e s t r o y i n g  the e s s e n t i a l , c h a r a c t e r  of a r c h i t e c t u r e .  A s h o r t o u t l i n e o f h i s lamps i s g i v e n below:  2  John R u s k i n , The Seven Lamps o f A r c h i t e c t u r e 2nd. e d i t i o n . (London: George A l l e n , 1905)  3  I b i d . ; p. 1.  -6-  The lamp o f s a c r i f i c e c l a i m s : " t h a t good a r c h i t e c t u r e i s t h e a r t which so d i s p o s e s and adorns an e d i f i c e , t h a t t h e s i g h t o f i t may c o n t r i b u t e t o man's 4  mental h e a l t h , power and p l e a s u r e . "  Good a r c h i -  t e c t u r e must concern i t s e l f w i t h those c h a r a c t e r i s t c i c s o f a b u i l d i n g which a r e above and beyond i t s common use. The lamp o f t r u t h advocates honesty i n a r c h i t e c t u r e : " t h a t the suggested s t r u c t u r e i n a b u i l d i n g i s i n f a c t , t h e t r u e one." The lamp o f power says: " t h a t good a r c h i t e c t u r e s h o u l d be endowed w i t h the severe and m y s t e r i o u s majesty o r power, r e f l e c t e d i n i t s s i z e and shape."  The lamp o f beauty suggests:  " t h a t a r c h i t e c t u r e d e r i v e s c h i e f l y from the i m i t a t i o n of n a t u r a l forms."  The lamp o f l i f e t e l l s u s : " t h a t  a r c h i t e c t u r e must r e f l e c t man's thoughts and r e v e a l (the touch o f h i s hand."  I b i d . ; p. 15.  -7-  The lamp of memory says: "that a r c h i t e c t u r e must render the a r c h i t e c t u r e  of the day h i s t o r i c a l . "  F i n a l l y the lamp of obedience says: that good a r c h i tecure i s one that i s subjected  to a formula.  -8-  Chapter 1  The Lamp o f S a c r i f i c e  Statement o f t h e f o r m u l a parameter f o r c r i t i s m  Ruskin's f i r s t r u l e i s c o n t a i n e d i n t h e Lamp of S a c r i f i c e .  A r c h i t e c t u r e " i s the a r t which so  d i s p o s e s and adorns an e d i f i c e , t h a t t h e s i g h t o f i t may c o n t r i b u t e t o man's mental h e a l t h , power and pleasure"."'  R u s k i n d i s t i n g u i s h e s between a r c h i -  t e c t u r e and b u i l d i n g . tecture.  Not a l l b u i l d i n g s a r e a r c h i -  He w r i t e s : " . . . i f t o t h e stone f a c i n g of a b u i l d i n g i t be added an unnecessary f e a t u r e , such as a c a b l e moulding, t h a t i s a r c h i t e c t u r e . Or i f p r o j e c t i n g masses can be c a r v e d i n t o rounded c o u r s e s , which a r e u s e l e s s , and i f t h e headings of t h e i n t e r v a l s be arched and t r e f o i l e d , which i s u s e - ^ l e s s , that i s a r c h i t e c t u r e . "  He makes c l e a r t h a t a r c h i t e c t u r e concerns i t s e t f \  o n l y w i t h those c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f an e d i f i c e which  5 Ibid 6  Ibid  • 5  p. 13.  • 5  p.15.  -9-  are above and beyond i t s common use. To best d e f i n e the s p i r i t of s a c r i f i c e , he  says:  " . . . t h a t i t prompts us to the o f f e r i n g of precious things merely because-^they are u s e f u l or necessary.". There are two of  c o n d i t i o n s that enforce the  s a c r i f i c e : the f i r s t  i s that we  spirit  should always do  our best to the p o i n t of utmost e f f o r t , and second i s that an i n c r e a s e i n apparent  the  labour leads  to an i n c r e a s e i n beauty of the b u i l d i n g .  C r i t i q u e of Sedgewick from Ruskin's  point of view  The d e c i s i o n to preserve the 40-year o l d p i n oaks i n t h e i r o r i g i n a l p o s i t i o n s and to design the new  b u i l d i n g around them seems to be a good example  of Ruskin's  lamp of s a c r i f i c e r u l e being a p p l i e d by^  7  Ibid.,p.l8.  8  Ibid.,p.39.  J  -10-  t h e d e s i g n e r s and c l i e n t s .  F o r t h e sake o f p r e -  s e r v a t i o n o f e i g h t t r e e s and t h e environment i n which they stood a g r e a t d e a l o f e x t r a e f f o r t , i n g e n u i t y and expense was r e s o r t e d t o .  The a r c h i t e c t u r e o f the Sedgewick L i b r a r y i s so d i s p o s e d as t o r e s p e c t the t r a d i t i o n a l appearance of t h e Main M a l l and i n p a r t i c u l a r t h e p r e s e r v a t i o n of t h e oaks.  I t conforms t o t h e o b s e r v a t i o n s made  by t h e Senate L i a i s o n Committee on P l a n n i n g Permanent B u i l d i n g s headed by Dr. H. P e t e r  Oberlander,  then d i r e c t o r o f t h e School o f Community and R e g i o n a l Planning.  The wording  o f the committee's r e p o r t was:  "...the p r e v a i l i n g academic environment and landscape o f the c e n t r a l p a r t o f t h e campus has u s u a l l y been i d e n t i f i e d w i t h the v e r y essence o f t h e U n i v e r s i t y ' s c h a r a c t e r . The e x i s t i n g form and q u a l i t y s h o u l d be p r e s e r v e d and enhanced. The e x i s t i n g t r e e s are p a r t i c u l a r l y r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h e c h a r a c t e r and s e t t i n g of t h e space i n f r o n t o f t h e Main L i b r a r y and every e f f o r t must be made t o m a i n t a i n t h e t r e e s , the s u b s t a n t i a l grass  -11-  area and a number o f o t h e r ^ s m a l l landscape f e a t u r e s . " In Ruskin's terms Sedgewick's a r c h i t e c t u r e a t tempts t o c o n t r i b u t e t o man's mental h e a l t h and pleasure.  There i s no immediate advantage t o the  f u n c t i o n of the b u i l d i n g i n adapting t o the e x i s t i n g environment,  but as a r e p o r t e r w r i t i n g on t h e p l a n s  f o r the b u i l d i n g e x p l a i n s : " . . . e x c a v a t i o n and l a n d s c a p i n g c o s t s w i l l be h i g h e r than normal, but i f v a l u e were g i v e n t o maint a i n i n g open spaces on t h e campus under t h e p r e s e n t s t u d e n t popul a t i o n d e n s i t y , the e x t r a cost would be a s m a l l p r i c e t o pay." This i s the s p i r i t of s a c r i f i c e that Ruskin t a l k s about as a n e c e s s a r y i n g r e d i e n t f o r good architecture.  Indeed we a r e impressed  by the  e f f o r t taken t o p r o t e c t t h e e a r t h around-the r o o t s o f the oaks f o r no o t h e r purpose  than t o  p r e s e r v e something as ephemeral and even s p i r i t u a l as an environmental " c h a r a c t e r " .  J.A.Banham,(editor), "Board Approves New L i b r a r y P l a n and t h e reason behind new Sedgewick L i b r a r y " , U.B.C. R e p o r t s , V o l . 1 5 , No.18, Vancouver:USB.C. -Oct. 1969 pTZ. "*Ibid. , p. 4 .  -12-  Another example where the extra effort has resulted i n an architecture which i s more successful is the use of mirrors on the skylight cones.  In figures 1 and 2, one can see the mirrors :  refl-  ecting interesting images of the surrounding landse cape and sky i n a collage-like manner.  They become  objets d'art that are attractive to ."pass and animate the walkway i n a manner that would not have been possible had the concrete cones- remained as unadorned concrete. They are the only v i s i b l e symbol marking 11 the existence of the- l i b r a r y .  ""  The cones are not outcroppings of formed steel from a building, but architectural elements which contribute to the observer's pleasure.  We should also mention the planting boxes as an extra put i n by the architects. These as shown i n  11  From an interview with Randle Iredale held January 30th., 1983, Vancouver, B.C.  -13-  f i g u r e 13, add r i c h n e s s to the design.  There are, on the other hand, instances where " s a c r i f i c e " was not made, such as the bare  interior  where the designers and,.to some extent, the c l i e n t insisted  on spartan  The entrances  finishing.  on the n o r t h and south s i d e of the  library particularly  were designed without making  any " s a c r i f i c e " at a l l . . On the c o n t r a r y they were l e f t bare on purpose to induce the c l i e n t to complete the c o n s t r u c t i o n o f the s i d e extensions of the l i b r a r y .  A curious instance of d e l i b e r a t e w i t h h o l d i n g of extra e f f o r t  f o r an u l t e r i o r motive. The Ruskinian  e t h i c would have r e q u i r e d that a s a t i s f a c t o r y be given t o a l l work even i f i t be considered "temporary".  finishing  -14-  Chapter 2  The Lamp of Truth  Statement of the code parameter for c r i t i s m  The Lamp of Truth i s Ruskin's second rule for good architecture.  Architecture of pretense, con-  cealment and deceit i s wrong.  Ruskin advocates honest architecture.: He claims that "the s p i r i t of truth i s broken i n architecture when:(l) The structure or support i s suggested in a building which i s not the true one; (2) The treatment of surfaces with the intention to conceal the r e a l material; and (3) the use of machine ^2 made ornaments of any kind." With respect to structural truth, Ruskin adds, "that only stone, brick or wood i s to be used. Iron (especially cast-iron) i s  John Ruskin, The Seven Lamps of Architecture, 2nd. edition, (London: George Allen, 1905) p. 62.  -15-  not p e r m i t t e d , except as a s t r u c t u r a l a i d used as a cement."13 He does permit the c o v e r i n g of the s t r u c t u r a l elements as he says, "the bones need not be  shown."  Surface d e c e i t s a r e d e f i n e d as "the inducement o f the s u p p o s i t i o n of some form o f m a t e r i a l which does not e x i s t , such as the p a i n t i n g o f wood t o l o o k as i f i t were marble. However, i f p a i n t i n g does not r e p r e s e n t o r a s s e r t any m a t e r i a l what-so-ever such as the f r e s c o e s and p a i n t i n g s of the i n t e r i o r , i t does not c o n s t i t u t e a v i o l a t i o n of the r u l e . " 15 He a l s o permits c o v e r i n g o f b r i c k by marble o r o t h e r p r e c i o u s m a t e r i a l s as l o n g as i t i s c l e a r t h a t these m a t e r i a l s a r e c l e a r l y understood t o be s u r f a c e treatments  and do not pretend  t o be s o l i d  and s t r u c t u r a l . The l a s t d e c e i t d e a l s w i t h the s u b s t i t u t i o n of machine work f o r t h a t o f the hand and he c a l l s i t 16 "operative deceit". 13 I b i d . , p.70-72 14 15  Ibid  • 5  p.75  I b i d . , p.88  16 I b i d  • 3  p.114  The r e a s o n behind  this rule  -16-  i s that I n Ruskin's view, machine work i s bad and^ dishonest.  Machine made ornaments, says Ruskin  are " l i k e f a l s e jewels worn by a woman, and they 17 are an inexcusable l i e . "  C r i t i q u e of Sedgewick from Ruskin's point of view  The  t r u t h i n the s t r u c t u r e  Randle I r e d a l e , designer of the Sedgewick L i b r a r y , says that the design team was "committed 18 to honesty."  At l e a s t one expression  of t h i s  honesty appears i n the b o l d l y expressed columns on the facade which are designed t o show they are supp o r t i n g the h o r i z o n t a l s t r u c t u r e as opposed t o the t r e e - r o o t caissons might seem to span. a n c e  1 7  between which the f l o o r  structure  To f u r t h e r reduce the appear-  of the h o r i z o n t a l r-structure r e s t i n g on the:  I b i d . , p.118  18 From an i n t e r v i e w with I r e d a l e held on January 30, 1983 i n Vancouver, B.C.  -17-  c a i s s o n s , the c o n c r e t e p l a n t i n g box  "eyebrows"  which c a n t i l e v e r o f f the beam are stopped s h o r t of the b r i c k c y l i n d e r s . I n c i d e n t a l l y , i n R u s k i n i a n terms a dilemma appears i n the v e r y use of r e i n f o r c e d c o n c r e t e . A l though the use of c o n c r e t e was a r a r i t y i n Ruskin's time and t h e r e f o r e was not mentioned by him, h i s condemnation  of the use of c a s t i r o n i n a r c h i t e c -  t u r e may w e l l be t a k e n as a condemnation o f a l l s i m i l a r l y c a s t m a t e r i a l s which i n Ruskin's eyes can o n l y be d e c e i t f u l i m i t a t i o n of the t r a d i t i o n a l s t r u c t u r a l l y obvious m a t e r i a l s such as masonry and wood. I f we compare the Vancouver A r t G a l l e r y  (figure  5 ) t o the facade of Sedgewick we note t h a t the Vancouver A r t g a l l e r y b u i l d i n g w i t h i t s s t r u c t u r a l elements made of s t o n e , shows i t s s u p p o r t i n g columns of dimensions which convey t o the o b s e r v e r an une q u i v o c a l message of b e i n g s u p p o r t i n g elements propo r t i o n a t e t o the s i z e of the h o r i z o n t a l elements they support.  -18-  At Sedgewick on the other hand, the  cast-concrete  columns are very slender i n appearance, since the nature of the material does not require them to have large dimensions.  Functionally, their dim-  ensions are s u f f i c i e n t , but v i s u a l l y , they are too weak compared to the dimensions of the horizontal elements they support.  This need for c l a r i f i c a t i o n i s evidenced by Sedgewick's design, as noted e a r l i e r the brick caissons are articulated i n a manner to ensure that they are not thought of as being  supporting  the l i n t e l and horizontal structure.  When we turn to the inside of the l i b r a r y , we note as shown i n figure 8 that the true structure can be observed everywhere. In fact, Ruskin's idea of architectural truth i s taken to the extreme of exposing a l l the servicing. The l i g h t i n g , the a i r conditioning, the sprinklers and other mechanical elements are shown.  -19-  While ducted and piped services of this kind were very rare - i f they existed at a l l - i n Ruskin's time, he i s silent about this kind of "truth".  Yet  one cannot help assuming that Ruskin would not have condoned a chimeny disguised as perhaps a turret or a cast iron drain pipe treated as an architectural molding.  However, he would have expected  that such elements be treated with ornament and not l e f t i n a raw, art of  mechanical state unhumanized by the  craftsmanship.  The truth of surfaces  With respect to Ruskin's rule applying to the treatment of surfaces with the intention to conceal the real material, we might note the brick covering of the steel drums which enclose the tree roots.  Brick i s generally used as a supporting  material.  In fact so strong i s the association of brick to being considered a structural material that i t s use  -20-  in this case leadsthe viewer to believe that i t i s one.  Yet i t i s used as a surfacing material only  as shown i n figure 7 and  43.  Since Ruskin accepts the use of brick as a 19 veneer  i t ought not be necessary to pursue this  argument further i n this context. Yet, i t i s i n t eresting that Iredale denies that the brick casing is simply veneer and argues that i t has an honesty expressed functional purpose.  He states "that 20  the brick i s there to satisfy a functional need." The tree roots must be kept cool, and thus a i r space was  required between the drum and the i n t e r i o r  of the l i b r a r y . Figure 43 demonstrates how  c a r e f u l l y the truthful  function of the brick i s expressed i n the d e t a i l i n g which clearly exposes to view the relationships of John Ruskin, The Seven Lamps of Architecture, 2nd edition (London: George Allen, 1905) p.74. 20  From an interview with Randle Iredale held on January 30, 1983 i n Vancouver, B.C.  -21-  the brick skin to the inner steel drum.  Ruskin resolves the problem of veneers by i n d i cating that i f the observer c l e a r l y knows that deceit is not intended,  then i t i s permitted. For example:  "one knows a gilded capital is not s o l i d gold; one knows that carpeting is only skin deep; one knows that marble slabs are applied to and not sup~2^ porting a structural wall." It i s the inducement of the supposition of some material which does not exist; for example,paintting plaster to make i t look l i k e marble or carving stucco to make i t look l i k e stone,which Ruskin^ forbids.  Thus the mirrored cones projecting onto the Main Mall, can also be excused from committing a surface ^deceit.  Presumably the same argument can be held  John Ruskin, The Seven Lamps of Architecture, 2nd. edition (London: George Allen, 1905) p. 76.  -22-  for  the c a r p e t i n g on the w a l l , shown i n f i g u r e 6 ,  as w e l l as f o r the painted p l a s t e r on the concrete walls.  The use o f machine made ornaments  With respect  t o machine made ornament an anathema  of Ruskin's, two examples t o be found i n Sedgewick might be c i t e d : the w a l l graphics  ( f i g u r e 4) and the  l e t t e r i n g a p p l i e d to the g l a s s . ( f i g u r e 3)  Besides the absence o f the evidence o f man's hand, waht bothered Ruskin about machine-made ornament was i t s unnatural  r e p e t i t i v e n e s s and what he f e l t  (especi-  a l l y i n cast i r o n ornament) was the i n a b i l i t y of the machine t o b r i n g the a r t of the ornament t o the point of s e n s i t i v e refinement.  Probably the s l i c k n e s s of the machine-like execut i o n of the Sedgewick w a l l graphic would have appear^  -23-  ed  f a u l t y t o R u s k i n , but t h e f a c t of i t s u n i q u e -  ness and i t s c a r e f u l l y d e s i g n e d r e l a t i o n t o t h e w a l l s on which i t appears a s i d e from g i v i n g the d i g n i t y and d i s t i n c t i o n demanded by R u s k i n , c e r t a i n l y speaks c l e a r l y o f what i t i s : p a i n t on a f l a t face.  I t s avoidance o f any trompe l ' o e i l  sur-  imitation  of c a r v e d o r a p p l i e d elements can be a t t r i b u t e d t o a by now p r o b a b l y u n c o n s c i o u s compulsion on t h e p a r t o f the a r t i s t t o comply w i t h t h e dictum o f truth.  The main purpose o f t h e l e t t e r i n g on the g l a s s is  t o p r o v i d e an e n t e r t a i n i n g means o f c r e a t i n g  v i s u a l b a r r i e r s so t h a t the b u i l d i n g u s e r s won't bump i n t o t h e g l a s s , but i t a l s o becomes a form o f o r n a m e n t a t i o n , machine-made and i n t e l l e c t u a l l y as w e l l as v i s u a l l y amusing.  I t may be worth n o t i n g  here t h a t R u s k i n forbade a l l use o f l e t t e r i n g i n pP  architecture.  22 I b i d . , p.86.  He e v i d e n t l y d i d n o t n o t i c e o r  -24-  -did not appreciate the refinements  of l e t t e r i n g i n  Roman structures or the use of i t i n Islamic ornament .  F i n a l l y , under the argument of the Lamp of Truth one  must mention the structural elements which by  remaining  exposed on the i n t e r i o r candidly inform  the viewer of the way the building i s put together and how i t s structural system functions.  The r e l a -  t i o n of this exposure of the skeleton to the Gothic architecture that Ruskin so admired needs no elaboration. Ruskin might have been impressed with.  -25-  Chapter 3  The Lamp of Power  Statement of the code parameter for c r i t i c i s m  Ruskin's third rule i s expressed i n the Lamp of Power.  He says that, "good architecture must be endowed by a severe and mysterious majesty, which we remember with an undiminished awe, l i k e that f e l t at the presence and operation of some great s p i r i t u a l power." 23  This power i s expressed i n several ways, the 24 f i r s t of which i s " s i z e " . Ruskin-  The building -adds  should be 1 ocated on a high elevation and i t  should be possible to be seen at once i n i t s entirety. Secondly to give the appearance of dominion, i t s length, width and height should be almost similar, closely resembling a cube. But more importantly, he suggests that, 2 3  Ibid. p. 126.  2 4  Ibid. p. 131.  ~^  -26-  "the wall i s eminetly the p r i n c i p l e of power, as evidenced i n Egyptian and2r Romanesque architecture." Ruskin says that when we look at a building, "the eye w i l l be drawn to i t s terminal lines and these should be removed as far as possible. Thus the square and the c y l i n d r i c a l column, are the elements of utmost power i n a l l architectural arrangements." 26 Ruskin mentions the Doge's Palace with i t s large surface and combined with arcades as a model of perfect power. No building can be.truly powerful, he adds, unless i t has mighty, vigorous and deep shadows interplaying with i t s surface.  Critique of Sedgewick from Ruskin's point of view  Figure 12 shows a bird's-eye view of the l i b r a r y ,  25 26  Ibid Ibid  p. 139 • 5  p. 142  -27-  tohich was  b u i l t not on a high elevation but i n a  depression of a park and under a mall. The rule was  designer's  precisely the opposite of the lamp of power,  says Iredale. "We  wanted a minimalist building, a  building that should  disappear,  one that i s buried  to the point of having the cones as the only i n d i cators or symbolist  elements of the library's  27 location." Obviously  a building that i s intended to be sub-  terranean would deny intention of overwhelming the viewer with i t s impact.  However aspects of the v i s i -  ble d e t a i l s of the composition express quite boldly the Ruskinian notion of power i n architecture.  We observe an interplay of deep and  vigorous  shadows produced by the combination of the masses of the caissons and the floor to c e i l i n g glass fenestra-  27  From an interview with Randle Iredale held January 30, 1983 i n Vancouver, B.C.  -28-  tion  and  The  giant  t i c a l the of  the  very the  It  ways 9  the  to  side  of  forced  the  by  planters.  The  and  large of  to  be  9)  quixo-  flower  Ruskin  architectural  pots,  cites  as  one  power,  temples  of of  the  ones  resemble  combination  these  elements  monumentally,  power  as  an  through  evidenced  architectural antiquity  and  as  and one  of  the  that  design the  as  shape  convey  (figure  the  far  Gothic  the  10)  for  downs of  edged  razor-blades  ingredient ups  an  rein-  sharpe  huge  also  Again  of  of  is  library.  space  size  Largeness  the  of  discovered  apparent,  into  gone  be  elements  is  the  has  the  masses  is  of  can  of  It  notion  architecture  and  almost  that  power  elevation  latter  power  objectives  of  thrust  space.  the  which  interesting  shadows  cutting  tory.  appear  gargantuan  scale  definition  west  This  caissons  achieve  indeed  interplay  effect  of  planters.(figure  )  is  the  the  resembling  bigness  Ruskin's  of  cylindrical  creations  (figure  on  overhang  in  good his-  primary  back  as  catherals.  -29-  In the 20th. century the architectural design d i r ected by authoritarian regimes has espoused Ruskin's code, where largeness i s equated to goodness i n architecture.  There are however opposing views, which long for delicacy even f r a g i l i t y and low p r o f i l e as aesthetic assets for good architecture after World War II peaking i n 1968 with the movement against pomposeness and concerns with preserving a humane environment.  In spite of the examples mentioned above which indicate the "power" of certain d e t a i l s of the b u i l d ing, i t s overall impact i s humble rather than dominating.  It i s b u i l t i n a depression of the landscape. Its contour does not stand out but rather tends to disappear underground.  Iredale says "that there has i n  fact been a conscious attempt to t o t a l l y disguise the  -30-  bulk of the building."  Figure 11 shows the cont-  rast between the aura of dominion emanating from the design of the  Main Library building  compared  to the low p r o f i l e d , accommodating, and retreating character of Sedgewick.  Ruskin's code i s contra-  dicted, i n order to f u l f i l l the demands of another philosophy of l i f e .  The objective of the design was to preserve and enhance the existing environment; a low p r o f i l e edifice was the most appropriate answer. Contradicting Ruskin, the contemporary c r i t i c would argue the virtue of the design precisely because of i t s restraint i n terms of Ruskinian "power".  Douglas Shadbolt commented when awarding the 19 Best Design Award to Sedgewick:  28  From an interview held on January 30, 1983 i n Vancouver, B.C.  -31-  "... the l i b r a r y does not interfere with existing buildings or surroundings and yet improves the function of each, i t i s an example of architectural humility." 29  "1970 Best Design Award", Canadian Architecture Yearbook, Don M i l l s : Southam, 1971, p. 25. Professor Douglas Shadbolt was one of the three panel judges.  -32-  Chapter 4  The Lamp of Beauty  Statement of code parameter for c r i t i c i s m  The fourth rule i s stated i n the Lamp of Beauty. Beauty i n architecture, says Ruskin, derives c h i e f l y "from the imitation of natural forms. Imitation of nature i s the only source of beauty and thus of good architecture." 30 The adaptation  of forms that are commonest i n  nature i s what good architecture must strive for, according  to Ruskin.  For instance, the pointed  arch  is beautiful because, i t imitates the termination of a typical leaf.  A l l good architecture  " i s founded on the laws of natural forms, and those forms which are most frequent are most natural." 31 Thus i t follows that i n this resemblance of natural  30 31  John Ruskin, The Seven Lamps of Architecture, 2nd edition. (London: George Allen, lWb) p. 190, Ibid., p.221  -33-  forms good architectural forms w i l l not be straight lines which are rarely seen i n nature. "Organic forms are the best forms, abstract geomertic forms should be avoided." 32  Critique of Sedgewick from Ruskin's point of view  The architecture of Sedgewick Library Building has obviously been consciously adapted to the sloping park (created by the architects who  reversed  the o r i g i n a l land slope up to the mall) that exists in the academic quadrangle bordered by the Main L i b r ary,  Buchanan Building and the Mathematics Complex.  Figure 12 shows bird's-eye views of Sedgewick where the building i s c a r e f u l l y inserted into n a t u r a l i s t i c landscape forms.  Furthermore, the cantilevered structural elements  32 Ibid., p. 260-261  -34-  become planters.  Thus the architecture clothes i t  T  self with the landscape. The shape of the planters with their sharp ending edges, attempts to reduce to the minimum the amount of man made construction shown.  Figure 13  reveals an attempt i n the architecture  to respond to and integrate with the a r t i f i c i a l and pseudo-natural forms of the west and east courts and their landscaping.  Note how the facade i s broken  up to adapt to the contours of the grade facing the Mathematics Building.  However, the architectural forms at Sedgewick are derived from the machine-aesthetic and not natural 33 forms, says Randle Iredale.  The building i s inte-  grated into the natural landscape to disguise i t s bulk. Indeed the building has been given the contours 33  From an interview with Iredale held on January 30, 1983 i n Vancouver, B.C.  -35-  bf  a  terraced h i l l and has been so laden with earth  and plant material that the links between the b u i l d ing and the landscape are r e a l l y blurred.(figure 13)  Although the e f f o r t to adapt an "unnatural" straightlined building to a landscape may not be the same as imitating or learning d i r e c t l y from natural forms.  Yet, adaptation, when i t responds to the  pressures of nature and allows nature to be determinant i n the process, must lead to forms which are enhanced by this determination. Frank Lloyd Wright's words come to mind: "good architecture i s linked to'. ..34 nature."  The aesthetic philosophy of deliberate contrast between the hard structural lines of Sedgewick and the n a t u r a l i s t i c landscape which unfolds i t , i s one which  34  Ruskin does not consider.  His disdain of the  F.L.Wright,"Organic Architecture," F. Gutheim, (editor), On Architecture, Selected Writings, (New York: Grouet and Dunlop, 1941) p. 17 7-1°'!  -36-  machine together with machine-like or "machined" forms prevented him from a p p r e c i a t i n g the machine as a p a r t n e r o f nature.  Sedgewick's e x p l o i t a t i o n  of t h i s p a r t n e r s h i p thus expands the r e l a t i o n s h i p between a r c h i t e c t u r e and nature beyond Ruskin's comprehension.  Observing the shape of the b u i l d i n g i n f i g u r e 14. One  notes hwo the steps seem to f o l l o w the n a t u r a l  contours on the h i l l  as i s nature had channeled  them out of the e a r t h . On the other hand we f i n d on f i g u r e 14, that the h r o i z o n t a l p l a n t e r s are of an u n y i e l d i n g man made shape. The form of the p l a n t e r s i s d i v o r c e d from n a t u r a l forms,  y e t the shrubs  that  they house, confuse i t with the landscape. There i s an attempt ical  form.  to s o f t e n the impact  of the h a r d geometr-  There i s a c l a s h here; the hard l i n e s of  ^fehe h o r i z o n t a l p l a n t e r s a r e mixed with n a t u r a l elements.  We know that hte designers were not i n t e r e s t e d i n i m i t a t i n g nature, per se,  yet c o n s c i o u s l y or not  they have created a structure which resembles a cave. For the observer this association of Sedgewick with a cave-like structure i s unavoidable.  Indeed, i t s cave-like appearance may be said to impart certain romantic character to the architecture which i s intriguing to the viewer.  Ruskin advises designers to learn from natural forms.  Perhaps he i s t e l l i n g us that for architect-  ure to be appreciated i t needs to be understood, and by associating man-made forms with f a m i l i a r aspects of nature, architecture becomes comprehensible  to the  ordinary man.  Although the d e t a i l of the column, the beam and the T-beams do not imitate the forms of a l e a f , or an oak tree. The post and l i n t e l structure seen i n figure 15 may not be a form commonly found i n nature, yet associations with natural forms become inevitable for the observer, who i s familiar with them.  At the  most obvious l e v e l , one could argue that the stout  -38-  columns r e c a l l tree trunks f a m i l i a r with the way  ( f i g u r e 15)  and  i n which r e i n f o r c e d  for  one  concrete  works, a sense of the b r a n c h - l i k e forms of  the  hidden s t e e l r e i n f o r c i n g bars, even i n the  abstrac-  t i o n of the aesthetic the 15  imagination, brings with i t some of  t e n s i o n and  tensible actionof  drama that are the  f i b e r s of a  the  expressed i n tree.(figure  )  Another instance of an a r c h i t e c t u r a l form r e f lecting a natural where the  one  can be  seen i n f i g u r e  16,  i r o n chain which d i r e c t s r a i n water i n t o  a b a s i n appears as a frozen  image of the  dropping  water so t h a t i e v e n on a day  with sunshine, the  iron  chain remainds us of the dynamics of water f a l l i n g i n t o a pond. not,  Whether intended by the  the a e s t h e t i c  prove Ruskin's  Some may a p a t i o n and erving  the  architects  or  success of the d e t a i l seems to  point.  argue however, that i m i t a t i o n with the  t h i s e f f o r t of  ad-  i n t e n t i o n of pres-  e x i s t i n g campus landscaping scheme i s noi  - 3 9 -  n a t u r a l at a l l .  What i s n a t u r a l one may ask, i n  the l o c a t i o n of the p i n oaks which have been by man  i n ageometrical  planted  p a t t e r n f o r t y years ago,  r e p l a c i n g the n a t u r a l growth of cedar and f i r trees on the s i t e ?  The use of plant m a t e r i a l i n geometrical  and a r c h i -  t e c t o n i c p a t t e r n s , however, has been a f a c t o r i n s i t e design  since ancient  times. Ruskin does not deal with  t h i s i s s u e , but we have to point out and ask i f there i s not another r u l e which a r c h i t e c t s ( i n c l u d i n g Rhone and Iredale) have responded to which may  be  e q u a l l y important, but a v a r i a t i o n on Ruskin's theme; namely, the i m i t a t i o n and p r e s e r v a t i o n landscapes.  of man-made  So t h a t i m i t a t i o n of that which i m i t a t e s  nature a l s o becomes a worthwhile p u r s u i t , ( f i g u r e 17)  -40-  Chapter 5  The Lamp of L i f e  Statement of the code parameter for c r i t i c i s m  Ruskin's f i f t h rule i s expressed i n the. chapter 34 e n t i t l e d The Lamp of L i f e . for  Good architecture  him should r e f l e c t man's thoughts and reveal  the touch of his hand. According to Ruskin, machine made products cannot do t h i s . He advocates handcraftsmanship as a true r e f l e c t i o n of l i f e . All  successful architecture must have fullness  of l i f e .  • 34  3 5  "As sea sands are made beautiful by their bearing the seal of the motion of the waters, so good architecture becomes such i n proportion to the amount of energy of that mind of man which 25 has v i s i b l y been upon i t . "  John Ruskin, The Seven Lamps of Architecture, 2nd edition. (London: George Allen, iy0i>) p. 270. Ibid., p.271.  -41-  Such are the words of Ruskin. He also concludes that good architecture w i l l always be a r e f l e c t i o n of use.  Critique of Sedgewick from Ruskin's point of view  Observing the Sedgewick Library, we detect a lack of concern for handicraft which could have made Ruskin cringe. Figure 23 shows the pre-cast, factory made elements of the l i b r a r y ' s structure.  Randle  Iredale says that "the design team was not at a l l 37 preoccupied with handcraftsmanship." The machine aesthetic of'ithe design can be noted throughout the l i b r a r y . Even i n the elements which pa fact required extensive hand work, such as forming the main stairway, the workman's hand i s not evident.  37  From an interview with R. Iredale held January 30, 1983 i n Vancouver, B.C.  -42-  The result looks l i k e a form extruded from a machine, (figure 18).  Here hand work and craftsmanship was  used extensively to produce the reverse effect, (figures 18 and 19 )  Observing the enclosed stairway shown i n figure 19 we detect a design that attempts to prevent us from hearing the sound  of the hammer of the c r a f t s -  men who t o i l e d to build the i n t r i c a t e shape of the stairway, contradicting Ruskin, who praised the shape of the sea sands for bearing the imprint of the sound of the waves.  Since i n concrete design i t i s i n the creation of the form work that the hand  of the builder can be  expressed one wonders i f the design could not c a l l for and e l i c i t this experssion rather than to s t r i v e for a "machined" character i n the finished  product.  Whether or not the result might seem superior would depend on the value that the user placed on Ruskin's Lamp of L i f e . J  -43-  An example where Ruskinian hand workmanship can be found i s the painted graphic shownin figure 4.  This painted graphic has been created according  to a l l the rules of the Lamp of L i f e .  The graphic  is unique, i t has been designed for this s p e c i f i c location, i t i s the expression of a human being, i t has been painted by hand and i t i s inspired by nature.  It i s certainly not an i n d u s t r i a l  product such as a wall paper or a purely machine made ornament and thus seems to respond meticulously to Ruskin's code.  But much of the ornament i s  characterized by hard edged lines probably painted with the aid of straight edges and tape, r e f l e c t i n g the machine aesthetic, an art made by machines, rather  than humans, an actual contradiction of  Ruskin's code.  The hand of the workman i s hardly  evident. But would the result have been as effective r f i t had been painted free-hand and revealed the i r r e g u l a r i t i e s and assymmetries so admired by Ruskin and which he observed with pleasure i n the carving of a Byzantine  capitol?  -44-  F i n a l l y , we turn to the extensive use of the, brick work i n the l i b r a r y . The purpose of the use of brick was according to Randle Iredale "to give human feel as opposed to the machine f e e l . "  From time immemorial the brick wall has been associated with hand work. Indeed, the bricklayer's hand ought to be revealed i n very joint where mortar is applied.  The fact that the bricks are machine  made might be irrelevant here.  What we know i s that  the bricks were l a i d one by one, c a r e f u l l y conforming to the curvature of the perimeter of the caissons as shown i n figure 20.  We could expect such a process to result i n perfect compliance with the Lamp of L i f e rule. The brick work is hand assembled s p e c i f i c a l l y for this location and placed without the aid of machines of any kind.  38  From an interview with R. Iredale held January 30, 1983, Vancouver, B.C.  -45-  Y e t what we s e e i s t h e r e g u l a r i t y o f what couDd h a v e b e e n a m a c h i n e made b r i c k w a l l . touch i s not v i s i b l e  at a l l .  The  bricklayer's  I n s p i t e o f t h e use o f  a m a t e r i a l i n h e r e n t l y a s s o c i a t e d w i t h handwork, t h e "mechanical" p e r f e c t i o n of the b r i c k l a y e r ' s  technique  o b l i t e r a t e s t h e i m p r e s s i o n o f a human h a n d a t w o r k .  The u s e o f handwork does n o t seem t o be e n o u g h , n o t even t h e use o f hand p l a c e d b r i c k i s s u f f i c i e n t . What seems t o be l a c k i n g i s t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n o f c o n scious i r r e g u l a r i t y  i n t h e handwork. W r i g h t  talks  a b o u t t r a i n i n g h i s workmen t o p r o d u c e t h e " d e s i g n e d " i r r e g u l a r i t i e s w h i c h he s o u g h t f o r i n h i s m a s o n r y . I t i s a c u r i o u s dilemma: t o g i v e t h e i m p r e s s i o n o f t r u e handwork we must e x a g g e r a t e , e v e n f a l s i f y  i n order to  e x p r e s s t h e b e a u t y o f handwork.  We h a v e come a f u l l  circle  handwork n e e d s t o be f a l s i f i e d  i n t h i s argument. I f t o a p p e a r as s u c h , a r e  we n o t i n f a c t b e i n g a s k e d by R u s k i n t o d i s o b e y h i s code i n t h e Lamp o f T r u t h ?  -46-  Chapter 6  The Lamp of Memory  Statement of the code parameter for c r i t i c i s m  The  sixth rule i s the Lamp of Memory. Ruskin  claims that good architecture has two duties: " f i r s t , to render the a r c h i tecture of the day h i s t o r i c a l , and the second, to preserve as the most precious of i n h e r i tance, that of past ages." 39 It i s thus i n becoming memorable that a true perfection i s attained by c i v i l and domestic buildings. Ruskin i s advocating building for centuries of use, not mere decades. He would l i k e to see i n good architecture, the entire history of the building indicated or represented i n i t s form. He wishes to discourage changes which completely wipe out, forms and alterations previously made, for he believes that future users w i l l find pleasure and beauty i n the signs l e f t by previous users.  39  John Ruskin, The Seven Lamps of Architecture, 2nd edition. (London: George Allen, 1905) p.325.  -47-  It  i s said  that  to understand  t h e p r e s e n t , we  have t o l o o k t o t h e p a s t . I t i s by t h e knowledge o f t h e p a s t t h a t we c a n p r o j e c t future. its  I f i t i s d e n i e d t o t h e human r a c e t o d i s c o v e r  primary  least  ourselves to the  o r i g i n and i t s u l t i m a t e d e s t i n y , a t  by s t u d y i n g t h e l e g a c y o f o u r a n c e s t o r s we as  a p e o p l e o b t a i n some c o m f o r t , to understand  security,  and b e g i n  who we a r e and .where we have come  Architecture  from.  as t h e e x p r e s s i o n o f man's  t h o u g h t s , h i s a r d o u r , h i s h u m a n i t y , h i s f a i t h and his  religion  c a n p l a y an i m p o r t a n t  s e r v a t i o n o f memories. c h a r a c t e r o f permanence, to remain  as a document  The i m p o r t a n c e •bf memories  i n the pre-  Because o f a r c h i t e c t u r e ' s i t i s extremely of past  suitable  ages.  of architecture  as a p r e s e r v e r  i s e v i d e n c e d by t h e r e s u r g e n c e  conservationist  movement. I t i s t h e d e s i r e  movement t o p r e v e n t  If  role  architecture  the disappearance  i s t o perform  of the of the  of the past.  i t s role,  i t must  -48-  -as Ruskin says- be constructed  to'last a long  time, and i t must be b u i l t firmly enough and with enough conviction and r e f l e c t i o n of the builder to leave a long record i n history for the enrichment, of posterity.  Critique of Sedgewick from Ruskin's point of view  The e f f o r t made i n the design of Sedgewick to preserve memories of the past such as that of the path of the Main Mall and the continuity of the rows of trees that were planted to l i n e the o r i g i n a l roadway designed i n 1914 seems to admit to the importance of Ruskin's Lamp of Memory.  In their e f f o r t to ensure that the structure should remain as a legacy for the future, and not be destroyed  by the advent of change the architects  have designed a building with the conciousness that, "a l i b r a r y i s a dynamic  -49-  organization. Its requirements vary from year to year, with new educational approaches and new technologies and the l i b r a r y changes to meet the new needs. Space that may be used for various purposes i s superior to space that by i t s nature i s permanently dedicated to one function." 40 This implies a design that was meant to outlast the present, but permitting the accommodation of needs of a distant future.  The wish to create architectural forms which w i l l outlast a variety of changing functions may be said to have a close a f f i n i t y with the Lamp of Memory. The planning concept such as that i n Sedgewick which allows for changes to be made to the p a r t i t i o n i n g without having to remove or a l t e r the o r i g i n a l structure does after a l l permit the accommodation of the changing needs of countless generations.  This  User's Committee, The fundamentals of the Sedgewick Library, Vancouver: University of B r i t i s h Columbia 1968, p. 4.  -50-  concept i s the very intention of the design. Says ^ Randle Iredale: "We wanted the i n t e r i o r to have no fixed character, to be multifunctional. We were thinking of the future; ...a hundred years from now, when reading from books w i l l be outdated." However, i f books are to disappear, w i l l the memory of the books linger at Sedgewick?  I f the  architecture should permit a l l traces of books to disappear, then Ruskin's rule of memory w i l l have been flouted.  From an interview with Randle Iredale held January 30, 1983, Vancouver, B.C.  -51-  Chapter 7  The Lamp of Obedience  '  Statement of the code parameter for c r i t i c i s m  The Lamp of Obedience i s the last rule of Ruskin for good architecture.  Ruskin says "good architecture i s one that is subjected to a code of rules, Almost any code, as long as i t is a code and as long as i t can be obeyed."42  Critique of Sedgewick from Ruskin's point of view  We have to determine i f Sedgewick was or was not b u i l t according to a code, any code.  42  John Ruskin, The Seven Lamps of Architecture, 2nd edition, (london: George Allen, 1905) p.361  -52-  Randle I r e d a l e , d e s i g n e r  o f t h e Sedgewick  Library indicates that: "a code was f o l l o w e d : t h a t o f t h e modern movement o f t e n r e f e r r e d t o as modernist these days, u s i n g t h e form f o l l o w s f u n c t i o n principle i n i t s many m a n i f e s t a t i o n s . A code t h a t was m o r e ^ complex than M i e s ' . "  We know then t h a t t h e p h i l o s o p h y  of the  modernist movement was f o l l o w e d and thus t h e b u i l d i n g was d e s i g n e d a c c o r d i n g demands.  t o a code as R u s k i n  I n P a r t I I we w i l l be d e f i n i n g a s p e c t s  of t h e modern code i n d e t a i l .  From an i n t e r v i e w w i t h R. I r e d a l e h e l d January 30, 1983, Vancouver, B.C.  -53-  PART II LUDWIG MIES VAN DER ROHE  MODERN ARCHITECTURE  Summary of p r i n c i p l e theories of Mies van der Rohe  Mies' formula for good architecture i s c l a r i t y and simplicity i n architecture: less i s more.  Mies was a revolutionary architect; he established the vocabulary of modern architectural language, mote than any other representative  of the  modern movement.  The aesthetic code of Mies' good architecture i s contained i n a number of a r t i c l e s that he wrote during his l i f e time. This study w i l l refer to six of his most important writings. In chronological order they are: "Aphorisms on Architecture and Form" 1923, "The Office Building" 1923, "The Indust r i a l i z a t i o n of Building Methods" 1924, "A l e t t e r on Form i n Architecture" 1927, "The New Era" 1930, and "Address to the I l l i n o i s Institute of  -54-  Technology" 1950. Mies was  ^  44  not a man  of many words; his writings  and speeches are short. To complement them, I w i l l be drawing conclusions  about his theories which he  preached and practised, by observing and c i t i n g his works as well.  Mies eliminates a l l the old  constraints and takes a new  approach to architecture.  A short outline on each topic i s given below.  In "Aphorisms on Architecture and Form", he t e l l s us that i n good architecture, "form follows function". ism.  He rejects a l l prior doctrine and  In "The  formal-  Office Building" a r t i c l e , he proposes  a "skin and bones" architecture.  In the  article  "Industrialization of Building Methods", he says that our building methods must be i n d u s t r i a l i z e d , that hand work should be eliminated and that the search for a new  building material i s a must.  In his address to the I l l i n o i s Institute of Technology he indicates that architecture and technology 'are closely related. In good architecture, one  should  -55-  be the expression of the other.  In "A l e t t e r on  Form i n Architecture", he claims that i n good a r c h i tecture, less i s more. Good architecture obtains maximum effect with minimum means.  F i n a l l y i n "The  New  Era", he advocates:that  good architecture i s one that creates an order out of the confusion of our time; a perfect architectural solution which i s "universal". This concept i s i n apparent contradicition with the "form follows function" statement. Mies solves this dilemma by giving a special interpretation to form follows function, as we w i l l see l a t e r , and we w i l l attempt to show that he was  t r u l y an extreme formalist as  observed i n his work.  Chapter 8  Form follows Function  Statement of code parameter for  The  criticism  f i r s t concise statement of principles or  rules to produce good architecture i s contained in the architectural publication "G", Number 1. To Mies, good architecture must, "reject a l l aesthetic specul a t i o n , a l l doctrine, a l l formalism. Architecture i s the w i l l of an epoch translated into space; l i v i n g , changing, new. Create form out of the nature of our tasks with the methods of our time. We refuse to recognize problems of form, but only problems of building. Form i s not the aim of our work, but only the r e s u l t . Form as an aim i s formalism; and that we reject. Essentially our task i s to free the practice of b u i l d ing from the control of aesthetic speculators and restore i t to what i t should exclusively be: building." 45 ^'5 Ludwig Mies van der Rohe, "Aphorism on Architecture and Form", G Number 1 (January 1922) pp.12  T24"  -57-  The essence of his statement i s that "form f o l lows function".  He i s setting a new  order out of  the confusion of our time; thus his interpretation of function i s a simplified and ordered abstraction of the actual function or use.  Mies i s not alking about form following function in the same way  that other " f u n c t i o n a l i s t s " talk  about i t . He i s indeed r e f e r r i n g to s a t i s f y i n g form resulting from choice of structure and materials.  He  seems to be saying : be a good engineer and you w i l l achieve good form.  In other words his emphsis on  the structural form and the use of materials  rather  than on the planning of space which he believes should be as simple as possible.  His plans suggest r i g i d l y preconceived aesthetic notions about form. He seems to be saying precisely the opposite  of "form follows function" i n many of  his buildings where functional i s only l i g h t l y defined and referred to by him as "universal" space i n that i t can be adapted to almost any  function.  -58-  i(We w i l l deal with Universal space i n a later chapter)  Perhaps where this i s best noted i s i n the b u i l d ings planned by him at the I l l i n o i s Institute of Technology: In  the -  Library and Administration b u i l d -  ing we find that the solution chosen to s a t i s f y the function of a l i b r a r y i s a rectangular steel, brick and  glass box.  In the Architecture and Design building his solution to s a t i s f y the function of a school of architecture i s a rectangular s t e e l , brick and glass box.  In the Boiler House and the Chapel, the solution chosen to s a t i s f y both functions namely that of a furnace room and that of a place of worship i s a steel, -brick and  glass box.  In the F i f t y - b y - f i f t y house his solution to s a t i s f y the functions of a dwelling i s a steel and 'glass box, and f i n a l l y  -59-  A similar solution can be found i n the Mannheim Theater.  In a l l the above, Mies i s s a t i s f y i n g a form resulting from a choice of structure and materials, but his  space can be adapted to any fucntion. At  f i r s t glance his buildings appear to be closely similar i n form, for i n the Miesian world the outward expression of a l l buildings may be the same despite their different functions.  The form i s preconceived and the solutions are selective. Mies i s an extreme formalist. The visual function i s important to him since he uses elements i n the facade which have no structural function, just to ensure that the building looks functional. The aesthetic choice i s behind i t a l l .  -60-  Gritique from Mies' point of view of Sedgewick  The complexity of the spaces at Sedgewick i n d i cate an approach to planning very different from that of the Miesian one. If we are to look for a Miesian "functionalism" i n Sedgewick i t would only be i n the structure and use of materials where we might be able to make the most positive comparisons .  Iredale says that his team interpreted the principle of "form follows function" as form following 46  use.  A functional programme was  set forth by the  User's Committee and spelled out i n the Fundamentals of the New  Sedgewick Library. In addition, another  l i s t of rules was  established by the Board of  Governors which acted upon the recommendations of the /preliminary design by Rhone and Iredale and the report 46  From an-interview with R. Iredale held on January.30, 1983, Vancouver, B.C.  of the Senate L i a i s o n Committee, headed by P e t e r Oberlander, t o p l a c e the L i b r a r y under the Main 47 Mall.  The a r c h i t e c t s of Sedgewick used these  l i s t s o f f u n c t i o n s t o generate a form o r d e s i g n of the b u i l d i n g . As Banham says, "the d e s i g n (or form) proposed by the a r c h i t e c t s i s an i n g e n i o u s s o l u t i o n t o a 48 seemingly i n s o l u b l e problem".  Thus the aim  of the a r c h i t e c t ' s work was t o s o l v e the problem or f u n c t i o n , and the form of the l i b r a r y i s the r e s u l t of such an aim. Sedgewick's  architecture i s a true physical  refl-  e c t i o n of a f u n c t i o n a l program as a t t e s t e d by the j u r y ' s comment: "... i t i s the product of a combined e f f o r t of the d e s i g n team o f l i b r a r i a n s ,  l  4 7  J.A.Banham, e d i t o r , U.B.C. Reports (October 9, 1969) The Oberlander r e p o r t came a f t e r the p r e l i m i n a r y d e s i g n of the l i b r a r y prepared by Rhone and I r e d a l e . p. 2.  Ibid.,  -62-  f  s t u d e n t s and c o n s u l t a n t s who through surveys and questionaires i d e n t i f i e d five characteristic environments f o r study; short-term scanning, long-term open, long-term c l o s e d , group study and i n f o r m a l r e a d i n g and r e l a x i n g . " 49 F i g u r e s 38 and  36, show f l o o r plans of Sedgewick  w i t h the d i f f e r e n t and d i v e r s e l y shaped spaces which accommodate  the s e v e r a l f u n c t i o n s .  Yet a n a l y z i n g the c h o i c e s made which o r i g i n a t e d the o v e r a l l form of the Sedgewick l i b r a r y , we t h a t i n f i r s t p l a c e i t was  find  the p r e s e r v a t i o n of  the  m a l l and the d i r e c t i o n of the c i r c u l a t i o n which become the backbone of the d e s i g n and  has  the shape of  the b u i l d i n g .  In second p l a c e i t was  the s a v i n g of the  J u r y ' s comment awarding the 1980 Award to Sedgewick.  treess  Honour R.A.I.C.  What Randle I r e d a l e c a l l s a "search  for  fit."  -63-  tchat o r i g i n a t e d the form. In t h i r d and f o r t h place's^ were the d e c i s i o n s of going or c i r c u l a t i n g underground and the s t r u c t u r a l precast  concrete  system.  Once the o v e r a l l form was created by the choices a f o r e s a i d , the i n t e r i o r l i b r a r y uses were s t u f f e d into i t .  Thus at sedgewick we f i n d that the form i s o r i g i n a t e d i n a Miesian  manner, where the f u n c t i o n of  the s t r u c t u r e and other preconceived a e s t h e t i c d e c i s i o n s gave b i r t h to the form. To claim that i t was the i n t e r i o r l i b r a r y uses which determined the shape of Sedgewick does not seem to be confirmed.  -64'Chapter 9  The Skin and Bones Architecture  Statement of code parameter for c r i t i c i s m  Mies writes that, "Skyscrapers reveal their bold structural pattern during construction. Only then does the gigantic steel web seem impressive. When the outer walls are put i n place, the structural system which i s the basis of a l l a r t i s t i c design, i s hidden by the chaos of meaningless and t r i v i a l forms. We can see the new structural principles most c l e a r l y when we use glass i n place of the outer walls, which is feasible today since i n a skeleton building these outer walls do not actually carry weight."51 He further adds that the fixed points of the plan are s t a i r and elevator shafts; a l l the other .elements of the plan are partitions, which do not  Ludwig Mies van der Rohe, "Two Glass Skyscrape Fruelicht, Number 1 (1922) p. 123  (teach the c e i l i n g , and when they do, glass i s used^ in order to maintain the unity of the space. The location of the partitions i s determined by the needs of the p a r t i c u l a r function and can be easily changed. Mies emphasizes that the materials to be used are: "concrete, steel, glass. Reinforced concrete structures are skeletons by nature. No gingerbread. No fortrees. Columns and girders eliminate bearing walls. This i s skin and bone architecture."52 To understand Mies' code l e t us look at three of his works. In the Library and Adminsitration Building at the I l l i n o i s  Institute of Technology,  the structure i s located inside the enclosing glass curtain wall-. The structure reveals i t s e l f through the glass.  This i s very dramatic at night when  the building i s l i t .  Ludwig Mies van der Rohe, "The Office Building" "G", Number 1 (1923) p. 3.  -66-  In the F i f t y - b y - f i f t y house, the situation i s reversed. The structure i s located outside  the  glass skin. The structure i s revealed with c l a r i t y Sometimes as i n the Seagram building i n New  York,  both solutions are apparent. On the ground floor level the structure i s outside the skin and  on  a l l higher floors i t i s inside the glass.(figure 29) A third solution i s evidenced at the Boiler House building. Here the structure and the glass are located i n the same plane. The skin i s secured between the bones.  Critique of Sedgewick from Mies' point of view  At Sedgewick we find an emphasis on the expres gion  of the structure and undisguised  materials  resulting i n a form based on structure. The walls are glass and the precast concrete i s exposed throughout.  outer  skeleton  The glass i s the skin  Cand the structure i s the skeleton or bones of the  -67b u i l d i n g . The M i e s i a n concept  i s r e a d i l y present.  Note how the f i x e d p o i n t s o f t h e p l a n a r e s t a i r s and e l e v a t o r s h a f t s ; a l l t h e o t h e r elements o f the p l a n a r e p a r t i t i o n s . B e a r i n g w a l l s a r e not needed. The columns support t h e s t r u c t u r e .  The caisson;;  w a l l s and t h e n o r t h - s o u t h w a l l s a r e r e t a i n i n g w a l l s r a t h e r than b e a r i n g w a l l s .  The c h o i c e made by t e h d e s i g n e r s t o use r e i n f o r c e d c o n c r e t e which as Mies says, produces by i t s v e r y n a t u r e a s k e l e t o n type s t r u c t u r e , i s o n l y p a r t i a l l y r e v e a l e d when o b s e r v i n g the facades.  I n f i g u r e 5, where a l t h o u g h t h e r e a r e no  o u t e r w a l l s and t h e columns a r e c l e a r l y p r e s e n t , the s t r u c t u r e i s confused o r camouflaged by p l a n t e r s s e t i n t o t h e e x t e r n a l edge beams.  The  same confused e x p r e s s i o n i s found i n f i g u r e  10 showing t h e west facade. Here t h e g l a s s a c t i n g as t h e e n c l o s i n g s k i n i s l o c a t e d i n t h e same plane as^the s t r u c t u r e and a t t i m e s , i n s i d e o f t h e  structure, but again the plnters cover up the bold' forms of the structure i s hidden by the unrelated forms of the planters.  Note again figures 5 and 10, the columns express the v e r t i c a l support of the structure, but the horizontal strcutural elements, the bold forms of the i n t e r i o r T-beams are not successfully expressed on the outside.  The cantilevered edge-beam planters are ambiguously related to the structure. It i s not easy to understand what i s supporting their true structural  them or what  function i s i n r e l a t i o n  to the other structural elements i n the building. The expression  i s not of structural r a t i o n a l i t y ,  but suggests elements f l o a t i n g or l e v i t a t i n g  in  the a i r . So while this use of materilas and the cr machine-like forms seem to r e c a l l Miesian formal structural p r i n c i p l e s , the primary aesthetic impact here derives from the denial of structural processes rather than the expression  of them.  C h a p t e r 10  The  I n d u s t r i a l i z a t i o n of  S t a t e m e n t o f code p a r a m e t e r f o r  Architecture  criticism  M i e s ' t h i r d r u l e f o r good a r c h i t e c t u r e the  proposes  i n d u s t r i a l i z a t i o n o f b u i l d i n g m e t h o d s . He " o u r b u i l d i n g methods t o d a y must be i n d u s t r i a l i z e d . Although everyone concerned has o p p o s e d t h i s u n t i l recently. I consider the i n d u s t r i a l i z a t i o n of b u i l d i n g methods t h e k e y p r o b l e m o f t h e day f o r a r c h i t e c t s . Once we s u c c e e d i n t h i s , o u r s o c i a l , economic, t e c h n i c a l and a r t i s t i c p r o b l e m s w i l l be e a s y t o s o l v e . The p r o b l e m b e f o r e us i s t o r e v o l u t i o n i z e the whole of the b u i l d i n g i n d u s t r y . Hand work s h o u l d be e l i m i n a t e d . Our f i r s t c o n s i d e r a t i o n must be t o f i n d a new b u i l d i n g material. I t must be a l i g h t m a t e r i a l which requires i n d u s t r i a l p r o d u c t i o n . A l l the p a r t s w i l l be made i n a f a c t o r y and t h e work a t t h e s i t e w i l l c o n s i s t only of assemblage, r e q u i r i n g e x t r e m e l y few manhours. This w i l l g r e a t l y r e d u c e b u i l d i n g c o s t s . Then  says,  -70—  the new architecture w i l l come into i t s own."53 He adds that the building of the future w i l l not be done by hand workers, just as the automobile is no longer manufactured by carriage-makers.  Mies not only promoted this rule of i n d u s t r i a l i zation of architecture by word, but also by deed. A l l his projects have a high percentage of factory construction, although they required a l o t of  hand-finishing  to give them the look of machine-made precision.  The machine-made precision i s revealed buildings.  The  i n a l l his  inside and the outside of his build-  ings show the i n d u s t r i a l i z e d construction methods. For example the Architecture and design building project i n Chicago, c l e a r l y an excellent example of a building that appears to have achieved i t s elegant form from the application of i n d u s t r i a l i z e d building methods.  L. Mies van der Rohe, "The Industrialization of Building Methods", "G" number 3 (January 1924) p. . 8.  -71-  Critique of Sedgewick from Mies' point of view  The Sedgewick l i b r a r y building i s a highly i n d s u t r i a l i z e d building. The axonometric sketch of the precast components shown i n figure  42  confirm the i n d u s t r i a l i z e d conception of the design. The different components are put together i n a mechano-like manner on the s i t e , after being transported from the factory.  Indeed the i n t e r i o r view shown  in figure 31 presents a structure that c l e a r l y seems to have been assembled from previously manufactured parts: the column f i r s t , the hollow cross  beam  next and f i n a l l y the double T-beams. Even i n the brick work, we detect the machine-made regularity of the bricks.  Mies' buildings looked i n d u s t r i a l i z e d , yet caref u l examination of h i s design reveals that h i s b u i l d ings were not i n d u s t r i a l i z e d . On the other hand, Sedgewick does not look industrialized (the exterior), yet i t i s i n fact factory made.  The effectiveness of Sedgewick s 1  architecture  seems to depend on a design which i s neither a l l " i n d u s t r i a l i z e d " i n appearance nor a l l "ad hoc" i n appearance. This i s a r e f l e c t i o n of the designers wishes to have "more hand made" materials.  Nevertheless the reliance on the exposure and frank revelation of the i n d u s t r i a l i z e d structural elements of the building (inside) as a major aesthe t i c approach indicates strongly Miesian v i s i o n on the part of the architects of Sedgewick Library.  Despite the i r r e g u l a r i t i e s of the plan, and the special circumstances of the site a high degree of standardization was applied at Sedgewick. One of the successes of the design was to prove that the use of i n d u s t r i a l i z a t i o n did not have to result i n a factor 'like building, nor d i d i t resemble a stereotype.  -73Chapter 11  God i s i n the Details  Statement of the code parameter for c r i t i c i s m  In the fourth rule, Mies claims that good architecture i s based on technology.  He says,  "Technology i s rooted i n the past, - i t dominates the present and tends into the future. It i s a real h i s t o r i c a l movement, i t shapes and represents our epoch. Just as r e l i g i o n was f o r the Middle Ages and the discovery of man as a person was for the Classic Renaissance period." 54 Technology reveals i t s true nature when i t i s l e f t to i t s e l f as i n the structures of engineering. Then i t acquires a meaning. "Wherever technology reaches i t s fulfilment, i t transcends into architecture."  54  ^  5  L. Mies van der Rohe, "address to I l l i n o i s Institute of Technology (1950)", i n P h i l i p Johnson, Mies van der Rohe, 3rd. edition (new York: Museum of Modern Art, 1978),p.203 Ibid., p. 204  -74Architecture and technology are closely related; in good architecture one should be the expression 56 the other.  The reason for t h i s  of  according to Mies,  3  is based on his claim that architecture i s the " c r y s t a l l i z a t i o n of technology's inner structure and the slow unfolding of i t s form.""'  7  As a true  craftsman, he points to the architectural details where this phenomenon i s to be found and "God  perfected.  i s i n the d e t a i l s " , he used to say. It i s worthwhile noting that Mies who  received his  f i r t s lesson of building from his father, a master mason, by the placing of stone on stone, says that good architecture must be developed from the cons58 truction d e t a i l s .  It i s not the material however,  which i s important, but rather the construction technology i t s e l f . 5 6  Ibid., p.  205  5 7  Ibid., p. 9  58 Ibid., p. 10  -75-  Mies designs careful d e t a i l s . Using concrete, steel and glass with great craftsmanship consistent with the technology of these materials, Mies conveyed his fourth rule of an architecture emerging from a new technology.  It i s the machine-made  precision he sought which i d e n t i f i e d his d e t a i l s , which was achieved at great expense and handwork.  Critique from Mies' point of view of Sedgewick  The designers of Sedgewick  planned a careful  detailing as evidenced i n the layout of the precast components and cosntruction details as shown in figures 42, 43 and 44. Despite their effort i n following Mies' ideals, at Sedgewick we do not find, in the f i n a l product a "machine-made precision" in the d e t a i l i n g of the pre-cast concrete nor i n the poured-in-place concrete. Figures 34 and 35 reveal a bulky and rough d e t a i l i n g . They are i n -clear opposition to Mies' meticulous d e t a i l i n g .  Here t h e r e  i s allowance  than the p r e - c a s t requires, the At  and p o u r e d - i n - p l a c e  tolerances  concrete  an a e s t h e t i c approach which i s c l o s e r t o  detailing  o f Le C o r b u s i e r  Sedgewick we f i n d  bulkiness  f o r greater  than t h a t o f Mies.  i n a d d i t i o n to the n a t u r a l  of concrete,  a r o u g h n e s s w h i c h need n o t  exist.  Mies has shown us t h a t c o n c r e t e detailed  c a n be p r e c i s e and smooth. H i s work  indicate  t h a t he p r e f e r r e d i t t h a t way.  showing a c l o s e - u p  of the concrete  Sedgewick r e v e a l s a c o n f l i c t search  i f properly  Figure  planters of  between  the Miesian  f o r a h i g h l y c r a f t e d concrete  -the sharp,  careful  edge d e s i g n -  texture  of the concrete  expansion  joints.  34  and t h e r o u g h , a c c i d e n t a l and i t s b o l d ,  The r e s u l t  unprecise  would l i k e l y  have  i—-  b e e n more s u c c e s s f u l i f a more r i g i d l y a p p r o a c h had been f o l l o w e d abandoned  Miesian  o r perhaps a l t o g e t h e r  f o r a s o f t e r o r more r u s t i c a t e d d e t a i l i n g .  Chapter 12  Less i s More  Statement of the code parameter for c r i t i c i s m  Mies' f i f t h rule i s contained i n a l e t t e r to 59 Dr. Riezler.  After delivering an attack against  form as an end i n i t s e l f , he indicated that his aim was  not to judge the r e s u l t s , but to foster the  creative process.  L i f e was  decisive for him,  but only  what has l i f e on the inside has a l i v i n g exterior. The o f f i c e building i s a house of work, of organization, of c l a r i t y and of economy. It i s a work space that should be unbroken and articulated according to the organization  of the work. In good architecture,  maximum effect i s achieved with minimum means: less i s more. L. Mies van der Rohe, "A l e t t e r on Form in Architecture", Die Form , 2nd year, No.2 (1927) p. 59.  Mies has always been guided by his personal mb\to "less i s more".  The sparseness of his i n s t a l l a t i o n s  focuses attention on each object and makes the arrangement of the objects all-important. Mies was a master at placing things i n space.^  In the Barcel-  ona Pavilion for example, a minimum of partitions are disposed with studied  exactness to achieve the  maximum individual e f f e c t .  Although the concept of less i s more i s to be found throughout Mies' work, i t i s i n the Fifty-byf i f t y house where this effort to ismplify, articulate and give a r t i s t i c expression to structural system is most r a d i c a l .  Critique of Mies' point of view of Sedgewick  At Sedgewick we find exposed columns, beams, brick and concrete. This  sparseness focuses the  P h i l i p Johnson, Mies van der Rohe, (New York: Museum of Modern Art, 1978) p. 49  attention on the objects themselves, the column, the beams, the T-beams, the brick wall of the caissons. Figure 23, shows the sparseness  of the i n t e r i o r  concrete structural elements.  The same i s noted i n the exterior (figure 22). The exposed surface of the brick brings one's focus on the shape of the caissons. Their c y l i n d r i c a l form i s accentuated  by the lack of molding, carving  or other ornaments on i t s surface.  In contrast to these successful elements, where the code i s followed, we  find that when an ornament  is added, the understanding For example:  of the object i s blurred.  The adding of unnecessary  complicated  forms to the plan, only confuses the i n t e r i o r spaces,  (figure 38). Compare this confusion to the  c l a r i t y of floor plans of the Barcelona  Pavillion  and the F i f t y - b y - f i f t y house. In the l a t t e r each wall seems to acquire importance, readability and c l a r i t y . At the Sedgewick floor plan, such qualities cannot be., found.  -80-  Note the graphic i n figure 4, i t s graphic pattern destroys the existance of a corner. It makes the space more d i f f i c u l t to understand. It i s taking away from rather than adding to the i n t e r i o r . More i s less.  Figure 2, shows a d e t a i l of the cones on the mall. The mirrors i n Miesian terms, confuse the observer in his understanding quality of the  of the cones.  The r e f l e c t i n g  mirrors makes the cones i n s i g n i f i c a n t .  By adding the mirrors we have less of the cones. More turns out to be less.  The carpeted surface of the steel formed concrete cones i n figure 6 , complicates rather than  clarifies  the object. On the one hand the forms seem to want a r t i c u l a t i o n to separate them from one  another.  On the other the use of s single surface material flowing over them tends to unite them into a single plane.  The use of different coloured l i g h t i n g , i s an  -81-  added element. Figure 8 shows the texture of the T-beams, with the l i g h t i n g system lodged i n them. The use of d i f f e r e n t colours d i s t r a c t s attention from the object i t s e l f . The T-beams become more d i f f i c u l t to read and the eye focuses attention on the colour patches rather than to the architectural elements.  Furthermore, the use of colour tends  to a l t e r the apparent shape of the beams. For example where blue clours are used the edges of the T-beams become blurred, i n contrast to the use of red colour, when we perceive the meticulously contoured edges of the structure housing the light source.  The addition of l e t t e r i n g to the glass, as shown in figure 3, d i s t r a c t s from the function of the fenestration. The eye i s forced to read the words rather than enjoy the view afforded by the window. The extensive use of glass from floor to c e i l i n g is an effort by designers  to introduce an element  which i s i n v i s i b l e , permitting one focusing attention to the outside landscaping. The addition V)f v i s u a l barriers to the glass for safety reasons,  -82-"  f o r c e s a t t e n t i o n on the g l a s s i t s e l f by ver.  the  obser-  By the use of l e t t e r i n g and quotes from  Shakespeare r e a l t e d to g l a s s both v i s u a l and  intel-  lectual attention i s e l i c i t e d .  In the next  s e c t i o n of t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n we  examine the p h i l i o s o p h y of complexity  will  as a p o s i t i v e  element i n a r c h i t e c t u r a l a e s t h e t i c s . Obviously i t i s difficult  to weigh o b j e c t i v e l y the advatage of  philosophy oyer another.  Perhaps i t i s the  one  presence  i n Sedgewick of the e x p r e s s i o n of c e r t a i n M i e s i a n trends that induces the c r i t i c to look f o r the whole Miesian package. The absence of such an  important  element as the r a t i o n a l s i m p l i f i c a t i o n of space and the r e s u l t a n t break-down of the M i e s i a n u n i t y leads to a disappointment  that perhaps should be  blamed  on the r i g i d i t y and uncompromising c h a r a c t e r of the M i e s i a n approach which d e f i e s i m i t a t i o n and t h e r e f o r e more s e r i o u s l y r e v e a l s a flaw i n the M i e s i a n d o c t r i n e than i t does i n the f a i l u r e of a b u i l d i n g Sedgewick to l i v e up to the d o c t r i n e .  like  -83-  Chapter 13  The U n i v e r s a l  Space  Statement of the code parameter f o r c r i t i c i s m  Mies' s i x t h r u l e i s c o n t a i n e d i n a speech  deli-  v e r e d a t a Werkbund meeting i n Vienna e n t i t l e d "The New E r a " . He d e c l a r e s t h a t good  architecture  must r e a c h beyond s e l f - e x p r e s s i o n t o the u n i v e r s a l . He says t h a t , "We are dependent upon the s p i r i t of our t i m e . The genuine s p i r i t of our time i s concerned w i t h the v a l u e s of t e c h n o l o g y . Our work whenproducing good a r c h i t e c t u r e s h o u l d have a s i n g l e goal: to create o r d e r out of the d e s p e r a t e c o n f u s i o n of our t i m e . We must have o r d e r , good architecture a l l o c a t e s to each t h i n g i t s p r o p e r p l a c e and g i v e s t o each t h i n g i t s ^ due a c c o r d i n g t o i t s n a t u r e . "  L. Mies van der Rohe, "The New E r a " , Die Form , 5th y e a r , number 15 (August 1930) p. 406 L. Mies van der Rohe, "InaguraT Address as D i r e c t o r of A r c h i t e c t u r e a t Armour I n s t i t u t e of Technology, (1938)" i n P h i l i p Johnson, Mies van der Rohe, 3rd e d i t i o n (new York: Museum of Modern A r t , 1978) p. 199  -84-  "We  want no more, we can do no more",  he  concludes.  The new  international style of architecture born  in the early t h i r t i e s from Mies' sixth rule of good architecture, had to comply with certain characteri s t i c s : "the regularity of skeleton strcuture as an ordering force instead of the c l a s s i c axial symmetry; the treatment of exteriors as weightless, supporting obedient  non-  skins rather than the c l a s s i c heavy solids  to gravity (see chapter 8);  the use of  colour and structural d e t a i l i n place of the c l a s 64 sic applied ornament (see chapter 11)." The f l e x i b i l i t y of the skeleton construction was  such that i t could be applied to a great variety  of cunctions.  Despite the complex i n t e r i o r , ar-  ranged with movable non-load-bearing p a r t i t i o n s ,  6 3  Ibid., p.200  6 4  Ibid., p. 43  -85-  the e x t e r i o r design  i s the same f o r a l l uses and  o f t e n the i n t e r i o r does not d i f f e r much e i t h e r from f u n c t i o n to f u n c t i o n .  Concpetually  i t was a l s o acceptable  to apply  the same s o l u t i o n t o a l l f u n c t i o n s , since Mies created an ordered a b s t r a c t i o n of the uses around a few v a l u e s .  Just as he advocated the r e p e t i t i o n  of a r c h i t e c t u r a l elements produced i n f a c t o r i e s ( i . e . s t e e l and g l a s s ) , he c a r r i e d h i s idea to the a r c h i t e c t u r a l space, h i s concept was two f o l d : F i r s t , that one space should out  flow i n t o another  with-  i n t e r r u p t i o n ; Secondly, that the u n i t y of the  whole space should not be broken, thus the p a r t i t i o n s d i d not reach the c e i l i n g .  I f the f u n c t i o n changed  the p a r t i t i o n s could be e a s i l y r e p l a c e d . ^  This  s p a c i a l concept,he c a l l e d the " u n i v e r s a l " space together  with h i s glass-and-steel-box  has become  65  T h i s i s a p p l i c a b l e t o c e r t a i n b u i l d i n g s , he responded t o the need f o r c l o s e d spaces and organized plans a c c o r d i n g l y .  -86-  the single most used form i n architecture around the world, attesting to the excellence  of his universal  solution of structural c l a r i t y and s i m p l i c i t y .  Critique from Mies' point of view of Sedgewick  At Sedgewick, the regularity of the skeleton structure reinforced by the spacing of the eight caissons  imposses a strong order i n teh design.  The grid of the structure permits a f l e x i b l e space which could be adapted to a variety of diverse functions.  It could accommodate a museum, an  assembly h a l l , a factory. The same grid pattern could also be used to house a l i b r a r y .  It was very much the intention of the designers £o give no p a r t i c u l a r functional character space, to make i t multi-functional explains.  to the  -as Randle  Iredale  After creating two acress of open space,  the designers introduced  the functions of the l i b r a r y .  (They f e l t that i f i n 50 years, reading from books  -87-  should be outdated and that t e l e v i s i o n or some other medium should replace the book. The b u i l t space should s t i l l be useable for whatever foreseeable unforeseeable function may time.  or  need accommodation at that  Thus the Sedgewick library's i n t e r i o r can be  said to be "universal" i n the Miesian sense.  The f l o o r plan shows how one grand space.  the entire f l o o r i s  The powerful texture of the T-beams  create a u n i f i e d treatment to the c e i l i n g . Within  this  large space the function of the undergraduate l i b r a r y is developed.  Figure 23 shows that the p a r t i t i o n s do  not reach the c e i l i n g , yet separate and d i s t i n c t functional areas e x i s t .  However, the sense of unity, continuity and simpl i c i t y which i n Mies' buildings becomes the symbol and /aesthetic expression of this " u n i v e r s a l i t y " i s d i f f i c u l t to perceive i n Sedgewick. The beauty of the Miesian idea i s that the "universal" space can be  perceived  and enjoyed as an aesthetic experience It i s not  en-  ough that the "universality"(adaptability) be presented as an unperceived p o s s i b i l i t y .  -88-  PART III  ROBERT VENTURI  Summary of Venturi's  POST-MODERN ARCHITECTURE •  theory  To Venturi the formula for good architecture i s complexity and contradiction i n architecture. "More i s not less", he s a y s . ^  This i s i n opposi-  tion to the orthodox modern architecture of Mies who  claims that less i s more.  In his book, "Complexity and Contradiction i n Architecture",^'  he sets forth a code under the 68  t i t l e "Gentle Manifesto"  that the architect must  follow to produce good architecture. His seven rules are:  complexity and contradiction,  double-functioning  amibiguity,  elements, the phenomenon of both-  afTd, contradiction adapted, the inside and the ^  outside  Robert Venturi, "Complexity and Contradiction i n Architecture", (New York: Museum of Modern Art, 1977) p. 16  6^7 Ibid. , p . 1. 68 Ibid., p. 16.  -89-  and the obligation towards the d i f f i c u l t whole.  Venturi reacts against the simplicity,  univer-  s a l i t y and what he c a l l s the inhumanity of modern architecture. The following outlines his rules: (1)  In complexity and contradiction versus simpli-  f i c a t i o n or picturesqueness, he advocates the breaking away from the primitive elementary forms and proposes a return to the diverse and (2)  sophisticated.  His ambiguity rule promotes richness of meaning  instead of c l a r i t y of meaning i n architecture. (3)  The double functioning element rule refers to  the use of v e r s a t i l e architectural elements that do several things (4)  simultaneously.  The phenomenon of the both-and rule i s a reaction  to the either-or of modern architecture and suggests that architecture should y i e l d several levels of ^meaning among elements of varying (5)  values.  The contradiction encouraged rule suggests that  in architecture there shoiuld be room for improvisation and the disintegration of the prototype. A whole ,which i s impure i s tolerated.  -90-  (6)  The i n s i d e and the outside r u l e s t a t e s that  there  should:  and (7)  e x i s t a c o n t r a s t between the i n s i d e  the outside  of the b u i l d i n g .  In the o b l i g a t i o n towards the d i f f i c u l t whole  rule, Venturi  suggests that u n i t y should be  through i n c l u s i o n r a t h e r than e x c l u s i o n .  achieved  -91Complexity and Contradiction vs.  Chapter 14  Simplification or Picturesqueness.  Statement of the code parameter for c r i t i c i s m  Venturi's  f i r s t rule for good architecture i s  that architecture should be complex and tory.  contradic-  He says that, "modern architecture i n i t s attempt to break with t r a d i t i o n and start a l l over again, idealized the p r i mitive and elementary at the expense of the diverse and the sophisticated." 69  He claims that the doctrine of less i s more permits architects to be too selective i n determining which problem to solve. Mies achieves the simplicity of his forms by ignoring some  of the  functions which the building might have been expected to f u l f i l l .  69 Ibid  •  3  p.17.  -92-  As an example, Venturi mentions the Glass House of P h i l i p Johnson, a Miesian inspired design, where forced simplicity i s evidenced i n that the private functions are not separated from social in the house.  In contrast,the  functions  Wiley house of  Johnson goes beyond the s i m p l i c i t i e s of the elegant pavilion and e x p l i c i t l y separates the private functions of l i v i n g on a ground floor pedestal from the open social function i n the modular pavilion above.  The point i n these examples according to  Venturi i s to show that good architecture must acknowledge the growing complexities  of our  functional problems.  The desire for a complex architecture, and a l l i t s contradictions i s a reaction against the banality and the stereotype  of modern architecture.  It was  an attitude common to the Mannerist periods. "Today i t i s relevant to both the medium of architecture and the program i n a r c h i t e c t u r e . " ^ 7  v70  Ibid., p. 19. Mannerism i s characterized by spacial incongruity an art style i n late 16th century.  -93-  S i m p l i f i e d forms w i l l not work; i n s t e a d v a r i e t y inherent  the  i n ambiguity of v i s u a l percep-  t i o n must once more be acknowledged and  exploited.  Complexity must emerge from the program i n a r c h i t e c t u r e ; then we  have good a r c h i t e c t u r e .  C r i t i q u e from V e n t u r i ' s  At Sedgewick, we  point of view of Sedgewick  do not  find a  glass-steel-box,  but a combination of c o n t r a d i c t o r y and  complex  forms,as can be observed i n f i g u r e 12.  Huge round  b r i c k c y l i n d e r s , with trees on t h e i r tops shown i n f i g u r e 9;  areas where the w a l l i s t o t a l l y i n t e r -  rupted by g l a z i n g as i n d i c a t e d i n f i g u r e 6; shaped p l a n t e r s noted i n f i g u r e 10 and  futuristic  l o o k i n g m i r r o r - c o v e r e d cones p e r f o r a t i n g the shown i n f i g u r e 1. stereotype  box  This i s no  longer  with p u r i s t contours;  i s ambiguous, d i f f i c u l t as a t t e s t e d by f i g u r e  to d e s c r i b e 27.  unusually  roof  a simple here the  and  facade  reproduce  -94The brick caissons harbouring the oaks give a  f  unique character to the building and serve as an identifying image or symbol for the l i b r a r y , (figure 45) From the history of the planning of the Sedgewick Library as noted i n chapter eight, we know that a complex program was drawn up.  A rigorous set of  guidelines were set up to which the design had to comply, (appendix 1)  The programme required the  design to comply not only with the i n t e r i o r uses, but i t also had to accommodate the surrounding environment.  Out of this i n t r i c a t e program, a  complex and contradictory architecture emerged. This is i l l u s t r a t e d i n the Sedgewick Library's floor plans (figure 36 and 38) and i n i t s general setting (figure 12 and 27); as well as i n i t s elevation (figures 9 and 10) and i n i t s i n t e r i o r space.(figure ,8 )  Furthermore i f one observes the roof i n figure 13, the facade i n figure 14 and the main  stairway  shown i n figure 18, i n each example we find the  complexity and contradiction i n Sedgewick's architecture which seem to comply with Venturi's code.  To further pinpoint some of the complexities and especially some of the contradictions at Sedgewick l e t us consider the building i t s e l f . When one arrives at the building at the mall l e v e l , we find that there i s no building. It has disappeared. It i s a non-building. The user may walk over i t as i f i t were a road.  At the same level we find two cones, but these reflect.the surroundings rather than reveal their shape. The facade also throws us off by presenting us with caissons serving as containers for the trees and yet through the glazed fenestration a l i b r a r y function i s revealed.  The advantages of these contradictions i n terms of the character of the building, i t s U.B.C. setting and context, the people who use i t and way they use i t , include the preservation of the h i s t o r i c a l  -96-  'University plan, the continued  use of the Main  M a l l as a walkway, the p r e s e r v a t i o n of the parkl i k e atmosphere of a nature o r i e n t e d designed campus, and the informal non-monumental characteristic  that the s t r u c t u r e extends to the user.  Added to a l l t h i s  i s that breaks with the monotony  of everyday l i b r a r y use.  -97-  Chapter 15  Ambiguity  Statement of the code parameter for c r i t i c i s m  Venturi's second rule suggests that good architecture must have ambiguity and tension. "In Le Corbusier's V i l l a Savoye floor plan this ambiguity is apparent: i s i t a square plan or not?" "-asks /J  Venturi.  Good architecture should have o s c i l l a t i n g  relationships, complex and contradictory, which are the source of ambiguity and tension. "The conjunction 'or' with a question mark can usually describe ambiguous r e l a t i o n ships. Luigi Moretti's apartments on the Via ParioTi in Rome, are they one building with a s p l i t or two buildings joined?" 72 The calculated ambiguity of expression i s based ofi experience as reflected i n the architectural  71 72  Ibid. p. 20 Ibid. p. 21  -98-  programme..This promotes richness of meaning over c l a r i t y of meaning, says Venturi.  Critique from the point of view of Venturi  Sedgewick's facade reveals such ambiguity. The elevation shown i n figure 48 begs the question: Is the building b u i l t around the caissons, or are the caissons supporting the building?  Are the  planters just planters or are they beams?  Do they  span from caisson to caisson? Are they attached to the building i n some other way or are they completely unattached and simply floating i n the a i r .  Venturi says that i n good architecture, such  am-  biguity i s calculated ambiguity, based on experience as reflected i n the architectural programme. The architects of the Sedgewick Library were given a d i f f i c u l t task. They had to devise a solution which accommodated a l l the requirements of an undergraduate  -99-  l i b r a r y , while s t i l l preserving the level and character of Main Mall.  Rhone and Iredale and their  colleagues solved the problem by planning the l i b r a r y underground,  between the oaks.  The architectural programme as noted above, r e f lects a clash of requirements giving b i r t h to. a facade which i s ambiguous i n a building whose s i t i n g makes i t d i f f i c u l t to determine whether i t i s under ground or above ground. The result i s an ambiguity which seems to intrigue rather than disturb most v i s i t o r s and users of the building, and thus corroborates the importance of Venturi s teaching. 1  Another example of ambiguity are two " s o l i d " cones projecting from the roof, but covered with mirrors which r e f l e c t the sky, the surroundings and (the passerby, at the same time fracturing these images and dematerializing them as shown i n figures 1, 2  and  26.  Turning to the inside, we find ambiguity revealed  -100-  when observing  the f l o o r plans. Just as i n  Le Corbusier.'s V i l l a  Savoye, we f i n d t e n s i o n i n the  l a y o u t . This i s produced not j u s t by one s i n g l e element, but by a number of them as reported below.  The  carpet-covered  s k y l i g h t w a l l s shown i n  f i g u r e 6 f l o u t s one's h a b i t u a l notions of the r e l a t i o n s h i p of w a l l s to f l o o r s . The t i l t  i n the w a l l  combined with i t s roundness i s i n i t s e l f d i s o r i e n t a t i n g . The f l o o r and the w a l l merge i n t o a s i n g u l a r complex plane tending to d i s g u i s e where f l o o r ends and w a l l  The  begins.  snack area shown i n f i g u r e 23, r e v e a l s a  t e n s i o n i n the space produced by the strong  direction-  a l i t y of the c e i l i n g beams, the angle of the wood p a n e l l i n g , the c i r c u l a r shape of the caissons and <the octogonal  design of the group study  A l l these d i v e r s e , s t r o n g l y contoured c l o s e proximity and ambiguity,  enclosures.  elements i n  to one another add to the t e n s i o n ( f i g u r e s 21 and 22)  -101-  Chapter 16  The Double-Functioning Element  Statement of the code parameter for c r i t i c i s m  Venturi's third' code for good architecture i s the "double-functioning"  element. This element  pertains to the use and structure of the building. In this rule, Venturi maintains i n effect two invariables. F i r s t he mentions the "multi-functioning" building. By t h i s , he means a building which is complex i n program and form. For example, he mentions, "Le Corbusier's Algerian project, which i s an apartment house and a highway, and -Wright's late projects for P i t t s burgh Point and Baghdad, correspond to Kahn's v i a duct architecture and Fumihiko Maki's " c o l l e c tive form." 73.  Ibid., p.34  -102-  A l l these have complex and contradictory hierarchies of scale and movement, structure  and  space within a whole. These buildings are buildings and bridges at once. also a b r i d g e " .  74  whole has multiple  On a larger scale, "a dam i s In essence the building as a  functions  The second part of this code deals with the double-functioning  element i t s e l f . Venturi advocates  the use of v e r s a t i l e architectural elements which do several things at once. For example, i n S.Maria i n Cosmedin's nave, "the column form results from i t s dominant, precise function as a point support. It can direct space only incidentally i n r e a l t i o n to • other columns or elements. But the alternating piers in the same nave are i n t r i n s i c a l l y double-functioning. They enclose and direct space as much as they support the structure." 75 75  Ibid., p.36  -103-  C r i t i q u e from V e n t u r i ' s p o i n t o f view o f Sedgewick,  At Sedgewick we f i n d the m u l t i - f u n c t i o n i n g b u i l d i n g a t i t s b e s t . F i g u r e s 46 and 50 i l l u s t r a t e V e n t u r i ' s i d e a o f a b u i l d i n g which i s a b u i l d i n g and a b r i d g e a t t h e same time. the b u i l d i n g  When a r r i v i n g a t  one does not e n t e r i n t o i t but r a t h e r  walks over i t . When i n s i d e , we r e a l i z e  being i n a  c i r c u l a t i o n c o r r i d o r and t h a t people wlaks over the s t r u c t u r e .  We a r e i n s i d e o f a b r i d g e s t r u c t u r e  used as a road and c o r r i d o r ,  yet i t i s also a  l i b r a r y , a p l a c e f o r r e a d i n g and s t u d y i n g .  D o u b l e - f u n c t i o n i n g elements e x i s t a t Sedgewick i n t h e c a i s s o n s , f o r example.  They have a s t r u c t -  u r a l purpose; thay c o n t a i n a l a r g e amount o f e a r t h arounf t h e r o o t s o f t h e oaks. At t h e same t i m e , "they serve as s e p a r a t i n g elements and space shapers i n the l i b r a r y ' s i n t e r i o r .  I t i s the c a i s s o n s t h a t  g i v e t h e u s e r t h e f e e l i n g o f b e i n g i n a concave space ( f i g u r e 28),  s o f t e n i n g t h e harshness o f the  s t r a i g h t c o n c r e t e s t r u c t u r a l elements.  -104-  Another example of t h i s k i n d are the planters.' They i n f a c t serve three f u n c t i o n s . They are cont a i n e r s to house the shrubs which adorn the they serve as  facade,  p r o t e c t i o n from d i r e c t s u n l i g h t i n t o  the reading areas, and f i n a l l y , they are part of the s t r u c t u r e , h e l p i n g to support the concrete f l o o r beams.  -105-  'Chapter 17  The Phenomenon of Both-And  Statement of the code parameter for c r i t i c i s m  Good architecture should include the phenomenon of "both-and", says Venturi. "The source of the both-and phenomenon i s contradiction; i t s basis i s hierarchy, which yields several levels of meaning among elements with varying values. It can include elements that are both good and awkward, big and l i t t l e , closed and open,yg continuous and a r t i c u l a t e d . " Le Courbusier's  Shodhan House i s closed, yet  open -a cube, precisely closed by i t s corners, yet randomly open on i t s surfaces. Venturi's own  project,  the Chestnut H i l l House, claims to be both "complex /and simple, open and closed, big and  7 6  Ibid., p.  119  little".  -106-  "The house i s b i g as w e l l as l i t t l e , by which I mean t h a t i t i s a l i t t l e house w i t h a b i g s c a l e . I n s i d e the elements are too b i g : the f i r e p l a c e i s too b i g . When I c a l l e d t h i s house both open and c l o s e d as w e l l as simple and complex, I was r e f e r r i n g to these cont r a d i c t i o n s i n the o u t s i d e w a l l s . They r e v e a l openness, yet the p l a n suggests r i g i d e n c l o s u r e s . The entrance i s too b i g . The dado a l s o i n c r e a s e s the s c a l e of the b u i l d i n g . " 77  C r i t i q u e from V e n t u r i ' s p o i n t of view of Sedgewick  At Sedgewick we  f i n d the c o m p l e x i t i e s of  the  "both-and" suggested by V e n t u r i . Sedgewick s a r c h i 1  t e c t u r e i s both c l o s e d and open. I t g i v e s the impress i o n of being underground (see f i g u r e s 18, 19, 30 49) and y e t , i t i s open t o the landscaped y a r d s , ( f l o o r t o c e i l i n g windows p r o v i d i n g d a y l i g h t i n abundance.(figure  7 7  Ibid.,  p.119  28)  and with  -107-  Sedgewick's architecture i s also both continuous and articulated. The  space flows from one end of the  l i b r a r y to the other unobstructed, reminding  us of  a catacomb or a long gallery, (figure 23 and 25)  and  yet i t i s well articulated into numerous specialized areas, which are c l e a r l y i d e n t i f i a b l e and ized, (figures 20 and  character-  21)  Sedgewick's architecture i s "both big and The scale of the caissons  small."  i s cyclopian i n contrast  to the facade and the i n t e r i o r , (figures 9 and  49)  These huge elements contrast with the smallness of the group-study  spaces (figure 23 and 31)  creating  the kind of mannerist tension which Venturi has been on eo  the  believes  positive elements i n h i s t o r i c  architecture.  Sedgewick's architecture i s both-and, at the main stairway. The upper half of the stairway i s completely enclosed by a thick concrete wall, violated only by a few small openings. In the lower 'section of the stairway, the wall i s t o t a l l y  -108-  u n i n t e r r u p t e d , and the stairway i s completely open to the reading areas,  ( f i g u r e 47)  The  r e s u l t i n g e f f e c t i s of a truncated concrete  cone  which, i n s t e a d of r e s t i n g h e a v i l y on the ground, i s l i f t e d up by some i n v i s i b l e ' f o r c e .  -109-  Chapter  18  Contradiction Adapted  Statement of the code parameter for c r i t i c i s m  According to Venturi, i n this rule, good architecture permits contradiction to adapt. He writes: "Contradiction adapted i s tolerant and p l i a b l e . It admits improvisation. It involves the disintegration of the prototype.  It endSyg  in whole which i s impure."  In modern architecture, we find elementary primary forms such as the c i r c l e and the square in one single project or plan. These forms are i n contradiction, yet no e f f o r t i s made to adapt the one to the other, (figure 51)  The purist i s i n f l e x i b l e ;  to him the message must be clear, unequivocal and uncompromising. The prototype cannot be tampered with.  Ibid., p.45.  -110-  Venturi rebels against this r i g i d i t y , he believes that i n good architecture, the elementary forms when appearing i n contradiction should compromise and adapt to each other; i n a sense they should disintegrate.  Critique from Venturi s point of view of Sedgewick 1  In the Sedgewick Library floor plan, we that i n the overall square and rectangular  find layout,  eight uncompromising c i r c u l a r caissons have been included.' (figure 36 and 38)  The c i r c l e s contradict  the rectangular layout or pattern of the structure and perimeter walls. However, the design of the  non-  bearing walls or panels creates a maze-like c i r culation plan which compromise and adapt the c i r cles to the rectangles. In this manner, the presence of the primary forms becomes tolerable and  pliable.  By introducing the maze-like planning the space i s directed i n such a way We  that the contradiction of  caissons and the structure i s bridged over.  -111-  Th e partitions appear to be improvisations  and  create a whole which i s impure, (figure 33, 37 and 39 )  Another example of this adaptation of contradictory forms i s observed i n the outside contours of Sedgewick facing the Mathematics Building.(figure 37) The line of the facade breaks up and follows the contours of the grade of the landscape,  the box  l i k e shape of the basic plan i s broken up and adapted to the natural contours of the (figure  surroundings.  10)  Finally  we can point  to the accommodation of  the roof level to the grade of Main Mall, to permit free access to the pedestrian walkway. The whole building has been adapted to the grading i n order 'not to contradict the walkway, (figure  11)  Is this good architecture as Venturi says? Kahn would seem to agree that i t i s when he writes -tfhaf'it i s the role of [good architectural Jdesign  -112-  to adjust to' the c i r c u m s t a n t i a l . " c i Orthodox modern a r c h i t e c t s would not agree with V e n t u r i . Le Corbusier  has s t a t e d that the great  primary form, which i s d i s t i n c t and without ambiguity the  [ i s good a r c h i t e c t u r e ] .  f a c t that i t was compromise  face  and a d a p t a b i l i t y  that made p o s s i b l e the p r e s e r v a t i o n and the c h a r a c t e r  Yet we must  of the oaks  of Main M a l l together with i t s  v i s t a s and connections with the r e s t of the campus.  7  ^  I b i d . , p. 46  -113-  Chapter 19  The Inside and the Outside  Statement of the code parameter for c r i t i c i s m  Venturi's seventh rule for good architecture says that there "should exist a contrast between the inside and the outside of the building." 80 Contrast between the inside and the outside may manifest i t s e l f , Venturi maintains, i n an unattached l i n i n g which produces an additional space between the l i n i n g and the exterior wall. According to Venturi, the essential purpose of the interiors of buildings i s to enclose rather than direct space, 81 and to separate the inside from the outside.  The  function of the house, to protect and provide psychol o g i c a l as well as physical privacy, i s an ancient Ibid.,  p.70  Ibid.,  p.72  one.  -114-  Critique from Venturi's point of view of sedgewick  At Sedgewick Library, there was an ideal opportunity f o r the architects to create an underground space; an i n t e r i o r which would have sheltered and protetcted l i b r a r y users from the outside. The circumstances permitted the creation of an e d i f i c e where the inside was sharply contrasted with the outside.  Yet the architects "wanted to create l i g h t , open environment f o r learning, not an underground vault. They have accomplished their objective by designing the new l i b r a r y i n such a way that i t s east and west faces open out onto landscaped courtyards i n front of the Main Library and the Mathematics Building. Every room i n the Library Building has an a t tractive view onto one or the other of these court yards."82  J.A.Banham, editor, U.B.C. Reports (October 9, 1969) Vancouver: U.B.C. p. 6  -115-  The windows a r e f l o o r t o c e i l i n g c u r t a i n w a l l s . There i s l i t t l e i n d i c a t i o n t h a t lite b u i l d i n g i s underground. F i g u r e 28 shows t h a t t h e view o f t h e carved out garden i s v i s i b l e from  almost a l l  a r e a s . The i n t e r i o r i s d i r e c t i n g t h e space t o the e x t e r i o r . The o b s e r v e r i s v i s u a l l y i n t e g r a t e d the o u t s i d e . flowing to  with  The v i s u a l c o n t i n u i t y , t h e so c a l l e d  space where t h e p l a n proceeds from w i t h i n  w i t h o u t i s not complying w i t h V e n t u r i ' s  Venturi  rule.  says t h a t t h e i n s i d e and t h e o u t s i d e a r e  and s h o u l d be d i f f e r e n t . W h e n you a r e i n s i d e you do not know t h e o u t s i d e .  You  do n o t know  what t h e  c a i s s o n s a r e . ( f i g u r e 28)  As d e s c r i b e d above modernist a r c h i t e c t u r e and Sedgewick's a r c h i t e c t u r e  i s showing you t h e i n s i d e  -of t h e b u i l d i n g when you a r e o u t s i d e and t h e o u t s i d e environment when i n s i d e . I n o t h e r words i t i s t e l l i n g you where you a r e . A l l guesswork o r element o f s u r prise  i s eliminated  a t Sedgewick. O b s e r v i n g f i g u r e  L30, t h e s k y l i g h t s t e l l you t h a t you a r e underground,  -116-  although a more elaborate  design  of the modernist  r  concept might have r e q u i r e d that the oak trees be v i s i b l e through the s k y l i g h t s .  The at  only s u r p r i s e to the viewer that  Sedgewick i s that when observing  i s permitted  the caissons  from  the i n s i d e alone they do not give a h i n t of t h e i r Q O  outside  purpose.  00  There i s something p o s i t i v e to  be s a i d about t h i s c o n t r a s t i n g the i n t e r i o r and the e x t e r i o r . I t has a p s y c h o l o g i c a l e f f e c t of i n t r i g u i n g by not r e v e a l i n g a l l at one glance.  Modernist a r c h i -  t e c t u r e attempts to leave us with no s u r p r i s e s some would say that i t t e l l s  us a l l perhaps too  suddenly.  I r e d a l e notes t h a t  the temptation  of p l a c i n g  g l a s s around t h e caissons t o i n d i c a t e o r b e t t e r e x p l a i n t h e i r purpose, was abandoned because i t was f e l t by the design team that such an a r rangement would be too " r i c h " a s o l u t i o n f o r the spartan i n t e r i o r --from an i n t e r v i e w h e l d January 30, 1983 i n V a n c o u v e r , B.C.  -117-  Chapter 20  The Obligation Towards the D i f f i c u l t Whole.  Statement of the code parameter for c r i t i c i s m  Venturi's last rule for good architecture i s concerned with the whole. The whole i s achieved by emphasizing unity through inclusion, rather than 84 the easy unity through exclusion.  Good architcture  should include duality. Sullivan's Farmers' and Merchants' Union Bank i n Columbus, presents a duality, On the outside, the door and the window r e f l e c t the duality of the inside plan. "The arch above the l i n t e l reinforces duality because i t springs from the centre of a panel below, yet by i t s oneness and i t s dominant size i t also resolves the duality made by the window and the door. The facade as a whole makes a unity." 84  Robert Venturi, "Complexity and Contradiction i n Architecture", (New York: Museum of Modern Art, 1977), p. 88  8 5  Ibid., p. 89  -118-  Venturi's Meis House i n Princeton also has  a  duality i n i t s composition. The form i s a long gable-roofed element and the back i s a shed-roofed one. The duality i s "resolved by the perimeter, which contains the two elements and contributes unity to the composition."  Critique from Vneturi's point of view of Sedgewick  Is Sedgewick Library's architecture concerned with the unity of the whole? And i f so, how i s this unity achieved? What obligation towards the f i n a l expression of the whole was i n the mind of the designer?  InSedgewick the basic design module of the composition might be visualized as two caissons connected by a planter, (figure 52) Note the use of two columns and the ending of the planter which does not reach  8 6  Ibid., p.114  -119-  the brick. This creates a number of corners and elements which accentuate duality.  The emphasis  on duality i s made clearer, i f we observe figure A speculative d e t a i l indicates how an avoidance o duality might have been achieved by the designers i f that had been their intention.  It should be noted however, that by judging the general expression of the l i b r a r y from the bird's-eye view shown i n figure 27, we detect a willingness to reach a unity through inclusion of a l l the functions determined by a complex programme.  It i s thus not an easy unity,  enclosed i n a primary form ( c i r c l e , square or t r i a n g l e ) , but one Venturi's  which i s i n agreement with  seventh rule.  -120-  PART IV  SUMMARY OF THE ANALYSIS  It was the aim of this thesis, to test the v a l i d i t y of the theories of Ruskin, Mies and Venturi, to see how and i f they can be applied to architectural c r i t i c i s m today.  The analysis of  the usefulness of each of the  codes i n assessing the quality of a modern building such as Sedgewick reveals, f i r s t of a l l that a l l three together cannot be applied, since they often contradict one another. For example Ruskin believed that the changes that modern technology was bringing abot were destroying the essential character of a r c h i tecture. Mies on the other hand declared that "whenever technology reaches i t s fulfilment, i t Q  -j  transcends into architecture."  87 L. Mies van der Rohe, "Address to I l l i n o i s Institute of Technology (1950)", i n P h i l i p Johnson, Mies van der Rohe, 3rd. edition (New York: Museum of Modern Art, 1978) p. 203  -121-  Thus the former advocates handcraftsmanship and the l a t t e r demands i n d u s t r i a l i z a t i o n .  Furthermore, while Mies says that we must reach 88 beyond self-expression to the "universal"  , Venturi  reacts against the universality and c a l l s  i t the  inhumanity of modern architecture. Secondly, I have also found that applying any one of the theories lock-stock-and-barrel does not work. For example as fas as Ruskin's lamp of Power is concerned, I feel that the opposite to power is i n the minds of most designers today.  Mies'  "less i s more" concept i s being challenged i n the 1980's.  Today we would tend to require a solution  which i s generated from a more complex world than the one he advocated.  L. Mies van der Rohe, "The New Era", Die Form , 5th year, number 15 (August 1930), p .4U5  -122-  Thirdly I have found that each theory i s partly useful i n most situations. Thus the problem that I faced as a c r i t i c was to find that each has v a l i d i t y but that each f a i l s i n some aspects.  Their usefulness  cannot be denied, since some of the standards can be applied today, but then again we can use only a l i t t l e of each.  Throughout this test I perforce had  to apply the standards selectively, one might say eclectically.  This e c l e c t i c approach might open the c r i t i c to accusations of evasion, unwillingness or i n a b i l i t y to adhere to a single strong philosophy. There are those who believe that the architecture of today suffers for the very reason that architects do not have a firm, structured philosophy to follow.  The invention of a non-firm, f l e x i b l y structured philosophy of architectural c r i t i c i s m might be said to reinforce what i s seen as a weakness i n our cultural l i f e .  We have to ask ourselves i f i t i s  an evasion to chose only those aspects of each theory  -123-  which happen to f i t the particular situation -or i s i t a f a i r and proper thing to do?  Today eclectism i n architecture i s accepted, as we have found i n  a modern building such as Sedgewick.  The contemporary architect borrows ideas from various times and places and puts them together i n ways not too  different from the e c l e c t i c approach of the 19th.  century. tecture  Thus for the c r i t i c to cope with such archihe also has to become f l e x i b l e . F a i l i n g to  do so would render his work impossible..  I wish to advance the proposition that the c r i t i c who picks and chooses bits of this theory and that theory on which to base his c r i t i c i s m , but f a i t h f u l l y refers to each theory as i t applies, i s responding v a l i d l y with an e c l e c t i c c r i t i c i s m to an e c l e c t i c architecture. The problem i s not to invent a new code; only a new Mies or a new Ruskin could do that. Perhaps i n our time architects would not accept a new strong a l l encompassing dogma as a guiding l i g h t ,  -124-  especially when they accept eclectisim as a characx teristic  of contemporary architecture, and when they  accuse the modernist movement of the recent past of having committed gross errors precisely because of the r i g i d i t y and purism of i t s philosophy.  Some of Ruskin's theories can be used as standards of c r i t i c i s m , and ideed should be used when the architects think l i k e him and i f i t i s Ruskin's standards on which the architects design i s based. For example Ruskin's Lamp of Memory  has taken on  new importance with the revival of the conservationist movement. We have seen buildings, groups of buildings and entire sections of c i t i e s preserved within the rules set by him.  We could apply Mies' idea of "skin anf bones ^architecture" because i n contemporary architecture i t has become part of the architectural  language.  His concept of i n d u s t r i a l i z a t i o n of architecture has equally been widely accepted.  -.125-  From Venturi, we are using the concept of the double-functioning  element.  i t i s much applied today  My testing proved that  with success. On the other  hand, i f my testing had shown that his theories and the other two are a l l useless, then we  could  have safely forgotten them.  We have found however, that the l a t t e r i s not the case  and that the theories are p a r t i a l l y useful. We  can also conclude that today there i s no one single theory which answers porary  a l l questions  and that contem-  architects rather than seek a strong single  dogma, are selective or e c l e c t i c .  Contrary  to Ruskin's  code which suggests that we follow one code, although i t does not matter which one, today architects are following not one code, but rather selecting bits and pieces from d i f f e r e n t codes. Contemporary archit e c t u r e i s not stuck with the modernist  philosophy.  Venturi's concept of unity by inclusion i s s e l e c t i v e . Perhaps this  s e l e c t i v i t y (and to certain degree conf-  u s i o n ) should not surprise us, since i t i s i n keeping  -126-  with the u n d e r l y i n g thought on which  Sedgewick's  a r c h i t e c t u r e and contemporary a r c h i t e c t u r e i s based: that of technology.  V e n t u r i and Sedgewick's  archi-  t e c t u r e are c h i l d r e n of the t e c h n o l o g i c a l age, proclaimed by Mies, and resented and feared by Ruskin. It i s an e c l e c t i c a r c h i t e c t u r e which r e q u i r e s an e c l e c t i c c r i t i c i s m based on something the a r c h i t e c t has s e t up: a l i t t l e  of Ruskin, Mies and V e n t u r i and  others.  I am thus concluding that we do not need a new theory f o r c r i t i c i s m , but that we can use the o l d ones, s e l e c t i v e l y and make them work.  -127BIBLIOGRAPHY  Alberti,  L e o n e B a t t i s t a , Ten Books i n A r c h i t e c t u r e , t r a n s l a t e d t o E n g l i s h by James L e o n i , J o s e p h R y k v e r t ( E d i t o r ) , (London: A l e c Tirani, 1955)  Banham, J.A. ( E d i t o r ) , " B o a r d A p p r o v e s New L i b r a r y P l a n and t h e Reason b e h i n d t h e new Sedgew i c k L i b r a r y " , UBC REPORTS, v o l . 15 no. 18, V a n c o u v e r : The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , O c t o b e r 1982, pp. 4-8  Collins,  Peter, C h a n g i n g I d e a l s i n Modern A r c h i t e c t u r e , 1790 - 1950, ( M o n t r e a l : M c G i l l Queen's U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1965)  Conrads,  U l r i c h , ( E d i t o r ) , Programmes and M a n i f e s t o e s on 2 0 t h C e n t u r y A r c h i t e c t u r e , (London: Lund H u m p h r i e s , 1970)  De  Stijl,  Erickson,  Gifford,  11, "Manifesto I" U. C o n r a d s ( E d i t o r ) , Programmes and M a n i f e s t o e s on 2 0 t h C e n t u r y A r c h i t e c t u r e , (London: Lund Humphries, 1970)  Ture, "The S e d g e w i c k L i b r a r y " , S t u a r t S t u b b s , B. ( E d i t o r ) , The R e p o r t o f t h e U n i v e r s i t y L i b r a r i a n to the Senate, 1978 - 1979, ( V a n c o u v e r : The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , 1979), p. 4 Don, ( E d i t o r ) , The L i t e r a t u r e o f A r c h i t e c t u r e : the e v o l u t i o n o f a r c h i t e c t u r a l theory and p r a c t i c e i n n i n e t e e n t h - c e n t u r y A m e r i c a , (New Y o r k : D u t t o n , 1966)  -128BIBLIOGRAPHY  (Cont'd)  G r o p i u s , W a l t e r , "New I d e a s i n A r c h i t e c t u r e " , U. C o n r a d s ( E d i t o r ) , Programmes a n d M a n i f e s t o e s on 20th C e n t u r y A r c h i t e c t u r e , ( L o n d o n : L u n d H u m p h r i e s , 1970) Johnson, P h i l i p C , M i e s v a n d e r Rohe, Museum o f M o d e r n A r t , 1978)  (New Y o r k :  Jenks, Charles, Post-Modern Language o f A r c h i t e c t u r e , (New Y o r k : R i z z o l i I n t e r n a t i o n a l P u b l i c a t i o n s , 1977) Hamlin, Talbot, Forms a n d F u n c t i o n s o f 2 0 t h C e n t u r y A r c h i t e c t u r e , V o l . 2. (New Y o r k : Museum o f M o d e r n A r t , 19 60) Hubbard,  William, C o m p l i c i t y and C o n v i c t i o n i n A r c h i t e c t u r e : S t e p s t o w a r d an A r c h i t e c t u r e o f C o n v e n t i o n , (Cambridge, Mass: MIT P r e s s 1980)  H u x t a b l e , Ada L o u i s e , "The T r o u b l e d S t a t e o f Modern A r c h i t e c t u r e " , A r c h i t e c t u r a l Record, J a n u a r y 19 81 Le C o r b u s i e r , T o w a r d s a new A r c h i t e c t u r e : g u i d i n g p r i n c i p l e s , (Cambridge, Mass: Lund H u m p h r i e s , 1970) M i e s v a n d e r Rohe, L u d w i g , "The New E r a " , D i e Form, 5 t h . y e a r , Number 1 5 , p. 406, A u g u s t 1, 1930  -129BIBLIOGRAPHY  (Cont'd)  M i e s v a n d e r Rohe, L u d w i g , "A L e t t e r o n Form i n A r c h i t e c t u r e " , D i e Form, 2 n d . y e a r , Number 2, p. 5 9 , 1927 M i e s v a n d e r Rohe, L . , " A d d r e s s t o I l l i n o i s I n s t i t u t e o f T e c h n o l o g y (1950)" Q u o t e d from P h i l i p J o h n s o n , M i e s v a n d e r Rohe, (New Y o r k : Museum o f Modern A r t , 3 r d . e d i t i o n ) p. 203, 1978.  M i e s v a n d e r Rohe, L . , "The I n d u s t r i a l i z a t i o n o f B u i l d i n g M e t h o d s " , "G",Number 3, p . 8, B e r l i n , J a n . 1 0 , 1924  M i e s v a n d e r Rohe, L . , "The O f f i c e B u i l d i n g " , "G",Number 1, p. 3, B e r l i n , J a n . 1923 M i e s v a n d e r Rohe, L . , " A p h o r i s m o n A r c h i t e c t u r e and Form", "G",Number 1, p. 9, B e r l i n , J a n . 1923 M i e s v a n d e r Rohe, L . , "Two G l a s s S k y s c r a p e r s " , F r u l i c h t , Number 1, p. 122 - 4, 1922 M i e s v a n d e r Rohe, L . , " I n a u g u r a l A d d r e s s a s D i r e c t o r o f A r c h i t e c t u r e a t ARMOUR I n s t i t u t e o f Technology (1938), Quoted f r o m P h i l i p J o h n s o n , M i e s v a n d e r Rohe, (New Y o r k : Museum o f M o d e r n A r t , 3 r d . e d i t i o n ) , p . 1 9 9 , 1978 M e r r i a m - W e b s t e r , New C o l l e g i a t e D i c t i o n a r y , Toronto: T . A l l e n & Sons, 1981,  -130BIBLIOGRAPHY  (Cont'd)  Ruskin, John, The S e v e n Lamps o f A r c h i t e c t u r e , ( L o n d o n : G e o r g e A l l e n , 1905) Scully, Vincent, Modern A r c h i t e c t u r e , (New Y o r k : G o e r g e B r a z i l l e r ,  1960)  S u l l i v a n , L o u i s H., A u t o b i o g r a p h y o f an I d e a , (New Y o r k : D o v e r P u b l i c a t i o n s , 1956) Summerson,  The L a n g u a g e o f C l a s s i c A r c h i t e c t u r e , ( L o n d o n : Thames and H u d s o n , 1980)  Stuart-Stubbs, B a s i l , The R e p o r t o f t h e U n i v e r s i t y L i b r a r i a n t o t h e S e n a t e , 1975 - 1 9 7 9 , ( V a n c o u v e r : The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , 1975 - 1979) T a f u r i , Manfredo, A r c h i t e c t u r e and U t o p i a D e s i g n and C a p i t a l i s t D e v e l o p m e n t , (London: t h e MIT P r e s s , 1980) User's Committee, Programme f o r a New Sedgewick L i b r a r y , ( V a n c o u v e r : The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , A p r i l 1969) Venturi,  R o b e r t , C o m p l e x i t y and C o n t r a d i c t i o n A r c h i t e c t u r e , (New Y o r k : Museum o f M o d e r n A r t , 1977)  in  V i t r u r i u s , P o l i o , Ten b o o k s on A r c h i t e c t u r e , (New Y o r k : D o v e r P u b l i c a t i o n s I n c . 1960)  -131BIBLIOGRAPHY  (Cont'd)  Wright, Frank L l o y d , "An O r g a n i c A r c h i t e c t u r e " , F. G u t h e i m , ( E d i t o r ) , On A r c h i t e c t u r e , S e l e c t e d W r i t i n g s , (New Y o r k : G r o u e t a n d D u n l o p , 1941) p. 177 - 91 Z e v i , Bruno, The M o d e r n L a n g u a g e o f A r c h i t e c t u r e , (Vancouver:.Douglas and M c l n t y r e L t d . 1978) , Canadian A r c h i t e c t u r e Yearbook, (Don M i l l s : Southam, 1 9 7 0 , 1 9 7 3 , 1980) , Progressive Architecture, (New Y o r k : R e i n h o l d P u b l i s h i n g Company,197 3) p.53 - 64 , The A r c h i t e c t u r a l (Tokyo: Y a t a m u r a , 1979)  Review,  , D e s i g n Methods J o u r n a l , ( L o n d o n : R . I . A . , 1976)  APPENDIX NO. SUMMARY OF  A new B.  1 THE  HISTORY OF  S e d g e w i c k L i b r a r y was  Stuart-Stubbs  and W.J.  I n S e p t e m b e r 1968  a User's  pointed to prepare L i b r a r y was  of arts,  designed  The  Garnett Gladwin  the f i r s t  proposed  Watson i n June  by 1966.  C o m m i t t e e was  apThe  t o meet t h e n e e d s o f  commerce and  11,000 s t u d e n t s .  first  a Facilities List.  undergraduate students  Dr.  SEDGEWICK LIBRARY.  i n the f i r s t education  years  for a total  L i b r a r y was  Sedgewick  four  named  (1882  head o f the U n i v e r s i t y ' s  1  -  of  after 1949)  Department  of English. The  h i g h l i g h t s of the F a c i l i t i e s L i s t  t h a t the L i b r a r y  stipulate  should p r o v i d e space i n which  l i b r a r y m a t e r i a l s a r e s t o r e d , s e r v i c e d and The  building  s h o u l d be h o s p i t a b l e , i t s h o u l d  c o n s i s t of spaces r a n g i n g The  used.  from f o r m a l t o i n f o r m a l .  l i b r a r y m u s t be e c o n o m i c a l  of the time  u s e r s as w e l l as r e c o g n i z e t h e c o m p l e x i t y dynamism o f t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n . area of the b u i l d i n g  The  total  i s 140,000 s q u a r e  of and  gross  feet.  -133Rhone and I r e d a l e F e b r u a r y 1969  Architects  were commissioned i n  to produce a d e s i g n f o r the  library.  Dr. H. P e t e r O b e r l a n d e r , d i r e c t o r o f t h e S c h o o l o f Community and R e g i o n a l P l a n n i n g h e a d e d s p e c i a l Senate Committee recommendations  i n charge  f o r m and q u a l i t y o f t h e  academic  e n v i r o n m e n t and l a n d s c a p e .  p l a n under the Main M a l l ,  the  architects. opened  s t u d y s e a t s and The L i b r a r y  making  prevailing  the Board of Governors  the  The L i b r a r y  of  r e g a r d i n g the p r e s e r v a t i o n of the  existing  I n O c t o b e r 1969,  a  approved  as p r o p o s e d  by  i n J a n u a r y 197 3, p r o v i d i n g  s p a c e f o r 200,000 v o l u m e s .  Building  was  awarded  t h e 1970  Best  D e s i g n Award o f t h e C a n a d i a n A r c h i t e c t u r e The p a n e l o f j u d g e s c o n s i s t e d S h a d b o l t and D.C. the  Rowland.  Yearbook.  o f J.A. M u r r a y , I t was  also  o f C a n a d a as t h e b e s t b u i l d i n g  built  i n 1973  tural  I n s t i t u t e of B r i t i s h  Library  D.  awarded  F i r s t Award o f t h e R o y a l A r c h i t e c t u r a l  tute  2,000  Insti-  of a l l kind  and s e v e n y e a r s l a t e r ,  the  Architec-  C o l u m b i a awarded  d e s i g n t h e 1980 H o n o u r A w a r d .  the  -134-  International  recognition  of p u b l i c a t i o n s  during  in a variety  and t h e L i b r a r y was h a i l e d  "a s e m i n a l i n f l u e n c e buildings  followed  i n t h e d e s i g n o f new  t h e c o m i n g y e a r s " by  Mason.89 ( s e e p l a n s i n f i g u r e s  as library  Ellsworth  37 - 44 )  E l l e s w o r t h Mason, P r o f e s s o r a t H o f s t r a U n i v e r s i t y , N.Y. p u b l i s h e d : " U n d e r n e a t h t h e Oaks: The S e d g e w i c k L i b r a r y a t U.B.C. (1977) 11  -137-  gure 2 S k y l i g h t  -138-  -139-  Figure 4 by  Graphic  V i r g i n i a Chapman and Terry  Harrison  -140-  Figure 5  The Vancouver A r t  Gallery  -141-  -142-  Flgure 7  Brick wall  detail  See f i g u r e 43 f o r d e t a i l of s e c t i o n through t r e e drum  -143-  Figure 8  Ceiling  structure  -145-  -146-  -147-  Figure 12  Bird's-eye  view  -148-  -149-  -150-  Figure 15  Structure  -151-  -152-  Figure 18 Main  stairway  -154-  Figure 19 Main  stairway  -155-  -156-  -157-  -158-  -159-  -160-  -161-  (  Figure 26  Roof and facade  -162-  Figure 28  Fenestration  -164-  Figure 29  Curtain wall P a c i f i c Centr> Tower, Vancouver, by Mies' f o l l o w e r Walter Green  -165-  -166-  Figure 31  Pre-cast s t r u c t u r e  -167-  -168-  -169-  -170-  Figure 35  Detailing  -171-  Figure 37 S i t e Plan Reproduced w i t h w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n f r o m Rhone and I r e d a l e A r c h i t e c t s , credits to: R.Iredale, partner-in-charge R.Todd, p r o j e c t manager R.Henriquez, design a r c h i t e c t K.L.Chang, d e s i g n a r c h i t e c t  -173-  Figure 38  Floor P l a n  -174F i g u r e 39 F l o o r p l a r i Reproduced w i t h w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n f r o m Rhone and I r e d a l e A r c h i t e c t s  -175Figure 40 E l e v a t i o n s Reproduced with permission from Rhone and I r e d a l e  < 2  LU I  < 2  -176-  Figure 41  Facade  Figure 42 Isometric Reproduced with w r i t t e n permission from Rhone and I r e d a l e A r c h i t e c t s  -178Figure 43 D e t a i l of t r e e drum Reproduced with permission from Rhone and I r e d a l e A r c h i t e c t s  DETAIL SECTION THROUGH TREE DRUM AT A & B  -179-  Figure 44 S e c t i o n of r o o f Reproduced with permission from Rhone and I r e d a l e A r c h i t e c t s  SECTION THROUGH MALL AT ROOF  -180-  Figure 45 Symbol The four caissons with the oaks are a symbol used on the Sedgewick L i b r a r y i n f o r m a t i o n sheet to i d e n t i f y the l i b r a r y on campus  0  •181-  Figure 46  Facade  -182-  Figure 47 Main  stairway  -183-  Figure 48  Facade  -184-  -185-  Figure 50  Bird's-eye view  -186-  -187-  Figure 52  Planter  detail  -188-  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

    

Usage Statistics

Country Views Downloads
Japan 6 0
United States 5 0
China 4 15
Netherlands 2 0
France 2 0
Germany 1 1
Sudan 1 0
City Views Downloads
Tokyo 6 0
Unknown 3 2
Ashburn 3 0
Beijing 3 0
Kansas City 2 0
Amsterdam 2 0
Munich 1 0
Shenzhen 1 15

{[{ mDataHeader[type] }]} {[{ month[type] }]} {[{ tData[type] }]}
Download Stats

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0095662/manifest

Comment

Related Items