12199
Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction
Pages 4-9
Part I 2.0 Coherence of architectural structures through hierarchical organisation and cooperation of their sub divisional scales. 2.1 Recent historic review for the formalisation of design processes. 2.2 Design forms having hierarchy of scales in their subdivisions and those that do not have. 2.3 The scales in Architecture. 2.4 Using different design scales. 2.5 Emotional effects of the application or lack of scales in designs. 2.6 Systems with hierarchical organisation of scales and emergent properties 2.7 Why is ornamentation necessary (in relation to scaling). 2.8 How symmetry generates the higher scales. 2.9 Cooperation between different scales. 2.10 Practical design considerations for the establishment of scaling hierarchy. 2.11 The ‘’optimum’’ scaling factor. 3.0 A mathematical approach for the creation of coherent architectural forms 3.1 Human perceptiveness and Architecture. 3.2 Scaling hierarchy as a natural phenomenon. 3.3 Design Consequences. 3.4 The connection to the human (anthropomorphic) scale. 3.5 Building materials scale and their interconnection with the other building scales. 3.6 Scale and the use of models for architectural designs.
10-11 11-14 14-16 16-17 17-19 20-22 22-23 23-25 25-26 26-28 28-29
29-31 31 32-33 33-35 35-36 36-38
Part II 4.0 Analysis of buildings facades on the basis of theory developed in sections 2.0 and 3.0 4.1 Investigation of coherency over the time periods of architectural history. 4.1.1 Introduction 4.1.2 Criteria and Parameters for architectural structure’s coherence 4.1.3 Results 4.1.4 Analysis and Discussion
39 39-41 41-42 42-44
Part III 4.2 Aesthetic emotions and the analysis of two contrasting architectural styles (Renaissance –pre 1900 AD and Contemporary-Deconstruction) with reference to their coherency or incoherency. 4.2.1 Introduction 4.2.2 The assessment of architectural design styles 4.2.3 The methodology of the survey 4.2.3.1 Materials 4.2.3.2 Participants 4.2.3.3 Instruments 4.2.4 The survey and results 4.2.5 Analysis and discussion of the results 5.0 Conclusions 6.0 List of Illustrations 7.0 Bibliography 8.0 Appendices 8.1 Appendix I: Set of images for the survey 8.2 Appendix II: Questionnaires given to survey participants 8.3 Appendix III: Building’s facades: examination of coherency
Pages
45-46 46-47 48 48 48-49 50-52 52-62 63-66 67 68-71 CD CD CD
‘’Follow the evidence , wherever it leads’’ -Socrates
1.0 Introduction
The definition of ‘coherence’ - according to the Oxford dictionary and the free online dictionary - is :‘’The quality or state of cohering, especially a logical, orderly and aesthetically consistent relationship of parts’’ or ‘’logical or natural connection or consistency’’ or ‘’ logical and orderly and consistent relation of part’’ and its opposite, ‘incoherence’ : ‘’lack of cohesion or clarity or organisation’’. ‘Coherence’ in written and spoken languages is a well-known term. Coherence is also known in Sciences, Engineering and many other disciplines. Is it also applicable to Architecture? N. Salingaros, a mathematician, physicist and polymath in ‘’ Principles of urban Structure ‘’ defines geometrical (or architectural) coherence as an identifiable quality that ties the city together through form and is an essential prerequisite for the vitality of the urban fabric. Cities, he claims, that have coherence, have a great vitality. Cities that lack coherence seem lifeless (Salingaros, 2005). The aim of this dissertation is to examine coherence in architectural structures with particular emphasis to those factors that are relevant to scale(s). Part I will develop the theory associated with the title of the dissertation as regards to ‘’coherence’’. Part II will deal with the recognition or identification of buildings that are ‘’coherent’’ or ‘’incoherent’’ with respect to theory developed in part (I) and Part III will deal with emergent properties and emotional effects of coherent buildings. This part will be done through surveys, analysis and discussion of results and based on 4
existing theories, research and other studies. For architectural coherence to be achieved there are a number of factors that must be present. The factors associated with architectural coherence and relevant to scale are: scale range, scale hierarchy, scale connections (or coupling) and scale tightness. Scale Range is considered a basic notion. Without it, it could be argued that none of the other coherency factors is possible. If an architectural structure has scale range, then scale hierarchy is possible and if it has scale hierarchy then scale connections are possible. And if all of the first three coherency factors are present, then scale tightness is possible. If all four-scale coherency factors are present, then it could be said that the architecture is ‘’coherent’’. Regarding the ‘scale range’, architecture must have scales ranging from the very small (e.g. ornamentation) to the very large (e.g. sections or parts of the building or the whole building) and a number of scales in-between (e.g. columns and fenestration). There must be a stepwise progression between scales so
Fig.1 Factor 1. Scale Range (2010)
that the jump or gap from scale to scale is not very large (Figure 1). The second factor is ‘scale hierarchy’ (Figure 2). It can be observed that there is a range of scales from the smallest (i.e. a stone or brick) to the largest (i.e. the entire building). There is also a number of scales in-between (i.e. windows, window 5
casements and strong vertical and horizontal divisions). Furthermore there is a stepwise progression from one scale to the next one. There are no large gaps from one scale to the next. In other words ’ scale hierarchy’ means that each scale from the small to the large seems to be related to every other scale organised in a hierarchical manner e.g. elements of smaller scale are contained within elements of larger scales (bricks are contained within windows casings, windows casings are contained within floors, floors are contained within the building). The third factor is ‘scale couplings’ (Figure 3) and refers to the requirement that like elements be connected to like elements. The first coupling shown is a horizontal element connecting two window
Fig. 3 Factor 3. Scale couplings (2010)
panes. The second coupling is a vertical element connecting two major vertical building subsets. The third coupling is a horizontal element connecting two major horizontal building sub sets.
Fig. 4: Methods of couplings (2013)
The fourth coupling is a column that connects two entrance spaces. In all cases, we have elements to be connected to other elements that are of like scale. Some 6
methods of couplings are shown in Figure 4. The fourth factor is ‘scale tightness’ (Figure 5). This means that at the highest level of scale, connections are very few and very loose i.e. the elements being connected are relatively independent of each other. The vertical edge of the building segments serves as the highest level connections, meaning that the elements they connect are at the largest dimension of scale. So there are very few of them and they are very loosely connected.
A major building segment can be replaced by another which contains the same smaller elements of scale, seemingly with little impact on the building segments to which it is connected. Coming down the scale, connections between window segments
Fig. 6 Mammalian Lung (2013)
are greater in number and ‘tighter’. It may be harder to replace any window segment without forcing changes to the window segment to which it connects. The lowest level couplings are those that connect the smallest elements of scale. Here are found the largest number of these connections, and they are the tightest connections in the architecture. 7
In all stable complex systems we find scale-free and inverse power-law distributions i.e. there are few things or elements of the large scale, more elements in the intermediate scale and numerous elements of the smaller scale. All biological systems are built using scale-free and inverse power-law distributions. One such example is the Mammalian lung, which has beautiful scaling coherence with eight levels of scale (Figure 6). Figures 7 and 8 also show examples of nature’s hierarchy of scales.
Fig. 7 Butterfly anatomy (2002)
Fig. 8 Leaf anatomy (1979)
8
In addition to the basic question pondered at the beginning i.e. whether coherence is also applicable to Architecture, the dissertation will aim to answer the following questions: Are there physiological or other reasons why the majority of humans seem to respond in a positive way to buildings that are coherent and in a negative way to buildings that lack coherence? Are there emergent properties associated with a coherent whole that cannot be present in its individual or fragmental component parts? What are the human emotional responses caused by different, contrasting architectural styles?
9
PART I 2.0 Coherence of architectural structures through hierarchical organisation and cooperation of their sub divisional scales.
2.1 Recent Historic review for the formalisation of design processes. There have been quite a few suggestions for the formalisation of design not only in Architecture but also in other fields and disciplines with varying degrees of success. In engineering and the sciences the success is evidently obvious and continuously improving (Booch,1991;Croos,1989). Not so for Architecture. In the 1950’s and more so in the 1960’s and afterwards there was notable high activity in the application of mathematics, systems theory, complexity and the emergent new sciences, to architectural designs, by Christopher Alexander (Alexander, 1964), Bruce Archer (Archer, 1970), Bill Hillier (Hillier, 1996; Hillier and Hanson, 1984), Christopher Jones (Jones, 1970) and Horst Rittel (Rittel, 1992) amongst others. Some of these early works were summarised by Broadbent (Broadbent, 1973). It is evidently true that some of the above authors eventually stated their reservation as to whether a comprehensive design theory or method was at all possible. However Alexander’s work (Alexander, 2000) sustained an interest not as much in imposing ‘a formalisation of design’ but more so in setting ‘design constraints’, leaving the actual design with its implicit details and creativity entirely up to the architect, as should be the case . ‘’Modernism’’ for example offered a very simple constraint, applicable universally to built forms, easily applicable to any type of building which was in fact the crucial element of its ‘success’ rather more than any political or philosophical ideology . This 10
fact is admitted by many, even the most ardent critics of modernism who acknowledge the simplicity element in it; an element explaining its widespread propagation (Salingaros and Mikiten, 2002).
2.2 Design forms with hierarchy of scales in their subdivisions and those with none.
Going back to the early 1920’s, when the attraction was mainly on simple ‘’Platonic solids’’ (e.g. cubes, spheres, triangles, cylinders etc.), Euclidean geometry was established as the new architecture of the time (Le Corbusier, 1927). Many people at the time and before, have been assuming that somehow these regular shapes were embedded or ingrained (as a form language) into the human consciousness and that the mind had somehow been programmed or structured to recognise, interpret and even show preference to them over other figures and shapes. Galileo Galilee, the 16th/17th century Italian physicist, astronomer, astrologer and philosopher said: [The universe] cannot be read until we have learnt the language and become familiar with the characters in which it is written. It is written in mathematical language and the letters are triangles, circles and other geometrical figures, without which means it is humanly impossible to comprehend a single word. However, Galileo’s statement has nowadays been discredited (Bonta, 1979). Not only can human beings - or to be more specific, human brains – be trained to recognise these solids and identity them as a purely ‘’intellectual concept’’ (Fischler and Firschein, 1987; Zeeman, 1962), but what is 11
experimentally more apt is to state that a recognition mechanism is built-into the human consciousness and is structured on the basis of hierarchical subdivisions, irrespective of the overall shape of the structure as long as the similarity between the subdivisions of ‘the whole’ is obvious. Still strange enough, is the failure to distinguish or discriminate between uneasy distressing excitement as a result of adrenaline rise, causing physical and psychological stress and a deeply satisfying, nourishing visual excitement, which are totally different in their implications on human feelings and psychology. The dual processor brain is still confused despite the fact that environmental psychology clearly distinguishes the two cases (Nasar, 1989). As research indicates, architecture has a tremendous impact on people. Both the contemporary and classical buildings are rationally understandable, visually and emotionally evocative (or even provocative in the case of some contemporary buildings) but in almost opposite-contradictory ways. Architecture creates relatively complex artificial systems. In order to achieve emergent properties, it must therefore organise matter according to hierarchical system rules. The truth of this claim, as research indicates, could be evident to any unbiased observer as buildings, structures, urban regions embracing hierarchical organisation resonate more in tune with one’s built-in, mind perceptual mechanism. When confronting a man-made object, structure, work of art (painting, sculpture, artefacts etc.) the human mind immediately conceives the different scales of the ‘whole’ -even if the whole is constituted by numerous individual parts. This process is instantaneous and more astonishingly, it is the
12
automatic establishment of the scaling hierarchy in the subconscious. What happens when the scale of structure seems ambiguous or out of order, is that the perceptive system of the human brain may become frustrated and sometimes, confused. The degree of cooperation between consecutive scales and especially their ratio is the determining factor of whether that structure is hierarchically organised or not. When the consecutive scales are spaced between them in a similar way to natural structures and furthermore if they correlate, somehow, (e.g. by a scaling factor), then the structure under observation will be perceived as a coherent whole. This, as mentioned earlier, is a subconscious process that might well be said is a determinant of the structure’s impact; independent of such characteristics as shape, form, style or magnitude. It is worth noting here that if an architect wishes to produce a building as a ‘’fragment’’ rather than ‘’a whole’’ e.g deconstructivists, obviously he or she will work against the rule of hierarchical organisation of scales, simply because he/she either has no concern of human feelings, or most probably his/her feelings are different from those of the majority of people. In a debate with Christopher Alexander (November 17,1982 / Contrasting concepts of harmony in Architecture) Peter Eisenman said I think you should just feel this harmony is something that the majority of the people need and want. But equally there must be people out there like myself who feel the need for incongruity, disharmony. The above is in line with Coop Himmelblau’s statement.
13
We want architecture that has more. Architecture that bleeds, that exhausts, that whirls and even breaks. Architecture that lights up, stings, rips and tears under stress. Architecture has to be cavernous, fiery, smooth, hard, angular, brutal, round, delicate, colourful, obscene, lustful, dreamy, attracting, repelling, wet, dry and throbbing. Alive or dead. If cold, then cold as a block of ice. If hot, then hot as a blazing wind. Architecture must blaze Himmelblau’s statement substantiates Eisenman’s statement and confirms similar feelings. 2.3 The scales in Architecture All natural systems are relatively complex structures, having scaling organised in hierarchical structure. This is true for both biological as well as inanimate systems (Simon, 1962; Smith,1969). Inorganic materials, in their majority, are in crystalline form and some are in amorphous form. Stresses and strains on them produce fractures that could appear as patterns, which prevent a long-range ordering from continuing throughout macroscopic forms (Smith, 1969). There is no smoothness or uniformity, which are considered as alien characteristics for natural materials. Structural features in nature exist on different scale levels. From the macroscopic to the microscopic level physical forms have hierarchical scaling, throughout all intermediate scales. Physical forms could also be seen as having hierarchical scaling as a result of either internal or external forces acting upon materials. As regards to biological forms, it is easily observed that they possess
scaling organised in hierarchical manner. Broadly speaking, with a decreasing order of magnitude or size, communities of organisms, organs, tissues, cells, organelles, membranes, molecules, atoms, with many possible intermediate scales to these (Miller, 1978;Pasioura, 1979). At different sizes, structurally coherent units define a scale. These scales are distinct, yet they are also nested in a complex structure. Built forms exhibit a similar to the above, scaling behaviour. In architectural forms, scales are defined by similar units of the same size that repeat. Independent scales arise from the materials used, the structure and functions expressing the architect’s ideas. Over the history of architecture, various methods were used to define scales such as symmetry, as manifested through shape, columns, and fenestration. If these are of the same size, they create a distinct scale. If they are in repetition, with a symmetrical pattern, these define a larger scale. The opposite effect is achieved when subdividing e.g. a window into panes thus creating a smaller scale. Massing and monumentality define the largest exterior scale. Colonnades, widely used in the past, could define a number of scales. Their width, the inter-column spacing, the column’s base and capital with fluting generating yet one more smaller scale. Interior scales can also be created by window and door frames, baseboards, and trims in various sizes aided by contrast in materials, surface texture and colour. The various design units cooperate, when one or more design characteristic connects them in a visual sense if one of the design portions has commonality with another. Also they connect or cooperate if they have a
15