L L OY D ’ S O F L O N D O N ECONOMIST BUILDING
CASE 08
Lloyd’s of London – Economist Building Richard Rogers – Alison and Peter Smithson
Moravec, A.M. (Aleš)
CASE 08
Richard Rogers Lloyd’s Building
6
CASE 08
Alison and Peter Smithson Economist Building
7
I N T RO D U C T I O N
Introduction
This booklet is a result of the individual assignment
Analytical layers:
for Types and Methods course, taught at Technical
1. Geometrical similarities in plan
University of Eindhoven in academic year 2016-
2. Repetition in plan
2017. It consists of a comparative analysis of two
3. Grid
following building with focus on geometry:
4. Significant load-bearing elements 5. Symmetry in plan
- Lloyd’s building, London, UK
6. Proportions in plan 7. Repetition in facade
- Economist Building,London, UK
8. Composition of facade 9. Symmetry in facade
Both buildings are multifunctional edifices built
10. Relief
in 2nd half of 20th century, however they are
11.Rhythm
predominantly used as office buildings. The Lloyd’s building was designed by Richars Rogers in 1970s as a pure example of high-tech architecture in City of London. On the other hand Economist building was designed by Alison and Peter Smithson in 1960s in brutalism style, the economist building is located in Westminster in London. Those two buildings were analysed with focus on geometry, providing eleven analytical layer for every building in order to disassemble the building and identify key elements, which will be later on used in the essay.
9
TA B L E O F C O N T E N T S
Table of contents
Introduction 1. Basic drawings 1.01 Basic drawings Lloyd’s Building
13
1.02 Basic drawings Economist Building
21
2. Analysis 2.01 Geometrical similarities
27
2.02 Repetition in plan
33
2.03 Grid 39 2.04 Geometry of load-bearing elements
43
2.05 Symmetry in plan
47
2.06 Proportions 53 2.07 Composition 57 2.08 Repetition in facade
61
2.09 Symmetry in facade
65
2.10 Relief 69 2.11 Rhythm 75
3. Essay Essay 79 Literature 85
11
B A S I C D R AW I N G S
DRAWN ANALYSIS
Site plan
Site plan Building
Building
0 20 50
River Thames River Thames
100 0 20 50
200m 100
200m
Loyd’s Building Loyd’s Building
Fig. 1.01.01. - SIte plan Lloyd’s Building
1.01 Basic drawings Lloyd’s Building All the basic drawings were redrawn based on drawings in a book: “Kenneth Powell (1999). Richard Rogers. London,
Site plan
UK: Phaidon Press Limited. Richard Rogers Partnership. Lloyd’s of London “ Building
0 20 50
River Thames Loyd’s Building
13
100
200m
Moravec, A.M. (Aleš)
Lower ground floor plan
012 5
10
Fig. 1.01.02. - Lower ground floor plan Lloyd’s Building Lower ground floor plan
012 5
14
10
DRAWN ANALYSIS
Fig. 1.01.03. - Ground floor plan Lloyd’s Building Ground floor plan
012 5
15
10
Moravec, A.M. (Aleš)
Lower ground floor plan
012 5
10
Fig. 1.01.04. - Common floor plan Lloyd’s Building Common floor plan
012 5
16
10
DRAWN ANALYSIS
Fig. 1.01.05. - Top floor plan Lloyd’s Building Top floor plan
012 5
17
10
Moravec, A.M. (Aleš)
Lower ground floor plan
012 5
Fig. 1.01.06. - Section Lloyd’s Building
Section A-A
012 5
18
10
10
DRAWN ANALYSIS
Elevation West Fig. 1.01.07. - West elevation Lloyd’s Building
19
012 5
10
Moravec, A.M. (AleĹĄ)
20
DRAWN ANALYSIS
Site plan
Site plan
Building
Buildings
0 20 50
River Thames Park
0 20 50 100
100 200m
Loyd’s Building Economist Building Boodles Club
Fig. 1.02.01. - SIte plan Economist Building
1.02 Basic drawings Economist Building All the basic drawings were redrawn based on drawings in a book: “Richard Weston (2010) Key Buildings of the 20th Century. London, UK: Laurence King Publishing. Economist Building” and on drawings from RIBA archive. Site plan Buildings
0 20 50
Park Economist Building Boodles Club
21
100
200m
200m
Moravec, A.M. (AleĹĄ)
Ground floor plan
012 5
10
012 5
10
Fig. 1.02.02. - Ground floor plan Economist Building
Ground floor plan
Fig. 1.02.03. - 1st floor plan Economist Building
22
1st floor plan
DRAWN ANALYSIS
Fig. 1.02.04. - Common floor plan Economist Building
Common floor plan
012 5
Fig. 1.02.05. - Section Economist Building
23
Section A-A
10
Moravec, A.M. (AleĹĄ)
Ground floor plan
012 5
Fig. 1.02.06. - Ryder Street elevation Economist Building
Elevation - Ryder Street
012 5
Fig. 1.02.07. - St. James Street elevation Economist Building
24
10
10
DRAWN ANALYSIS
Fig. 1.02.08. - Bury Street elevation Economist Building
Elevation - Bury Street
012 5
25
10
A N A LY S I S
Common floor plan - Geometrical similarities in plan Direct similarity
012 5
10
Indiresct similariry
Fig. 2.01.01. - Geometrical similarities in Common floor plan Lloyd’s Building
2.01 Geometrical similarities Common floor plan - Geometrical Floor plans were analysed in ordersimilarities to identifyin plan buildings, however in case of Economist
a distinct shape/geometry, which repeats all Direct similarity
building the repetition of same shape in
over the building. Moreover a shape which
012 5 10 floor plan helps in creating coherent building
would be common for both buildings was
complex.
Indiresct similariry
looked up. Unfortunately there is no shape/ geometry, which would be common for both
27
Moravec, A.M. (AleĹĄ)
Top floor plan - Geometrical similarities in plan Lower ground floor plan Direct similarity
012 5
10
Indiresct similariry 012 5
10
Fig. 2.01.02. - Geometrical Top floor plan - Geometrical similarities in plan similarities in Top floor plan Lloyd’s Building Direct similarity
012 5
Indiresct similariry
28
10
DRAWN ANALYSIS
Ground floor plan
012 5
10
Fig. 2.01.03. - Geometrical similarities in Ground floor plan Economist Building
Ground floor plan - Geometrical similarities in plan Direct similarity
012 5
Indiresct similariry
Fig. 2.01.04. - Geometrical similarities in 1st floor plan Economist Building
1st floor paln - Geometrical similarities in plan
29
10
Moravec, A.M. (AleĹĄ)
Ground floor plan
012 5
10
Fig. 2.01.05. - Geometrical similarities in Common floor plan Economist Building
Common floor plan - Geometrical similarities in plan Direct similarity
012 5
Indiresct similariry
30
10
DRAWN ANALYSIS
31
Moravec, A.M. (AleĹĄ)
32
DRAWN ANALYSIS
Common floor plan - Geometrical similarities in plan Direct similarity
012 5
10
Indiresct similariry
Fig. 2.02.01. - Repetition in plan in Lower ground floor plan Lloyd’s Building
2.02 Repetition in plan In case of Lloyd’s building the most
building consists of unique rooms apart from
remarkable, repeated elements in plane are
staircases and facility rooms.
Lower ground floor plan - Repetition
the facilitySingle towers because rest of the building reprtition
012 5
repetition is only anMultiple open hall the towers really stand
out. However in case of Economist building the situation is similar because most of the
33
10
Moravec, A.M. (AleĹĄ)
Common floor plan - Repetition Lower ground floor plan Single reprtition
012 5 10 012 5 10
Multiple repetition
Fig. 2.02.02. - Repetition in plan in Common floor plan Lloyd’s Building Common floor plan - Repetition Single reprtition
012 5
Multiple repetition
34
10
DRAWN ANALYSIS
Ground floor plan
012 5
10
Fig. 2.02.03. - Repetition in plan in Ground floor plan Economist Building
Ground floor plan - Repetition in plan Single reprtition
012 5
Multiple repetition
Fig. 2.02.04. - Repetition in plan in 1st floor plan Economist Building
35
1st floor plan - Repetition in plan
10
Moravec, A.M. (AleĹĄ)
Ground floor plan
012 5
10
Fig. 2.02.05 - Repetition in plan in Common floor plan Economist Building
Common floor plan - Repetition Single reprtition
012 5
Multiple repetition
36
10
DRAWN ANALYSIS
37
Moravec, A.M. (AleĹĄ)
38
DRAWN ANALYSIS 11,25x11,25x3,75m Lloyd’s building
Common floor plan - Geometrical similarities in plan Direct similarity Indiresct similariry
012 5
10
Fig. 2.03.01. - Grid in Common floor plan Lloyd’s Building
2.03 Grid Common floor plan - Gridanalyses the basic This analytical layer
structural grid in relation with average floor Grid
012 5
height in order to get a sense of proportion. Basic module
The Economist building uses perpendicular Excluded from grid
grid with reasonable proportions,while Lloyd’s uses a bit oversized and disproportional grid.
39
10
Moravec, A.M. (AleĹĄ) 1,6x1,6x3,2m Residential building 3,2x3,2x3,2m Bank building
3,2x3,2x3,2m Office building
Ground floor plan - Grid Ground floor plan Grid
012 5 10 012 5 10
Module
Fig. 2.03.02. - Grid in Ground floor plan Economist Building
Ground floor plan - Grid Grid
012 5
Module
40
10
DRAWN ANALYSIS
41
Moravec, A.M. (AleĹĄ)
42
DRAWN ANALYSIS
Common floor plan - Geometrical similarities in plan Direct similarity Indiresct similariry
012 5
10
Fig. 2.04.01. - Geometry of load-bearing elements in Common floor plan Lloyd’s Building
2.04 Geometry of load-bearing elements
Common floor plan - Repetition of similar geometrical load-bearing element
There are endless ways how to shape load-
of Lloyd’s columns have circular cross-
bearing elements, in case of these two Element I
section, which might be easily mixed up
buildings, Element columns. II Columns in Economist
with exposed pipes. In every Economist’s
building are shaped with unmistakeable,
tower the T-shaped columns have slightly
T-shape, cross-section geometry dedicated
different proportions, however they unite
to columns only, on the other hand in case
the appearance of all three towers.
012 5
43
10
Moravec, A.M. (AleĹĄ)
Groundfloor floorplan plan - Repetition of similar geometrical load-bearing element Ground Element I
012 5 5 1010 012
Element II Element III
Fig. 2.04.02. - Geometry of load-bearing elements Ground floor plan - Repetition of similar geometrical load-bearing element in Ground floor plan Economist Building Element I
012 5
Element II Element III
44
10
DRAWN ANALYSIS
45
Moravec, A.M. (AleĹĄ)
46
DRAWN ANALYSIS
Common floor plan - Geometrical similarities in plan Direct similarity
012 5
10
Indiresct similariry
Fig. 2.05.01. - Symmetry in plan in Lower ground floor plan Lloyd’s Building
2.05 Symmetry in plan Lower ground in floor plan - Symmetry Every tower Economist complex has at
neither global symmetry nor symmetrical
least one global symmetrical axis, which
entrance derived from global symmetry.
Global determinate thesymmetry whole volume, however Local symmetry
012 5
more interesting thing is that every entrance Symmetrical room
on ground floor is designed as symmetrical room fitting into the global symmetry. On the other hand Lloyds is complete opposite,
47
10
Moravec, A.M. (Aleš)
Common floor plan - Symmetry Lower ground floor plan
Global symmetry
012 5
10
Local symmetry 012 5
Symmetrical room
10
Fig. 2.05.02. - Symmetry in plan in Common floor plan Lloyd’s Building Common floor plan - Symmetry Global symmetry
012 5
Local symmetry Symmetrical room
48
10
DRAWN ANALYSIS
Ground floor plan
012 5
10
Fig. 2.05.03. - Symmetry in plan in Ground floor plan Economist Building
Ground floor plan - Symmetry Global symmetry
012 5
Local symmetry Symmetrical room
Fig. 2.05.04. - Symmetry in plan in 1st floor plan Economist Building
49
1 floor plan - Symmetry st
10
Moravec, A.M. (AleĹĄ)
Ground floor plan
012 5
10
Fig. 2.05.05. - Symmetry in plan in Common floor plan Economist Building
Common floor plan - Symmetry Global symmetry
012 5
Local symmetry Symmetrical room
50
10
DRAWN ANALYSIS
51
Moravec, A.M. (AleĹĄ)
52
DRAWN ANALYSIS
45m
11,25m
33,75m
67,5m
Common floor plan - Geometrical similarities in plan Direct similarity
012 5
10
Indiresct similariry
Fig. 2.06.01. - Proportions in Common floor plan Lloyd’s Building
2.06 Proportions
Common floor plan - Propportions
The fact that neither Economist building nor Lloyd’s have been designed with use of any
012 5
proportional system, doesn’t need much of an explanation.
53
10
Moravec, A.M. (AleĹĄ)
12,8m
12,8m
22,4m
19,2m
22,4m
19,2m
Ground floor plan
012 5
10
Ground floor plan - Proportions Fig. 2.06.02. - Proportions in Ground floor plan Economist Building 012 5
54
10
DRAWN ANALYSIS
55
Moravec, A.M. (AleĹĄ)
56
DRAWN ANALYSIS
Common floor plan - Geometrical similarities in plan Direct similarity
012 5
10
Indiresct similariry
Fig. 2.07.01. - Composition in West elevation Lloyd’s Building
Elevation West - Composition
2.07 Composition compositional elements ProbablyPrimary the best elevations to look at are Secondary compositional elements
St. James’s Street elevation of Economist Tertiary compositional elements
5 parts: 10 a classical composition of012 three base,
body and a head.
building and West elevation of Lloyd’s building. A gradual shift from classical hierarchical composition to anarchy can be observed. The inspiration for Economist building composition can be traced back to
57
Moravec, A.M. (AleĹĄ)
Elevation - Ryder Ground floorStreet plan - Composition Primary compositional elements
012 012 5 10 5
Secondary compositional elements Tertiary compositional elements
Fig. 2.07.02. - Composition in Ryder Street Elevation Economist Building
Elevation - Ryder Street - Composition Primary compositional elements
012 5
10
Secondary compositional elements Tertiary compositional elements
Fig. 2.07.03. - Composition in St. James Street Elevation Economist Building
58
10
DRAWN ANALYSIS
Fig. 2.07.04. - Composition in Bury Street Elevation Economist Building
Elevation - Bury Street - Composition Primary compositional elements
012 5
Secondary compositional elements Tertiary compositional elements
59
10
Moravec, A.M. (AleĹĄ)
60
DRAWN ANALYSIS
Common floor plan - Geometrical similarities in plan Direct similarity
012 5
Indiresct similariry
Fig. 2.08.01. - Repetition in facade in West elevation Lloyd’s Building
Elevation West - Repetition
2.08 Repetition in facade
Primary repetitive elements
012 5
In both case repetition is use quite often, Secondary repetitive elements
repetition of openings as well as repetition Tertiary repetitive elements
of structural elements, therefore there are almost no unique elements, however in case of Economist building less repetitions is present on ground floor.
61
10
10
Moravec, A.M. (AleĹĄ)
Elevation - Ryder Street - Repetition Lower ground floor plan Primary repetitive elements
012 5 10 012 5 10
Secondary repetitive elements Tertiary repetitive elements
Fig. 2.08.02. - Repetition in facade in Ryder Street Elevation Economist Building
Elevation - Ryder Street - Repetition Primary repetitive elements
012 5
10
Secondary repetitive elements Tertiary repetitive elements
Fig. 2.08.03. - Repetition in facade in St. James Street Elevation Economist Building
62
Elevation - St. James Street - Repetition of opening
DRAWN ANALYSIS
Fig. 2.08.04. - Repetition in facade in Bury Street Elevation Economist Building
Elevation - Bury Street - Repetition Primary repetitive elements
012 5
Secondary repetitive elements Tertiary repetitive elements
63
10
Moravec, A.M. (AleĹĄ)
64
DRAWN ANALYSIS
Common floor plan - Geometrical similarities in plan Direct similarity
012 5
Indiresct similariry
Elevation West - SymmetryFig. 2.09.01. - Symmetry in facade in West elevation Lloyd’s Building Global symmetry axis 2.09 Symmetry in facade
012 5
Local symmetry axis
The result of analysis of symmetry in Center of local central symmetry
elevation goes hand by hand with analysis of Asymmetrical elements in global symmetry
symmetry in plan. No symmetry in plan leads to no symmetry in elevation, which is the case of Lloyd’s.
65
10
10
Moravec, A.M. (AleĹĄ)
Elevation West - Symmetry Lower ground floor plan Global symmetry axis
012 5 10 012 5 10
Local symmetry axis Center of local central symmetry Asymmetrical elements in global symmetry
Fig. 2.09.02. - Symmetry in facade in Ryder Street Elevation Economist Building
Elevation - Ryder Street - Symmetry in facade Global symmetry axis
012 5
10
Local symmetry axis Asymmetrical elements in global symmetry
Fig. 2.09.03. - Symmetry in facade in St. James Street Elevation Economist Building
66
DRAWN ANALYSIS
Fig. 2.09.04. - Symmetry in facade in Bury Street Elevation Economist Building
Elevation - Bury Street - Symmetry in facade Global symmetry axis
012 5
Local symmetry axis Asymmetrical elements in global symmetry
67
10
Moravec, A.M. (AleĹĄ)
68
DRAWN ANALYSIS
Common floor plan - Geometrical similarities in plan Direct similarity
012 5
10
Indiresct similariry
Elevation West - Relief
Fig. 2.10.01. - Relief in West elevation Lloyd’s Building
1 layer 2.10 Relief st
2 layer The relief of Economist building is evenly nd
3rd layer
distribute all over the facade, putting a stress 4th layer
012 5
10
structure while relief on Lloyd’s is derived from pipes, lifts and cores.
on entrances, which are set back. On the th 5 layer
other hand Lloyds building would look “flat” without all the pipes and facility towers. Moreover in case of the Economist building the relief is derived from load-bearing
69
Moravec, A.M. (AleĹĄ)
Elevation West - Tower - Relief Lower ground floor plan 1st layer
012 5 10 012 5 10
2nd layer 3rd layer 4th layer 5th layer
Fig. 2.10.02. - Relief in West elevation tower Lloyd’s Building Elevation West - Tower - Relief 1st layer
012 5
2 layer nd
3rd layer 4th layer 5th layer
70
10
DRAWN ANALYSIS
Fig. 2.10.03. - Relief in Ryder Street Elevation Economist Building
Elevation - Ryder Street - Relief 1st layer
012 5
2nd layer 3rd layer 4th layer 5th layer
Fig. 2.10.04. - Relief in Bury Street Elevation Economist Building
71
10
Moravec, A.M. (AleĹĄ)
Lower ground floor plan
012 5
Fig. 2.10.05. - Relief in St. James Street Elevation Economist Building
Elevation - Bury Street - Relief 1st layer
012 5
2nd layer 3rd layer 4th layer 5th layer
72
10
10
DRAWN ANALYSIS
73
Moravec, A.M. (AleĹĄ)
74
DRAWN ANALYSIS
Common floor plan - Geometrical similarities in plan Direct similarity
012 5
Indiresct similariry
Fig. 2.11.01. - Rhythm in West elevation Lloyd’s Building
Elevation West - Rhythm
2.11 Rhythm rhythm Rhythm Primary is derived
from
012 5
composition,
Secondary rhythm
symmetry and repetition so if those three Tertiary rhythm
aspects are regular then the rhythm of facade would be calm and regular as in case of Economist building.
75
10
10
Moravec, A.M. (Aleš)
Elevation - Ryderfloor Streetplan - Rhythm Lower ground Primary rhythm
012 5 10 012 5 10
Secondary rhythm Tertiary rhythm
Fig. 2.11.02. - Rhythm in Ryder Street Elevation Economist Building
Elevation - Ryder Street - Rhythm Primary rhythm
012 5
Secondary rhythm Tertiary rhythm
Fig. 2.11.03. - Rhythm in St. James Street Elevation Economist Building
76
10
DRAWN ANALYSIS
Fig. 2.11.04. - Rhythm in Bury Street Elevation Economist Building
Elevation - Bury Street - Rhythm Primary rhythm
012 5
Secondary rhythm Tertiary rhythm
77
10
E S S AY
With geometry towards coherency?
“Geometry is the most common compositional
base with all the facilities (figure 3.01.01). 02 03
tool used by designers. It is embodied in the use
Buildings were analysed according to eleven
of simple two and three-dimensional shapes, but
themes however the analysis showed that there
also in the relationship between these shapes.
are only five themes like: symmetry, composition,
Symmetry, balance, grids and proportions are
grid rhythm and repetition providing us with
examples of common themes based on geometry.”
relevant results, which may confirm or deny the
01 Adword Allen
hypothesis. Probably the most basic theme to analyse in is composition.
According to the quote symmetry, grid, proportion and shape has to be analysed in order to compare
The difference between West facade of Lloyd’s
two buildings from the geometrical point of view.
building and St. James’s Street facade of Economist
The Economist building and Lloyd’s of London
building is obvious (figure 3.01.02). In terms of
are completely different buildings in terms of size,
Economist building the traditional hierarchy in
context, style and other aspects, which will be
central composition is clearly visible, moreover
discussed later.
it gives us an exciting comparison with the historical facade on Boodles club. Both facades
Lloyd’s is a pure example of high-tech architecture,
are composed of three vertical as well as three
designed by Richard Rogers, while Economist
horizontal parts, which results in a hierarchy of
building was designed in brutalism style by Alison
three parts: base, body and head. However nothing
and Peter Smithson. Those two building actually
like this can be seen in Lloyd’s building. In terms of
have something in common, they accommodate
composition it looks like Lloyd’s is using the same
several functions, however in case of the Economic
composition principles as they were used in Taipei
building the categorisation is a bit tricky because
Performing Arts Centre by OMA resulting in rather
it isn’t a single building accommodating all the
a fragmented then united composition.04 This
functions as in case of Lloyd’s. It’s more a complex
example rises a question whether the historical
of three newly built towers and one refurbished
context in terms of compositional principles is
building where every tower accommodates
important for contemporary architecture or not.
specific function, however they share the same
79
Moravec, A.M. (Aleš)
Fig. 3.01.01. - Design concept of Lloyd’s and Economist Building
Nowadays there are two main
in designing a temple/ building so it can
construction systems, firs skeleton -
be related to its users. This means that
column and beam system and second
Vitruvius was convinced that design of a
wall system. Each of them was derived
building should be derived from human/
from
natural proportions, which resonates
different
principles.
Greek
classical architecture, which is derived Lloyd’s building
with R. Padovan opinion: Economist building
from traditional wooden construction,
“It is same with architecture as with
volumes developed into Served beams and columns on
all the arts: its principles are founded
Serving volumes
the other hand Roman architecture
on nature itself, and in the processes of
developed into walls and arches.
nature are to be found clearly indicated
Moreover the classical Greek orders
all the rules of architecture.”07 R.Padovan
were derived from human proportions,
as well as it resonates with H. Apelt’s
the Doric order is derived from male
opinion:
proportion while Ionic order is derived
“Architecture is human activity so it
from female proportions.06
should have human proportions”08
05
H. Apelt
However in terms of proportion, which “Without symmetry and proportion
are derived from human body there
there can be no principles in the design
is nothing much to say about these
of any temple; that is if, there is no
two buildings because the buildings
precise relation between its members,
are not dedicated to any order which
as in the case of those of a well shaped
uses a system of proportions. (more
man.”
information can be found in analysis
06 Vitruvius
Vitruvius was convinced that symmetry
chapter 2.06) Nevertheless in terms of
and proportions play inseparable role
symmetry the analysis becomes more
80
WITH GEOMETRY TOWARDS COHERENCY?
Fig. 3.01.02. - Facade composition of Lloyd’s and Economist Building
image this desire for meaning moves
interesting.
man to design his environment.”09 O. M. Every tower in Economist building
Ungers
complex has one global, consciously
One of many possible interpretations
designed symmetrical axis with several
of this quote might be that humans
Elevation West - Lloyd’s building
Elevation St. James Street - Economist building
local symmetries. The symmetry of
will identify themselves easier with
Primaryiscomposition Economist towers more elements mechanical
shapes/geometry that is derived from
Secondary composition elements
than the symmetry of Boodles Tertiary composition elements club,
human figure, which corresponds with
which results in less hierarchical
H. Apelt’s statement she made in her
composition.04 On the other hand
lecture:
Lloyd’s building is not symmetrical what
“Man is not bounded by circle and
so ever, however there are few local
square but he produces them.” 08 H. Apelt
symmetries in facade, which are more
Therefore
circle
and
square
are
of a freak of chance than a result of
desirable shapes. In this case both
conscious process. (figure 3.01.03)
buildings have something in common, a single shape, which repeats in all floor
Not only a symmetry and proportion
plans. (more information can be found
might be derived from human body
in analysis chapter 2.01) In terms of
but also a shape. Leonardo Da Vinci
Economic building the shape resembles
has proved with his drawings, (figure
a square with chamfered corners, on the
3.01.04) that human figure fits in a
other hand in case of Lloyd’s building a
square and circle with its centre in
oval shape is the most significant and
navel.
repeated shape. However the oval can
“In giving a meaning to things, man
be disassembled to a square and circle.
also imitates the object in his own
Is it a coincidence?
81
Moravec, A.M. (Aleš)
Fig. 3.01.03. - Facade symmetry of Lloyd’s and Economist Building
have square termination (circle and Geometry
influences
many
other
aspects of a building, from overall
square again), when they are of no more than ordinary width.”10 Durand
composition to a small details, however one of Elevation the most important aspects, West - Lloyd’s building
In terms of Lloyd’s and Economist Elevation Bury Street - Economist building
which is influenced by geometry is
building the construction material is
Global symmetry axis
tectonics. As mentioned above ancient Local symmetry axis Center of local central symmetry
concrete, however the proportions in
Greeks derived their orders from Asymmetrical elements in global symmetry
grid are different. Economist building
human proportions and traditional
has ratio of 1:1:1 (length: width: height)
wooden construction, therefore one
on the other hand Lloyd’s ratio is 1:3:3,
might say that tectonics is dependent
which are not the most desirable ratio
on material and proportion.
for concrete so the Lloyd’s structure
“In our consideration
might be considered as “atectonic”.11
of materials
and of their use in the construction
Another
of the elements of buildings, it must
the grid is the fact that Economist
have become apparent that, while
building complex is subordinated to
nature offers some ready to be used
one module of 3,2 meters sharing the
(materials), most of the others have to
same perpendicular grid, while Lloyd’s
be worked out, either to make them
uses a module of 11,25 meters only
suitable for building in general or to fit
in the core of the building. (figure
them to the use to which the different
3.01.05) This fact has a direct impact
elements of buildings are to be put…
on symmetry, rhythm, repetition and
Door and window openings may be
overall coherency of the building.
arched, when very wide, or they may
82
important
thing
about
WITH GEOMETRY TOWARDS COHERENCY?
3.01.04 Vitruvian man figure was drawn by Loenardo da Vinci in 1490 according to proportions of human body described earlier by Vitruvius. Drawing source: http://kachine.blogspot. nl/2007/01/history-ofanatomy-leonardo-davinci.html
Fig. 3.01.04. - Vitruvian man
There is a strong relation between
was one of the last architects who
architecture, geometry and humans.
occupied himself
It might be said that architecture is
proportions as a formal design tool,
where human needs meet nature,
however there are some attempts to
therefore having the Vitruvius and Da
resurrect proportional system but they
Vinci’s knowledge one might come
are very rare and not very successful in
to a belief that the best way how to
adapting in global scale.
with
system of
shape a coherent environment is to
“The source of unity in modern
use geometry and proportions which
architecture is in the social sphere.”12
are derived from nature - human body.
Sir John Summerson
Unfortunately not anymore.
This statement seams vague because
“As far as architecture is concerned,
Sir John doesn’t provide us with any
the old systems of proportion that
argument supporting his statement so
belonged to a formal order are indeed
it’s difficult interpret it. Nevertheless as
dead and buried at a time when the
architecture becomes more and more
source of unity in modern architecture
abstract13 then in case of Lloyd’s, unity
is in the social sphere.” 12 Sir John Summerson
has probably been shifted towards
It’s fact that system of proportions
something
that provided architecture with unity
which is not derived from nature.
is dead. It’s dead because Le Corbusier
(figure 3.01.06)
83
abstract
or
something,
Moravec, A.M. (Aleš)
1,6x1,6x3,2m Residential building
11,25x11,25x3,75m Lloyd’s building 3,2x3,2x3,2m Bank building
3,2x3,2x3,2m Office building
Fig. 3.01.05. - Grid of Lloyd’s and Economist Building
3.01.06 Illustration shows the same place. One designed by using a system of proportions and the other by NOT using it. Which one is coherent? Common floor - Lloyd’s building
Ground floor - Economist building
Illustration is from Leon Kriér’s book: Drawings for Architecture. The book is listed in sources
Grid Basic module Excluded from grid
Fig. 3.01.06. - Modern vs. Classical
84
WITH GEOMETRY TOWARDS COHERENCY?
Sources 01 Edward Allen, Patric Rand (2016).
08 Apelt Haike (2017). Lecture 3:
Architectural detailing. Hoboken, New
Architecture and the idea of Geometry
Jersey: John Wiley & Sons. Section 3
[Technical University of Eindhoven]
Aesthetics. Geometry and proportion
10th of May 2017
02 Richard Weston (2010) Key Buildings
09 O. M. Ungers (1964) What is
of the 20th Century. London, UK:
architecture?
Laurence King Publishing. Economist Building.
10 Durand, J.N.L. (2000). Précis of the lectures on architecture. Los Angeles,
03 Kenneth Powell (1999). Richard
California: Getty Research Institute.
Rogers. London, UK: Phaidon Press
Section Three. Forms and Proportions
Limited. Richard Rogers Partnership. Lloyd’s of London
11 Kenneth Frampton (1995). Studies in
04
Léon
for
Krier
(2009).
Architecture.
Massachusetts:
The
Drawing
Cambridge, MIT
Press.
Tectonic
Massachusetts:
Culture. The
Cambridge, MIT
Press.
Introduction: Reflections on the Scope of the Tectonic
Composition: Organic versus Mechanic 12 Sir John Summerson (1957) The Case 05 Hilhorst Wouter (2017) Lecture
for a Theory of Modern Architecture.
2: Architecture and the idea of
Journal R.I.B.A.
Construction [Technical University of Eindhoven] 3rd of May 2017
13
Léon
for
Krier
(2009).
Architecture.
Drawing
Cambridge,
06 R. Padovan (1991). Proportion
Massachusetts: The MIT Press. Two
science
Worlds
philosophy
architecture.
Chapter nine.Vitruvius 07 R. Padovan (1979). Laugier to Van der Laan
85