Sorted by date | |||
page157from Nordic Architects Writes
The universal inheritance of classicism
transferred to steel and glass makes its first consistent appearance in the
1940s, in Ludwig Mies van der Rohe’s Illinois Institute of Technology in
Chicago. Having said that he could not in any way predict the developments to
be expected as regards the technical laboratories, Mies van der Rohe concluded
that the only real function of a building is that is can be used flexibly.
The
demand for internal flexibility brings with it many technical and architectural
problems. The external flexibility of a building, on the one hand, faces us with
a totally different kind of problem. Here, the character of the whole building’s
constructive being, its “structure”, is involved. Is it definitive right from
the beginning or does it permit additions, and in what way? To throw light on
this question, it is a good idea to examine certain properties of various kinds
of structural forms in general.
A
composition is a closed, complete entity. If we add something, its internal
equilibrium suffers and the tension between the various parts is lost. In
architecture the use of pure composition presupposes an exactly specified building
commission with regard to both environment and content. A composition does not
have the potential essential for expansion.
Nowadays
composition is the most generally used and an often fully justified planning
principle. Le Corbusier’s Chandigarh and Oscar Niemeyer’s Brasilia are closed,
complete compositions. Both are also permanent national administrative centres.
In
a system where one powerfully expressive element dominates the whole, we can
make small-scale changes within the sphere of influence of this overwhelming
dominant, without harming the total effect. A varying, changing pattern of
buildings, small in form, sit very comfortably in the shadow of a huge
cathedral or factory. The curving walls of Alvar Aalto’s Finnish Section at the
1939 New York World Fair form a powerful theme which only too gladly permits
the arrangement of exhibits in varying ways on the lower level. Aalto has in
other works, too, proved himself a brilliant exponent of the dominant, and is
able to use quite freely forms which may even seem startling in the “shadow” of
the main theme developed.
A
structural scheme used a lot in recent years is “similar form”. The elements,
which must be similar in form, can change position within the framework of a
particular law, for example a rectangular grid system. The system is very
flexible, for the most vital thing is not the location of the elements but the
internal cohesion of the system which decides how they shall be located.
If
we intend to start using a similar form, that is, group form, as the point of
departure for a flexible system, it is important that units in the system can
be ready-planned in size and shape. It is, of course, possible to make internal
changes to the basic units if they have internal reserves. We can,
nevertheless, consider it a general rule that similar form is suitable as the
basis for a flexible system only in cases where we can be sure of the
permanence of the form of the basic unit. Changing needs, the development of
technology and new constructions may easily mean that the guiding thread of
similar form will become the straitjacket of planning.
The
principle of similar form has been used a lot in the group planning of private
houses and in the planning of housing in general, where the house or flat
|
|||
|
|||
|