5 pages essay

'suo2al sap spaLd 'puanna '7'~'1

0'5

Chapter Four Typology versus Morphology

The Art of Building is born out of a pre-existinlg germ; nothing 7uhatsoever cornes out of n o t h i ~ g - the t!ype is a sort ofkernal around and in accordnilcc to which uariatio~zs the object is susceptible aye ordered.

Our discussion of partis has concentrated on the formal analysis of buildings, deliberately avoiding historical or stylistic analysis. The study of forms and their manipulation is some- times called morphology. While morphology suggests an examination of formal relationships in their purest, most abstract sense, it is difficult to disassociate forms from traditions of use. For example, a small building surrounded by a parking lot and flanked by golden arches is dif- ficult to understand as pure form and color. It is immediately understood as an example of a class or type of building, a McDonald's Restau- rant. It is then possible to make subtle judgements about the development and refine- ment of the example at hand. We may speak of a 'nice McDonald's' or an 'awful McDonald's' without holding either to the standards of excel- lence one would use to judge a palace or a cathedral.

Building types have been defined in purely formal terms. Raphael Moneo states that "type ...

can most siiizply be defined as a concept uihich de- scribes a group of objects characterized by the same formal structure. It is neither a spatial diagram nor the avernge of a serial l i s t It is fundamentally based on the possibility of grouping objects by certain in- herent structural similarities." (Raphael Moneo, "On Typology," Oppositions 13, Summer, 1978). Yet unlike morphological manipulations of form and structure, building types arose in re- sponse to specific vernacular, programmatic or ritualistic uses. They therefore carry with them a memory of those original meanings. Archi- tects can make use of typology to tap our collective cultural understanding of traditional built form and to connect the meaning of their buildings to that tradition.

Antoine-Chrysostome Quattremere d e Quincy, (1755-1849), formalized the theory of typology in his Dictionaire d'architecture eizcyclopidie mithodique, Paris, 1788-1825, vol. 111, part 2. Here he proposed that there was a col- lective patrimony of architectural forms which

4.1 Thc Colosseum, Rorire, Italy, A.D. 75-80.

4.2 The Colosseu~n, section.

4.3 Thomas Jefferson, University of Virginia, Charlottesvillc, Virginia, 181 7-26

I D E A S O F O R D E R

derived from the Greeks and which was pro- mulgated and diffused by the Romans. These normative building 'types' were distinguished from specific 'models.' A building 'type' pro- vides a formal armature for the selection and configuration of constituent elements in a build- ing, but it also provides latitude for variation. A 'model', on the other hand, serves as a direct source to be imitated, down to the detail. While Quattremhre himself subscribed to a rigid clas- sicism, his theory of typology did not exclude i~lve~ltion on the part of the architect. Rather it used the concept of building type to define a .. . . frnmo\\,ork in wliicl: orcl~itrr tural i n \ e n ~ i o n colrld taLz pla:~, u i t a:; the struct.xre of a 5011-

. - net l i ~ n i t ~ the form of the. poeiii b ~ ~ t not its '. . ' . " .. collte,lt.

The utility of 'type' as an architectural con- struct hinges on how broadly or how narrowly 'type' is defined. If it is too broad, all buildings can be grouped under the aegis of a single type. This all-embracing type might be something like 'built structures.' If it is too narrow, then every building exemplifies and defines a type particular to itself. An example of a too-narrow type might be something like 'yellow clapboard three-bedroom houses with garage doors em- bellished with eagles.' Quattremiire solved the problem by concentrating on only building types which arose historically within the

. , ic.ct~-Ruman tradition. Yet e\.er\. iulil~rc h a i

I placed nc.w ~ietnar~ds on tS,, built en\,ironrnent

L a n d new bld~lilinl: type5 Iic~\,e e~nergetl. Wc

h, . .tr . !. ., ;tlrc\.~d!. diicussr~l runmplc!s c > f r n a ! ~ v such , - i building h y s , crlclr as the p.ilwzo, the villa,

. . . . . ' . . . ' ' 4 and the longitudinal church. Fvrn newer build-

in): types have been spollsored by o u r . . mec:hanizrd societv, surh '1s the train station,

T Y P O L O G Y VS. M O R P H O L O G Y 59

the airport, the gas station, the factory, etc. The definition of each building type must be suffi- ciently broad as to allow great variety to be absorbed within the type, but not so broad as to encompass buildings with significant differ- ences among them.

Specific buildings and historical types can be used as precedents for contemporary building. Architects can use and manipulate reference to previous works and the normative types they exemplify to create even further nuances of meaning in their buildings. Variations made with reference to an established building type are meaningful because the original significance of the type is already known, imbedded in our culture.

Sometimes when building types are adopted, the function of the original type is con- served. Modem sports stadia are not essentially different in form and function from their Ro- man predecessors, although their constructional and mechanical systems differ greatly. A type may also be adopted for associative or merely decorative purposes, and reference to the origi- nal function is all but lost. Few cults worship Olympian gods in the modem world, yet ex- amples of Graeco-Roman temple porches can be found in almost every town. The building type of temple, or at least the temple portico, has been used by banks, post offices, churches, schools, etc., and assigned a new function, while its ancient significance of stability, power, authority, and dignity have been appropriated by the institutions which aspire to the stature and timelessness of the original. Sometimes the inappropriate use of a type can be amusing, as in the case of the temple-like Grain elevator, Gas station and Outhouse.

4.4 K . F. Sclzinkel, Neumache, Berlin, Germany, 1817.

4.5 Leo von Klenze, Glyptotek, Munich, Germany, 1816- 31.

4.6 Leo von Klenze, Propylaea, Munich, Germany, 1846-60.

I D E A S O F O R D E R

4.7 Left: Doric Outhouse, Ellicott City, Maryland.

4.8 Riglzt: Doric Grain elevators, Texas.

4.9 Right bottom: Doric Gas Station, Dayton, Ohio.

4.10 Left: Andrew Gargus, age 8, 'House'.

Both morphology and typology provide the architect with n priovi forms which can be adapted in the design of a given building. However, while morphology deals with ab- stract, ideal geometries, typology deals with form laden with cultural, functional and histori- cal associations. A comparison between two twentieth-century houses may prove instruc- tive. Frank Lloyd Wright's (1869-1959) Robie House and Le Corbusier's Villa Savoye both pushed the conventional form of 'house' to the limit in the early part of the twentieth century. Using the new constructional technology of re-

T Y P O L O G Y VS. M O R P H O L O G Y

inforced concrete, both architects sought to rein- vent the house. They eschewed traditional spatial and ornamental schemes in an effort to find a form more appropriate to the specific time (Le Corbusier) or place (Wright) in which they were building. Both architects challenged conventional notions of interior space. Depart- ing from a conception of the house as a series of discrete rooms, both developed open interiors comprised of interlocking, interdependent spaces and extended their investigation of spa- tial openness to include a blurring of the limits between interior and exterior space. However,

they proceeded along very different paths and therefore achieved very different architectural expression for their ideas. Le Corbusier ap- proached the task of reinventing the house from a morphological standpoint while Wright made use of house typology to recompose the con- stituent elements of the traditional house.

The Villa Savoye is a pristine white box, its envelope fully explicable through geometric de- scription. The white stucco surface of the building succeeds in neutralizing color and ma- terial and removing any hint of ornament. The development of proportions is self-contained in

4.11 Frank Lloyd Wright, Robie House, Chicago, Illinois, 1909, plan.

4.13 Lr Corbusier, Villa Savoye, Poissy, France, 1928-31, piano nobile plan.

4.14 Villa Sauo?ye, roof terrace.

4.15 Villa Savoye, section.

I D E A S O F O R D E R

the Villa Savoye. Legible scale references to the human body is eradicated: no material joints, windows or doors are visible to provide clues to the relationship between the building and the human body. Ribbon windows, which wrap the building, render the building box even more abstract. Rather than adding elements like porches or terraces, the elemental box of the Villa Savoye is elaborated through subtraction. Terraces are scooped out of the mass of the box and figural elements are allowed to emerge only within its taut frame. It is a morphological exercise in the manipulation of pure form.

Wright, on the other hand, seems to cel- ebrate the very elements that Le Corbusier seeks to neutralize. His exaggerated emphasis on roof, window, chimney and natural materials seems to have been extracted from the standard image of houses drawn by children. Wright first identifies the elements which define the type. He then pulls them out of context and reassembles them as a collection of horizontal and vertical planes, this time in a new dynamic relationship with each other and the ground plane. Yet the meaning of the house remains strongly rooted to these defining elements drawn from tradition. The chimney pins to- gether the two shifted bars of the plan and acts as an axis mundi, establishing the connection between ground and sky, uniting the physical center of the house with its center of meaning, the hearth. The roofs sweep out beyond the built enclosure to embrace the landscape, mak- ing specific the connection of building to site. The horizontal extension of the Midwestern prairie was more an inspiration for Wright's broad terraces and roof overhangs than an ab- stract interest in shifting planes. Le Corbusier,

T Y P O L O G Y VS. M O R P H O L O G Y

4.16 Villa Savoye, exterior view.

4.1 7 Villa Savoye, roof terrace.

6 4 I D E A S O F O R D E R

4.18 Lewis C ~ l b i f t , Kiirf's Cross ~ t n & i z , London, England, 1850-2, street fncade.

on the other hand, seeks to make a new kind of dwelling which is 'typical,' repeatable, and mass-producible: a "machine for living."

The emergence of new building types has long posed a challenge to architects grounded in a traditional practice of architecture. Some recent eighteenth century building types, like the museum, adopted the classical language of the Greeks and Romans in response the charac- ter of the antiquities held within. Other new building types, like the train station, proved more challenging as architects tried to reconcile the classical idea of a gatewav to the town with . ,

f-' --.-wp : . . .. . the mechanical scale .ind vc*locit!. of the locomo- 4.1') ' tive. St. l'ancras Station, London, by Sir George t i ~ . l y ; Cr,,z+ , , Gilbvrt k o t t (181 1-73, subscribrs tu the belitsf .S..!I,.III, tr,1111 41, . I . $ that .In elegant, urbane iac~i'ie must intermcdi-

' ate, betwee11 the clamor oi train shcsci, and . ' , the ciw. Kings Cross Station, by t . r ~ v i , Cubitt

... . ,<, ,. . . .+ . . , . (b.170'11 on the oth<.r Ii'lnd, dirc(:tl\, r,xpresses

, . the tn~ineered f~aturch of the train shed on its front facade, juxtaposing an '~rchitechre b.i>~>d on the colos,.il scale of thr Ic~comotivr lu the more dcniun!, human scolr 11i rhe s u r r o u ~ d i n r

4.20 Sir Geor,ye Gilbert Scott, SL Pnncuas Station, London, 1865-74.

- buildings. Both strategies for the design of new building types posed problems: the appropria- tion of historical building types for new functions communicated confused messages about the meaning of the building; the reliance on engineering and radically new forms ran the risk of providing no intelligible meanings at all.

In his AEG Turbine Works, 1909, Peter Behrens (1868-1940) forged a solution to the new building type of factory by layering refer- ences to traditional and historical building types over a functionally derived solution to the prob- lem. The engineering task Behrens confronted was enormous. The AEG factory was the larg-

T Y P O L O G Y VS. M O R P H O L O G Y 65

est steel-frame building in Berlin at the time. Moreover, the construction of steel turbines re- quired a clear s p a n of 50 feet a n d the accommodation of two gantries, each capable of lifting 50 tons and travelling at a speed of over six feet per second while fully loaded. The gambrel roof form derives its shape from the structural system of hinged trusses which were able to slightly deform in response to climate channes and the different loads placed on the structure during different phases of assembly. At the same time, the form is evocative of barns, providing a familiar and amiable association for factory workers, many of whom were displaced from agricultural communities. Additionally, the massing and colurnniation of the structure recalls that of a Greek temple, further associat- ing the drudgery of factory work with heroic ritual and the grandeur of classical civilization. The ornament of the building does not derive from ancient or vernacular sources, but is rather a direct expression of construction. Hence, Behrens solves a difficult, modern construc- tional task with the rigor of engineering, while enhancing the meaning of form through typo- logical associations to the agrarian life of pre-industrial Germany and to the heroic stat- ure of the factory.

4.21 P e t i ? ~ Belzrens.

4.22 AEG Turbine Works, steel colun7it, hinged conizectioil.