UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

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

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
UBC_1983_A7_3 M37.pdf
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
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 of 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 i n THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES School of A r c h i t e c t u r e We accept t h i s t h e s i s as conforming to the required standards THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA October 1983 (c) Thomas Martinson, 1983 In presenting t h i s thesis i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the Library s h a l l make i t f r e e l y available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of t h i s thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It i s understood that copying or publication of t h i s thesis for f i n a n c i a l gain s h a l l not be allowed without my written permission. A r c h i t e c t u r e Department of The University of B r i t i s h Columbia 1956 Main Mall Vancouver, Canada V6T 1Y3 Date October -f i 9 8 3 _ - i i i - ABSTRACT The t h e s i s deals with the a p p l i c a t i o n and t e s t - ing of modern c r i t i c a l theory of a r c h i t e c t u r e at the Sedgewick L i b r a r y . Through the works of John Ruskin, Ludwig Mies van der Rohe and Robert V e n t u r i , s e l e c t e d as proto- types of modern a r c h i t e c t u r a l thought from the ex- tensive l i t e r a t u r e t h e i r formula or 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 to an assessment of the design of the Sedgewick L i b r a r y , an award winning design r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of the best a r c h i t e c t u r a l work i h Canada during the contemporary a r c h i t e c t u r a l period. - i v — TABLE OF CONTENTS T i t l e page i A u t h o r i z a t i o n i i Abstract i i i Table of Contents i v L i s t of Figures v i Acknowledgement i x In t r o d u c t i o n 1 PART I John Ruskin, Pre-modern c r i t i c 5 Chapter 1 Lamp of s a c r i f i c e 8 Chapter 2 Lamp of t r u t h 14 Chapter 3 Lamp of power 25 Chapter 4 Lamp of beauty 32 Chapter 5 Lamp of l i f e 40 Chapter 6 Lamp of memory 46 Chapter 7 Lamp of obedience 51 PART I I Ludwig Mies van der Rohe, Modern A r c h i t e c t Chapter 8 Form follows f u n c t i o n 53 56 Chapter 9 Chapter 10 Chapter 11 Chapter 12 Chapter 13 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 Complexity and c o n t r a d i c t i o n 91 Chapter 15 Ambiguity 97 Chapter 16 Double-functioning elements 101 Chapter 17 The phenomenon of both-and 105 Chapter 18 C o n t r a d i c t i o n adapted 109 Chapter 19 The i n s i d e and the outside 113 Chapter 20 The o b l i g a t i o n towards the whole 117 PART IV Summary of the a n a l y s i s 120 Bibli o g r a p h y 127 Appendix No. 1 H i s t o r y of Sedgewick 132 Appendix No. 2 Permission to reproduce 135 < copywright drawings - Appendix No. 3 Figures 1 136 Bi o g r a p h i c a l form - v- The s k i n and bones a r c h i t e c t u r e 64, The i n d u s t r i a l i z a t i o n of a r c h i - 69 tectu r e God i s i n the d e t a i l s 73 Less i s more 77 The u n i v e r s a l space 83 - v i - LIST OF FIGURES Page Figure 1 S k y l i g h t s 136 Figure 2 S k y l i g h t 137 Figure 3 L e t t e r i n g 138 Figure 4 Graphic 139 Figure 5 Vancouver Art G a l l e r y 140 Figure 6 Carpet on w a l l of s k y l i g h t 141 Figure 7 B r i c k w a l l d e t a i l 142 Figure 8 C e i l i n g s t r u c t u r e 143 Figure 9 Caissons 144 Figure 10 Pla n t e r s 145 Figure 11 Roof garden 146 Figure 12 Bird's-eye view 147 Figure 13 Roof garden 148 Figure .< 1 4 H i l l shaped facade 149 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 stairway 153 Figure 19 . Main stairway 154 Figure 20 B r i c k work 155 Figure 21 P a r t i t i o n s 156 - v i i - Figure 22 P a r t i t i o n s 157,. Figure 23 Pre-cast -concrete c e i l i n g 158 Figure 24 Main stairway 159 Figure 25 Columns and Beams 160 Figure 26 Roof and facade 161 Figure 27 Bird's-eye view 162 Figure 28 Fe n e s t r a t i o n 163 Figure 29 C u r t a i n Wall 164 Figure 30 S k y l i g h t 165 Figure 31 Pre-cast s t r u c t u r e 166 Figure 32 Facade 167 Figure 33 Main Stairway 168 Figure 34 D e t a i l i n g 169 Figure 35 D e t a i l i n g 170 Figure 36 Fl o o r Plan 171 Figure 37 S i t e Plan 172 Figure 38 Fl o o r Plan 173 Figure 39 Fl o o r Plan 174 Figure 40 Elevations 175 Figure 41 Facade 176 Figure 42 Axonometric 177 Figure 43 D e t a i l of tree drum 178 - v i i i - Figure 44 Section at roof 179 Figure 45 Symbol 180 Figure 46 Facade 181 Figure 47 Main Stairway 182 Figure 48 Facade 183 Figure 49 Roof and facade d e t a i l 184 Figure 50 Bird's-eye view 185 Figure 51 Caissons and Pl a n t e r s 186 Figure 52 P l a n t e r d e t a i l 187 Figure 53 P l a n t e r d e t a i l 188 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS My most sincere thanks to my mentor Professor Abraham Rogatnick, Chairman of the Graduate Programme of the School of A r c h i t e c t u r e , and to the members of the committee Professor Douglas Shadbolt, D i r e c t o r of the School of 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 , partner i n the f i r m Rhone and I r e d a l e , designers of the Sedgewick L i b r a r y . -1- TNTRODUCTION This essay attempts to t e s t , at the Sedgewick L i b r a r y B u i l d i n g , three theories of a r c h i t e c t u r e propounded during the l a s t one hundred years or so. These theo r i e s were formulated by John Ruskin, Ludwig Mies van der Rohe and Robert V e n t u r i . A r c h i t e c t u r e i s defined by Walter Gropiusas the " c r y s t a l l i n e expression of man's noblest thoughts, h i s ardour, h i s humanity, h i s f a i t h , h i s r e l i g i o n . " In t h i s context, many theories have been presented i n d i c a t i n g a formula that produces "good a r c h i t e c t u r e " . From the extensive 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 of authors from d i f f e r e n t periods. Quotes of each c r i t i c ' s views are given i n the text with footnotes. 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 given us a r u l e as to what they considered i Walter Gropius, "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 selected three i n f l u e n t i a l t h e o r i s t s whose res p e c t i v e philosophies have stood out at three d i f f e r e n t periods during the l a s t century and have summed up large areas of t h i n k i n g associated with these periods. I am attempting to examine the use- fulness 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 as a guide f o r contemporary designers and c r i t i c s of a r c h i t e c t u r e . John Ruskin i s se l e c t e d as covering the pre- modern a r c h i t e c t u r a l period, 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 Venturi as the post-modern period's f o r e - most spokesman. I am going to t e s t each of t h e i r t heories by attempting to use t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e c i r t e r i a i n analyzing 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 - i n g . I have select 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 of B r i t i s h Columbia ( f i n i s h e d i n 1970; a design that has received several awards), to t e s t the v a l i d i t y of the formulas f o r "good a r c h i - t e c t u r e " suggested by Ruskin, Mies andi: V e n t u r i . A f u l l c r i t i q u e of the b u i l d i n g form each of the three points of view i s not intended - The c r i t i q u e s that do occur are given only as examples of the approach that each theory i n s t i g a t e s . Each has induced me to t a l k about p a r t i c u l a r aspects of the work of 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 of the theo- r i e s could be ap p l i e d to the d i s c u s s i o n of the same aspect i n the b u i l d i n g . The purpose of the exercise i s to t e s t ( u n s c i e n t i - f i c a l l y ) the r e a l t i v e usefulness of each theory when applie d to a contemporary is s u e . In order to permit the reader to f a m i l i a r i z e him- s e l f with 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 cosntruction i s presented i n Appendix No.1. -5- PART I JOHN RUSKIN PRE-MODERN ARCHITECTURE Summary of the p r i n c i p l e theory of Ruskin Ruskin's formula f o r good a r c h i t e c t u r e i s con- 2 tained i n h i s book, The Seven Lamps of 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 enlightened with seven precepts 3 which he r e f e r s to metaphorically as "lamps". His lamps are the lamps of S a c r i f i c e , Truth, Power, Beauty, L i f e , Memory and Obedience. Ruskin was concerned about the advance of modern technology. He be l i e v e d that the changes that i t was bri n g i n g about were destroying the e s s e n t i a l , character of a r c h i t e c t u r e . A short o u t l i n e of h i s lamps i s given below: 2 John Ruskin, The Seven Lamps of 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 of s a c r i f i c e claims: "that good a r c h i - tecture i s the a r t which so disposes and adorns an e d i f i c e , that the s i g h t of i t may con t r i b u t e to man's 4 mental h e a l t h , power and pleasure." Good a r c h i - tecture must concern i t s e l f w ith those character- i s t c i c s of a b u i l d i n g which are above and beyond i t s common use. The lamp of t r u t h advocates honesty i n a r c h i - t e c t u r e : "that 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 , the true one." The lamp of power says: "that good a r c h i t e c t u r e should be endowed with the severe and mysterious majesty or power, r e f l e c t e d i n i t s s i z e and shape." The lamp of beauty suggests: "that a r c h i t e c t u r e derives 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 of l i f e t e l l s us: "that a r c h i t e c t u r e must r e f l e c t man's thoughts and reve a l (the touch of h i s hand." I b i d . ; p. 15. - 7 - The lamp of memory says: "that architecture must render the architecture 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 ar c h i - tecure i s one that i s subjected to a formula. - 8 - Chapter 1 The Lamp of S a c r i f i c e Statement of the formula parameter f o r c r i t i s m Ruskin's f i r s t r u l e i s contained i n the 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 disposes and adorns an e d i f i c e , that the sight of i t may contr i b u t e to man's mental h e a l t h , power and pleasure"."' Ruskin d i s t i n g u i s h e s between a r c h i - tecture and b u i l d i n g . Not a l l b u i l d i n g s are a r c h i - t e c t u r e . He w r i t e s : " . . . i f to the stone f a c i n g of a b u i l d i n g i t be added an unnecessary feature, such as a cable moulding, that i s a r c h i t e c t u r e . Or i f p r o j e c t - ing masses can be carved i n t o rounded courses, which are usel e s s , and i f the headings of the i n t e r v a l s be arched and t r e f o i l e d , which i s use-^ 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 that a r c h i t e c t u r e concerns i t s e t f \ only with those c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of an e d i f i c e which 5 I b i d p. 13. • 5 6 I b i d p.15. • 5 - 9 - are above and beyond i t s common use. To best define the s p i r i t of s a c r i f i c e , he says: "...that i t prompts us to the offering of precious things merely because-^they are useful or necessary.". There are two conditions that enforce the s p i r i t of s a c r i f i c e : the f i r s t i s that we should always do our best to the point of utmost e f f o r t , and the second i s that an increase i n apparent labour leads to an increase i n beauty of the building. Critique of Sedgewick from Ruskin's point of view The decision to preserve the 40-year old pin oaks i n their o r i g i n a l positions and to design the new building around them seems to be a good example of Ruskin's lamp of s a c r i f i c e rule being applied by^ 7 Ibid.,p.l8. 8 Ibid.,p.39. J - 1 0 - th e designers and c l i e n t s . For the sake of pre- s e r v a t i o n of eight trees and the environment i n which they stood a great deal of ex t r a e f f o r t , ingenuity and expense was resorted t o . The a r c h i t e c t u r e of the Sedgewick L i b r a r y i s so disposed as to respect the t r a d i t i o n a l appearance of the Main M a l l and i n p a r t i c u l a r the pres e r v a t i o n of the oaks. I t conforms to the observations made by the Senate L i a i s o n Committee on Planning Perma- nent B u i l d i n g s headed by Dr. H. Peter Oberlander, then d i r e c t o r of the School of Community and Regional Planning. The wording of the committee's report was: "...the p r e v a i l i n g academic environment and landscape of the c e n t r a l part of the cam- pus has u s u a l l y been i d e n t i f i e d with the very essence of the U n i v e r s i t y ' s character. The e x i s t i n g form and q u a l i t y should be preserved and en- hanced. The e x i s t i n g trees are p a r t i c u l a r l y r e s ponsible f o r the character and s e t t i n g of the space i n f r o n t of the Main L i b r a r y and every e f f o r t must be made to maintain the tr e e s , the s u b s t a n t i a l grass -11- area and a number of other^ small 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 to c o n t r i b u t e to man's mental h e a l t h and pleasure. There i s no immediate advantage to the fu n c t i o n of the b u i l d i n g i n adapting to the e x i s t i n g environment, but as a re p o r t e r w r i t i n g on the plans f o r the b u i l d i n g e x p l a i n s : "...excavation and landscaping costs w i l l be higher than normal, but i f value were given to main- t a i n i n g open spaces on the campus under the present student popu- l a t i o n d e n s i t y, the ex t r a cost would be a small p r i c e to 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 necessary i n g r e d i e n t f o r good a r c h i t e c t u r e . Indeed we are impressed by the e f f o r t taken to protect the earth around-the roots of the oaks f o r no other purpose than to preserve something as ephemeral and even s p i r i t u a l as an environmental "character". J.A.Banham,(editor), "Board Approves New L i b r a r y Plan and the reason behind new Sedgewick L i b r a r y " , U.B.C. Reports, Vol.15, No.18, Vancouver:USB.C. -Oct. 1969 pTZ. "*Ibid. , p. 4 . -12- Another example where the extra effort has resulted in an architecture which is more successful is the use of mirrors on the skylight cones. In figures 1 and 2, one:can see the mirrors r e f l - ecting interesting images of the surrounding landse cape and sky in a collage-like manner. They become objets d'art that are attractive to ."pass and animate the walkway in a manner that would not have been pos- sible had the concrete cones- remained as unadorned concrete. They are the only visible symbol marking 11 the existence of the- library. "" 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 in by the architects. These as shown in 11 From an interview with Randle Iredale held January 30th., 1983, Vancouver, B.C. -13- figure 13, add richness 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 i n t e r i o r where the designers and,.to some extent, the c l i e n t i n s i s t e d on spartan f i n i s h i n g . The entrances on the north and south side of the li b r a r y p a r t i c u l a r l y were designed without making any " s a c r i f i c e " at a l l . . On the contrary they were l e f t bare on purpose to induce the c l i e n t to complete the construction of the side extensions of the l i b r a r y . A curious instance of deliberate withholding of extra e f f o r t for an u l t e r i o r motive. The Ruskinian ethic would have required that a satisfactory f i n i s h i n g be given to a l l work even i f i t be considered "temporary". -14- Chapter 2 The Lamp of Truth Statement of the code parameter for critism The Lamp of Truth is Ruskin's second rule for good architecture. Architecture of pretense, con- cealment and deceit is wrong. Ruskin advocates honest architecture.: He claims that "the spi r i t of truth is broken in architecture when:(l) The structure or support is suggested in a building which is not the true one; (2) The treatment of surfaces with the intention to conceal the real material; and (3) the use of machine 2̂ made ornaments of any kind." With respect to structural truth, Ruskin adds, "that only stone, brick or wood is to be used. Iron (especially cast-iron) is John Ruskin, The Seven Lamps of Architecture, 2nd. edition, (London: George Allen, 1905) p. 62. -15- not permitted, 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 covering 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 are defined as "the inducement of the supposition of some form of 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 of wood to look as i f i t were marble. However, i f p a i n t i n g does not represent or assert any m a t e r i a l what-so-ever such as the frescoes and paintings 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 also permits covering of b r i c k by marble or other precious m a t e r i a l s as long as i t i s c l e a r that these m a t e r i a l s are c l e a r l y understood to be surface treatments and do not pretend to 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 deals w i t h the s u b s t i t u t i o n of machine work f o r that of the hand and he c a l l s i t 16 "operative d e c e i t " . The reason behind t h i s r u l e 13 I b i d . , p.70-72 14 I b i d p.75 • 5 15 I b i d . , p.88 16 I b i d p.114 • 3 -16- is that In Ruskin's view, machine work i s bad and^ dishonest. Machine made ornaments, says Ruskin are " l i k e false jewels worn by a woman, and they 17 are an inexcusable l i e . " Critique of Sedgewick from Ruskin's point of view The truth i n the structure Randle Iredale, designer of the Sedgewick Library, says that the design team was "committed 18 to honesty." At least one expression of this honesty appears i n the boldly expressed columns on the facade which are designed to show they are sup- porting the horizontal structure as opposed to the tree-root caissons between which the fl o o r structure might seem to span. To further reduce the appear- a n c e of the horizontal r-structure resting on the: 1 7 Ibid., p.118 18 From an interview with Iredale held on January 30, 1983 i n Vancouver, B.C. -17- caissons, the concrete 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 short 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 Ruskinian terms a dilemma ap- pears i n the very use of r e i n f o r c e d concrete. A l - though the use of concrete was a r a r i t y i n Ruskin's time and therefore was not mentioned by him, h i s condemnation of the use of cast i r o n i n a r c h i t e c - ture may w e l l be taken as a condemnation of a l l s i m i l a r l y cast m a t e r i a l s which i n Ruskin's eyes can only 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 materials such as masonry and wood. I f we compare the Vancouver Art G a l l e r y ( f i g u r e 5 ) to the facade of Sedgewick we note that the Van- couver Art g a l l e r y b u i l d i n g with i t s s t r u c t u r a l elements made of stone, shows i t s supporting columns of dimensions which convey to the observer an un- equivocal message of being supporting elements prop- o r t i o n a t e to 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 in appearance, since the nature of the material does not require them to have large dimensions. Functionally, their dim- ensions are sufficient, but visually, they are too weak compared to the dimensions of the horizontal elements they support. This need for clarification is evidenced by Sedgewick's design, as noted earlier the brick caissons are articulated in 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 library, we note as shown in figure 8 that the true struc- ture can be observed everywhere. In fact, Ruskin's idea of architectural truth is taken to the extreme of exposing a l l the servicing. The lighting, the air conditioning, the sprinklers and other mech- anical elements are shown. -19- While ducted and piped services of this kind were very rare - i f they existed at a l l - in Ruskin's time, he is silent about this kind of "truth". Yet one cannot help assuming that Ruskin would not have condoned a chimeny disguised as perhaps a tur- ret or a cast iron drain pipe treated as an archi- tectural molding. However, he would have expected that such elements be treated with ornament and not left in a raw, mechanical state unhumanized by the art of 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 cover- ing of the steel drums which enclose the tree roots. Brick is generally used as a supporting material. In fact so strong is 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 is one. Yet i t is used as a surfacing material only as shown in 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 in this context. Yet, i t is int- 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 is there to satisfy a functional need." The tree roots must be kept cool, and thus air space was required between the drum and the interior of the library. Figure 43 demonstrates how carefully the truthful function of the brick is expressed in the detailing 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 in Vancouver, B.C. -21- the brick skin to the inner steel drum. Ruskin resolves the problem of veneers by indi- cating that i f the observer clearly knows that deceit is not intended, then i t is permitted. For example: "one knows a gilded capital is not solid 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 is the inducement of the supposition of some material which does not exist; for example,paint- ting plaster to make i t look like marble or car- ving stucco to make i t look like 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 carpeting on the wall, shown i n figure 6 , as well as for the painted plaster on the concrete walls. The use of machine made ornaments With respect to machine made ornament an anathema of Ruskin's, two examples to be found i n Sedgewick might be cite d : the wall graphics (figure 4) and the le t t e r i n g applied to the glass.(figure 3) Besides the absence of the evidence of man's hand, waht bothered Ruskin about machine-made ornament was i t s unnatural repetitiveness and what he f e l t (especi- a l l y i n cast iron ornament) was the i n a b i l i t y of the machine to bring the art of the ornament to the point of sensitive refinement. Probably the slickness of the machine-like execu- tion of the Sedgewick wall graphic would have appear^ -23- ed f a u l t y to Ruskin, but the f a c t of i t s unique- ness and i t s c a r e f u l l y designed r e l a t i o n to the wa l l s on which i t appears aside 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 Ruskin, c e r t a i n l y speaks c l e a r l y of what i t i s : paint on a f l a t sur- face. I t s avoidance of any trompe l ' o e i l i m i t a t i o n of carved or ap p l i e d elements can be a t t r i b u t e d to a by now probably unconscious compulsion on the part of the a r t i s t to comply with the dictum of t r u t h . The main purpose of the l e t t e r i n g on the glass i s to provide an e n t e r t a i n i n g means of c r e a t i n g v i s u a l b a r r i e r s so that the b u i l d i n g users won't bump i n t o the g l a s s , but i t a l s o becomes a form of ornamentation, 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 noting here that Ruskin forbade a l l use of l e t t e r i n g i n p P a r c h i t e c t u r e . He e v i d e n t l y d i d not n o t i c e or 22 I b i d . , p.86. -24- -did not appreciate the refinements of lettering in Roman structures or the use of i t in Islamic orna- ment . Finally, under the argument of the Lamp of Truth one must mention the structural elements which by remaining exposed on the interior candidly inform the viewer of the way the building is put together and how its structural system functions. The rela- tion of this exposure of the skeleton to the Gothic architecture that Ruskin so admired needs no elabor- ation. Ruskin might have been impressed with. -25- Chapter 3 The Lamp of Power Statement of the code parameter for criticism Ruskin's third rule is expressed in the Lamp of Power. He says that, "good architecture must be endowed by a severe and mysterious majesty, which we remember with an undi- minished awe, like that felt at the presence and operation of some great spiritual power." 23 This power is expressed in several ways, the 24 f i r s t of which is "size". The building -adds Ruskin- should be 1 ocated on a high elevation and i t should be possible to be seen at once in its entirety. Secondly to give the appearance of dominion, its 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 is eminetly the principle of power, as evidenced in Egyptian and2r Romanesque architecture." Ruskin says that when we look at a building, "the eye will be drawn to its terminal lines and these should be removed as far as possible. Thus the square and the cylin- drical column, are the elements of utmost power in 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 its surface. Critique of Sedgewick from Ruskin's point of view Figure 12 shows a bird's-eye view of the library, 25 Ibid p. 139 26 Ibid p. 142 • 5 -27- tohich was built not on a high elevation but in a depression of a park and under a mall. The designer's rule was precisely the opposite of the lamp of power, says Iredale. "We wanted a minimalist building, a building that should disappear, one that is buried to the point of having the cones as the only indi- cators or symbolist elements of the library's 27 location." Obviously a building that is intended to be sub- terranean would deny intention of overwhelming the viewer with it s impact. However aspects of the v i s i - ble details of the composition express quite boldly the Ruskinian notion of power in architecture. We observe an interplay of deep and vigorous shadows produced by the combination of the masses of the caissons and the floor to ceiling glass fenestra- 27 From an interview with Randle Iredale held January 30, 1983 in Vancouver, B.C. - 2 8 - t i o n a n d t h e o v e r h a n g o f t h e p l a n t e r s . ( f i g u r e 9 ) T h e g i a n t c y l i n d r i c a l c a i s s o n s a p p e a r t o b e q u i x o - t i c a l c r e a t i o n s r e s e m b l i n g g a r g a n t u a n f l o w e r p o t s , t h e v e r y b i g n e s s o f s c a l e w h i c h R u s k i n c i t e s a s o n e o f t h e w a y s t o a c h i e v e a r c h i t e c t u r a l p o w e r , ( f i g u r e 9 ) I t i s i n d e e d i n t e r e s t i n g t h a t t h e e l e m e n t s o f R u s k i n ' s d e f i n i t i o n o f p o w e r c a n b e d i s c o v e r e d a l s o o n t h e w e s t s i d e e l e v a t i o n o f t h e l i b r a r y . A g a i n a n i n t e r p l a y o f s h a d o w s a n d m a s s e s i s a p p a r e n t , r e i n - f o r c e d b y t h e t h r u s t i n t o s p a c e o f t h e s h a r p e e d g e d p l a n t e r s . T h e l a t t e r o n e s r e s e m b l e h u g e r a z o r - b l a d e s c u t t i n g s p a c e . I t i s t h e c o m b i n a t i o n o f t h e s h a p e a n d t h e l a r g e s i z e o f t h e s e e l e m e n t s t h a t c o n v e y t h e e f f e c t o f p o w e r a l m o s t m o n u m e n t a l l y , ( f i g u r e 1 0 ) T h i s n o t i o n o f p o w e r a s a n i n g r e d i e n t f o r g o o d a r c h i t e c t u r e h a s g o n e t h r o u g h u p s a n d d o w n s i n h i s - t o r y . L a r g e n e s s i s e v i d e n c e d a s o n e o f t h e p r i m a r y o b j e c t i v e s o f a r c h i t e c t u r a l d e s i g n a s f a r b a c k a s t h e t e m p l e s o f a n t i q u i t y a n d t h e G o t h i c c a t h e r a l s . -29- In the 20th. century the architectural design dir- ected by authoritarian regimes has espoused Ruskin's code, where largeness is equated to goodness in archi- tecture. There are however opposing views, which long for delicacy even f r a g i l i t y and low profile as aesthetic assets for good architecture after World War II peak- ing in 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 details of the build- ing, its overall impact is humble rather than domina- ting. It is built in a depression of the landscape. Its contour does not stand out but rather tends to disap- pear underground. Iredale says "that there has in fact been a conscious attempt to totally 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 profiled, accommodating, and retreating character of Sedgewick. Ruskin's code is contra- dicted, in 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 profile edifice was the most appropriate answer. Contra- dicting Ruskin, the contemporary c r i t i c would argue the virtue of the design precisely because of its restraint in 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 in Vancouver, B.C. -31- "... the library does not interfere with existing buildings or surroundings and yet improves the func- tion of each, i t is an example of architectural humility." 29 "1970 Best Design Award", Canadian Architecture Yearbook, Don Mills: 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 criticism The fourth rule is stated in the Lamp of Beauty. Beauty in architecture, says Ruskin, derives chiefly "from the imitation of natural forms. Imitation of nature is the only source of beauty and thus of good architecture." 30 The adaptation of forms that are commonest in nature is 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 "is founded on the laws of natural forms, and those forms which are most frequent are most natural." 31 Thus i t follows that in 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 will not be straight lines which are rarely seen in nature. "Organic forms are the best forms, abstract geo- mertic 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 slop- ing park (created by the architects who reversed the original land slope up to the mall) that exists in the academic quadrangle bordered by the Main Libr- ary, Buchanan Building and the Mathematics Complex. Figure 12 shows bird's-eye views of Sedgewick where the building is carefully inserted into naturalistic 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 in 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 is 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 is inte- grated into the natural landscape to disguise its bulk. Indeed the building has been given the contours 33 From an interview with Iredale held on January 30, 1983 in 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 build- ing and the landscape are really blurred.(figure 13) Although the effort to adapt an "unnatural" straightlined building to a landscape may not be the same as imitating or learning directly from natural forms. Yet, adaptation, when i t responds to the pressures of nature and allows nature to be determin- ant in the process, must lead to forms which are en- hanced by this determination. Frank Lloyd Wright's words come to mind: "good architecture is linked to'. ..34 nature." The aesthetic philosophy of deliberate contrast between the hard structural lines of Sedgewick and the naturalistic landscape which unfolds i t , is one which Ruskin does not consider. His disdain of the 34 F.L.Wright,"Organic Architecture," F. Gutheim, (editor), On Architecture, Selected Writings, (New York: Grouet and Dunlop, 1941) p. 17 7-1°'! - 3 6 - machine together with machine-like or "machined" forms prevented him from appreciating the machine as a partner of nature. Sedgewick's exploitation of this partnership thus expands the relationship between architecture and nature beyond Ruskin's comprehension. Observing the shape of the building i n figure 14. One notes hwo the steps seem to follow the natural contours on the h i l l as i s nature had channeled them out of the earth. On the other hand we find on figure 14, that the hroizontal planters are of an unyielding man made shape. The form of the planters i s divorced from natural forms, yet the shrubs that they house, confuse i t with the landscape. There i s an attempt to soften the impact of the hard geometr- i c a l form. There i s a clash here; the hard lines of f̂ehe horizontal planters are mixed with natural elem- ents. We know that hte designers were not interested i n imitating nature, per se, yet consciously or not they have created a structure which resembles a cave. For the observer this association of Sedgewick with a cave-like structure is unavoidable. Indeed, i t s cave-like appearance may be said to impart certain romantic character to the architecture which is intriguing to the viewer. Ruskin advises designers to learn from natural forms. Perhaps he is telling us that for architect- ure to be appreciated i t needs to be understood, and by associating man-made forms with familiar aspects of nature, architecture becomes comprehensible to the ordinary man. Although the detail of the column, the beam and the T-beams do not imitate the forms of a leaf, or an oak tree. The post and l i n t e l structure seen in figure 15 may not be a form commonly found in nature, yet associations with natural forms become inevitable for the observer, who is familiar with them. At the most obvious level, one could argue that the stout -38- columns r e c a l l tree trunks (figure 15) and for one f a m i l i a r with the way i n which reinforced concrete works, a sense of the branch-like forms of the hidden steel reinforcing bars, even i n the abstrac- tion of the imagination, brings with i t some of the aesthetic tension and drama that are expressed i n the tensible actionof the fibers of a tree.(figure Another instance of an architectural form r e f - l e c t i n g a natural one can be seen i n figure 16, where the iron chain which directs r a i n water into a basin appears as a frozen image of the dropping water so thatieven on a day with sunshine, the iron chain remainds us of the dynamics of water f a l l i n g into a pond. Whether intended by the architects or not, the aesthetic success of the d e t a i l seems to prove Ruskin's point. Some may argue however, that this e f f o r t of ad- apation and imitation with the intention of pres- erving the existing campus landscaping scheme i s noi 15 ) - 3 9 - natural at a l l . What i s natural one may ask, i n the location of the pin oaks which have been planted by man i n ageometrical pattern forty years ago, replacing the natural growth of cedar and f i r trees on the site? The use of plant material i n geometrical and a r c h i - tectonic patterns, however, has been a factor i n s i t e design since ancient times. Ruskin does not deal with this issue, but we have to point out and ask i f there is not another rule which architects (including Rhone and Iredale) have responded to which may be equally important, but a va r i a t i o n on Ruskin's theme; namely, the imitation and preservation of man-made landscapes. So that imitation of that which imitates nature also becomes a worthwhile pursuit, (figure 17) -40- Chapter 5 The Lamp of Life Statement of the code parameter for criticism Ruskin's f i f t h rule is expressed in the. chapter 34 entitled The Lamp of Life. Good architecture for him should reflect man's thoughts and reveal the touch of his hand. According to Ruskin, machine made products cannot do this. He advocates hand- craftsmanship as a true reflection of l i f e . A l l successful architecture must have fullness of l i f e . "As sea sands are made beautiful by their bear- ing the seal of the mo- tion of the waters, so good architecture becomes such in proportion to the amount of energy of that mind of man which 25 • has visibly been upon i t . " 34 John Ruskin, The Seven Lamps of Architecture, 2nd edition. (London: George Allen, iy0i>) p. 270. 3 5 Ibid., p.271. -41- Such are the words of Ruskin. He also concludes that good architecture w i l l always be a reflection 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 library'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 library. Even in the elements which pa fact required extensive hand work, such as forming the main stairway, the workman's hand is not evident. 37 From an interview with R. Iredale held January 30, 1983 in Vancouver, B.C. -42- The result looks like 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 in figure 19 we detect a design that attempts to prevent us from hearing the sound of the hammer of the crafts- men who toiled to build the intricate 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 in concrete design i t is in 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 strive for a "machined" character in 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 Life. J -43- An example where Ruskinian hand workmanship can be found is the painted graphic shownin figure 4. This painted graphic has been created according to a l l the rules of the Lamp of Life. The graphic is unique, i t has been designed for this specific location, i t is the expression of a human being, i t has been painted by hand and i t is inspired by nature. It is certainly not an industrial 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 is characterized by hard edged lines probably painted with the aid of straight edges and tape, reflecting the machine aesthetic, an art made by machines, rather than humans, an actual contradiction of Ruskin's code. The hand of the workman is hardly evident. But would the result have been as effective rf i t had been painted free-hand and revealed the irregularities and assymmetries so admired by Ruskin and which he observed with pleasure in the carving of a Byzantine capitol? -44- Finally, we turn to the extensive use of the, brick work in the library. The purpose of the use of brick was according to Randle Iredale "to give human feel as opposed to the machine feel." From time immemorial the brick wall has been associated with hand work. Indeed, the bricklayer's hand ought to be revealed in very joint where mortar is applied. The fact that the bricks are machine made might be irrelevant here. What we know is that the bricks were laid one by one, carefully conforming to the curvature of the perimeter of the caissons as shown in figure 20. We could expect such a process to result in perfect compliance with the Lamp of Life rule. The brick work is hand assembled specifically 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- Yet what we see i s the r e g u l a r i t y o f what couDd have been a machine made b r i c k w a l l . The b r i c k l a y e r ' s t o u c h i s not v i s i b l e a t a l l . I n s p i t e o f the 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 " m e c h a n i c a l " p e r f e c t i o n of the b r i c k l a y e r ' s t e c h n i q u e o b l i t e r a t e s the i m p r e s s i o n o f a human hand a t work. The use o f handwork does not seem t o be enough, not even the 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 the i n t r o d u c t i o n o f con- s c i o u s i r r e g u l a r i t y i n the handwork. Wright t a l k s about t r a i n i n g h i s workmen t o produce the " d e s i g n e d " i r r e g u l a r i t i e s which he sought f o r i n h i s masonry. I t i s a c u r i o u s dilemma: t o g i v e the 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 , even f a l s i f y i n o r d e r t o e x p r e s s the beauty o f handwork. We have come a f u l l c i r c l e i n t h i s argument. I f handwork needs t o be f a l s i f i e d t o appear as such, a r e we not i n f a c t b e i n g asked by R u s k i n t o d i s o b e y h i s code i n the Lamp of Truth? -46- Chapter 6 The Lamp of Memory Statement of the code parameter for criticism The sixth rule is the Lamp of Memory. Ruskin claims that good architecture has two duties: " f i r s t , to render the archi- tecture of the day historical, and the second, to preserve as the most precious of inheri- tance, that of past ages." 39 It is thus in becoming memorable that a true perfection is attained by c i v i l and domestic buildings. Ruskin is advocating building for cen- turies of use, not mere decades. He would like to see in good architecture, the entire history of the building indicated or represented in its 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 in 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- I t i s s a i d that to understand the present, we have to look to the past. I t i s by the knowledge of the past that we can p r o j e c t o urselves to the f u t u r e . I f i t i s denied to the human race to d i s c o v e r i t s primary 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 , at l e a s t by studying the legacy of our ancestors we as a people o b t a i n some comfort, s e c u r i t y , and begin to understand who we are and .where we have come from. A r c h i t e c t u r e as the e x p r e s s i o n of man's thoughts, h i s ardour, h i s humanity, h i s f a i t h and h i s r e l i g i o n can play an important r o l e i n the pre- s e r v a t i o n of memories. Because of a r c h i t e c t u r e ' s c h a r a c t e r of permanence, i t i s extremely s u i t a b l e to remain as a document of past ages. The importance of a r c h i t e c t u r e as a p r e s e r v e r •bf memories i s evidenced by the resurgence of the c o n s e r v a t i o n i s t movement. I t i s the d e s i r e of the movement to prevent the disappearance of the past. I f a r c h i t e c t u r e i s t o perform i t s r o l e , i t must -48- -as Ruskin says- be constructed to'last a long time, and i t must be built firmly enough and with enough conviction and reflection of the builder to leave a long record in history for the enrichment, of posterity. Critique of Sedgewick from Ruskin's point of view The effort made in 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 line the original roadway designed in 1914 seems to admit to the importance of Ruskin's Lamp of Memory. In their effort 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 library is a dynamic -49- organization. Its require- ments vary from year to year, with new educational approaches and new technologies and the library changes to meet the new needs. Space that may be used for various purposes is superior to space that by its nature is 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 will outlast a variety of changing functions may be said to have a close affinity with the Lamp of Memory. The planning concept such as that in Sedgewick which allows for changes to be made to the partitioning without having to remove or alter the original structure does after a l l permit the accommodation of the changing needs of countless generations. This User's Committee, The fundamentals of the Sedge- wick Library, Vancouver: University of British Columbia 1968, p. 4. -50- concept is the very intention of the design. Says ̂ Randle Iredale: "We wanted the interior 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? If the architecture should permit a l l traces of books to disappear, then Ruskin's rule of memory will 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 criticism The Lamp of Obedience is the last rule of Ruskin for good architecture. Ruskin says "good architecture is 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 built 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 , designer of the Sedgewick L i b r a r y i n d i c a t e s t h a t : "a code was followed: that of the modern movement often r e f e r - red to as modernist these days, using the form f o l l o w s f u n c t i o n p r i n c i p l e i n i t s many manifestations. A code that was more^ complex than Mies'." We know then that the philosophy of the modernist movement was followed and thus the b u i l d - i ng was designed according to a code as Ruskin demands. In Part I I we w i l l be d e f i n i n g aspects of the modern code i n d e t a i l . From an i n t e r v i e w with R. Iredale held January 30, 1983, Vancouver, B.C. -53- PART II LUDWIG MIES VAN DER ROHE MODERN ARCHITECTURE Summary of principle theories of Mies van der Rohe Mies' formula for good architecture is clarity and simplicity in architecture: less is more. Mies was a revolutionary architect; he establ- ished the vocabulary of modern architectural language, mote than any other representative of the modern movement. The aesthetic code of Mies' good architecture is contained in a number of articles that he wrote during his l i f e time. This study will refer to six of his most important writings. In chronological order they are: "Aphorisms on Architecture and Form" 1923, "The Office Building" 1923, "The Indus- trialization of Building Methods" 1924, "A letter on Form in Architecture" 1927, "The New Era" 1930, and "Address to the Il l i n o i s Institute of -54- Technology" 1950.44 ^ Mies was not a man of many words; his writings and speeches are short. To complement them, I will be drawing conclusions about his theories which he preached and practised, by observing and citing 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 is given below. In "Aphorisms on Architecture and Form", he te l l s us that in good architecture, "form follows function". He rejects a l l prior doctrine and formal- ism. In "The Office Building" article, he proposes a "skin and bones" architecture. In the article "Industrialization of Building Methods", he says that our building methods must be industrialized, that hand work should be eliminated and that the search for a new building material is a must. In his address to the I l l i n o i s Institute of Tech- nology he indicates that architecture and technology 'are closely related. In good architecture, one should -55- be the expression of the other. In "A letter on Form in Architecture", he claims that in good archi- tecture, less is more. Good architecture obtains maximum effect with minimum means. Finally in "The New Era", he advocates:that good architecture is one that creates an order out of the confusion of our time; a perfect architectural solution which is "universal". This concept is in 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 later, and we will attempt to show that he was truly an extreme formalist as observed in his work. Chapter 8 Form follows Function Statement of code parameter for criticism The f i r s t concise statement of principles or rules to produce good architecture is contained in the architectural publication "G", Number 1. To Mies, good architecture must, "reject a l l aesthetic specu- lation, a l l doctrine, a l l formalism. Architecture is the w i l l of an epoch trans- lated into space; living, 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 is not the aim of our work, but only the result. Form as an aim is formalism; and that we reject. Essentially our task is to free the practice of build- 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 Architec- ture and Form", G Number 1 (January 1922) pp.12 T24" - 5 7 - The essence of his statement is that "form f o l - lows function". He is setting a new order out of the confusion of our time; thus his interpretation of function is a simplified and ordered abstraction of the actual function or use. Mies is not alking about form following function in the same way that other "functionalists" talk about i t . He is indeed referring to satisfying form resulting from choice of structure and materials. He seems to be saying : be a good engineer and you will 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 rigidly preconceived aesthetic notions about form. He seems to be saying precisely the opposite of "form follows function" in many of his buildings where functional is only lightly defined and referred to by him as "universal" space in that i t can be adapted to almost any function. - 5 8 - i(We w i l l deal with Universal space in a later chapter) Perhaps where this is best noted is in the build- ings planned by him at the Il l i n o i s Institute of Tech- nology: In the - Library and Administration build- ing we find that the solution chosen to satisfy the function of a library is a rectangular steel, brick and glass box. In the Architecture and Design building his solution to satisfy the function of a school of architecture is a rectangular steel, brick and glass box. In the Boiler House and the Chapel, the solution chosen to satisfy both functions namely that of a furnace room and that of a place of worship is a steel, -brick and glass box. In the Fifty-by-fifty house his solution to satisfy the functions of a dwelling is a steel and 'glass box, and final l y -59- A similar solution can be found in the Mannheim Theater. In a l l the above, Mies is satisfying 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 in form, for in the Miesian world the out- ward expression of a l l buildings may be the same despite their different functions. The form is preconceived and the solutions are selective. Mies is an extreme formalist. The visual function is important to him since he uses elements in the facade which have no structural function, just to ensure that the building looks functional. The aesthetic choice is behind i t a l l . -60- Gritique from Mies' point of view of Sedgewick The complexity of the spaces at Sedgewick indi- cate an approach to planning very different from that of the Miesian one. If we are to look for a Miesian "functionalism" in Sedgewick i t would only be in the structure and use of materials where we might be able to make the most positive com- parisons . Iredale says that his team interpreted the prin- ciple of "form follows function" as form following 46 use. A functional programme was set forth by the User's Committee and spelled out in 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 Peter Oberlander, to place the L i b r a r y under the Main 47 M a l l . The a r c h i t e c t s of Sedgewick used these l i s t s of functions to generate a form or design of the b u i l d i n g . As Banham says, "the design (or form) proposed by the a r c h i t e c t s i s an ingenious s o l u t i o n to 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 to solve 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 a r c h i t e c t u r e i s a true p h y s i c a l r e f l - 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 jury's comment: "... i t i s the product of a combined e f f o r t of the l design team of l i b r a r i a n s , 4 7 J.A.Banham, e d i t o r , U.B.C. Reports (October 9, 1969) The Oberlander report came a f t e r the pre- l i m i n a r y design of the l i b r a r y prepared by Rhone and I r e d a l e . p. 2. Ibid., - 6 2 - f students and consultants who through surveys and questionaires i d e n t i f i e d f i v e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c environments f o r study; short-term scanning, long-term open, long-term clos e d , group study and informal reading and r e l a x i n g . " 49 Figures 38 and 36, show f l o o r plans of Sedgewick with 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 several f u n c t i o n s . Yet analyzing the choices 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 f i n d that i n f i r s t place i t was the preservation of the mall 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 has become the backbone of the design and the shape of the b u i l d i n g . In second place i t was the saving of the treess Jury's comment awarding the 1980 Honour R.A.I.C. Award to Sedgewick. What Randle Iredale c a l l s a "search f o r f i t . " -63- tchat originated the form. In t h i r d and forth place's^ were the decisions of going or c i r c u l a t i n g under- ground and the structural precast concrete system. Once the ov e r a l l form was created by the choices aforesaid, the i n t e r i o r l i b r a r y uses were stuffed into i t . Thus at sedgewick we find that the form i s o r i g - inated i n a Miesian manner, where the function of the structure and other preconceived aesthetic decisions 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 criticism 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 in place, the struc- tural system which is the basis of a l l a r t i s t i c design, is hidden by the chaos of meaningless and t r i v i a l forms. We can see the new structural principles most clearly when we use glass in place of the outer walls, which is feasible today since in a skeleton building these outer walls do not actually carry weight."51 He further adds that the fixed points of the plan are stair 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 ceiling, and when they do, glass is used^ in order to maintain the unity of the space. The location of the partitions is determined by the needs of the particular function and can be easily changed. Mies emphasizes that the materials to be used are: "concrete, steel, glass. Reinforced concrete struc- tures are skeletons by nature. No gingerbread. No fortrees. Columns and girders eliminate bearing walls. This is skin and bone architecture."52 To understand Mies' code let us look at three of his works. In the Library and Adminsitration Building at the Il l i n o i s Institute of Technology, the structure is located inside the enclosing glass curtain wall-. The structure reveals i t s e l f through the glass. This is very dramatic at night when the building is l i t . Ludwig Mies van der Rohe, "The Office Building" "G", Number 1 (1923) p. 3. -66- In the Fifty-by-fifty house, the situation is reversed. The structure is located outside the glass skin. The structure is revealed with clarity Sometimes as in the Seagram building in New York, both solutions are apparent. On the ground floor level the structure is outside the skin and on a l l higher floors i t is inside the glass.(figure 29) A third solution is evidenced at the Boiler House building. Here the structure and the glass are located in the same plane. The skin is 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 in a form based on structure. The outer walls are glass and the precast concrete skeleton is exposed throughout. The glass is the skin Cand the structure is the skeleton or bones of the -67- b u i l d i n g . The Miesian concept i s r e a d i l y present. Note how the f i x e d points of the plan are s t a i r s and e l e v a t o r s h a f t s ; a l l the other elements of the plan are p a r t i t i o n s . Bearing w a l l s are not needed. The columns support the s t r u c t u r e . The caisson;; walls and the north-south w a l l s are r e t a i n i n g w a l l s rather than bearing w a l l s . The choice made by teh designers to use r e i n - forced concrete which as Mies says, produces by i t s very nature a skeleton type s t r u c t u r e , i s only p a r t i a l l y revealed when observing the facades. In f i g u r e 5, where although there are no outer w a l l s and the columns are c l e a r l y present, the s t r u c t u r e i s confused or camouflaged by plan t e r s set i n t o the ex t e r n a l edge beams. The same confused expression i s found i n f i g u r e 10 showing the west facade. Here the glass a c t i n g as the enclo s i n g s k i n i s located i n the same plane as^the s t r u c t u r e and at times, i n s i d e of the structure, but again the plnters cover up the bold' forms of the structure is hidden by the unrelated forms of the planters. Note again figures 5 and 10, the columns exp- ress the vertical support of the structure, but the horizontal strcutural elements, the bold forms of the interior T-beams are not successfully expressed on the outside. The cantilevered edge-beam planters are ambi- guously related to the structure. It is not easy to understand what is supporting them or what their true structural function is in relation to the other structural elements in the building. The expression is not of structural rationality, but suggests elements floating or levitating in the air. So while this use of materilas and the cr machine-like forms seem to recall Miesian formal structural principles, the primary aesthetic impact here derives from the denial of structural processes rather than the expression of them. 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 t e c t u r e Statement of code parameter f o r c r i t i c i s m M i es' 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 proposes 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 methods. He s ays, "our b u i l d i n g methods today must be i n d u s t r i a l i z e d . A l t h o u g h everyone concerned has opposed t h i s u n t i l r e c e n t l y . I c o n s i d e r 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 methods the key problem of the day f o r a r c h i t e c t s . Once we succeed i n t h i s , our 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 problems w i l l be easy t o s o l v e . The p r o - blem 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 m a t e r i a l . I t must be a l i g h t m a t e r i a l which r e q u i r e s 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 the work a t the s i t e w i l l c o n s i s t o n l y of assemblage, r e q u i r i n g e x t r e m e l y few man- h o u r s . T h i s w i l l g r e a t l y reduce b u i l d i n g c o s t s . Then - 7 0 — the new architecture will come into i t s own."53 He adds that the building of the future will not be done by hand workers, just as the automobile is no longer manufactured by carriage-makers. Mies not only promoted this rule of industriali- zation of architecture by word, but also by deed. A l l his projects have a high percentage of factory const- ruction, although they required a lot of hand-finishing to give them the look of machine-made precision. The machine-made precision is revealed in a l l his buildings. The inside and the outside of his build- ings show the industrialized construction methods. For example the Architecture and design building project in Chicago, clearly an excellent example of a building that appears to have achieved its elegant form from the application of industrialized 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 library building is a highly indsutrialized building. The axonometric sketch of the precast components shown in figure 42 confirm the industrialized conception of the design. The different components are put together in a mech- ano-like manner on the site, after being transported from the factory. Indeed the interior view shown in figure 31 presents a structure that clearly seems to have been assembled from previously manufactured parts: the column f i r s t , the hollow cross beam next and fi n a l l y the double T-beams. Even in the brick work, we detect the machine-made regularity of the bricks. Mies' buildings looked industrialized, yet care- ful examination of his design reveals that his build- ings were not industrialized. On the other hand, Sedgewick does not look industrialized (the exterior), yet i t is in fact factory made. The effectiveness of Sedgewick1s architecture seems to depend on a design which is neither a l l "industrialized" in appearance nor a l l "ad hoc" in appearance. This is a reflection of the designers wishes to have "more hand made" materials. Nevertheless the reliance on the exposure and frank revelation of the industrialized structural elements of the building (inside) as a major aesth- etic approach indicates strongly Miesian vision on the part of the architects of Sedgewick Library. Despite the irregularities 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 industrialization did not have to result in a factor 'like building, nor did i t resemble a stereotype. -73- Chapter 11 God is in the Details Statement of the code parameter for criticism In the fourth rule, Mies claims that good archi- tecture is based on technology. He says, "Technology is rooted in the past, - i t dominates the present and tends into the future. It is a real historical move- ment, i t shapes and represents our epoch. Just as religion was for the Middle Ages and the discovery of man as a person was for the Classic Renaissance period." 54 Technology reveals its true nature when i t is left to i t s e l f as in the structures of engineering. Then i t acquires a meaning. "Wherever technology reaches i t s fulfilment, i t transcends into architecture." 54 L. Mies van der Rohe, "address to Il l i n o i s Institute of Technology (1950)", in Philip Johnson, Mies van der Rohe, 3rd. edition (new York: Museum of Modern Art, 1978),p.203 ^ 5 Ibid., p. 204 -74- Architecture and technology are closely related; in good architecture one should be the expression of 5 6 the other. The reason for this 3 according to Mies, is based on his claim that architecture is the "crystallization 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 is to be found and perfected. "God is in the details", he used to say. It is 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 cons- 58 truction details. It is not the material however, which is important, but rather the construction tech- nology i t s e l f . 5 6 Ibid., p. 205 5 7 Ibid., p. 9 58 Ibid., p. 10 -75- Mies designs careful details. Using concrete, steel and glass with great craftsmanship consistent with the technology of these materials, Mies con- veyed his fourth rule of an architecture emerging from a new technology. It is the machine-made precision he sought which identified his details, 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 in the layout of the pre- cast components and cosntruction details as shown in figures 42, 43 and 44. Despite their effort in following Mies' ideals, at Sedgewick we do not find, in the final product a "machine-made precision" in the detailing of the pre-cast concrete nor in the poured-in-place concrete. Figures 34 and 35 reveal a bulky and rough detailing. They are in -clear opposition to Mies' meticulous detailing. Here there i s allowance f o r g r e a t e r t o l e r a n c e s than the p r e - c a s t and poured-in-place concrete r e q u i r e s , an a e s t h e t i c approach which i s c l o s e r to the d e t a i l i n g of Le Corbusier than that of Mies. At Sedgewick we f i n d i n a d d i t i o n to the n a t u r a l b u l k i n e s s of concrete, a roughness which need not e x i s t . Mies has shown us that concrete i f p r o p e r l y d e t a i l e d can be p r e c i s e and smooth. His work i n d i c a t e t h at he p r e f e r r e d i t that way. Figure 34 showing a close-up of the concrete p l a n t e r s of Sedgewick r e v e a l s a c o n f l i c t between the Miesian search f o r a h i g h l y c r a f t e d concrete -the sharp, c a r e f u l edge desi g n - and the rough, a c c i d e n t a l t e x t u r e of the concrete and i t s b o l d , unprecise expansion j o i n t s . The r e s u l t would l i k e l y have i—- been more s u c c e s s f u l i f a more r i g i d l y M i e sian approach had been followed or perhaps a l t o g e t h e r abandoned f o r a s o f t e r or more r u s t i c a t e d d e t a i l i n g . Chapter 12 Less is More Statement of the code parameter for criticism Mies' f i f t h rule is contained in a letter to 59 Dr. Riezler. After delivering an attack against form as an end in i t s e l f , he indicated that his aim was not to judge the results, but to foster the creative process. Life was decisive for him, but only what has l i f e on the inside has a living exterior. The office building is a house of work, of organiza- tion, of clarity and of economy. It is a work space that should be unbroken and articulated according to the organization of the work. In good architecture, maximum effect is achieved with minimum means: less is more. L. Mies van der Rohe, "A letter on Form in Archi- tecture", Die Form , 2nd year, No.2 (1927) p. 59. Mies has always been guided by his personal mb\to "less is more". The sparseness of his installations focuses attention on each object and makes the ar- rangement of the objects all-important. Mies was a master at placing things in space.^ In the Barcel- ona Pavilion for example, a minimum of partitions are disposed with studied exactness to achieve the maximum individual effect. Although the concept of less is more is to be found throughout Mies' work, i t is in the Fifty-by- f 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 radical. Critique of Mies' point of view of Sedgewick At Sedgewick we find exposed columns, beams, brick and concrete. This sparseness focuses the Philip 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 interior concrete structural elements. The same is noted in the exterior (figure 22). The exposed surface of the brick brings one's focus on the shape of the caissons. Their cylindrical form is accentuated by the lack of molding, carving or other ornaments on its surface. In contrast to these successful elements, where the code is followed, we find that when an ornament is added, the understanding of the object is blurred. For example: The adding of unnecessary complicated forms to the plan, only confuses the interior spaces, (figure 38). Compare this confusion to the clarity of floor plans of the Barcelona Pavillion and the Fifty-by-fifty house. In the latter each wall seems to acquire importance, readability and clarity. At the Sedgewick floor plan, such qualities cannot be., found. - 8 0 - Note the graphic in figure 4, its 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 is taking away from rather than adding to the interior. More is less. Figure 2, shows a detail of the cones on the mall. The mirrors in Miesian terms, confuse the observer in his understanding of the cones. The reflecting quality of the mirrors makes the cones insignificant. 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 in figure 6 , complicates rather than clarifi e s the object. On the one hand the forms seem to want articulation 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 lighting, is an -81- added element. Figure 8 shows the texture of the T-beams, with the lighting system lodged in them. The use of different colours distracts 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 alter the apparent shape of the beams. For example where blue clours are used the edges of the T-beams become blurred, in contrast to the use of red colour, when we perceive the meticulously contoured edges of the structure housing the light source. The addition of lettering to the glass, as shown in figure 3, distracts from the function of the fenestration. The eye is forced to read the words rather than enjoy the view afforded by the window. The extensive use of glass from floor to ceiling is an effort by designers to introduce an element which is invisible, permitting one focusing at- tention to the outside landscaping. The addition V)f visual barriers to the glass for safety reasons, -82-" forces attention on the glass i t s e l f by the obser- ver. By the use of l e t t e r i n g and quotes from Shakespeare realted to glass both v i s u a l and i n t e l - lectual attention i s e l i c i t e d . In the next section of this d i s s e r t a t i o n we w i l l examine the philiosophy of complexity as a positive element i n archi t e c t u r a l aesthetics. Obviously i t i s d i f f i c u l t to weigh objectively the advatage of one philosophy oyer another. Perhaps i t i s the presence i n Sedgewick of the expression of certain Miesian trends that induces the c r i t i c to look for 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 resultant break-down of the Miesian unity leads to a disappointment that perhaps should be blamed on the r i g i d i t y and uncompromising character of the Miesian approach which defies imitation and therefore more seriously reveals a flaw i n the Miesian doctrine than i t does i n the f a i l u r e of a building l i k e Sedgewick to l i v e up to the doctrine. -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 contained i n a speech d e l i - vered at a Werkbund meeting i n Vienna e n t i t l e d "The New Era". He declares that good a r c h i t e c t u r e must reach beyond s e l f - e x p r e s s i o n to 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 time. The genuine s p i r i t of our time i s concerned with the values of technology. Our work whenproducing good a r c h i t e c t u r e should have a s i n g l e goal: to create order out of the desperate confusion of our time. We must have order, good a r c h i t e c t u r e a l l o c a t e s to each t h i n g i t s proper place and gives to each t h i n g i t s ^ due according to i t s nature." L. Mies van der Rohe, "The New Era", Die Form , 5th year, 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 at 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 thirties from Mies' sixth rule of good architecture, had to comply with certain character- i s t i c s : "the regularity of skeleton strcuture as an ordering force instead of the classic axial sym- metry; the treatment of exteriors as weightless, non- supporting skins rather than the classic heavy solids obedient to gravity (see chapter 8); the use of colour and structural detail in place of the clas- 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 interior, ar- ranged with movable non-load-bearing partitions, 6 3 Ibid., p.200 6 4 Ibid., p. 43 - 8 5 - the exterior design i s the same for a l l uses and often the i n t e r i o r does not d i f f e r much either from function to function. Concpetually i t was also acceptable to apply the same solution to a l l functions, since Mies created an ordered abstraction of the uses around a few values. 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 factories ( i . e . steel and glass), he carried his idea to the arch i t e c t u r a l space, his concept was two f o l d : F i r s t , that one space should flow into another with- out interruption; Secondly, that the unity of the whole space should not be broken, thus the partitions did not reach the c e i l i n g . If the function changed the partitions could be eas i l y r e p l a c e d . ^ This spacial concept,he c a l l e d the "universal" space together with his glass-and-steel-box has become 65 This i s applicable to certain buildings, he responded to the need for closed spaces and organized plans accordingly. - 8 6 - the single most used form in architecture around the world, attesting to the excellence of his universal solution of structural clarity and simplicity. 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 in teh design. The grid of the structure permits a flexible space which could be adapted to a variety of div- erse 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 library. It was very much the intention of the designers £o give no particular functional character to the space, to make i t multi-functional -as Randle Iredale explains. After creating two acress of open space, the designers introduced the functions of the library. (They felt that i f in 50 years, reading from books - 8 7 - should be outdated and that television or some other medium should replace the book. The built space should s t i l l be useable for whatever foreseeable or unforeseeable function may need accommodation at that time. Thus the Sedgewick library's interior can be said to be "universal" in the Miesian sense. The floor plan shows how the entire floor is one grand space. The powerful texture of the T-beams create a unified treatment to the ceiling. Within this large space the function of the undergraduate library is developed. Figure 23 shows that the partitions do not reach the ceiling, yet separate and distinct functional areas exist. However, the sense of unity, continuity and simp- l i c i t y which in Mies' buildings becomes the symbol and /aesthetic expression of this "universality" is d i f - f i c u l t to perceive in Sedgewick. The beauty of the Mies- ian idea is that the "universal" space can be perceived and enjoyed as an aesthetic experience It is not en- ough that the "universality"(adaptability) be presented as an unperceived possibility. -88- PART III ROBERT VENTURI POST-MODERN ARCHITECTURE • Summary of Venturi's theory To Venturi the formula for good architecture is complexity and contradiction in architecture. "More is not less", he says.^ This is in opposi- tion to the orthodox modern architecture of Mies who claims that less is more. In his book, "Complexity and Contradiction in 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, amibiguity, double-functioning elements, the phenomenon of both- afTd, contradiction adapted, the inside and the outside ^ Robert Venturi, "Complexity and Contradiction in Architecture", (New York: Museum of Modern Art, 1977) p. 16 6̂7 Ibid. , p . 1. 68 Ibid., p. 16. - 8 9 - and the obligation towards the d i f f i c u l t whole. Venturi reacts against the simplicity, univer- sality and what he calls the inhumanity of modern architecture. The following outlines his rules: (1) In complexity and contradiction versus simpli- fication or picturesqueness, he advocates the break- ing away from the primitive elementary forms and pro- poses a return to the diverse and sophisticated. (2) His ambiguity rule promotes richness of meaning instead of clarity of meaning in architecture. (3) The double functioning element rule refers to the use of versatile architectural elements that do several things simultaneously. (4) The phenomenon of the both-and rule is a reaction to the either-or of modern architecture and suggests that architecture should yield several levels of ^meaning among elements of varying values. (5) The contradiction encouraged rule suggests that in architecture there shoiuld be room for improvisa- tion and the disintegration of the prototype. A whole ,which is impure is tolerated. -90- (6) The inside and the outside rule states that there should: exist a contrast between the inside and the outside of the building. (7) In the obligation towards the d i f f i c u l t whole rule, Venturi suggests that unity should be achieved through inclusion rather than exclusion. -91- Chapter 14 Complexity and Contradiction vs. Simplification or Picturesqueness. Statement of the code parameter for criticism Venturi's f i r s t rule for good architecture is that architecture should be complex and contradic- tory. He says that, "modern architecture in i t s attempt to break with tra- dition 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 is more permits architects to be too selective in deter- mining 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 p.17. • 3 -92- As an example, Venturi mentions the Glass House of Philip Johnson, a Miesian inspired design, where forced simplicity is evidenced in that the private functions are not separated from social functions in the house. In contrast,the Wiley house of Johnson goes beyond the simplicities of the eleg- ant pavilion and explicitly separates the private functions of living on a ground floor pedestal from the open social function in the modular pavilion above. The point in these examples according to Venturi is to show that good architecture must acknowledge the growing complexities of our functional problems. The desire for a complex architecture, and a l l its contradictions is a reaction against the banality and the stereotype of modern architecture. It was an attitude common to the Mannerist periods. "Today i t is relevant to both the medium of archi- tecture and the program in architecture." 7^ v70 Ibid., p. 19. Mannerism is characterized by spacial incongruity an art style in late 16th century. -93- Simplified forms w i l l not work; instead the variety inherent i n ambiguity of v i s u a l percep- tion must once more be acknowledged and exploited. Complexity must emerge from the program i n archi- tecture; then we have good architecture. Critique from Venturi's point of view of Sedgewick At Sedgewick, we do not f i n d a glass-steel-box, but a combination of contradictory and complex forms,as can be observed i n figure 12. Huge round brick cylinders, with trees on t h e i r tops shown in figure 9; areas where the wall i s t o t a l l y i n t e r - rupted by glazing as indicated i n figure 6; unusually shaped planters noted i n figure 10 and f u t u r i s t i c looking mirror-covered cones perforating the roof shown i n figure 1. This i s no longer a simple stereotype box with purist contours; here the facade is ambiguous, d i f f i c u l t to describe and reproduce as attested by figure 27. -94- The brick caissons harbouring the oaks give af unique character to the building and serve as an identifying image or symbol for the library, (figure 45) From the history of the planning of the Sedgewick Library as noted in 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 interior uses, but i t also had to accommodate the surrounding environment. Out of this intricate program, a complex and contradictory architecture emerged. This is illustrated in the Sedgewick Library's floor plans (figure 36 and 38) and in its general setting (figure 12 and 27); as well as in its elevation (figures 9 and 10) and in its interior space.(figure ,8 ) Furthermore i f one observes the roof in figure 13, the facade in figure 14 and the main stairway shown in figure 18, in each example we find the complexity and contradiction in Sedgewick's archi- tecture which seem to comply with Venturi's code. To further pinpoint some of the complexities and especially some of the contradictions at Sedge- wick let us consider the building i t s e l f . When one arrives at the building at the mall level, we find that there is no building. It has disappeared. It is 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 library function is revealed. The advantages of these contradictions in 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 historical - 9 6 - 'University plan, the continued use of the Main Mall as a walkway, the preservation of the park- l i k e atmosphere of a nature oriented designed campus, and the informal non-monumental charac- t e r i s t i c that the structure extends to the user. Added to a l l this 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 criticism Venturi's second rule suggests that good archi- tecture must have ambiguity and tension. "In is apparent: is i t a square plan or not?"/J"-asks Venturi. Good architecture should have oscillating relationships, complex and contradictory, which are the source of ambiguity and tension. "The conjunction 'or' with a question mark can usually describe ambiguous relation- ships. Luigi Moretti's apartments on the Via ParioTi in Rome, are they one building with a split or two buildings joined?" 72 The calculated ambiguity of expression is based ofi experience as reflected in the architectural Le Corbusier's V i l l a Savoye floor plan this ambiguity 71 Ibid. p. 20 72 Ibid. p. 21 -98- programme..This promotes richness of meaning over clarity of meaning, says Venturi. Critique from the point of view of Venturi Sedgewick's facade reveals such ambiguity. The elevation shown in figure 48 begs the question: Is the building built 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 in some other way or are they complet- ely unattached and simply floating in the air. Venturi says that in good architecture, such am- biguity is calculated ambiguity, based on experience as reflected in 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 - 9 9 - library, while s t i l l preserving the level and charac- ter of Main Mall. Rhone and Iredale and their colleagues solved the problem by planning the library underground, between the oaks. The architectural programme as noted above, ref- lects a clash of requirements giving birth to. a facade which is ambiguous in a building whose siting makes i t d i f f i c u l t to determine whether i t is under ground or above ground. The result is an ambiguity which seems to intrigue rather than disturb most visitors and users of the building, and thus cor- roborates the importance of Venturi 1s teaching. Another example of ambiguity are two "solid" cones projecting from the roof, but covered with mirrors which reflect the sky, the surroundings and (the passerby, at the same time fracturing these images and dematerializing them as shown in 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 find tension i n the layout. This i s produced not just by one single element, but by a number of them as reported below. The carpet-covered skylight walls shown i n figure 6 flouts one's habitual notions of the relationship of walls to f l o o r s . The t i l t i n the wall combined with i t s roundness i s i n i t s e l f disorienta- ting . The f l o o r and the wall merge into a singular complex plane tending to disguise where flo o r ends and wall begins. The snack area shown i n figure 23, reveals a tension i n the space produced by the strong d i r e c t i o n - a l i t y of the c e i l i n g beams, the angle of the wood panelling, the c i r c u l a r shape of the caissons and <the octogonal design of the group study enclosures. A l l these diverse, strongly contoured elements i n close proximity to one another add to the tension and ambiguity, (figures 21 and 22) -101- Chapter 16 The Double-Functioning Element Statement of the code parameter for criticism Venturi's third' code for good architecture is the "double-functioning" element. This element pertains to the use and structure of the building. In this rule, Venturi maintains in effect two invariables. First he mentions the "multi-function- ing" building. By this, he means a building which is complex in program and form. For example, he mentions, "Le Corbusier's Algerian project, which is an apartment house and a highway, and -Wright's late projects for Pitts- burgh Point and Baghdad, correspond to Kahn's via- duct architecture and Fumihiko Maki's "collec- 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. On a larger scale, "a dam is also a bridge". 7 4 In essence the building as a whole has multiple functions The second part of this code deals with the double-functioning element i t s e l f . Venturi advocates the use of versatile architectural elements which do several things at once. For example, in S.Maria in Cosmedin's nave, "the column form results from its dominant, precise function as a point support. It can direct space only incidentally in realtion to • other columns or elements. But the alternating piers in the same nave are in- tr 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 Venturi's point of view of 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 at i t s best. Figures 46 and 50 i l l u s t r a t e Venturi's idea of a b u i l d i n g which i s a b u i l d i n g and a bridge at the same time. When a r r i v i n g at the b u i l d i n g one does not enter i n t o i t but rather 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 that people wlaks over the s t r u c t u r e . We are i n s i d e of a bridge 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 al s o a l i b r a r y , a place f o r reading and studying. Double-functioning elements e x i s t at Sedgewick i n the caissons, f o r example. They have a s t r u c t - u r a l purpose; thay contain a large amount of earth arounf the roots of the oaks. At the same time, "they serve as separating 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 caissons that give the user the f e e l i n g of being i n a concave space ( f i g u r e 28), softening the harshness of the s t r a i g h t concrete s t r u c t u r a l elements. -104- Another example of this kind are the planters.' They i n fact serve three functions. They are con- tainers to house the shrubs which adorn the facade, they serve as protection from direct sunlight into the reading areas, and f i n a l l y , they are part of the structure, helping to support the concrete flo o r beams. -105- 'Chapter 17 The Phenomenon of Both-And Statement of the code parameter for criticism Good architecture should include the phenomenon of "both-and", says Venturi. "The source of the both-and phenomenon is contradiction; its basis is 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 articulated." Le Courbusier's Shodhan House is 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 l i t t l e " . 7 6 Ibid., p. 119 -106- "The house i s b i g as w e l l as l i t t l e , by which I mean that i t i s a l i t t l e house with a bi g s c a l e . Inside 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 closed as w e l l as simple and complex, I was r e f e r r i n g to these con- t r a d i c t i o n s i n the outside w a l l s . They r e v e a l openness, yet the plan suggests r i g i d enclosures. The entrance i s too b i g . The dado a l s o increases the scale of the b u i l d i n g . " 77 C r i t i q u e from Venturi's point of view of Sedgewick At Sedgewick we f i n d the complexities of the "both-and" suggested by V e n t u r i . Sedgewick 1s a r c h i - t ecture i s both closed and open. I t gives the impres- sion of being underground (see f i g u r e s 18, 19, 30 and 49) and yet, i t i s open to the landscaped yards, with ( f l o o r to c e i l i n g windows pr o v i d i n g d a y l i g h t i n abundance.(figure 28) 7 7 I b i d . , p.119 -107- Sedgewick's architecture is also both continuous and articulated. The space flows from one end of the library to the other unobstructed, reminding us of a catacomb or a long gallery, (figure 23 and 25) and yet i t is well articulated into numerous specialized areas, which are clearly identifiable and character- ized, (figures 20 and 21) Sedgewick's architecture is "both big and small." The scale of the caissons is cyclopian in contrast to the facade and the interior, (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 believes has been on eo the positive elements in historic architecture. Sedgewick's architecture is both-and, at the main stairway. The upper half of the stairway is com- pletely enclosed by a thick concrete wall, violated only by a few small openings. In the lower 'section of the stairway, the wall is totally -108- uninterrupted, and the stairway i s completely open to the reading areas, (figure 47) The resulting effect i s of a truncated concrete cone which, instead of resting heavily on the ground, i s l i f t e d up by some i n v i s i b l e ' force. -109- Chapter 18 Contradiction Adapted Statement of the code parameter for criticism According to Venturi, in this rule, good archi- tecture permits contradiction to adapt. He writes: "Contradiction adapted is tolerant and pliable. It admits improvisation. It involves the disintegration of the prototype. It endSyg in whole which is impure." In modern architecture, we find elementary primary forms such as the circle and the square in one single project or plan. These forms are in contradiction, yet no effort is made to adapt the one to the other, (figure 51) The purist is inflexible; to him the message must be clear, unequivocal and uncompromising. The prototype cannot be tampered with. Ibid., p.45. -110- Venturi rebels against this rigidity, he believes that in good architecture, the elementary forms when appearing in contradiction should compromise and adapt to each other; in a sense they should disintegrate. Critique from Venturi 1s point of view of Sedgewick In the Sedgewick Library floor plan, we find that in the overall square and rectangular layout, eight uncompromising circular caissons have been included.' (figure 36 and 38) The circles 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 is directed in such a way that the contradiction of We caissons and the structure is bridged over. -111- Th e partitions appear to be improvisations and create a whole which is impure, (figure 33, 37 and 39 ) Another example of this adaptation of contradic- tory forms is observed in 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 like shape of the basic plan is broken up and adapted to the natural contours of the surroundings. (figure 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 in order 'not to contradict the walkway, (figure 11) Is this good architecture as Venturi says? Kahn would seem to agree that i t is when he writes -tfhaf'it is the role of [good architectural Jdesign - 1 1 2 - to adjust to' the circumstantial."ci Orthodox modern architects would not agree with Venturi. Le Corbusier has stated that the great primary form, which i s d i s t i n c t and without ambiguity [is good architecture]. Yet we must face the fact that i t was compromise and adaptability that made possible the preservation of the oaks and the character of Main Mall together with i t s vistas and connections with the rest of the campus. 7^ Ibid., p. 46 -113- Chapter 19 The Inside and the Outside Statement of the code parameter for criticism 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, in an unattached lining which produces an additional space between the lining and the exterior wall. According to Venturi, the essential purpose of the interiors of buildings is to enclose rather than direct space, 81 and to separate the inside from the outside. The function of the house, to protect and provide psycho- logical as well as physical privacy, is an ancient one. Ibid., p.70 Ibid., p.72 -114- Critique from Venturi's point of view of sedgewick At Sedgewick Library, there was an ideal op- portunity for the architects to create an under- ground space; an interior which would have shel- tered and protetcted library users from the outside. The circumstances permitted the creation of an edifice where the inside was sharply contrasted with the outside. Yet the architects "wanted to create light, open environment for learning, not an underground vault. They have accomplished their ob- jective by designing the new library in such a way that its east and west faces open out onto landscaped court- yards in front of the Main Library and the Mathematics Building. Every room in the Library Building has an at- 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 are f l o o r to 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 that lite b u i l d i n g i s underground. Figure 28 shows that the view of the carved out garden i s v i s i b l e from almost a l l areas. The i n t e r i o r i s d i r e c t i n g the space to the e x t e r i o r . The observer i s v i s u a l l y i n t e g r a t e d with the outside. The v i s u a l c o n t i n u i t y , the so c a l l e d flowing space where the plan proceeds from w i t h i n to without i s not complying with Venturi's r u l e . Venturi says that the i n s i d e and the outside are and should be different.When you are i n s i d e you do not know the outside. You do not know what the caissons are. ( f i g u r e 28) As described 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 the i n s i d e -of the b u i l d i n g when you are outside and the outside environment when i n s i d e . In other words i t i s t e l l i n g you where you are. A l l guesswork or element of sur- p r i s e i s el i m i n a t e d at Sedgewick. Observing f i g u r e L30, the s k y l i g h t s t e l l you that you are underground, -116- although a more elaborate design of the modernist r concept might have required that the oak trees be v i s i b l e through the skylights. The only surprise to the viewer that i s permitted at Sedgewick i s that when observing the caissons from the inside alone they do not give a hint of their Q O outside purpose. 0 0 There i s something positive to be said about this contrasting the i n t e r i o r and the exterior. It has a psychological effect of intriguing by not revealing a l l at one glance. Modernist a r c h i - tecture attempts to leave us with no surprises some would say that i t t e l l s us a l l perhaps too suddenly. Iredale notes that the temptation of p l a c i n g glass around the caissons to indicate or better e x p l a i n their purpose, was abandoned because i t was f e l t by the design team that such an ar- rangement would be too " r i c h " a solution for the spartan i n t e r i o r --from an interview held January 30, 1983 i n Vancouver, B.C. - 1 1 7 - Chapter 20 The Obligation Towards the Diff i c u l t Whole. Statement of the code parameter for criticism Venturi's last rule for good architecture is concerned with the whole. The whole is 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 in Columbus, presents a duality, On the outside, the door and the window reflect 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 its oneness and i t s domi- nant 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 in Architecture", (New York: Museum of Modern Art, 1977), p. 88 8 5 Ibid., p. 89 -118- Venturi's Meis House in Princeton also has a duality in its composition. The form is a long gable-roofed element and the back is a shed-roofed one. The duality is "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 is this unity achieved? What obligation towards the final expression of the whole was in the mind of the designer? InSedgewick the basic design module of the composi- tion 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 is made clearer, i f we observe figure A speculative detail 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 library from the bird's-eye view shown in figure 27, we detect a willingness to reach a unity through inclusion of a l l the functions determined by a complex programme. It is thus not an easy unity, enclosed in a primary form (circle, square or triangle), but one which is in agreement with Venturi's seventh rule. -120- PART IV SUMMARY OF THE ANALYSIS It was the aim of this thesis, to test the validity of the theories of Ruskin, Mies and Venturi, to see how and i f they can be applied to architectural criticism today. The analysis of the usefulness of each of the codes in 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 archi- 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 Il l i n o i s Institute of Technology (1950)", in Philip Johnson, Mies van der Rohe, 3rd. edition (New York: Museum of Modern Art, 1978) p. 203 -121- Thus the former advocates handcraftsmanship and the latter demands industrialization. Furthermore, while Mies says that we must reach 88 beyond self-expression to the "universal" , Venturi reacts against the universality and calls 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 in the minds of most designers today. Mies' "less is more" concept is being challenged in the 1980's. Today we would tend to require a solution which is 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 is partly useful in most situations. Thus the problem that I faced as a c r i t i c was to find that each has validity but that each f a i l s in 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 eclectic approach might open the c r i t i c to accusations of evasion, unwillingness or inability 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, flexibly structured philosophy of architectural criticism might be said to reinforce what is seen as a weakness in our cultural l i f e . We have to ask ourselves i f i t is an evasion to chose only those aspects of each theory -123- which happen to f i t the particular situation -or is i t a fair and proper thing to do? Today eclectism in architecture is accepted, as we have found in a modern building such as Sedgewick. The contemporary architect borrows ideas from various times and places and puts them together in ways not too different from the eclectic approach of the 19th. century. Thus for the c r i t i c to cope with such archi- tecture he also has to become flexible. Failing 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 criticism, but faith- fully refers to each theory as i t applies, is respond- ing validly with an eclectic criticism to an eclectic architecture. The problem is not to invent a new code; only a new Mies or a new Ruskin could do that. Perhaps in our time architects would not accept a new strong a l l encompassing dogma as a guiding light, -124- especially when they accept eclectisim as a characx te r i s t i c of contemporary architecture, and when they accuse the modernist movement of the recent past of having committed gross errors precisely because of the rigidity and purism of its philosophy. Some of Ruskin's theories can be used as stand- ards of criticism, and ideed should be used when the architects think like him and i f i t is Ruskin's standards on which the architects design is 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 cities preserved within the rules set by him. We could apply Mies' idea of "skin anf bones ^architecture" because in contemporary architecture i t has become part of the architectural language. His concept of industrialization of architecture has equally been widely accepted. -.125- From Venturi, we are using the concept of the double-functioning element. My testing proved that i t is much applied today 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 latter is not the case and that the theories are partially useful. We can also conclude that today there is no one single theory which answers a l l questions and that contem- porary architects rather than seek a strong single dogma, are selective or eclectic. 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 different codes. Contemporary archi- tecture is not stuck with the modernist philosophy. Venturi's concept of unity by inclusion is selective. Perhaps this selectivity (and to certain degree conf- usion) should not surprise us, since i t is in keeping -126- with the underlying thought on which Sedgewick's architecture and contemporary architecture i s based: that of technology. Venturi and Sedgewick's ar c h i - tecture are children of the technological age, proclaimed by Mies, and resented and feared by Ruskin. It i s an e c l e c t i c architecture which requires an e c l e c t i c c r i t i c i s m based on something the architect has set up: a l i t t l e of Ruskin, Mies and Venturi and others. I am thus concluding that we do not need a new theory for c r i t i c i s m , but that we can use the old ones, s e l e c t i v e l y and make them work. -127- BIBLIOGRAPHY A l b e r t i , Leone 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 to E n g l i s h by James Le o n i , Joseph Rykvert ( E d i t o r ) , (London: A l e c T i r a n i , 1955) Banham, J.A. ( E d i t o r ) , "Board Approves New L i b r a r y P l a n and the Reason behind the new Sedge- wick L i b r a r y " , UBC REPORTS, v o l . 15 no. 18, Vancouver: The U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, October 1982, pp. 4 - 8 C o l l i n s , P e t e r, Changing I d e a l s i n Modern A r c h i t e c - t u r e , 1790 - 1950, (Montreal: M c G i l l - Queen's U n i v e r s i t y P ress, 1965) Conrads, U l r i c h , ( E d i t o r ) , Programmes and Manifes- toes on 20th Century A r c h i t e c t u r e , (London: Lund Humphries, 1970) De S t i j l , 11, "Manifesto I" U. Conrads ( E d i t o r ) , Programmes and Manifestoes on 20th Century A r c h i t e c t u r e , (London: Lund Humphries, 1970) E r i c k s o n , Ture, "The Sedgewick L i b r a r y " , S t u a r t - Stubbs, B. ( E d i t o r ) , The Report of the U n i v e r s i t y L i b r a r i a n to the Senate, 1978 - 1979, (Vancouver: The U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1979), p. 4 G i f f o r d , Don, ( E d i t o r ) , The L i t e r a t u r e of A r c h i t e c - t u r e : the e v o l u t i o n of 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 America, (New York: Dutton, 1966) -128- BIBLIOGRAPHY (Cont'd) G r o p i u s , W a l t e r , "New Ideas i n A r c h i t e c t u r e " , U. Conrads ( E d i t o r ) , Programmes and 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 , (London: Lund Humphries, 1970) Johnson, P h i l i p C , Mies van der Rohe, (New York: Museum o f Modern A r t , 1978) J e n k s , C h a r l e s , Post-Modern Language o f A r c h i - t e c t u r e , (New York: 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) Haml i n , T a l b o t , Forms and F u n c t i o n s o f 20th C e n t u r y A r c h i t e c t u r e , V o l . 2. (New York: Museum o f Modern A r t , 19 60) Hubbard, W i l l i a m , 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 : Steps toward 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 , Towards 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 Humphries, 1970) Mies van d e r Rohe, Ludwig, "The New E r a " , D i e Form, 5 t h . y e a r , Number 15, p. 406, August 1, 1930 -129- BIBLIOGRAPHY (Cont'd) Mies van der Rohe, Ludwig, "A L e t t e r on Form i n A r c h i t e c t u r e " , D i e Form, 2nd. y e a r , Number 2, p. 59, 1927 Mies van der Rohe, L., "Address to I l l i n o i s I n s t i - t u t e o f Technology (1950)" Quoted from P h i l i p Johnson, Mies van der Rohe, (New York: Museum of Modern A r t , 3rd. e d i t i o n ) p. 203, 1978. Mies van der 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 Methods", "G",Number 3, p. 8, B e r l i n , Jan. 10, 1924 Mies van der 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 Mies van der Rohe, L., "Aphorism on 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 Mies van der 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 Mies van der Rohe, L., " I n a u g u r a l Address as 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 from P h i l i p Johnson, Mies van der Rohe, (New York: Museum o f Modern A r t , 3 r d . e d i t i o n ) , p. 199, 1978 Merriam-Webster, New C o l l e g i a t e D i c t i o n a r y , T o r o n t o : T . A l l e n & Sons, 1981, -130- BIBLIOGRAPHY (Cont'd) R u s k i n , John, The Seven Lamps o f A r c h i t e c t u r e , (London: George A l l e n , 1905) S c u l l y , V i n c e n t , Modern A r c h i t e c t u r e , (New York: Goerge 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 York: Dover P u b l i c a t i o n s , 1956) Summerson, The Language o f C l a s s i c A r c h i t e c t u r e , (London: Thames and Hudson, 1980) S t u a r t - S t u b b s , B a s i l , The Report 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 Senate, 1975 - 1979, (Vancouver: The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o lumbia, 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 gn and C a p i t a l i s t Development, (London: the MIT P r e s s , 1980) User's Committee, Programme f o r a New Sedgewick L i b r a r y , (Vancouver: 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) V e n t u r i , 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 i n A r c h i t e c t u r e , (New York: Museum o f Modern A r t , 1977) V i t r u r i u s , P o l i o , Ten books on A r c h i t e c t u r e , (New York: Dover P u b l i c a t i o n s I n c . 1960) -131- BIBLIOGRAPHY (Cont'd) W r i g h t , 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. Gutheim, ( 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 York: Grouet and Dunlop, 1941) p. 177 - 91 Z e v i , Bruno, The Modern Language 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, 1970, 1973, 1980) , P r o g r e s s i v e A r c h i t e c t u r e , (New York: 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 Review, (Tokyo: Yatamura, 1979) , D e s i g n Methods J o u r n a l , (London: R.I.A., 1976) APPENDIX NO. 1 SUMMARY OF THE HISTORY OF SEDGEWICK LIBRARY. A new Sedgewick L i b r a r y was f i r s t proposed by B. S t u a r t - S t u b b s and W.J. Watson i n June 1966. I n September 1968 a User's Committee was ap- p o i n t e d t o p r e p a r e a F a c i l i t i e s L i s t . The L i b r a r y was d e s i g n e d t o meet the needs o f u ndergraduate s t u d e n t s i n the f i r s t f o u r y e a r s o f a r t s , commerce and e d u c a t i o n f o r a t o t a l o f 11,000 s t u d e n t s . The L i b r a r y was named a f t e r Dr. G a r n e t t G l a d w i n Sedgewick (1882 - 1949) the f i r s t head o f the U n i v e r s i t y ' s 1 Department o f E n g l i s h . The h i g h l i g h t s o f the F a c i l i t i e s L i s t s t i p u l a t e t h a t the L i b r a r y s h o u l d 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 used. The b u i l d i n g 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 o f spaces r a n g i n g from f o r m a l t o i n f o r m a l . The l i b r a r y must be e c o n o m i c a l o f the time o f u s e r s as w e l l as r e c o g n i z e the c o m p l e x i t y and dynamism o f t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n . The t o t a l g r o s s a r e a o f the b u i l d i n g i s 140,000 square f e e t . -133- Rhone and I r e d a l e A r c h i t e c t s were commissioned i n F e b r u a r y 1969 t o produce a d e s i g n f o r the l i b r a r y . 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 the 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 headed a s p e c i a l Senate Committee i n charge o f making recommendations r e g a r d i n g the p r e s e r v a t i o n o f the e x i s t i n g form and q u a l i t y o f t h e p r e v a i l i n g academic environment and l a n d s c a p e . I n October 1969, the Board o f Governors approved the p l a n under the Main M a l l , as proposed by the a r c h i t e c t s . The L i b r a r y opened i n J a n u a r y 197 3, p r o v i d i n g 2,000 study s e a t s and space f o r 200,000 volumes. The L i b r a r y B u i l d i n g was awarded the 1970 B e s t D e s i g n Award o f t h e Canadian A r c h i t e c t u r e Yearbook. The p a n e l o f judges c o n s i s t e d o f J.A. Murray, D. S h a d b o l t and D.C. Rowland. I t was a l s o awarded the 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 I n s t i - t u t e o f Canada as t h e b e s t b u i l d i n g o f a l l k i n d b u i l t i n 1973 and seven y e a r s l a t e r , the A r c h i t e c - t u r a l I n s t i t u t e o f B r i t i s h Columbia awarded the L i b r a r y d e s i g n the 1980 Honour Award. -134- I n t e r n a t i o n a l r e c o g n i t i o n f o l l o w e d i n a v a r i e t y o f p u b l i c a t i o n s and t h e L i b r a r y was h a i l e d as "a s e m i n a l i n f l u e n c e i n t h e d e s i g n o f new l i b r a r y b u i l d i n g s d u r i n g t h e coming y e a r s " by E l l s w o r t h Mason.89 (see p l a n s i n f i g u r e s 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 the Oaks: The Sedgewick L i b r a r y a t U.B.C. 11 (1977)  -137- gure 2 Skylight -138- -139- Figure 4 Graphic by V i r g i n i a Chapman and Terry Harrison -140- Figure 5 The Vancouver Art Gallery -141- -142- Flgure 7 Brick wall d e t a i l See figure 43 for d e t a i l of section through tree drum -143- Figure 8 C e i l i n g 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' follower Walter Green -165- -166- Figure 31 Pre-cast structure -167- -168- -169- -170- Figure 35 Detailing -171- F i g u r e 37 S i t e P l a n Reproduced w i t h w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n from Rhone and I r e d a l e A r c h i t e c t s , c r e d i t s t o : R . I r e d a l e , p a r t n e r - i n - c h a r g e R.Todd, p r o j e c t manager R.Henriquez, d e s i g n 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 Plan -174- F 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 from Rhone and I r e d a l e A r c h i t e c t s -175- Figure 40 Elevations Reproduced with permission from Rhone and Iredale < 2 LU I < 2 -176- Figure 41 Facade Figure 42 Isometric Reproduced with written permission from Rhone and Iredale Architects -178- Figure 43 Detail of tree drum Reproduced with permission from Rhone and Iredale Architects DETAIL SECTION THROUGH TREE DRUM AT A & B -179- Figure 44 Section of roof Reproduced with permission from Rhone and Iredale Architects SECTION THROUGH MALL AT ROOF -180- Figure 45 Symbol The four caissons with the oaks are a symbol used on the Sedge- wick Library information 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 d e t a i l -188-

Cite

Citation Scheme:

    

Usage Statistics

Country Views Downloads
Japan 6 0
China 3 15
Netherlands 2 0
France 2 0
United States 1 0
City Views Downloads
Tokyo 6 0
Beijing 3 0
Amsterdam 2 0
Unknown 2 0
Ashburn 1 0

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

Share

Share to:

Comment

Related Items