History 2: Essay Reformatted for Web

My first formal submission for architectural history 2 required three informal essays or 'academic articles' which required explaining the architectural significance of three otherwise normal words. My assignment is presented as submitted, however, much of the presentation has been lost due to the blogger conversion, regardless I hope that you give it a read and that it abides by its praise of intellectual stimulation and overcomes the rather valid critiques of convolution. Enjoy!

High Tech

High-tech’ emerged as one of the “several persuasions”  of modernism which aimed to reinvigorate its ideals through a proper engagement with the “mind of technology” . A fusion of engineering and architecture, the movement captured the zeitgeist of 1960’s ‘Technological Utopianism’ and envisaged mechanised, adaptive environments. Initially derived as an experimental fusion of Archigram’s science fiction, Buckminster Fuller’s ‘Superstructure’ and Joesph Paxton’s ‘Crystal Place’, it went on to commission high profile factories, offices, museums and exhibition spaces. 

Figure 1: The Biosphere Environment Museum, Montreal, Quebec, Richard Buckminster Fuller, 1967, Geodesic Dome. Exemplified themes of technological possibility, structural clarity and the spatial qualities possible alongside sustainability.

Figure 2: The Foreign Department, viewed towards the transept J McNeven, 1851. Is a representation of Joseph Paxton’s ‘Crystal Palace’, the earliest high-tech building.

Figure 3: The Walking city, Archigram, 1970. Evidence for a Zeitgeist shift towards a dynamic architecture.

Exemplary of the emerging styles discussed within Chapter 32, ‘High Tech’ extended the “expressive territories”  of Modern Architecture, attempting a machine age revival rooted in the “heroism of invention” .  Alvaro Siza states that “Architects invent nothing… working continuously with models” , which, for the ‘High-tech’ were grounded in the modern and practical sensibilities of oil-rigs and launch pads instead of the classical inspirations of mythology. The aim was to invoke the inherent meaning and practicality within, channelling it for the greater architectural good. The movement’s ‘reductionist’  technological caricature remains a testament to its success in re-contextualising modern thought and providing a more provocative and less abrasive vision of modernity to society. 

High-Tech’ buildings can be characterised by their exposed steel structures, open and flexible interiors, ‘zoned’  services and prefabricated construction, acting not as “Structural Envelopes”  but rather “complete and active environmental systems”. These initially conformed to Reyner Banham’s theoretical principles of ‘structure, services and colour’, but later seem to be characterised by more prevalent Modern notions of the ‘Kit of Parts’, ‘Omniplatz’, and ‘Serviced shed’.

Figure 4: Sainsbury Centre for Visual Arts, Norwich, University of East Anglia, Foster + Partners, 1978, Norfolk Road Façade. Exemplary of the early ideal for ‘High-Tech’ structures.

Charles Jencks affirms William Curtis’ Chapter 32 disposition that ‘High Tech’ “represents an extension of the technological wing of the modern movement” by acknowledging a “commit(ment) to the tradition of the new”. Whilst identifying their “complex concerns for pluralism, revivalism and stylistic quotation”  and typifying how this later revitalising movement allowed Modernism to survive the “trendy expression”  of the post-modern era.

Figure 5: Schlumberger Research Centre, Cambridge, East London, Hopkins Architects, 1982, Front Façade. Invokes a shift in displaying the structural capacity of taut cables as innovate structural elements, beyond the traditional frame.

Regardless of its intellectual succession by Jencks ‘Organi-tech’ , modernists remain astutely aware about the canonical continuity of their ideas, due to their prevalence within the ‘High-Tech’ movement. Spurring much intellectual debate about its nature and that of modernism itself, one must always remember the logical continuity of interdisciplinary innovation which collectively transpired throughout the 20th century and continues today. As time marches on, the ‘High-Tech’ vernacular demands a natural evolution, which is currently embodied within the sinuous and biomorphic forms, despite the ‘softening’  of its inherent logic.

Figure 6: Milwaukee Art Museum, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, Santiago Calatrava Architects & Engineers, 2001, Quadracci Pavilion. Exemplary of a natural successor to the ‘High-Tech’.

Omniplatz

The ‘Omniplatz’, or etymologically all-place, is a culmination of the ‘High-Tech’ approach, describing a flexible interior space which can “metamorphose into limitless configurations”.      A delimitation of Meis Van Der Rohe’s “universal space”  the ‘Omniplatz’ embodies the same fundamental ideas, “clarity and structure”  whilst contributing notions flexibility, adaptability and infinite scalability from the engineering traditions of “mechanical possibility”  instead of the Bauhaus’ “intellectual interest”.

Figure 7: Sainsbury Centre for Visual Arts, Norwich, University of East Anglia, Foster + Partners, 1978, Main Hall. An ‘Omniplatz’.

Chapter 32, references the ‘Omniplatz’ present with Norman Foster’s Willis Faber and Dumas building as “the free plan taken to its logical, and not completely practical, conclusion”  but glosses over the contribution of the ‘Kit of Parts’ and ‘Serviced Shed’. This is nowhere more evident than the main hall of the Sainsbury Centre, which has undergone major upgrades, becoming many times its original length whilst gaining a mezzanine and underground access levels. 

Figure 8: Sainsbury Centre for Visual Arts, Norwich, University of East Anglia, Foster + Partners, 1978, Initial Section. Embodies a philosophy of temporal necessity, initially a small display for the Sainsbury art collection accessible for students of that field, 

 Figure 9: Sainsbury Centre for Visual Arts, Norwich, University of East Anglia, Foster + Partners, 1978, Final Section. Contrasts with Figure 8 displaying the scalability of the ‘Omniplatz’ through repetition and extension of the standardised portal framing system.

The ‘Kit of Parts’ approach employs standardised parts and materials to allow for flexibility of space and construction, acting as the fundamental basis for the interior’s spatial qualities. The Main hall today, is composed of 37 identical prismatic trusses assembled from welded steel tubes bolted to the tubular columns. Identical in frame, both walls and roof feature a continuous neoprene gasket grid which accommodates interchangeable panels that can be adjusted according to function.  

Figure 10: Sainsbury Centre for Visual Arts, Norwich, University of East Anglia, Foster + Partners, 1978, Isometric. Demonstrates the sophistication and elegance derived from the simplistic repletion of bays and panels.

The ‘Serviced Shed’ approach provides a building facility without permanent physical intrusions. Reed Rogers emphasises that ‘Sheds are very flexible, very loose fit, enclosed spaces where the activity can be free of the constraints of solid architecture’. Such is the beauty of the panelling system which can quickly interchange glass, insulated cladding, superplastic aluminium and flat FRPs to alter the air, light and climate inside. As can be seen in Figure 7, the adaptable interior space is allowed by the double-skinned construction in which the extra-wide frames house all mechanical systems, HVAC services and ancillary spaces. 

Figure 11: Sainsbury Centre for Visual Arts, Norwich, University of East Anglia, Foster + Partners, 1978, Typical Edge Section. The double-skinned construction provides the fundamental basis for the ‘Serviced Shed’ thereby creating the ‘Omniplatz’.

These zoned services allow the building a large, free central interior, the ‘Omniplatz’, where, exhibits can be placed free-standing or configured zonally within temporary structures, responding to temporal demands. Similarly, the lighting is controlled by reflective motorised louvres and ceiling spotlights which can be serviced and adjusted from within the double-skinned void.

Despite the downplay by Van Eyek and Curtis, the ‘Omniplatz’ overwhelms its label of “sentimental technocracy”  serving as an influential type for buildings with temporal needs. Its spatial qualities represent a different and equivocally influential “intellectual crispness and clarity”  to the traditional canonised notion of modern universal space. 

Figure 12: Sainsbury Centre for Visual Arts, Norwich, University of East Anglia, Foster + Partners, 1978, Café zone. Despite the structural presence, the main hall is designed with a lightness in mind, such that it doesn’t seem overbearing, allowing for total spatial freedom in experience, plan and construction.

Archetype

Traditionally philosophical constructs, Marta Pieczara states that architectural archetypes are, “intellectual appraisals (for) a timeless(ly)… relevant typology of buildings”. Dating back to ancient Greece in this term originates in the works of Philo Plato, associated with a Platonic notion of forms. This divine conception for the physical world acts as an intellectual model for representing the innate and essential characteristics of an object. Revived in the 20th century by Carl Jung, the word now embodies universal notions within a “collective unconscious”  which must be materialised as individual expressions. Basic and inane, these “design principles”  for “spatial definition”, are canonized forms and principles, with which, individuals are familiar and can be invoked for greater historical meaning.

William Curtis reflects on the 1970s as a decade “that prompted reflections upon the basis of architectural language, and upon the role of precedent in design”, due to a “crisis of modernism (caused by the) lacking signs of identity and association”. Thereby implying the necessity for a response by the intellectuals of age towards alternative systems of development for a new urban landscape. The absence of a pervasive Zeitgeist harking back to times to of “supposed certainties”, prompting an address of the past. 

Figure 13: Primitive Hut, Charles Eisen 1755. Encapsulates a collective memory of our natural origin evoking images of nature, shelter and respite. Thereby, acknowledging the ‘type’ of Laugier’s ‘Primitive Hut’, which can only truly be revealed from an understanding of its universal conception and the intuitive ‘spatial definition’ provided by the column, lintel and pitched roof. Importantly, this is a ‘type’, and not an archetype since it is an archetypical expression of the idea.

Chapter 32 subdivides the greater responses in terms of their archetypal handling, categorising them into wider notions of; acceptance, acknowledgment and rejection. Bemoaning both extremes, Curtis most scathing critique targets the revivalists, “who took earlier architectural precedents as a sounding board for references and quotations, but little more.” 

(Below) Figure 14: Piazza D’Italia, New Orleans, Louisiana, Charles Moore, 1975-1979. A shallow archetypal approach of the post-Modern Classical revival, the Piazza is just a pastiche of classical Italian types. It serves as a nostalgic recognition of their historic civilisation and architectural prowess but without the inherent logos that characterised and canonized classical Italian architecture.

Curtis acknowledges the importance of the “Futurist Revival”  in offering critique and an alternative to the “spatial definition(s)” of historical archetypes as “touching a live nerve in… culture”. These intellectually divisive ‘High-Tech’ buildings, applied archetypal forms from the “Engineering tradition” whilst revitalising Modern notions, to create, in the case of the Centre Pompidou, “’ Popular institution(s)’ rather than ‘palace(s) of culture’”. Reed Richard’s ‘Omniplatz’ addresses Pieczara’s “spatial definition”  by being “dynamic and everchanging”  adaptable “for the meeting of all”  people and institutions.

Figure 15: The Centre Georges Pompidou, Paris, Île-de-France, Renzo Piano & Richard Rogers, 1958, Piazza facade. Derived from the traditional industrial/ factory types of the engineering tradition the centre’s galleries are radical, architecturally, in their “spatial definition”.

Despite the influentiality of ‘High-Tech’ archetypal innovation, Chapter 32 condemns its lack of ‘timeless qualities’  relative to contemporary architectural interpretations by Louis Kahn, Jorn Utzon, Carlo Scarpa and Aldo Rossi. Exemplifying the evocative and symbolic nature of Scarpa’s Brion Cemetery in terms of its regional vernacular and timeless, universal commentary about Burkean ideas of the sublime and beautiful, to invoke the innate inspiration withheld by these seemingly abstract notions. 

Figure 16: Tomba Brion, San Vito d'Altivole, Altivole TV Carlo Scarpa, 1978, Water Pavilion. Evocative “spatial definition” achieved through elementary, universal forms which typify the ephemerality of life/construction against the daunting sublime of time and the Italian countryside.

Archetypal awareness remains foremost in compositional eloquence and elegance, providing composers with a “guiding image of… unity”  for imbuing works with greater historical meaning transcendent of material bounds. Despite their philosophical origins the abstract archetypal “design principles” and “Spatial definitions”   hallmark the most exemplary spaces in human history. 

Figure 17: Institute for Biological Studies, La Jolla, California, Louis Kahn, 1962, Main Walkway. Manifests the intellectual and spatial possibilities of archetypal evocation, thereby canonising the genius of Louis Kahn and the timelessness of his individual and the derivative, architectural experience.

Image Source References

1. Image Source References

   1.       Source: Hannah Martin. “Buckminster Fuller's Geodesic Dome and Other Forward-Looking Architecture.” Architectural Digest. Architectural Digest, February 29, 2016. https://www.architecturaldigest.com/gallery/buckminster-fuller-architecture.

   2.      Source: Isaac López-César. “Figure 2: Crystal Palace. Joseph Paxton. World Expo 1851 London....” ResearchGate, January 23, 2020. https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Crystal-Palace-Joseph-Paxton-World-Expo-1851-London-Source-Dickinson-Figure-3_fig2_331374998.

   3.      Source: “Archigram.” Archigram - Designing Buildings Wiki, November 1, 2019. https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/Archigram.

   4.      Source: Nigel Young. “The Sainsbury Centre For Visual Arts Celebrates Its 40th Anniversary, 'SUPERSTRUCTURES: The New Architecture 1960-90'.” The Sainsbury Centre For Visual Arts celebrates its 40th anniversary, 'SUPERSTRUCTURES: The New Architecture 1960-90' | The Strength of Architecture | From 1998, March 23, 2018. https://www.metalocus.es/en/news/sainsbury-centre-visual-arts-celebrates-its-40th-anniversary-superstructures-new-architecture-1960-90.

   5.      Source: “Schlumberger Cambridge Research Centre, Phase I.” Hopkins Architects. Hopkins Architects Ltd, 2020. https://www.hopkins.co.uk/projects/4/13/.

   6.      Source: Milwaukee Art Museum. “Milwaukee Art Museum.” Mid, 2018. https://www.midammetal.com/products/milwaukee-art-museum.

   7.      Source: Nigel Young. “The Sainsbury Centre For Visual Arts Celebrates Its 40th Anniversary, 'SUPERSTRUCTURES: The New Architecture 1960-90'.” The Sainsbury Centre For Visual Arts celebrates its 40th anniversary, 'SUPERSTRUCTURES: The New Architecture 1960-90' | The Strength of Architecture | From 1998, March 23, 2018. https://www.metalocus.es/en/news/sainsbury-centre-visual-arts-celebrates-its-40th-anniversary-superstructures-new-architecture-1960-90.

   8.      Ibid.

   9.      Ibid.

   10.    Ibid.

   11.     Ibid.

   12.    Ibid.

   13.    Source: Charles Eisen, “Essai sur l'architecture”, Marc-Antoine Laugier, (2nd ed. 1755): frontispiece

   14.    Source: “TripAdvisor,” “TripAdvisor - PIAZZA D'ITALIA, 377 Poydras St., New Orleans, LA 70130”, May 1, 2020. https://www.neworleans.com/listing/piazza-ditalia/32436/.

   15.    Source: Lizzie Crook. “Centre Pompidou is high-tech architecture's inside-out landmark.” Dezeen. Dezeen, November 5, 2019. https://www.dezeen.com/2019/11/05/centre-pompidou-piano-rogers-high-tech-architecture/.

   16.    Souce: “Phaidon”. “Carlo Scarpa's Cemetery for Brionvega Boss: Architecture: Agenda.” Phaidon, December 23, 2013. https://au.phaidon.com/agenda/architecture/articles/2013/december/23/carlo-scarpas-cemetery-for-brionvega-boss/.

   17.    Source: “Salk Institute for Biological Studies”. “2019 March Wallpaper.” Salk Institute for Biological Studies, March 2019. https://www.salk.edu/2019-march-wallpaper/.