Design As An Interpretive Search Based On Associations And Limitations

RYSLER

Design as an Interpretive Search Based on Associations and Limitations



Emil Rysler, Architect SIA ¹

RYSLER

Design as an Interpretive Search Based on Associations and Limitations Paper presented at the Sixth Annual ACSA Technology Conference, San Francisco, February 6th, 1998

Construction limitations have always influenced the form of a building and conditioned it’s architectural ideas. In the past architectural orders and technical rules have been inter-related. Today, this is not so. The old orders and rules have lost their proper relationships and with them the rational basis to make conscious decisions were lost. Material and construction are no longer an integral part of the conception of a building - all is thinkable, all is makable. This did not happen overnight. Architects have slowly lost their „constructive consciousness“ ² since the beginning of the 19th century when science crept into architecture and placed the engineer beside it. Of course the introduction of steel as a visible element has evoked an intense discussion between leading architects. But this source of the architectural form derived from material disappears later on. As a consequence architects have become dependent on others to solve their construction problems. That way they have given away their ability to control the interaction between the perception and the materiality of a building. No surprise that today’s buildings are falling apart in a figurative sense. But it seems that for those who believe in a close connection between form and construction an occasion is coming up that may help them to solve the dilemma. The graphic possibilities and the reasonable price of the new computer hardware and software will Iead to their use in the architectural design process. Computers force us, as we have learned by using them to draw our working-drawings, to structure the information. An intelligent structure is thereby a supposition for a successful use. Since one needs to structure the information anyway, then, why should we not use an architectural structure? Surely we do it better in our own way since it also means to structure our thinking in that way. The search for such a structure presents us a unique opportunity to think about the sense and the meaning of every single line and their affiliation to others or to think about the function of drawing in general. Rather than only perfect our ability to produce powerful images, this possibility may form the basis or a new inter-relationship on a structural level between the „what“ of building - the power of visions and images - and the „how“ - the expression of technique. This will lead us to a more complete idea about architecture. For those who design with the intention to build, a way of thinking, a design process model, is therefore proposed, which considers the design as a process to make decisions. Addressing an isolated query in architectural design is a fairly straight forward and simple act. However, to address the inter-dependency of these queries as a dynamic whole is definitely a difficult matter. To provide a clear and conscious structure of thinking, this design process model reduces the complexity of today’s buildings to a few inner factors of order or structural components that are related in a logical sequence. In fact they articulate both the building and the design process on a mental and physical level. The components: volume, enclosure, circulation and mechanical systems have been proposed as the main issues in the making of buildings. Each one can be seen as having the imaginary power of a self dependent three-dimensional reality with its own spatial meaning controlled by its own set of rules and language. Their mutual dependency can immediately be controlled by superimposing them on each others. The following description of the proposed components may give an idea as to what their meaning, their language and the rules of their interaction can be. Volume

Enclosure / Support

Access

Mental Constructs

Concepts Diagrams Schemes

Physical Objects

Drawings Specifications Cost Estimations Contracts

Building Volume

www.rysler.com

Space Volume

Building Enclosure

Space Enclosure

Supporting Structure

Circulation

Mechanical Systems Utility Systems

www.rysler.com

RYSLER

The building volume as it exists from outside and the space volume as it exists from inside are two possible ways to conceive a building. Through their simultaneous existence they are inter-related. Each of them is related to a separate set of references, for example the building volume is related to the outside space, the place or the city. Similar references to the space volumes can be an interpretation of significance, specific use, given functions or space requirements. They may be differentiated by such attributes as use, circulation, equipment or service space. Their aggregation may be formed by dialectic associations such as public/private, serve/ served, extrovert/introvert, large/small, noisy/quiet. The building volume can be a result of the addition of space volumes; the space volume can be a result of the division of the building volume or they can have a dialectic relationship so that the space in-between becomes important. With the building enclosure and space enclosure one changes from the direct expression of spaces to the indirect expression of describing them through the elements that define them. The inter-relationships among the elements like walls, columns and ceilings become important. One interpretation of such an inter-relationship may be seen as a superimposition of primary load bearing columns and non-load bearing partition walls. The space enclosure reflects the mental spatial qualities of the building as well as the physical means of the building construction. Space enclosure and supporting structure are one basis to define the building enclosure. As a transition between inside and outside the building enclosure should refer to the various site conditions, the inner life of a building or the history of architecture as a collection of experiences. The selection of a particular enclosure system influences the way openings ought be placed and surfaces ought be treated. The distinction between different attributes of materiality may be used to form dialectic associations such as rough structure/finished structure, dry construction/wet construction or cast in place/ prefabricated. The supporting structure, as part of the enclosure system, expresses the relationship between the primary load bearing elements, such as walls, columns, ceilings and the roof. It pertains to the rough structure. The thoughts about a supporting structure arc not merely about calculation but also about intention or the feeling of what is correct. Through relationships to geometrical orders, the supporting structure has an expressive potential that affects many architects. Unfortunately it happens too often that the buildings lose their strength because the finished structure can not provide what the supporting structure promised. The supporting structure determines possible places and sizes of openings and is therefore an important limitation for enclosure, circulation and mechanical systems. The distinction between rough structure and finished structure may serve as an attempt to solve the problem of change and maintenance. The circulation determines a special kind of relationship between different rooms as well as between different areas in the rooms themselves. It leads to a hierarchical organization of the spaces and to a zoning within the building volume. Circulation produces spaces as part of a sequence as well as spaces with their own identities. Circulation controls, together with the mechanical and utility systems, the section through their vertical and horizontal connecting elements. Through its demand for exceptions, the development of a circulation system influences strongly the design of the supporting structure. Mechanical systems and utility systems form separate networks within the volume, which, similar to circulation, lead to the zoning of the building volume. The superimposition of the mechanical and utility systems on the supporting structure leads to a serious limitation in the design of each. The mechanical and utility systems control the three-dimensional articulation of the ceilings or the section of a building in general. The placement or the vertical elements form fixed points in what may be otherwise open space. With mechanical and utility systems the question of possible changes and maintenance becomes an evident issue. Any one of the described factors or components can be seen as having an existence on two different levels of operation. On the mental level one has to associate the different elements to one of the components. The inter-relationships among the elements and among the components is important. One operates with concepts, diagrams and schemes. I his level offers the possibility to convert specific design problems into existing types of problems and typical paths to find solutions. It is not necessary to know what the „things“ are, but to know the rules of their interaction. An example from the building assembly course at the ETH-Zurich ³ may illustrate how possible relationships between supporting structure and enclosure system can be shown so that students may understand the complex unity of a building through the figurative demonstration of its disassembly. To define the language and the rules of interaction among the components and among the elements would be one of the main issues of education: so that on the physical level, the level of production, the fragmented technical knowledge can ordered and understood in its entirety. At this level one operates with working (drawings, specifications, cost estimations, contracts and time constraints. The rules of the materials and their application are important. To reach an internal coherence one has to be conscious about the initial association of each element. Too often this relationship disappears in the professional realm because these associations are not apparent for all participants. The design process model may, through its structure, offer the architects the ability to communicate their essential thoughts, so that the basic design ideas can he transferred to the working drawings, rather than losing some of the ideas with every new start made in another scale on a blank sheet of paper.

The housing project St. Alban-Tal, Basle, Switzerland 4 may serve as an example to illustrate how the inter-relationships among the different factors of order can be visualized and used to clarify architectural decisions. The diagram of the spatial organization in both buildings is similar: the bedrooms are a series of equal cells forming a layer in the back of each flat and the living areas form another less defined layer in the remaining space. The supporting structure of the larger house A is constituted by two boxes; one contains the living areas and the other the bedrooms. The space between the two boxes is reserved for circulation and service areas. The space enclosure of the bedrooms is constituted by non-load bearing partition walls which are connected to the walls of the supporting structure. The partition walls of the living areas form, with their disconnection from the box, an internal circulation row along the facade. The supporting structure of the smaller house B is a skeleton. On the bedroom side columns with a square shape show their ability to be connected with the non-load bearing enclosure walls 1. In the living area the columns are circular to show their independence from the remaining enclosure 2. A

B

Diener & Diener Architects, Basel Housing St. Alban-Tal, Basel 1985-86 View from the Rhine river (above) Plan of typical level (left)

www.rysler.com

RYSLER

Possible relationships between supporting structure and enclosure system, building assembly course, Lehrstuhl Prof. H. Ronner, ETH-Zürich

RYSLER 2

1 Diener & Diener Architects, Basel Housing St. Alban-Tal, Basel 1985-86 Space enclosure system as relationship between supporting structure and non-load bearing partition walls

The two different approaches of space enclosure are reflected by the way the facades and their openings are treated. From outside one can read that the facade of the living areas is non-load bearing by the way the openings are placed and the way the facade is disconnected from the ground. The less specific inside, symbolized by the free standing columns, goes together with the free composition of the openings outside as a response to the existing diversity of the city which has developed over time. The facade oriented towards the mill-pond as a concrete grid reflects the stronger definition of the spaces behind. If the proposed structure is properly established e.g. in a CAD system, we can show how the association of the different building parts and therefore their treatment can be controlled separately, like the supporting structure or the non-load bearing elements of the space enclosure .

www.rysler.com

Carlo Aloe in: Esquisses de Paysage 1982

Primarschule Binningen, Switzerland First grade assignment, introduction of set-theorie, identifying the set and its members

¹ 1987-88 Visiting Associate Professor of Architecture, College of Architecture an Urban Studies, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA ² „ Constructive consciousness“ is not related to honesty or integrity of expression in the sense of a direct way to show how a building is put together or simply exposing the structure. Constructive consciousness means to have a more complete idea about a building and its parts. It also shows up when only a careful reading of a building brings a relationship between the facade, the supporting structure and the ground-plan to light. Le Corbusier’s Villa Stein may give an example: From the outside no part of the supporting structure is visible, but the way the ribbon windows are finished around the corner or the balconies on the north elevation indicates the relation between the building enclosure and the supporting structure as well as their placement. 3

see: Ronner, Kölliker, Rysler: Baustruktur, Baukonstruktion im Kontext des Architektonischen Entwerfens, Birkhäuser 1995

4

see: Assemblage Nr. 3, 1986, p. 72-107, The MIT Press

This paper is the result of a collaboration with J. Verwijnen, based on the lessons of Prof. H. Ronner, ETH Zurich. – March 31, 1988 www.rysler.com

RYSLER

Any one of the proposed factors and any one of the Ievels may serve as a starting point for the design process. Each one may serve as an analogy or a filter or the reality. All together, they constitute an inner structural relationship on a conceptual level - all essential inter-dependence of design and technique. Without this the idea of a building would be either incomplete, banal or chaotic. The associative systematic thinking that stands behind this design process model is analogous to the way the cognitive process is exhibited in set theory. The paintings of Carlo Aloe shows the polymorphic aspects of urban reality in different layers of significance. Similarly we have to identify our layers of significance in our view of architecture. Also, we have to identify the members of these set that arc related in a logical way. We have to know the set and its members.

RYSLER www.rysler.com