Structure As Architecture

A Source Book for Architects and Structural Engineers

Andrew Charleson

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2014
• ISBN:
  9781317660842
• Edition: 2
• Topic: Arquitectura
• Subtopic: Diseño arquitectónico

Structure as Architecture presents a comprehensive analysis of the indispensable role of structure in architecture. An exploration, as well as a celebration, of structure, the book draws on a series of design studies and case study examples to illustrate how structure can be employed to realize a wide range of concepts in contemporary architecture. By examining design principles that relate to both architecture and structural engineering, Andrew Charleson provides new insights into the relationship between both the technical and aesthetic aspects of architecture.

Now in its second edition, the text has been extensively revised and updated throughout. Features include:

• 
  
  

• A brand new chapter on hidden structure, adding to the material on exposed structures

• 
  
  

• Two new chapters on using structure to realise common architectural concepts through a combination of precedents and creative design

• 
  
  

• Over 50 new case studies from across the globe

• 
  
  

• Easy-to-understand diagrams and a highly visual design to aid understanding and accessibility

More than two hundred case studies of contemporary buildings from countries such as the UK, the US, France, Germany, Spain, Hong Kong, Australia and Japan illustrate how a thorough integration of structure adds layers of richness and enhances the realisation of architectural design concepts.

one Introduction

DOI: 10.4324/9781315766577-1

Structure is columnar, planar, or a combination of these which a designer can intentionally use to reinforce or realize ideas. In this context, columns, walls and beams can be thought of in terms of concepts of frequency, pattern, simplicity, regularity, randomness and complexity. As such, structure can be used to define space, create units, articulate circulation, suggest movement, or develop composition and modulations. In this way, it becomes inextricably linked to the very elements which create architecture, its quality and excitement.¹

The potential for structure to enrich architecture

Clark and Pause's statement above begins by describing the architectural qualities of structure and then suggests how structure might enrich architecture. But is such a positive attitude to structure realistic? What was the last building you experienced where structure either created the architecture or contributed a sense of excitement to it? Where do we find examples of structure playing such active architectural roles as defining space and modulating surfaces? And, how else might structure contribute architecturally? These questions set the agenda of this book, informing its focus and scope, and initiating an exploration of architecturally enriching structure.

Some readers may consider Clark and Pause's attitude towards structure as a fully integrated architectural element rather unrealistic. So often our day-to-day experience of structure can be described as unmemorable. In much of our built environment structure is either concealed or nondescript. Opaque façade panels or mirror-glass panes hide structure located on a building's perimeter. Inside a building, suspended ceilings conceal beams, and vertical structural elements like columns, cross-bracing and structural walls are either enveloped within partition walls or else visually indistinguishable from them. Even if structure is exposed, often its repetitive and predictable configuration in plan and elevation, as well as its unrefined member and connection detailing, can rarely be described as ‘creating architecture, its quality and excitement’.

Fortunately, in addition to these ubiquitous and bland structural encounters, sufficient precedents of positive structural contributions to architecture exist. They point towards bolder and more exciting possibilities and have convinced critical observers, like Clark and Pause and others, of the potential for structure to engage with architecture more actively and creatively. Peter Collins, the architectural theorist, shares similarly constructive convictions regarding structure's architectural roles. In concluding a discussion on eighteenth-and nineteenth-century Rationalism, he suggests:

However much the emphasis on structural expression may have been exaggerated in the past by a craving for ostentation, or reduced by the competing emphases on spatial effects, sculptural effects and new planning requirements, it is still potentially one of the most vigorous ideals of the modern age, and it would not be an exaggeration to say that it is the notion which offers the most fruitful prospects for the future development of modern architectural thought.²

Like the authors quoted above, I will also be looking beyond the physical necessity of structure towards its functional and aesthetic possibilities. Just because structure is essential for built architecture, providing it with necessary stability, strength and stiffness, it does not have to be architecturally mute – unless of course its designers make that choice. This book provides many examples of structures ‘speaking’ and even ‘shouting’ in their architectural contexts. In these cases their designers, usually both architects and structural engineers, have made structural decisions that do not detract from but rather strengthen their architectural ideas and requirements. Structure no longer remains silent; it is a voice to be heard.

Where structure is given a voice, as illustrated in the following chapters, it contributes architectural meaning and richness, sometimes becoming the most significant of all architectural elements in a building. Endless opportunities exist for structure to enhance architecture and thereby enrich our architectural experiences. As designers we can allow structure to speak and to be heard; or, to change the metaphor, we can design structure so that its viewers not only see and experience it, but, due to its well-considered architectural qualities, are enticed into ‘reading’ it.

Experiencing structure: reading and listening

Architects analyse structure by experiencing and reading it. In their succinct summary, Clarke and Pause suggest the ways structure might be read or analysed architecturally. In some architectural reviews of buildings, particularly where structure is exposed, structural readings are made. Although reviewers usually make little more than a passing comment, analyzing structure in this way remains valid. The following two examples illustrate architecturally focused structural readings.

Fontein offers a reading of the interior structure of her School of Architecture building. She concentrates upon a single column, differentiated from others by virtue of its circular cross-section and increased height. She asserts that this column ‘plays a pivotal role in the building’ by marking and sheltering the intersection of two internal streets. It also connects that street junction to the school's main collective space whose activities it both supports and obstructs. Ultimately it ‘establishes structure as a primary ordering device in the architecture of the School … and has the palpable effect of anchoring the life of the School’.³

LaVine tends towards less personified readings as he discerns significant architectural roles played by structure in his four house case-studies.⁴ He notes how a ridge beam can symbolize the social centre of a house, and how a superstructure orders space by virtue of its regularity and hierarchy. In other examples, columns ‘signify human activities of special significance’ or ‘portray a mechanical idealism’. He reads walls as separating occupants from the outside world, and frames as ordering interior space. As he reads structure, each structural element is laden with meaning and makes an important architectural contribution.

For many, the reading of architecture is as natural as breathing. For example, Stan Allen comments on the Tama Art Library, designed by Toyo Ito, that

it is impossible not to read the arches as a sign, a reference to a recognizable form in the repertory of classical architecture. They are that, but they are many other things, too … Ito produces work that is richer and more nuanced precisely for its capacity to hold these multiple readings in a delicate equilibrium.⁵

All architectural readings incorporate a degree of subjectivity. To a certain extent, each reading is personal. It reflects the reader's background and architectural knowledge. The quality of their experience of a building is another factor which depends on the duration of the visit and the depth of reflection during and after it.

The views of two or more readers are unlikely to be identical. Each person brings their own perspective. For example, an architect and structural engineer will read a structure quite differently. Each approaches it with his or her professional interest and concerns to the forefront. Whereas an architect might focus on how structure impacts the surrounding space, an engineer will most likely perceive structure as facilitating a load-path.

The discussion above considers structure as a passive architectural element – like a book waiting to be read. However, could it be that structure plays a more active role and actually speaks to us? So as well as reading structure must we also listen to it? According to Alain de Botton, we should.⁶ To ease us into this possibly surprising idea, in his chapter ‘Talking buildings’ he reminds us how sculpture generates in us a thoughtful and responsive attitude towards objects. ‘The great abstract sculptures’, he says, ‘have succeeded in speaking to us, in their particular dissociated language, of the important themes of our lives.’⁷ The argument continues that if objects in a gallery can speak, and even pencil squiggles on paper can convey emotions, such as peacefulness and confusion, how much more can buildings communicate? Buildings are therefore pregnant with expressive potential, as are their elements, including structure, and de Botton acknowledges this by suggesting that ‘we can be moved by a column that meets a roof with grace’.⁸

So, my architectural analyses of structure inevitably reflect who I am, how I read and listen to structure, and this is affected by my structural engineering background, my experience of teaching in a school of architecture, and my intense interest in how structure can enrich architecture.

Before commencing to read building structures and explore their architectural contributions, the next section clarifies the meaning of the book's central focus – exposed structure.

Structure and its degree of exposure

At this stage it is necessary to come to a common understanding of what constitutes structure, and to comment on aspects of its exposure. For the purpose of sensibly limiting the scope of the book, structure is taken to mean any structural element that bears load other than that arising from its self-weight or self-induced loads, like those from wind or snow.

This definition therefore excludes consideration of purely decorative elements without wanting to deny any significant architectural roles they might play. Imitative structure and authentic structural members that are not load-bearing, even though they might clearly express their materiality and display standard structural dimensions, lie outside the scope of this book. Examples of the latter category include exposed frameworks whose sole purpose is to contribute to a building's composition, perhaps visually linking together disparate forms.

Although this discussion omits structure whose rationale is solely aesthetic, structural elements and details with minimal structural effectiveness are included. Structural details like the attached shafts on Gothic piers fall into this category. Even though their architectural contribution may be seen as more aesthetic than structural, by increasing the cross-sectional area and depth of a pier, the details slightly increase its compression strength and overall stability.

Having established a working definition of structure, an explanation for the focus upon exposed structure is warranted and quite simple. Where structure is not exposed but concealed, perhaps hidden within wall cavities, screened by suspended ceilings or undifferentiated from partition walling, it possesses very limited opportunities to enrich architecture. In these situations, where the architecture must rely on other devices and elements for its qualities, any skeletal, wall-like or expressive structural qualities remain latent – structure cannot be read.

Architects take an unlimited number of approaches towards structural exposure. In its fully exposed state, the raw materiality of structure is visible, be it masonry, concrete, steel or natural timber. Even if coatings or claddings partially or fully veil structural members and their materiality, structural form can still play significant and expressive architectural roles. Steel structural members may be wrapped with corrosion and fire protection coatings and even cladding panels, but their structural forms can still enliven façades and interior spaces. Hence, in this book, exposed structure includes any visible structural forms, irrespective of whether their materiality is concealed.

This apparent preoccupation with exposed structure does not mean it is a requirement of exemplary architecture. Exposed structure has rightly been deemed inappropriate on many past occasions given the design ideals current at those times. Cowan gives examples of periods in architectural history, such as the Renaissance and the Baroque, when exposed structure would have detracted from the forms and embellished surfaces that designers were attempting to achieve.⁹ Absence of exposed structure in contemporary buildings may also be completely defensible. For example, exterior exposed structure might compromise architectural forms exhibiting sculptural qualities and curved surfaces, and interior exposed structure would impact negatively upon an architectural goal of achieving spaces defined by pure planar surfaces.

Decisions regarding the extent to which structure should be exposed in an architectural design, if at all, are best made after revisiting the design concept and asking whether exposed structure will enhance its realization. Then, irrespective of the answer, design ideas will be communicated with greater clarity. Structural exposure should therefore be limited to buildings where structure integrates with and clearly strengthens the expression of architectural ideas.

Book outline

The following chapter analyses the structures of two contrasting buildings to set the scene for more focused and detailed explorations of many other buildings in the remainder of the book. Both buildings exemplify structure contributing architecturally in the context of specific architectural programmes. Exposed structure plays significant architectural roles on the exterior of the first building, while in the second, structure creates special interior spaces. Due to the inevitably limited range of architectural contributions illustrated by the two case-studies, the following chapters explore and illustrate exposed structure enriching specific areas of architecture in more detail.

Beginning with Chapter 3, chapter sequencing up to and including Chapter 9 reflects a typical progression of experiences when visiting a building. First, imagine approaching a building from a distance. When only architectural massing may be discerned, the diversity of relationship between architectural and structural form is explored. Then, in Chapter 4, drawing closer to the building, one observes structural elements enlivening façades in various ways, including forming surface patterns and textures, providing visual clues of entry, connecting...