The focus of the semester is on the "front end" of the design process, including steps that must be taken before the design process can even begin.

The semester will deal with an explicit program that has a relatively high degree of functional complexity. The process by which the program is determined, methods of dealing with the complex program and the architectural implications of the program will be examined.

Typology

The ability to translate complex programmatic dictates into architectural form is neither quick nor easy. There is little that is self evident about the process. Methods that work on simpler buildings may not work at all on more complex ones.

Issues of program complexity are often linked to issues of typology. Simply put, the more we know about building typologies the more tools we can bring to bear on a problem. There are different kinds (types?) of typology. More complex building programs often require more complex organizational strategies. At the very least they require us to explore a wider range of solutions. To be able to deal with these situations the architect must be able to command a broad array of solution types, be able to combine them in a wide range of possibilities, be able to manipulate them with a certain degree of facility and be able to develop them in an extensive variety of ways. A command of typologies also allows us to stay away from solution strategies that may appear at first pass to hold great promise but will ultimately not be suitable and it will assist us in knowing some of the implications that are inherent in a given solution strategy.

You are reminded that all projects that we do in the studio are vehicles to explore and research various aspects of the making of architecture. The program and the site are selected as being suitable for the exploration of the designated issues but many other programs and sites would do just as well. What is important here is not the specifics of the solution developed, but the methodology by which it was produced.

Types of types

We will use the subject of typology for our point of entry into the topic.

There are three classifications commonly used in discussing building topology:

1. Functional typology, a description of the major or primary overall purpose of the building.

Examples:

• the galleria
• the train station
• the market
• the prison
• the house
• the office building
• the hospital
• the gymnasium
• the cathedral, synagogue, temple the forum
• the fabric (usually housing and commercial)
• the university
• the library

2. Shape or Form Typology, a description of the overall geometry of the plan.

Examples:

• the linear plan
• the void center plan
• the centrally organized plan
• the peripherally organized plan
• the grid or lattice plan

3. Compositional typology, a description of the strategy with which the parts of the plan are arranged.

Examples:

• the composite plan
• the repetitious plan
• the concatenated plan
• the elementarist plan
• the unified plan
• the articulated plan
• the promenade plan

4. Metaphorical typology, a description of the organizational strategy that is linked to some other well known formation, usually stated as "The building as a ..... ".

Examples:

Issued: Monday 26 August 2002

Due: Wednesday 28 August 2002

Setting aside the matter of functional and metaphorical typologies for the moment, for the remaining types, you are asked to find at least three buildings for each. You should have at least 36 building plans. You should use whatever library or personal resources are available. For the discussions at the next class, bring whatever photocopies you can get. Plans are typically the desired documents in this case. Along with each example, use one sheet of 8 1/2" x 11" paper to analyze, through diagrams, the plan. Annotate your diagrams. Points to consider might include geometry, front/back conditions, primary and secondary points of entry, service entry, primary horizontal and vertical circulation, zoning of the plan, solid/void conditions, public/private conditions, servant/served conditions, and many more. Clarity is the objective. Do not be distracted by the minor aspects of the plan. Remember that the objective is to discover big ideas or overall strategies that can be applied to large and complex situations.

Reading assignment 1:

Issued: Monday 26 August 2002
Due: Monday 2 September 2002
Zevi, Bruno; Architecture as Space; Chapters 1,2 and 3
Le Corbusier; Towards a New Architecture; chapters:
The Argument
The Engineer’s Aesthetic and Architecture
Three Reminders to Architecture

The second pass. Issued: Wednesday 28 August. 2002

Due: Friday 30 August, 2002

The first phase has taken a rather broad sweep at the topic of typology and the results have indicated some difficulty in clearly distinguishing among some of them. This phase will try to clarify some of these by posing selected ones as opposites.

The following is a rather broad generalization (to say the least!). There are many exceptions, but then, there are also many buildings that conform. Not all buildings manifest all properties. The terms are relative - to each other.

TRADITIONAL MODERN

Plan typology transformation

The third pass. Issued: Friday 30 August 2002

Due: Wednesday 4 September 2002

Assuming that one has established an expanded repertoire of compositional typologies, the next aspect is to develop the skill of transformation. Transformation allows us to move considerably beyond documentation and analysis. Transformation can be seen as a form of design in itself. It requires a simultaneous understanding of the thing being transformed and a degree of invention or vision involving the possibilities of what might be.

In this phase the exercise continues by exploring the possibilities of actually transforming one typology into another. There is an admitted graphic component to the problem but the architectural implications are quite substantive.

Select one set of opposite or contrasting organizational typologies. Transform each typology into the other. Given an unlimited number of intervening steps or stages of transformation, we might run them at movie speed and watch one morph into the other. This might be interesting to watch but it will not serve our purposes very well. As architects we must be able to account for each move that we make. We need to be able to make substantial moves, not tiny incremental ones. Thus in this exercise we must account for each step along the way. Each step of the transformation should represent a viable architectural possibility. That is, each step of the transformation is not just link or connective device between the ones on either side. It must be able to stand on its own merits. Thus the transformation process for this exercise must include at least three intervening steps. At the same time it should not include more than five.

You are reminded that all projects that we do in the studio are vehicles to explore and research various aspects of the making of architecture.

For the first, contrast two traditional plans. For the second, compare two modern plans.

Note: The project we are working towards is an urban one, a project whose location places it in the midst of other buildings. Thus the most suitable examples are those that are from dense, impacted, urban conditions. The following list is intended to serve only as a suggestion, to increase the scope of your sources.

Francesco Borromini

• Palazzo Carpegna, Rome, Italy
• Oratorio dei Filippini, Rome, Italy

Brunelleschi

• The Foundling Hospital, Florence, Italy, 1421-24

Bramante?

• The Palazzo della Cancelleria, Rome, Italy, 1486-98

Amedeo di Castellamonte

• Palazzo Reale, Turin, Italy

Peruzzi

• Palazzo Massimo, Rome, Italy,

Carlo Rainaldi

• Palazzo Borghese, Rome, Italy

Luciano Laurana

• The Ducal Palace, Urbino, Italy, 1444-82

John Soane

• The Bank of England

Vasari

• The Uffizi, Florence

Scamozzi

• The Procuratie Nuove, Venice, 1584

Antoine le Pautre

• Hô tel de Beauvais, Paris, France

Louis le Vau

• Hô tel Lambert, Paris, France

Maidan-I-Shah, Isfahan, Iran

Islamic examples:

• Mosque Al-Hakim, Isfahan, Iran
• Madrasa Madir-I-Shah, Isfahan, Iran
• Bazaar: Caravansarai-I-Gushan, Mosque-I-Jarch, Isfahan, Iran

Buildings that act as cities themselves

• The Alhambra, Granada, Spain
• Topkapi palace, Istanbul, Turkey
• The Sacred Precinct, Pergamon, Turkey

In India, compounds that act as cities:

Le Corbusier

• Cité de Refuge, (Salvation Army), Paris, France, 1929
• Centrosoyus Office Building, Moscow, Russia, 1929
• Millowners Building, Ahmedabad, India, 1954

Richard Meier:

• Renault Administrative Headquarters, Boulogne-Billancourt, France, 1981
• Office Building for Siemens, Munich, Germany, 1983
• Canal+ Headquarters, Paris, France, 1988-91
• Museum of Contemporary Art, Barcelona, Spanin, 1987-92

Michael Graves

• The Newark Museum Master Renovation Plan, Newark, NJ, 1982
• Center for the Visual Arts, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, 1983
• Chamber Music Hall Addition, San Francisco Conservatory of Music, San Francisco, CA, 1985
• Shiseido Health Club, Tokyo, Japan, 1986

Morphosis

• Comprehensive Cancer Center, Los Angeles CA, 1987

Robert Venturi

• Sainsbury Wing, National Gallery of Art , London, UK

Mario Botta

• Gottardo Bank, Lugano, Switzerland, 1982-88

Michael Dennis

Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh PA

• East Campus Project
• University Student Center

James Stirling