Architecture is in the process of a revolutionary transformation. There is now momentum for a revitalised involvement with sources in material practice and technologies. This cultural evolution is pre-eminently expressed in the the expanded collaborative relationships between architects and structural engineers, realtionships which have been responsible for the production, worldwide, of a series of iconic buildings. The rise and technological empowerment of these methods can be seen as a historic development in the evolution of architectural engineering. If engineering is frequently interpreted as the giving of precedence to material content, then the design engineer, in his prioritising of materialisation. is the pilot figure of this cultural shift which we have termed the 'New Structuralism'. Architectural engineering has traditionally been characterised by the sequential development of 'form, structure and material'. A formal concept is first conceived by the architect and subsequently structured and materialised in collaboration with the engineer. If there is a historical point of departure for the evolution of a new structuralism, Peter Rice, in An Engineer Imagines, locates it in the relationships which developed between Jorn Utzon, Ove Arup and Jack Zunz in the structuring and materialisation of the Sidney Opera House (1957-73). In the final solution the problem of the geometry of the covering tiles influenced the design of the rib structure and the overall form of the roof. This effetively reversed the traditional process to become 'material, structure, form'.

Rivka and Robert Oxman on AD 'The New Structuralism : design, engineering and architectural technologies'.
July/August 2010)

Also features :
www.barkowleibinger.com
www.burohappold.com
www.materialecology.com
www.akt-uk.com

www.mirallestagliabue.com
www.wernersobek.com

Prodromes :

Berthold Lubetkin with Ove Arup, Penguin Pool at London Zoo ; 1933-34

Konrad Wachsmann, Universal System for a Modular Dynamic Structure; 1956.

Richard Buckminster Fuller, Geodesic dome lattice shell , St. Louis, 1954

Felix Candela, 'Los Manantiales' restaurant, concrete shell structure; 1956

questions of space

I.0 Is space a material thing in which all material things are to be located?

I.I If space is a material thing, does it have boundaries?

I.II If space has boundaries, is there another space outside those boundaries?

I.I2 If space does not have boundaries, do things then extend infinitely?

I.I2I As every finite extent of space is infinitely divisible (since every space can contain smaller spaces), can an infinite collection of spaces then form a finite space?

I.I3 In any case, if space is an extension of matter, can one part of space be distinguished from another?

I.2 If space is not matter, is it merely the sum of all spatial relations between material things?

I.3 If space is neither matter nor a set of objective relations between things, is it something subjective with which the mind categorizes things?

I.3I If the structure of the mind imposes an a priori form (that precedes all experience) to the perception of the external world, is space such a form?

I.32 If space is such a form, does it have precedence over all other perceptions?

I.4 If, etymologically, "defining" space is both making space distinct and stating the precise nature of space, is this an essential paradox of space?

I.5 Architecturally, if defining space is making space distinct, does making space distinct "define" space?

I.5I If architecture is the art of making space distinct, is it also the art of stating the precise nature of space?

I.6 Is architecture the concept of space, the space and the definition of space?

I.6I If the concept of space is not a space, is the materialization of the concept of space, a space?

I.6II Is conceptual space then the space of which material is the concept?

I.6I2 Incidentally, is the experience of the materialization of the concept of space the experience of space?

I.62 If the materialization of the concept of space is a space, then is space a hole in a space that it is not?

I.63 If the history of architecture is the history of spatial concepts, is space as a uniformly-extensive-material-to-be-modelled-in-various-ways at the origin of architectural space as: a) the power of volumes and their interaction; b) hollowed-out interior space; c) the interaction between inner and outer space; d) the presence of absence?

I.63I  Does a De Stijl facade differ from a Baroque one through the micro-space it defines?

I.7 If Euclidean space is restricted to a three-dimensional lump of matter, is non- Euclidean space to be restricted to a series of events in four-dimensional space-time ?

I.7I If other geometries give a clearer understanding of space than Euclidean geometry, has space itself changed with the construction of spaces with 3-dimensions?

I.72 Is topology a mental construction towards a theory of space?

2.0 Is the perception of space common to everyone?

2.I If perceptions differ, do they constitute different worlds that are the products of one"s past experience?

2.2 If space consciousness is based on one"s respective experience, then does the perception of space involve a gradual construction rather than a ready-made schema?

2.21 Does this gradual construction contain elements which have a degree of invariance, such as archetypes?

2.3 Are spatial archetypes inevitably of a universal elementary nature, or can they include personal idiosyncracies?

2.4 If space is a basic a priori category of consciousness, independent of matter, is it an instrument of knowledge?

2.5 Is an instrument of knowledge the medium of experience?

2.51 Since it can be said that experience is contained within the nature of practice, is space inextricably bound up with practice?

2.52 Architecturally, if space is the medium for the materialization of theory, is a space the materialization of the architectural concept?

2.6 Is the materialization of architecture necessarily material?

2.61 Is the de-materialization of architecture necessarily immaterial?

2.7 Is the experience of space the experience of the materialization of the concept of space ? Or of any concept?

2.71 Can a geometrical spatial concept be replaced by a concept based on man"s experience of space?

2.72 Does the experience of space determine the space of experience ?

2.73 If such a question is said to be absurd, does (architectural) space exist independently of the experiencing body?

2.8 If space is neither an external object nor an internal experience (made of impressions, sensations and feelings), are man and space inseparable?

2.81 Are objective social space and subjective inner space then inextricably bound together?

2.9 Is space thus one of the structures which expresses our "being" in the world?

3.0 Is there a language of space (a space-language)?

3.I Do all spaces in society taken together constitute a language?

3.II Is a selection from this totality a set of spaces (which, of course, can be called a space of spaces)?

3.12 If space (singular, indefinite) is collective and permanent, are spaces (plural, definite) individual and transformable?

3.2 If a definite space is a thing which can be referred to, can it become a symbol (a form which will signify)?

3.21 If a definite space can become a sign or symbol, can it signify a thought or a concept?

3.3 (For linguists only.) If space is just a thing: a) does it determine thought and language; b) together with thought, is it determined by language; c) together with language, is it determined by thought?

3.31 (For you and me.) Does a<->b<->c<->a?

3.4 If a space is a representation of an idea or a thought which is signified, does a space achieve its meaning through its relation to all the other spaces in a context, or through all the spaces for which this space has become metaphorical?

3.41 If there are different modes and uses of language, can space thus be classified into scientific, mythical, technological, logicomathematical, fictive, poetic, rhetorical, critical spaces?

3.42 Does the explicit classification of the various meanings, modes and uses of space destroy the experience of that space ?

3.421 Can a space (stylistic form) be separated from the space that is a dimension of the meaning embodied in its architecture?

3.5 In any case, does the concept of space note and denote all possible spaces, both real and virtual?

3.51 If the understanding of all possible spaces includes "social" and "mental" space as well as "physical" space without any distinction, is the distinction between living, perceiving and conceiving space a necessary condition of that understanding?

4.0 Is space the product of historical time?

4.I Does the Hegelian end of history mean the end of space as a product of history?

4.2 On the other hand, if history does not end, and historical time is the Marxist time of revolution, does space lose its primary role?

4.3 If space is neither a social product (an end result) nor a pure category (a starting point) is it an in-between (an intermediary)?

4.4 If space is an in-between, is it a political instrument in the hands of the state, a mouid as well as a reflection of society?

4.5 If space is a three-dimensional mouid that reflects the means of production, does it ensure the survival of the state ?

4.6 If three-dimensional space does not ensure the survival of the state, is space the means of reproduction of the mode of production?

4.61 If space is not simply the place where objects are produced and exchanged, has it become the very object of production ?

4.62 If the truth of political economy can pervade the truth of revolution, can the concept of production pervade the concept of space ?

4.7 Does the truth of revolution lie in the permanent expression of subjectivity?

(Bernhard Tschumi)

the 'post-it' effect

Sunday 26 September 2010

ornaMent on a timeline

Friday 10 September 2010

A perfect match

Wednesday 8 September 2010

BOXEL_Detmold students like beer! :D

The New Structuralism

Tuesday 7 September 2010

questions of space


arabesques at the Alhambra (12th - 13th century)