Type Vs Typology - Part 1

Summary

In a captivating symposium hosted by the AA School of Architecture, the intricate dance between type and typology in architectural theory was unravelled by notable speakers. They explored the historical emergence of these concepts grounded in 18th-century shifts from imitation to abstraction, leading to new forms of knowledge and designs in architecture. This event delved into the challenges and debates surrounding typological reasoning, addressing its implications for modern architecture and urban planning. Through intense discussion, the speakers sought to clarify, question, and potentially redefine the role of type in the ever-evolving architectural discourse.

Highlights

• Sam Jacobe emphasized the contradiction inherent in the notion of 'type versus typology', sparking a debate about their true compatibility 🤔.
• The concept of typology was traced back to 18th-century shifts in architecture, signifying a move from imitation to abstraction in design methodologies 📜.
• Through historical discourse, the speakers articulated the evolution of architectural thought, linking past ideologies with modern practices in urban planning and design 🚀.
• Larry B. and other panelists reinforced the importance of understanding type through diagrams, which serve to conceptualize and analyze architectural forms within their historical context 📊.
• The event concluded with a lively discussion on the current relevance of type and typology, urging architects to adapt these historical concepts to modern societal needs for innovation and progress 🏙️.

Key Takeaways

• The symposium explored the enduring debate between type and typology in architecture, highlighting how these concepts emerged from shifts in thinking during the 18th century 🎭.
• Speakers such as Sam Jacobe and Larry B. examined how historical concepts continue to influence modern architectural practices, urging for a re-evaluation of established norms 🏛️.
• The event emphasized the role of diagrams in bridging historical theories with contemporary architectural needs, revealing new possibilities in design and urban planning 📐.
• The notions of type and typology were discussed as essential frameworks through which broader cultural, social, and political architectural issues can be addressed 🌐.
• Despite being rooted in historical tradition, the symposium suggested that these architectural concepts should evolve with contemporary societal changes to remain relevant, signaling a call to action for architects to innovate 🔄.

Overview

In an intellectually stimulating symposium hosted by the AA School of Architecture, the enigmatic relationship between type and typology in architectural design was keenly examined. Prominent figures such as Sam Jacobe presented compelling insights into the historical origins and transformative impact of these concepts, tracing their lineage back to an 18th-century pivot away from imitation towards abstraction and objectivity.

The symposium explored how these historical ideas continue to shape contemporary architectural and urban planning practices. Speakers emphasized the importance of revisiting established norms through a modern lens, and the potential of diagrams as a vital tool in rethinking and redefining architectural principles. This shift in understanding type and typology was presented as a necessary evolution to address future design challenges and opportunities.

Concluding the event, the discussions on current architectural practices underscored the necessity for these traditional frameworks to evolve with today's rapidly changing societal context. By advocating for an innovative approach to these historical concepts, the symposium participants posited that architects have the responsibility to lead in refining and progressing architectural discourse, catering to the evolving needs of society.

Chapters

• 00:00 - 05:00: Introduction and Purpose of the Symposium The chapter titled 'Introduction and Purpose of the Symposium' starts with Sam Jacobe, the director of the projective cities program, addressing the audience with a good morning and expressing his gratitude towards the speakers who have shown up or have promised to attend. The initial remarks set the stage for the symposium, highlighting its significance and the importance of participation from all invitees. The opening conveys the formal beginning and the purpose of the gathering.
• 05:00 - 15:00: Discussion on Type vs Typology The chapter titled 'Discussion on Type vs Typology' begins with an acknowledgment of the public program that facilitated the event. It is highlighted as possibly the inaugural event in a potential annual series aimed at discussing various problems, questions, and issues related to the objectives of the projective cities program. The narrative hints at an exploration of the purpose and motivations behind these events, aiming to provide a platform for engaging discussions on the pertinent topics within the broader context of the program.
• 15:00 - 30:00: Historical Context of Typology and Architecture The chapter explores the historical context of typology and architecture, reflecting on a symposium that connects to years of teaching experience. It traces back to teachings from six to seven years ago, initiated by the author's colleague, Christopher Lee, at a diploma course. The discussion seems to aim at linking past educational experiences to current architectural practices and typological studies.
• 30:00 - 45:00: The Role of Diagrams in Architectural Theory The chapter titled 'The Role of Diagrams in Architectural Theory' delves into the significance of typology in architectural discourse. The speaker reflects on the inherent contradiction between 'type' and 'typology,' suggesting there is no definitive distinction between the two. This reflection forms the basis of an ongoing discussion aimed at resolving and clarifying this apparent contradiction within the context of architectural theory.
• 45:00 - 60:00: Formal Composition and Functional Diagrams The chapter discusses the shift in the 18th century from imitation and truth to nature to abstraction and objectivity. This transition gave rise to new forms of knowledge and practices in various fields.
• 60:00 - 75:00: Discussion on the Seattle Public Library and Modern Architecture This chapter delves into the intersection of typology and topology within architectural design, particularly focusing on the early 19th century advancements. It discusses how these concepts served as complementary frameworks that contributed to the consolidation of architecture both as a modern form of knowledge and as an instrumental tool in design. It highlights the critical role these disciplinary frames play in shaping the architectural landscape, with implications for modern architecture such as seen in projects like the Seattle Public Library.
• 75:00 - 90:00: Q&A Session The chapter titled 'Q&A Session' centers around a discussion forum or event aimed at addressing broader societal, political, and cultural issues. The underlying purpose of the event is to spark fresh interest in the topics discussed and to clarify the relevance of these issues in contemporary discourse. The conversation is expected to diverge significantly from past discussions, indicating a shift or evolution in the dialogue regarding these matters.
• 90:00 - 95:00: Wrap Up and Concluding Remarks The chapter discusses how traditional approaches from the 1960s to 1980s have been re-evaluated in light of recent intellectual debates, particularly the new rationalist debate. It suggests that the discourse has shifted from viewing typology as a static and normative practice, to questioning these limitations and exploring new possibilities through a dynamic understanding of diagrams and typology. This signifies a challenge to historiographical limitations, highlighting a more fluid and updated perspective.

Type Vs Typology - Part 1 Transcription

• 00:00 - 00:30 I think um we probably should start um good morning everyone um I'm Sam jacobe I'm the director of the projective cities program here and uh first of all I would uh really like to welcome um all the speakers and of course um thank them for actually hav showed up or still having promis to show up uh to show up
• 00:30 - 01:00 um and of course I also have to thank the a publ program that has made this event possible uh this is hopefully one of the first events and a more um annual series of events that we will hold as part of the program to discuss uh problems questions issues that relate to what we're doing um or what we're doing within the projective cities program um perhaps uh um why why are we doing a a
• 01:00 - 01:30 Symposium on typ topology that really relates back to oops I shouldn't have done that right ah there we go um that really um relates back to um sort of a long-term U teaching that goes back sort of six seven years um and um was started with um my my teaching colleague um Christopher Lee and diplom nor school
• 01:30 - 02:00 here and which led us later on to to start this program and um one of the questions we were um really interested in um was the question of T typology and of course as um we I called this type versus typology and of course um You probably might have already uh noticed that's kind of a contradiction in itself right I mean there is no such thing I believe the type versus typology but of course it's something we hopefully will discuss and clarify
• 02:00 - 02:30 today's well um I think what what was already written also in the synopsis um that you've seen is um one of the things of course uh that contextualizes this discourse is the 18th century when there was a deliberate turn away from ideas of imitation or truth to Nature towards concepts of abstraction and of course objectivity and out of this kind of question emerged a new kind of knowledge and and also uh practices in different
• 02:30 - 03:00 disciplines which then in architecture resulted in the early 19th century and theories of type but also design methods based on typology which were complimentary Concepts through which architecture as both the modern form of knowledge and a knowledge of form um was to be Consolidated in terms of architecture and in instrumentality therefore type and topology can be considered unique as disciplinary frames through which
• 03:00 - 03:30 broader social political cultural formal problems Etc can be posed right so that's kind of the basis or or the the background um for this event today and of of course we hope that the the discussions that will take place today will kind of um elicit new interest in in in the topic but also clarify um what it actually still means for for today's discourse and I believe that this new discourse um differ substantially from
• 03:30 - 04:00 previous ones and especially the ones um which were really defined in the 1960s to 1980s and the new rationalist debate by entering the discussion through questions of the diagram and um where in the recent past typology has been primarily understood in relation to a normative and and static practice and at best considered as a renewal through updated Norms I think the new discourse challenges these kind of historiographical limitations
• 04:00 - 04:30 and to rethink the agency of type and topology or to reconceptualize how to relate back to practice and theories and a knowledge of Architecture is um is sort of the the aim or the hope of of today's Z man and I will um maybe just very briefly for those who haven't uh seen the list um it be in three sessions there's a morning session um uh with three presentations um I would start off with the first one then one by Larry B and uh uh and H and Pie followed by a
• 04:30 - 05:00 short panel discussion then we have a lunch break and then session two um which will be started by Philip statman followed by Tasha finny and Christopher Lee and then again we will have a panel discussion and then uh because of the um Regular uh Friday lecture series by my cousins we'll have to break um at at 5:00 and then we'll restart for final session at 6:30 um where Raa mon will speak and then we will have a a final
• 05:00 - 05:30 concluding Round Table discussion um we will um print out some of these so if any doubt I mean you can you can check up if you need to break in between okay so um what I really want to talk about is the difference between typo and typological reasoning or in fact try to clarify a little bit um if there are differences or complementarities between the concepts of type and topology
• 05:30 - 06:00 um when referring to type in architecture we commonly assume a discussion of building types their use and form or appropriate organization consequently typology is often defined as simply the study and classification of these building types and the morphologies in the following I will attempt to outline differences but also complementarities between type and typology and between typal and typological reasoning by by relating
• 06:00 - 06:30 them to a distinction between a history and theory of architecture and the Notions of invention disposition and style while the terms and a clarification are Central to an explanation of type and typological reasoning what is at stake is not historiographical rigor but how for example by rethinking the relationship of type to the diagram these historiographical limitations become Obsolete and new possibilities to clarify and reconceptualize reconceptualize the practice pedagogy
• 06:30 - 07:00 and disciplinary knowledge of architecture emerge since the 19th century the concept of type construed as an idea or model encourag continuous transformations of its meaning making an agreement on a definition Beyond uh beyond that of a formal taxonomy seem impossible the various interpretations propose architecture as defined by normative received forms or as rational and positive as a rational and positive
• 07:00 - 07:30 science whose progress depends on the morphological evolution of forms to perhaps Embrace these contradictions I argue that all theories concerned with type are foremost epistemological and discursive arguments by which a synthesis of the form of architecture and the city is conceptualized and diagrammatically organized through this type of reasoning form acquires multi-layer historical social cultural and symbolic Dimensions
• 07:30 - 08:00 limited by but importantly also an excess of material reality the spatial and material organization of reality in turn is the concern of typological reasoning while our understanding of type largely relies on practices and theories emerging with so-called NE rationalism in the in the 1960s when considerations of topology morphology and history were widely employed um to study Pro problems of architectural um design but also
• 08:00 - 08:30 subsequent historiographical reviews that by the mid 1980s judg this discourse as failed the use of type and architecture originated in the early 19th century historiography recognizes two Central figures the French academics antoan chrisom kiny the permanent Secretary of the AC Academia de bzar and John Nicola L Durant professor of architecture at theal Poly technique to these
• 08:30 - 09:00 an overlooked third prod protagonist the German architect godri Zer must be added but also a precursor Julian David L in order to fully appreciate how through the disciplinary questions raised by the Notions of type and the implicit problem of historicity a modern understanding of architecture was instigated and lastingly defined the three inaugural theories by katr Durant and Seer despite the different conceptions and use of type
• 09:00 - 09:30 share reasoning of form only made possible by the means of abstraction the historicist interpretations of form Advance Arguments for the autonomy of architecture and its knowledge through different form languages in a process mematic imitation is replaced by mematic conceptual and symbolic abstraction but also a diagrammatic reduction and stresses the complementarities between type and diagram Abra ction translation and idea
• 09:30 - 10:00 and model history and theory of architecture responding to Rising empiricism the French 17th and 18th century normative discourse in architecture intended to modernize the discipline and profession by establishing a rational Cannon able to consolidate existing theory and practice however employing and um employing empirical methodologies advancing scientific archaeology examining contemporary case studies and focusing on constructional problems the idea of a
• 10:00 - 10:30 classical Authority was soon undermined and and compelled a historic historicist relativism tasked to explain the relevance of classical precedence to continuing practice thus l in the Runes of the most beautiful monuments of Greece introduced in 1758 for the first time a division between the history and theory of architecture accepting an irreversible conflict between repres presentational
• 10:30 - 11:00 reason that required a rethinking of the historical framework his distinction was underpinned by the argument that a historical of the architectural artifact is characterized by its cultural and geographical context and essential to understand architecture but distinct from yet complimentary to its Theory by which he meant the principles that equally determined by cultural mure and Geographic situation Define the practice arising from the dist tension
• 11:00 - 11:30 between history and Theory architecture is simultaneously a general and specific object affected by an experienced in the past and present ever since Lial it is therefore no longer possible to argue for architectural forms of practices without considering the historicity without acknowledging the effects of history on the becoming and definition of disciplinary knowledge yet today we regularly separate history and Theory from practice in order to free problem of form from the burden of
• 11:30 - 12:00 historicity to synthesize a metaphysical General and a form specific in architecture L accepted the architectural object as historical in its origin but also part of a formal development that can be typologically compared through abstraction he speculated that architectural form belongs to a continuous development of what he considered underlying primitive original ideas which due to the persistence could be deemed a historical
• 12:00 - 12:30 with typological diagrams enabling the analysis and deployment in practice when they become identified as a historical object within a specific context this offers a conceptual and material or historical and theoretical explanation of form with L suggesting both a separation of type and typological reasoning but also a synthesis of these different forms of knowledge L's analytical strategy is explicit in
• 12:30 - 13:00 the history of the disposition and different forms that the Christians gave to the temple since the reign of Constantine the Great to our own day of 1764 When summarizing the evolution of churches in a comparative plate that just supposes the plans and sections evocative of a l taxonomy The Matrix provides the arguments adopted by all later claims to an evolution of architectural form a process of methodical uction and a comparative
• 13:00 - 13:30 diagrammatic explanation while the graphical comparison is not original L differs from his predecessors as his interest is not in size or stylistic detail or chronology but formal relations creating a progressive sequence of transformation published to demonstrate the authority of Ja J su's design of sonv over previous Church designs the building is depicted in the center of the drawing as a synthesis of three distinct topological developments by
• 13:30 - 14:00 comparing the organizational and structural diagrams of the cross-shaped plan the parallel row of freestanding columns in a basilica and the Dome and of of course the drawing goes the other way around I mean I had to rotate it um invention Kat in his winning submission for the preus in 1785 closely followed his juror L's position by claiming that the tripartite origin of architecture the cave Hut and
• 14:00 - 14:30 tent developed sequentially but in parallel within different cultures however in a substantially edited version of of this Memoir for publication in Del architecture Egyptian in 1803 he rically overturned his earlier conclusions by proposing now common but multiple Origins without any developmental con uh connection and by comparing architectural Origins no longer to a naturally formed but artificial language
• 14:30 - 15:00 this emphasized the process of intellection through socialization and culturation and defined architecture and its knowledge as a product of specific social cultural appropriation that independently developed in different societies it also implied a shift from a linear progression of typological models to an organic system of architectural types K's changing description of origin is partially explained by his appointment in 1787 7 as editor of the
• 15:00 - 15:30 first French architectural dictionary the encycloped methodic architecture this required him to integrate architecture with the system of the Fine Arts aou group uh Deni Deo had promoted it to from Charles B's beautifying Arts acknowledging the existing discourse the problem of imitation as a conventional framework to discuss artistic production and invention became instrumental to Kat's new epistemology prior to him Yan Yim wilman's modern art
• 15:30 - 16:00 history in critical art Theory became only conceivable with first his challenge of imitative principles one's creativity was not solely measured in classical terms as a skillfulness to represent nature but judged as an abstraction of Nature and second by his adoption of L's contextual reading of artworks and their taxonomic comparison on which his periodization and histographic clarification relied
• 16:00 - 16:30 nevertheless Kat faced a double challenge to firmly establish architecture as an imitative Fine Art but also to deconstruct a means of imitation and of course the problem only arises because um a fine art is is um um defined at that point in time as an art that imitates uh remaining in an art historical debate he consequently defined architectural imitation through the concepts of the idea resemblance pleasure convention and invention making the previous problem of Origins obsolete
• 16:30 - 17:00 he concluded as only in an essay on the nature the end and the means of imitation of Fine Arts of 1823 proposing imitation invention as a form of intellectual abstraction requiring the recomposition of reality in a vision of or en Vision or artifact that is social culturally historical yet conceptually ahistorical this understood the Arts as a form of typ of reasoning as the production was less a formal than a cultural representation that although
• 17:00 - 17:30 practically limited by the material means of each art was principally only constrained by the social utility developing wilman's art historical thesis Kat considered imitation not aesthetically but quote abstractly that is under a general and theoretical and not a limited and practical point of view unquote as a theory therefore that generalizes ideas non- mtic qualities those emerging from an abstract language like architecture
• 17:30 - 18:00 and rhetoric thus became exemplary to his redefinition of imitation type represented to him a paradigm pattern and absolute standard and signified the capacity to name and define the otherwise unknown in the world of appearances this knowledge soat is achieved by an imitative resemblance as a translation of an idea into an abstract and engaging artifact it quote compels us to see one object in another unquote and is always necessarily partial but presents a general
• 18:00 - 18:30 fictitious image or model that is quote produced with and by means of elements distinct from the elements of that object accomplishing a generalizing a generalization into gener uh generating types this abstractions able to overcome the platonic impossibility of imitation to obtain real knowledge through Canan purposiveness purposiveness of nature by obtaining a higher knowledge Beyond remits of appearances and
• 18:30 - 19:00 representation this incompleteness of representation for that reason becomes desirable and the possibility transpose a a typle idea into a typological model with the work of art conceptually unconstrained by form and imitative resemblance embodying what Kat calls the quote non-imitative character and simplicity of the original type unquote what becomes fundamental is the principle of an abstract existence of nature very far removed from the
• 19:00 - 19:30 principle of identity having developed in the essay um on imitation a system of the Arts based on abstract or primordial types against which material objects are judged Kat applied this to architecture and his entry of type and the third volume of the encycloped methodic architecture in 1825 the the synonymity of the Notions of image and idea and ideal as an adjective of idea is as he points out in the essay on imitation Apparent from the
• 19:30 - 20:00 eological roots with idea deriving from the Greek idos and idolon denoting respectively a conceptual type or platonic form and a physical Apparition therefore under the rubric type Kat famously writes that quote the web type presents less the image of the thing to copy or imitate completely than the idea of an element which must itself serve as a rule for the model unquote while models have apparent rules type represents a
• 20:00 - 20:30 non-representative uh non-prescriptive higher idea motive and intention type is organizational and the model structural thus typological models represent the implementation formal articulation of the speculative embodied and in non-material type of ideas contemplating the problem of invention K concludes that quote the orderly art of building was born from a pre-existing seat everything must have an antecedent nothing whatsoever comes
• 20:30 - 21:00 from nothing and this cannot but apply to all human inventions quote these seeds are both formal precedence and Elementary principles which as more human inventions are obligated to sentiment taste and type is therefore quote like a sort of nucleus around which are assembled and with which are consequently coordinated all the developments and the variations of form to which the object was susceptible disposition
• 21:00 - 21:30 while Kat developed a type of reasoning in which conceptual abstraction is the basis of invention Toon's proceding examination of genres a topological reasoning remained essential although he never used the term type or topology himself he defined architecture and functionalist terms as the formal disposition of paths and his comparison of abstracted historical forms met a reduction of formal diagrams the means of analysis and development in architecture accompanying his teaching at the EOL
• 21:30 - 22:00 poly technique Duran published The Collection in parallel of edifices of all kinds ancient and modern in uh 1799 to 1801 and which later included an essay on the general history of architecture by Jack Julian L the typo diagrammatic analysis of History bya was formative to his students Durant understanding of functionalism yet method method methodologically Durant equally to an comparative classification by the
• 22:00 - 22:30 zoologist Jos Kier this Allegiance was in no uncertain terms proclaimed by Leon's essay stating that similarly through the structural formal principles of architectures a quote natural history of architecture might be created unquote corresponding to kier's comparative taxonomies in which history was abstracted to formal and functional structures that lent themselves to Scientific analysis to which physionic development could be reconstructed but also explained the ambition of the
• 22:30 - 23:00 collection in parallel was to transform architectural history likewise into a scientific instrument of architecture at once neutral and Technical drawing provided to Duron the necessary means to analyze formal development with history defined as rational the effects of style and character of a building were eliminated as secondary culturally specific phenomena in their place organizational and morphological relations and an increase of formal complexity became the
• 23:00 - 23:30 material verification of historical progress the logic of the collection parallel was the develop inurance PR of the lectures on architecture given at the EO poly technique of 1802 205 that devis the design method simple to follow and instruct as the pr asserts its method applies to the design of any building duron's architectural cause accordingly is quote a return to first principles of the art that is to say to
• 23:30 - 24:00 the pursuit of certain ideas that are few numbers but General in application on from which all the particular ideas would necessarily derive outlining a safe and Rapid way to compose and execute buildings of all kinds in all places and at all times Duran Duran proposes a generic method entirely defined by utility through which a burden of style in history is apparently overcome as traditional architectural orders and
• 24:00 - 24:30 proportions are only recognized as part of a historicized disciplinary knowledge the means of architecture to achieve utility are Fitness for purpose purpose and an economy of means Fitness derives from solidity The Right Use of material celebrity the right choice of site and building exposure and commodity the right disposition of the of it of the building where economy develops from symmetry regularity and simplicity duron's method requires planer dispositions with the horizontal
• 24:30 - 25:00 plan and forming the vertical section the disposition of a building and its elements derives from regular grits and axis a GD of parallel interaxis determined by the structural distance of two columns According to which the building elements are distributed the structural building elements are differentiated by subdividing the initial grid and omitting adding or offsetting and axes this creates infinite part to part to part to whole combinations of building elements and results in a
• 25:00 - 25:30 mutation of the party as plate 20 demonstrates the fitness of the final composition s dra nonetheless is also influenced by its response to the contextual requirements of quote places persons sites costs and so on following the plan sections are developed through com comparable vertical combinations and from the plan in sections the elevations derive the limitation of this method however is revealed by the in indetermined y between plan to section
• 25:30 - 26:00 and elevation as this plate shows the plan-based process cannot logically translate into vertical planes without conventions providing a scale a mass and is and is capably depend on a stylistic choice which of course in this case is neoc classical or neoc classicism the the dactic relevations and by implication the party in fact derive not from the process of disposition but a precedent as the invention of a dorm is unexplained by by transformations of a
• 26:00 - 26:30 planer grid this is evident in play 21 entitled procedure to be followed in the composition of any project which is really this one right which was added to the 1813 edition of the no PR and we ordered by Leandro mrao to highlight the logical sequence in the pry disposition equals a differentiation of Precedence which Durant admits to at the very end quote to combine the different elements then to proceed to the different part of buildings and from those parts to the
• 26:30 - 27:00 hall such is the natural sequence that should be observed in learning to compose by contrast when you com uh when you come to compose yourself you must begin with the whole proceed to the parts and finish with the details this method is consequently dactic and not a method of design but a method of analysis despite duron's repeated mention of construction of material it Reveals His main interest the pedagogical architectural project by
• 27:00 - 27:30 proposing a diagrammatic function of Precedence Duron is able to deploy receiv forms not as normative but contingent to design practice thereby the abstraction of architectural form is premised on formal progression and assumes an accumulation of complexity one however defined by the limits of an existing taxonomy of work and knowledge borrowing from The Sciences Duron understands new architectural knowledge as AR Rising from a structural and diagrammatic understanding of
• 27:30 - 28:00 relationships and no longer just from aesthetic representation or problem this approach provides architectural disposition with a degree of autonomy and is by Durant intrinsically linked to a social agenda the desire and strive for utility is what forms society and quote architecture and Architects are made for society unquote it is this generative and social agenda in addition to the attempt of formulating a formal grammar able to respond to the ex um exed gencies of modern society by which
• 28:00 - 28:30 dur anticipates the program but also failure of the modern movement and also process based design practices that disassociate a typological formal thinking from a typological AR from a typal argument style precisely the relationship between typological materiality and typic conception motivated seus work which developed a synthesis between an abstract and social cultural concept of type and what he deemed the driving yet
• 28:30 - 29:00 subordinated typological material and Technical transformation of art forms studying um with yakob 's uh hit off in 18 in the 1820s in Paris simpa became familiar with duron's dactic teaching but also the debate on polygamy instigated by katras the Olympian Jupiter of 1814 inspired by the problem of color Seer concludes his own archaeological studies and a prelim preliminary remarks on polychrome
• 29:00 - 29:30 architecture of 1834 with the observation that the Arts specific to the culture and political context forly transformed artistic Traditions but upheld Elemental type motives and idea his search for the origins sorry his search for the origins of architecture and its type of motives was first articulated in a draft for
• 29:30 - 30:00 comparative theory of building um around the 1840s and summarized in the four elements of architecture of 1851 they Consolidated his stressing thesis or beading Theory and theory of material transformation his stex theory through which he identified his four elements of architecture the he roof enclosure and substructure and their correspondence to the technical Arts specifically Ceramics carpentry textiles and Masonry essentially theories of invention he
• 30:00 - 30:30 explained the creative process as a modification of persistent artistic motives through stylistic formal changes Seer concluded uh his comparative theory of style the technical arts and architecture in his London writings including the four elements of architecture science Industry and art of 1852 theory of former Beauty which was written in 1850s and a series of lectures in London from 1853 to 185 54 in his lecture um in his lecture an
• 30:30 - 31:00 outline for a system of a comparative theory of style in 1853 simpa proposes a compromise between the material and psychological reading of culture and its history by formulating a theory of building based on a comparative analysis of Elemental types sistic variations are according to um according to simple the Practical means of necessary utilitarian material Transformations and the becoming of form by disintegrating
• 31:00 - 31:30 formal traditions and reveal in the abstraction a symbolic and cultural context style in this way becomes the artistic means to define the material model and to make art relevant to society while preserving an enduring non-material type of motive s the lecture also posits that architecture like modern Sciences should adopt a systematic ordering of knowledge through classification recalling his visits to the zoo in Paris as a student
• 31:30 - 32:00 then directed by frederi Kier who's a a brother of the other one sea argues that a comparative and organic analysis could equally become a method to understand the forms and formations of the industrial Arts quote they are like those of nature connected together by some few fundamental ideas which have the simplest expressions and types but these normal forms have given and give rise to an infinite number of varieties by development and ation according to the exigencies of the specialities
• 32:00 - 32:30 according to the gradual progress and invention will it not be important to trace out some of those types of the artistical forms and follow them in a gradual progress from step to step up to the highest development a method analogous to that which Baron aier followed applied to the Arts and especially to architecture would at least contribute towards getting a clear Insight over its whole Province and perhaps also it would form the base of a doctrine of style and a sort of topic or method how to invent which might may
• 32:30 - 33:00 guide us to find out the natural way of invention similar to Kat Seer believes that Elemental types provide the key to an artistic Theory Of Invention and borrowing from kuier he proposes that the comparison of material and physical formations provides the basis of a methodological Theory and a doctrine of star this comp comparative Theory so simple was anticip at by duron's collection parallels but his
• 33:00 - 33:30 specialization separated architecture from its Origins the Practical arts and Aesthetics and resulted in what he called a lifeless schematism disregarding that the quote characters of the different architectural styles were clearly expressed in certain characteristic forms of the earliest industrial Arts unquote whereas earli studies of Origins focused on a primitive heart samper Finds Its definition a defining notion of utility already realized in technical skills and production but also in
• 33:30 - 34:00 ornamentation with the industrial art giving birth to architecture the effects of style are in Practical terms defined in all works of art by quote observing the limits which are contained in and defined by the task and problem in question as well as by the accessories which modify the solution of it in every case and quote while sty is important for necessary topological Transformations certain social cultural typle ideas P persevere here for example simple's main thesis of dressing and
• 34:00 - 34:30 architecture explains the technical process of material transformation when the spatial coverings and enclosures of wall and ceiling evolve from temporary textile screens into permanent and solid stone walls throughout this material and formal transformation the typ of motive of textile decoration is maintained not in resemblance but an idea the intrinsic relationship between a typle idea and its typological transformation Seer is ethologically Manifest in the roots of
• 34:30 - 35:00 the German words vanand which means wall and Gand which means stress but also supported by archaeological evidence providing a developmental link between Egyptian Assyrian and Greek architecture and their use of polygamy this definition of style essentially conforms to one already provided by Kat quote sty meant that which is least material that is a conception of ideas and the Art of developing them according to a certain order unquote without contradicting Kat
• 35:00 - 35:30 sea however emphasizes the interrelationship between type and style as he argues over time and with a succession of material transposition the effects of type and style become hybridized and while retaining a principal artistic idea the stylistic articul articulation often changes typle ideas are therefore expressed in different materials and one material has to accommodate different conditions of style Seer system of the Practical Arts
• 35:30 - 36:00 is premised on principles of organic of organic comparison and differs from established chronological or geographical classification by considering developmental connections beyond the restrictions of linear time and space he groups the Practical Arts according to Shared types which are of course quoting Ceramics Timber construction and stone construction or stere stereotomy although recognizing that the formation of most artifacts is
• 36:00 - 36:30 transitional or ar or like architecture a combination of these simple doctrine of style explains how the transposition of a generic idea into a specific form a model can be conceived by conflating Kat's metaphysical and cultural idealism with duron's deterministic and utilitarian materialism this develops an idea of type as a compromise of typal and typological reasoning and consolidates the Ambitions of theory and practice
• 36:30 - 37:00 with invention and disposition both a precondition and an outcome sample provides an example of how type accommodates continuous authorial reinterpretations and material Transformations he recognizes the potential of typological comparison to make form available to rigorous analysis but also as potential shortcoming limiting invention to to Mere formal progression Katon and Seer theories are consistent
• 37:00 - 37:30 with the first three principles of transformative composition in rhetoric Kat's theory of type articulates the first and indispensable kind of invention by establishing a systematic architectural theory of invention that defines the disciplinary means and principles by which coherent arguments are generated in Practice Durant meth methodology of design in turn is based on a second Canon of arrangement or dis uh disposition which follows mons an argument or idea is strategized by
• 37:30 - 38:00 invention Arrangement manages the relative and iterative ordering of the part of the whole and organizes an argument into an effective discourse stating outlining and providing proof for a given case or problem finally seus Doctrine relates to the Canon of sty by defining the appropriate and um effective modes to express ideas where invention determines what is articulated style articulates how is communicated the three um inaugural
• 38:00 - 38:30 theories consider the problem of historicity in the architecture work and propos a resolution for practice through abstraction conceptually diagrammatically and materially the mobilization of History profoundly changed disciplinary knowledge and revealed type as only partially or conditional autonomous at the moment when through the transposition of type to model disciplinary knowledge is challenged transformed and enriched Ed by an 18th century transformation of practice and
• 38:30 - 39:00 systematization of theory architecture arose as a modern discipline with its own specific knowledge whereby the Advent of the notion of type in architecture in the early 19th century was closely related to a pervasive obsession with Origins that inspired fundamental advances in archaeology art history anthropology atmology grammatology zoology and so on what this reveals is that despite the
• 39:00 - 39:30 specific knowledge they produce the Notions of type and topology are unspecific to architecture and depend on an interdisciplinarity of methodologies through which knowledge uh through which knowledge is obtain but more importantly the instrumentalization of type and topology in architecture discloses this architecture's disciplinary knowledge is in its conception dactic and that its theory and practice is an indivisible and equally a social cultural and political as well as a material and
• 39:30 - 40:00 spatial construct the eventual demise of type in the 20 in the 20th century encourage therefore or encourage a turn to to diagrams the promise a new rationality but arguably merely re originated architectural form by repressing history representation and spatial specificity yet as L already knew all architectural practices of diagramming can be consider to rely on type forms or have scope for typological production
• 40:00 - 40:30 the diagrammatic function in architecture ultimately depends on a typal typological abstraction an abstraction of form that considers history context and culture and its discursive arguments but also disciplinary limits fundamental to the typod diagrammatic function is the premise that architecture does not just exist as a specific object but as a generic possibility of objects therefore its purpose is to Li limit and Define the possibilities of the architectural object by structuring a projective and
• 40:30 - 41:00 typle idea through the use of models without providing a finite formal representation by depending on conventions inventions are deemed principles principled and by having an organic structure multiple manifestations become possible although diagrams are instrumental to arrange and convey relationships as the inaugural theories of type reveal diagrams are only intermediaries between a conceptual
• 41:00 - 41:30 thinking associated with types and the articulation of material models and this is of course in in regards to architecture what diagrams contribute to the tension between conceptual types and schematic models is the replacement of dialectic opposition with possible synthesis thus the eventual Singularity of architecture emerges as a formation and clarification of a discursive type of idea transpose through the diagram to one of its possible material manifestations with the introduction of diagrams The Interchange between type and model
• 41:30 - 42:00 becomes a syntactic communication that is neither autonomous nor invents a new syntax by abstracting Common organizational and structural diagrams type can be analyzed and projected and present on the one hand practice driven formal solutions that are unstable and receptive to transformation and on the other represent a material and social cultural knowledge type and topology and the utilization of diagrams are therefore important disciplinary means
• 42:00 - 42:30 to meaningful meaningfully conceptualize and analyze form although formative to the historical discourse of architecture types do not require historical continuity as simple understood but are defined by performative consistency and historicity through which they resist expiry and effect change despite the explicit um implicit otonomy types are integral part of the physical material sociopolitical
• 42:30 - 43:00 symbolic cultural and historical Fabric and conception of our cities and consequently only uh momentarily autonomous therefore typ and typological reasoning is never simply oriented towards the past but directed towards the present and future while the problems of type and historicity have to find a modern reasoning of architecture this was precisely not to establish static Norms but to advance continuing practice and knowledge as sea um
• 43:00 - 43:30 insisted artistic progress while evolved from past Traditions is only possible when Traditions are disintegrated by contemporary culture thank you [Applause]
• 43:30 - 44:00 uh well for the guys that are just arriving uh we're having uh three sessions and at the end of each uh we are having um questions so I would like to introduce the next uh presentation of uh Len's bath um Lawrence is Professor in the housing and urbanism program at Thea AA his Pro his professional practice and core research
• 44:00 - 44:30 uh interests bring their architecture onto the terrain of contemporary Urban strategy Mr B has also lectured in The Graduate School uh school's landscape uh urbanism program developing the political and and strategic component of its curriculum and in 2004 he initiated the formation of a sustained research Pro uh program in in architectural urbanism at the PHD level Mr B works independently as a consultant
• 44:30 - 45:00 urbanist for cities uh design practices and research institutes he has uh collaborated with um diverse Architects and Landscape Architects on large scale Urban projects and has assumed the lead role in overseeing a multidisciplinary refinement on on the Central District within the uh the one North master plan for a Next Generation innovation environment in Singapore he has published widely in architecture and
• 45:00 - 45:30 sociology and it's frequently and is a frequently invited lectured um and a critic on the role of architecture and Landscape in in contemporary uran process he participates in an international research network of the ground of global mega cities and the urban Transformations associated with the knowledge economy he's a member of the governing board of uh of the international Urban Development Association and member of the UK's
• 45:30 - 46:00 Academy of urbanism and on the advisory panel of of of mitke a European research Network on the sustainable intensification of industrial uh territories so let's welcome uh Laurence B [Applause]
• 46:00 - 46:30 well after that introduction I guess you might uh forgive me for um sort of explaining what some of my confusions are um there's there's a little bit too much going on I suppose um what I'm as um as we've just been been hearing I'm I'm interested in the way in which type
• 46:30 - 47:00 and urbanism come together and I'm interested in it particularly because I feel like we have to understand a bit about uh type in order to plan effectively uh but it turns out that the more we look at that the more confusing the problems become and so in fact I I I want to begin by uh drawing our attention to uh Robin Evans and Robin Evans um had a very nice quote that opened up his figures doors and passages
• 47:00 - 47:30 essay where he said ordinary things contain the greatest Mysteries and I think one of the one of the challenges that we we have in a way in in urbanism is trying to figure out how to uh bridge the gap between the very ordinary with which we tend to plan and the hopes that we will do something very ambitious when we create uh plans for uh for very large parts of cities now what was I think very interesting about the way in which Rob and Evans
• 47:30 - 48:00 proceeded and and some of my students have come in we've just been talking about this lately I can I can think of no other writer who so perfectly captures in a very fluid way a a diagrammatic sense uh of what is uh at the heart of architectural change and I'm really looking forward uh hman pie to hearing what uh further what you have to to say about that topic in fact um in a previous iteration of some of this
• 48:00 - 48:30 work together with Sam jacobe and Chris Lee I tried to make a similar argument that uh type and diagram are intimately related and in fact indissociable um although different now one of the things that I think is very interesting about Robin evans's account of the trajectory over several centuries of the of the form and organization of our typical house uh is that we can see both the the the
• 48:30 - 49:00 tremendous ambition bubbling away in associative practices and we can also see a kind of resistance going on in in a material world resistance in an architecture and it seems to me that the combination of type and diagram kind of capture both things now um in that previous essay I called attention to uh Alan K Hun's way of approaching uh the displacement of Concepts in corbusier and I think it's for for me um a an
• 49:00 - 49:30 interesting way of trying to understand a relationship between type and change and the possibility of ambition uh in that we can see that however independent or autonomous um corbusier's thinking was it was working on something where we already felt that there was a material form which indexed practices that were very deeply rooted uh now I don't want to say in fact that this is somehow the
• 49:30 - 50:00 social in general in fact what I would more like to indicate is that these things are discursively formed in a way that is quite conflictual often times it is there's no sort I personally think there's no such thing as Society in general I'm a bit of a fukan in that and that there seems to be a number of of uh intriguing discourses uh that that jostle with one another and yet have great Force now um if corbusier was working uh as K hun tells us to overturn
• 50:00 - 50:30 some of the uh uh some of the ways in which we would understand the elements in the organization of architecture he was always careful to link the present and the past he was always careful to tie together our understanding of how architecture had come to us uh with a certain amount of force together with an idea that we could easily in a sense re think uh aspects of an architecture and
• 50:30 - 51:00 propose alternatives on the basis of subtle displacements within an architectural uh mode of reasoning now he rarely I think in a way uh made any particular effort to address discourses in their particularity in instead I think he tended to uh to discuss a kind of proliferation of effects and then some kind sometimes kind of diagram them in this way but I don't really know him to have had a a very strong inclination
• 51:00 - 51:30 to get involved in disputes on um uh on the particularities of housing policy it was more interested in the sense in the uh in the possibility of living differently and describing how living differently might affect the way in which we think of an architecture I think these things are subtly different but very important and so the the way in which he begins to describe uh through and architecture a different possible way of living uh it seems to me do not
• 51:30 - 52:00 in a way match up quite so directly with what might be a discourse on housing or a discourse on Urban strategy in fact when he comes to to show us an image like this which indicate for us the real potential of the Five Points uh where you might be forgiven for being almost let down um that is the idea that we could have um the the
• 52:00 - 52:30 separation from one another of elements and organs and structure and that they could all be thought about independently of one another with no particular purpose in a sense I think becomes clear uh in an image like this and yet we all know the great effects that the the the the transformation of the field through the five points has worked um now I want to I want to touch on a few other aspects to this question of ambition if
• 52:30 - 53:00 on the one hand we have a sense that in order to be effective as Architects and urbanists we need to have a very strong ambition and in some sense type seems to uh seems to work against that we seem always in a way to be Looking Backward we when we uh when we think of type and um and yet if we can think of it in terms of the way in which corus a encouraged us to displace the concepts
• 53:00 - 53:30 that are at the heart of Tye then we can make that we can start to make that transition that's one aspect of ambition now in Alan Co Hun's essay on the super block I think we encounter another sort of problem and ambition and in that essay he says that when we come into the 20th century or late 19th but mostly into the 20th we we reach a condition in which we overturn the traditional way of understanding the way in which we would have ambition about major buildings
• 53:30 - 54:00 Civic buildings those that in a sense seem to Define our commonality as uh members of a republic citizens or or uh participants in a grand project so that we seem to be able to have great ambition about consequently we think of the Dome the palace um the the the rat house as being the the places where we would invest architectural ambition the rest of it that's just the Grid it's just the everyday stuff and in that we
• 54:00 - 54:30 have no we have no reason to think of great ambition now I think the secondary and and perhaps more oftenly acknowledged uh source of a lack of a supposed lack of ambition on things like housing or offices is that we uh we tend to think that those things uh belong for their determination to the merely interested the technical um that's something that is in a way always predetermined by commercial
• 54:30 - 55:00 interest private interest in a sense doesn't belong to a wider ambition and so you know we look at these things and they're very just everyday and and we expect in a sense that this is an everyday world that should not be the subject of that great ambition and instead we seem to want to say that ambition should be located here uh where we can make a positive statement about a collective form or here uh in the way in which the introduction of a dramatic new form in the Paris
• 55:00 - 55:30 landscape uh offers something particular and special now I'd like to switch here to in fact overturn this idea but to do it via um uh pet Colin Rose's essay on the Chicago frame uh in that he begins to develop and a a difference between um the the Chicago frame as it was begun by people like Lou Sullivan and a far more a far
• 55:30 - 56:00 more interesting pathway that was opened up by Frank Lloyd Wright in which structure and plan were thought about very closely together and uh I I think in a way Colin Road doesn't really take that essay in to an interesting conclusion but it's a very interesting opening now I I don't like the conclusion because it seems to me that kind of phys out on the question of uh of to uh on the question of a larger
• 56:00 - 56:30 social ambition as a as a kind of totality but I think he opens up something very interesting in starting to explore the role that uh that Frank lyd Wright might have in thinking differently but I think that's also something that's kind of taken up by jacqu Lucan in his uh his book composition non- composition now um in that book uh we can see that Frank loid right begins to have a quite interesting role in
• 56:30 - 57:00 allowing us to think about a very open convex rather than concave understanding of space in which we start to think about walls rather than just a structural frame as having a particular kind of relationship to the development of an open space which will nevertheless uh create a series of inter relationships amongst uh uh amongst things that are not so much rooms and in a sense uh defined as single pieces but
• 57:00 - 57:30 is is always thought about in relation to one another on a diagonal always opening up multiple readings of composite space now um um if we if we begin to juxtapose that idea with another that I think uh R kha starts to bring out the problem of the relationship between a mere repetition self-similar floors and on the other hand the idea that uh floors can be
• 57:30 - 58:00 interestingly differentiated as you start to move up through a building uh and I think we can start to see now that we're in the presence of a kind of interesting problem field around the relationship between structure articulation of differences in a tall building in which what we really want to do is to have an open uh and not merely rep competitive understanding of spaces as contributing to a wider Urban fabric
• 58:00 - 58:30 so if we can kind of summarize it like that it's the problem not only of the tall building but of the everyday practice of office life living in the city living and working in the city and so it's here then that I want to turn and spend a bit of time talking about the Seattle Public Library um I I've been hinting with my students I guess for quite a while that I think um there's a tendency to want to you know in fact go ahead and tie together genre
• 58:30 - 59:00 and type and say well after all it's a library uh so what do we expect of course we can invest some uh some effort in the um uh in in ambition in thinking about what a collective form like the library might be uh but I think what I would like to do instead is to talk about it in terms of a Unity of space and structure um perhaps not so elegant as Frank Lloyd right uh but intriguing nonetheless but also to begin to link it
• 59:00 - 59:30 to questions of uh uh the the Contemporary workspace and the transformation the way in which an associative principle is at is at work in work um and also the way in which we might look at this as an element within the city um if the traditional library was constrained in a sense by the problem of light and books uh of course it meant that the that the source of light had to be moved up the wall and uh to protect a
• 59:30 - 60:00 kind of space for uh uh space for books and then of course a sufficient amount of light had to be brought into the space uh by creating relatively High Windows above a wall that contained the storage for books now to that extent then if we think about all the sorts of things that go on in a library from checkout uh to the possibility of performances and concerts and this
• 60:00 - 60:30 particular rotunda on the right is was a scene often of concerts at the University of California Los Angeles library where I worked for many years as an undergraduate so had a particular affection for this building and I think I often sat in that chair where this woman is uh as you know one of the few places where you could kind of read quietly and comfortably but it it was an unusual experience in that Library most of which was dark and down in the bowels of the uh Stacks now um it's uh when you
• 60:30 - 61:00 if you think about the way in which this Library works the only time you get any sense of an outside um or the possibility of reconnecting to an urban world is in fact when you've left the library there's no chance of of having an experience of the city from within the library it's it's that is in a sense given by the nature of the type and its intersection with the genre now the Seattle Public Library is absolutely and fundamentally different
• 61:00 - 61:30 in almost every respect and yet seems to be precisely in keeping with how we think work engage with materials read look on the web check out books engage with others live in the city in in in ways really quite different than that Library I fell in love with at UCLA so when one comes in one notices immediately the vastness openness of the the space the uh the really quite different patterns of articulation of
• 61:30 - 62:00 the floors the possibility of remarkable views both inside and out the recognition that today fundamentally we uh acquire our uh we acquire information off digital media which is best accessed in a slightly darkened space rather than the brightly lit space of of Northern Light where we would like to read and we begin to think uh we can see here that it is working on the basis that there is a depth to the floor plate and an
• 62:00 - 62:30 openness to the volume that is really fundamentally different than the traditional library now this is made possible uh by a particular relationship to structure as well so what's really quite intriguing about this building is not only the spaces themselves but what isn't there so in these spaces there is not a forest of column and in the connection of the platforms unlike Cedric Price's diagram for the
• 62:30 - 63:00 Fun Palace the there's not a a tangle of trusses there's only a few so the platforms are held together by columns uh trust only minimally and the Open Spaces are freed from columns by being separated from the platforms and the overall thing is held in tension by a glass uh uh a glass and steel um a facade system that actually takes most
• 63:00 - 63:30 of the load for uh solving the problems of earthquake uh forces and so when one looks at the overall structure all of it is working together a skin intention a decision about where uh columns will be located and where they will be absent opening up particular possibilities of uh Collective environments that seem to speak very closely to how we want to engage in um both an urban World an
• 63:30 - 64:00 urban learning world and also a kind of workspace uh at the same time there's a possibility of really quite differentiated uh uh uh environments in which one can relax and read so up at the top there's a there's a beautiful reading room from which you can look out over the city while at the bottom there's a um there's a cafe where you can engage more closely with others the quieter rooms at the top seem to have an almost um well I guess a quite
• 64:00 - 64:30 contemplative feel at least I felt when I was there and I noticed that other people seemed really decidedly relaxed as they um as they enjoyed these spaces at the same time the encounter with an exterior world is dramatic to say the least now the things that are then being achieved here are something that we might think of as being kind of ining with with what we imagine the world of talent today is looking for in a kind of
• 64:30 - 65:00 work environment I mean I'll put that term talent in a kind of perhaps um uh scare quotes you know I know we don't want to be over enthusiastic about that but um I also want now to turn to one other aspect of it if if any of you have been to Seattle you know that the downtown area is just a very straightforward grid and um what what's around uh what's around the building uh what's around the Seattle Public Library
• 65:00 - 65:30 are Office Buildings where art gets pushed outside uh the the to the extent that there is some sort of commercial or uh or space that welcomes people from the city inside there are these these little Huts sort of at the edge of the towers where you can go in and get a hamburger um but there's nothing that in a way would you say you might say Inspire an engagement between the Working World and the pattern of Engagement in the city uh by contrast
• 65:30 - 66:00 this curious form that's been created here in the Seattle public Li Library creates a whole series of quite interestingly articulated uh relationships to that grid and then welcomes one into the quite dramatic space now it does so I think and and this again is drawing on jacqu lucan's work it does so by working with a a tradition of convex space um there is nothing about it that is related to the
• 66:00 - 66:30 uh to a quality of enclosure it is more it spins outward every aspect of it makes you feel that you're in the presence of something that is in a quite um a quite multistory multi-directional way orienting you through a variety of situations into an outside world and yet always veiling them just a bit and uh Lucan is is I think interesting in drawing connections amongst M van duberg
• 66:30 - 67:00 Frank lyd Wright and corbusier in rather intriguing ways um and I think that it you know I'm I'm not going to go into all the detail of it here but I think that there are some interesting parallels then between the things that he is is helping us understand about that tradition of reasoning and the problems that it Encounters in a sense if if everything coming back to this if everything is infinite ly open how do you prescribe limits how do you compose how do you design um and one answer that
• 67:00 - 67:30 is posed within the uh within the essay is well the grid sorts it out for you now in Seattle that happens to be the case but I'm not sure it's a reliable uh kind of strategy but I want to come back to that in in a moment but I think one of the things that we can see is sort of interesting here over on the right hand side I think one can get the sense that also within om there's uh there's a a kind of questioning of whether the
• 67:30 - 68:00 library could also be uh a workspace and I want to develop that a little bit further but perhaps just to remind you by going back uh Frank Lloyd Wright and the Laren building had a very nice tendency to uh adapt um uh types that were coming from elsewhere we might notice the similarities to a library uh handling of light here in his L and building and then when when One released oneself from the problem of the
• 68:00 - 68:30 association with natural light and nearness to the window and create a deep plan building with the Johnson wax of course then there's another exploration of the of the possible effects of a new kind of reading and working space so there is this interesting tradition there now to to begin to pull these things together of course you all know the the the the the uh the building by herzberger on the left left and the in the center is um a plan done by zaha
• 68:30 - 69:00 hadid's office I see Patrick here in the audience so he'll know this well um and in a sense the problem of beginning to think differently about new kinds of workspace and how does one begin to give that typological um uh typological and morphological definition and on the right is a a new building which it seems for all the world to have certain similarities to the hersberger building and yet is just fundamentally different now one of the things that I think we we
• 69:00 - 69:30 want to um uh we want to uh bring up here is the way in which our expectations about work spaces are changing so here um we have a very intriguing version of workspace I mean I don't know when they work in Korea but uh but they they claim that this is a workspace um but you know we start to see these kinds of spaces where the spaces look for all the world like something you would expect to find in a
• 69:30 - 70:00 university or where that you would expect to uh find in um in a collection of Loft living residents of Soho uh so when we start to look at the the kinds of spaces that the those who work at Google and Facebook and others start to inhabit it looks for all the world like it could be a kind of crossover between domestic life and um and and life in the library now these kinds of patterns then
• 70:00 - 70:30 seem to me to suggest that we might want to raise the question whether there would be the possibility of generalizing in some way some of the lessons of the Seattle Public Library for work now part of the reason for that goes back to these kinds of very simple diagrams on team-based work um now what's important about that is that actually there is a fundamental shift in the way in which work takes place today and it's value chains that compete with one another
• 70:30 - 71:00 very very clearly and increasingly so rather than corporations now I think to a certain extent it's always been a misreading to imagine that companies make very autonomous and Sovereign kinds of decisions there was a very beautiful article written in uh I forget whether it was 81 or 83 by um um uh by a a political Economist here in in London um H and it's it was the title of the essay
• 71:00 - 71:30 was called the firm as a dispersed social agency and essentially the argument is you know more or less the president of the company may think he's in charge or the CEO but in fact he's got a marketing division that's doing one thing an engineering division that's doing another um uh and the the list kind of goes on uh that there are several re several different divisions within a a corporation all of which have to engage with the rules of the discipline in which they work now today
• 71:30 - 72:00 that kind of problem has become even more noticeable in in the pattern of a very rapid evolution of products under flexible specialization and it means that companies are always having to collaboratively work with people who are not even in the company uh and they're having to find uh the space in which to gear up form a team work productively and very rapidly make effective and rapid decisions and then disband the group and do that over and over and over again now not very many companies can
• 72:00 - 72:30 pay for the kind of space that that implies um and so one of the things that we're starting to see is the emergence of hub-based spaces now how do we be take some of these things that we might start to learn from all of this and apply it to a plan um if we look at this plan for this model of the plan for hoffen City what's very interesting about it is the way in which a series of things are disposed um in order to uh to produce a
• 72:30 - 73:00 set of associative effects in a sense where I think ambition should properly be located but I think there are some interesting aspects uh I I like this plan very much but I think there are some interesting aspects that we could conceivably do differently the next time now um some of what is very interesting is you you'll notice uh sort of the the third key back as you get close to the um I don't do I I don't have a oh there
• 73:00 - 73:30 we go um so these buildings right along here that was the first phase and they were thought of as simple types yeah um here's here's our connection back to that kind of uh that simple version that non ambitious version of type and so the the logic goes you know pick eight or 10 Parcels uh give guidance that suggest that that have the plan dictate that the
• 73:30 - 74:00 that the rules will stipulate that it will be morphologically rather than land use governed uh so given that those types could be dwellings or could be offices will just allow anyone to put forward bids as to how to develop the space and that way we can multiply the number of potential possible stakeholders and because we keep them small small and dumb uh there there's almost no risk and uh as well as a
• 74:00 - 74:30 multiplication of interest in the plan and so as a as a first phase it is able to build this up very very rapidly now the associative effect then is one of beginning to create an an interest an enthusiasm for the success of the plan it doesn't do anything particularly dramatic architecturally um uh when it it it does it's Pleasant you know it looks like a nice place to either live or work I'd be happy with it um and um uh then we if we
• 74:30 - 75:00 go on to a second phase and the second phase is slightly more ambitious a bit more built area uh interestingly these are all being built by different developers with different stakeholders and again just as rapidly and so it's working on the basis of saying look simple types can create complex effects um at the same time um what was also in the plan was an insistence that where drama and ambition would be located would be in a few signature buildings
• 75:00 - 75:30 that would be a concert hall and opera house and uh in fact originally in the plan the hopes for this building or this site were rather minimal after all it was just going to be a work site um but in fact what's ended up happening and um is on that site is that um is that Unilever has produced a rather interesting building not as interesting as I think it could be but I want to turn our attention now to some other aspect in the plan um and that's these
• 75:30 - 76:00 uh buildings in here whoops sorry um and the um what's interesting about the plan is that the plan recognizes that because that's the direct line into the center of the city and this is where you have to really gain full value this becomes very complicated and the plan starts to over stipulate uh and suddenly in a way we we start creating effects that are less interesting than probably the simple uh the simple aspects of the of
• 76:00 - 76:30 the previous types at the same time when it was in proposing the the concert hall and insisting on it as a as a fundamental element to drive ambition and interest in the plan it focuses on the arts and culture rather than on workspace um and at the same time workspace itself becomes now for for the most part relatively standard typical um now the on the right hand side we see
• 76:30 - 77:00 the Unilever building and inside it does at least kind of keep Pace with what we're seeing going on these days an interesting ground level set of uh of Act of um amenities that are open to a wider public breakout spaces above and so it seems to in a way offer something that is more than just average um now I'd like to to take that uh take that idea of of the Unilever building and
• 77:00 - 77:30 come back over here to London to the king's place the two buildings have something in common they're they're good old um let's put a lot of stuff around an Atrium building um and um I I think what's kind of interesting is the K King's place has a very interesting level of ambition in one respect and not much ambition another now the uh the the respect in which it has a great deal of ambition is the way in which it's trying
• 77:30 - 78:00 to bring concert space cultural space event space together with an office building and tie them all together so that we get an interesting ground floor uh where people can come and work and there's a lot that's going on but when you're there of course you have a feeling it's really not a very remarkable space there's nothing terribly attractive about being there and we all get bored with it after a while um now what I think is kind of interesting is to think about the fact that both the Unilever building and
• 78:00 - 78:30 King's place are precisely what Shak lukan would describe as the more closed concave understanding of space uh very limited set of elements uh uh organized around a a sort of centrality and um looking inward whereas if we were to think about some of the potential lessons of the um of the C Seattle Public Library it seems far more in Conformity with where working life is going and the way in which it intersects
• 78:30 - 79:00 with um uh uh inter sex with an urban world and so what I'm inclined to say then is that if we start to look at a typology uh now I I know that Rafael mono uh was wanting to uh say that in fact by the time we get to um uh by the time we get to M and Kuser we've left type all together and this sort of emphasis upon an open space um an open
• 79:00 - 79:30 approach to space left the Left Behind the adherence to type if type is understood as a search for the Timeless and the origin now I think one of the things that I'm in a way arguing here is that I I find it difficult to imagine how we handle um the relationship between type if it is absolutely essential to design how do we handle the relationship to type if at the same time we try to hold on to an idea of type is
• 79:30 - 80:00 a search for Origins and we also want to have it uh enable us to uh think productively about the relationship between structure form and content now uh in a sense it seems to me that something's got to give there um now for that reason I've been inclined to think of a diagrammatic foundation for type that owes nothing to deep historical origins or overall sort of total history
• 80:00 - 80:30 but instead a more genealogical history perhaps a more fukan history and the types are linked uh in are linked together or placed in groups for consideration uh Under The Heading we might say of um of a kind of diagram that is filled with intentionality and ambition very much in a way almost inadvertently I think uh that this Seattle Public Library was thank you very
• 80:30 - 81:00 [Applause] much um I'm going to introduce our next speaker human pie um he graduated from the Department of architecture The Graduate School of environment studies at so National University where he trained as an architect and urban
• 81:00 - 81:30 designer he received his PhD degree from uh history Theory and chrisan program at MIT he was twice full bride scholar as a PhD student and also as a VI scholar at MIT he is professor at University of soul and also visiting Scholars at MIT and London uh Metropolitan University he has lectured at Harvard conell andon University PIR writes in both English
• 81:30 - 82:00 and Korean working on historical and theortical theories surrounding the architecture art and culture of Korea Asia and the West his first book the portfolio and diagram architecture discourse and modernity has become required uh required material in core course at Harvard University conille university and also at Thea School his book also includes C plan the key concepts of Korean architecture and for the ven finale he
• 82:00 - 82:30 was created for the Korean Pavilion 2008 and the participants in the common Pavilion uh common pilion project 2012 and he was creator for the exhibition at the ads Gallery Berlin and was the head creator for the first uh Grand Design Bale 2011 so let's welcome um p [Applause]
• 82:30 - 83:00 how do I open this I'm not a Mac User so do I just just dou click double click sorry
• 83:00 - 83:30 um hello everybody um uh and uh thank you for inviting me uh and for the kind uh introduction um I'll be talking about type through the diagram and uh actually I was quite surprised that this issue was so uh important in in at least um uh this context uh and I'm going to um uh talk
• 83:30 - 84:00 about this relation through two different um Traditions uh attitudes uh I would prefer the term um disciplinary formations and so the first um line of inquiry would be through the uh uh tradition of the E de bzar uh and um and and the way the bzar
• 84:00 - 84:30 um trained uh its students and the way the the the trained Architects um designed the second uh line of inquiry uh would be uh the the um uh trajectory that began in the early 20th century uh beginning from uh the uh studies through Scientific Management in the United States and so this uh line
• 84:30 - 85:00 of inquiry uh looks into the birth of the functional diagram uh and of course it's U and the way that the functional diagram moves on to architecture during the early uh half uh first half of the 20th century uh and normally you would think that this latter tradition of functionalism M uh as it appears in the early 20th century uh is opposed to this
• 85:00 - 85:30 uh earlier 19th century tradition and you would normally uh associate type with uh uh this kind of practice and earlier Sam of course I think laid out brilliantly the kind of theoretical historical basis that uh underlined the kind of practices represented by uh the French and American buzza and its influence of course was quite
• 85:30 - 86:00 worldwide but uh my argument eventually will uh will end with uh the idea that these two traditions in fact converge and that uh the type Ty typological traditions of um the bua and the uh functionalist logic of the diagram uh as it moves on to architecture converge and thus we have a new way of
• 86:00 - 86:30 understanding not only uh the diagram but also potentially the type and so uh uh I don't think we need to go too much into the specifics of what bzar practice meant uh particularly uh after the 19th century we usually we usually associate bzar practice with um with historical models as they are specifically laid out
• 86:30 - 87:00 in the central Courtyard of the E deza we associate this practice with uh with mematic uh practices uh very specific ways of creating new uh designs through the study and Analysis of uh previous uh Norms uh and we see uh this uh photograph of MI students in the late 19th century uh conducting their exercises and practice as they look to
• 87:00 - 87:30 um to base the new designs on previous historical models um but uh as as actually Alan khun is is mentioned often today and uh I think Alan was very uh key in understanding that the 19th century bz was not the kind of endo of a old way of of architecture and old tradition but in fact a revolutionary beginning uh for
• 87:30 - 88:00 modern architecture and I I I totally agree with that uh interpretation and more specifically um in the way that durang presented uh uh his his dial ASM mentioned uh proposition for architectural design and uh since Jam Sam has uh laid out uh durang's ideas uh very succinctly I will concentrate more
• 88:00 - 88:30 and and um and uh get your attention to look at the specific ways that durang uh proposes um students and Architects uh work and and this uh plate was um introduced by Sam but I would like you to look at the lines that he proposed es uh these lines which are diagrammatic uh
• 88:30 - 89:00 organizations are organized primarily through the axis and if you look carefully there are really two kinds of lines here one is the central axis here which is the basic sort of underlying uh order of of the building these are spatial aises so the lines sort of go uh enter through the center of the building and then when you go to more details and of course you know Sam mentioned that durang talked about how you begin with
• 89:00 - 89:30 the hole and end with the detail and so the other kinds of uh lines are also aises but they go uh towards the center of the structure to the walls and the columns and so you have two different kinds of lines that form a diagram of this building one is the spatial axis and then you have the structural axis of the buildings um now this the introduction of the axis of the central line I think is the Revolutionary part of durang's proposal
• 89:30 - 90:00 I have argued in in other places that it it marks the moment where the subject enters uh architecture and so the AIS is a way for the architect to organize the space through a kind of subjective perception and uh cognition or or or the way the subject sort of deals with uh the whole project and if you compare this to uh to Renaissance treatises
• 90:00 - 90:30 where you see similar kinds of grids that organize the buildings they're fundamentally different because in this cesarano drawing you see similar kinds of lines that that he proposes as proportional mechanisms for organizing the building they are actually outlines that uh Define the outer um surfaces uh and forms of of the of the uh columns and and walls and so this
• 90:30 - 91:00 idea this older idea of order of taxes and if we use uh an albertian renissance um term it's Linea and so Alberti writes that all the intent and purpose of lineaments lies in the finding in finding the correct infallible way of joining and fitting together those lines and angles which Define and enclose the surface of of the building so the proportional lines that guided uh
• 91:00 - 91:30 architecture Western architecture until the 18th century were actually sort of fixed lines that enclosed the outer forms of the building and of course this uh implies that that uh the forms and the elements that are used are fixed uh until the 18th century you really can't imagine an architecture outside of of classicism but of course uh uh into the 19th century in durang you now have a system of of
• 91:30 - 92:00 uh of uh an or a kind of order where you select uh pieces and elements it can be Egyptian architecture can be Gothic or classical and then sort of place them in these sort of grids which are basically again center lines and um the way that 19th century bza architecture architect's practice was based on these Central uh spatial axises and so from
• 92:00 - 92:30 the way that you draw a KD to the way you organize a large complex building the first thing is to organize the space through the spatial accesses and then you create a kind of a system of accesses until you get into the details and so the way you design a plan um in this 19th century buza tradition which extended until the first half of the 20th century is you devise a system of of of center lines and so you position
• 92:30 - 93:00 your plan you organize your plan and the term of of course is composition through these uh Central spatial axises uh and it and this kind of central line is is very Central to the way uh Architects trained uh you had to train to be able to go from this simple diagram uh to the specific figure forms and so the central sort of discipline is to be able to go back and forth here and
• 93:00 - 93:30 from this very simple diagrams you can sort of form uh very specifically uh the plan and and uh elements and uh figures for your building and so this we saw this with Sam's presentation and and uh if you look carefully at these each figure it sometimes difficult to understand to to sort out whether this line is a spatial Central Axis or the center line of the
• 93:30 - 94:00 structure or or a wall or columns and so sometimes uh you think that okay so this this probably is a central spatial axis uh then maybe this is a double loader Corridor and so each each instance is a bit different and um and though durang himself sort of explained the design process as a kind of stepbystep procedure he also
• 94:00 - 94:30 acknowledged that when you actually design this all happens very quickly at one moment and so that was the way that uh bzar practice was was taught and practiced so it's a very hierarchical way of of Designing you get the program you think through it and then with one sort of uh a gesture of course it can take 12 hours or 1 hour whatever but but in a in a sort of intuitive understanding of of the of the whole program and of course of the urban
• 94:30 - 95:00 condition you pull all these uh different kinds of axises together and create and of course the plan was the fundamental uh uh basis of design and so for example this uh sketch which was obviously very quickly done you can find perhaps the U typological diagram probably some kind of uh deviation from this uh I think the this had a kind of central axis and you can
• 95:00 - 95:30 see he is drawing the spatial axis which in the end will not actually appear in the building uh but in organizing uh his plan this is of course anal so he does this light sort of sketch here and then some of these lines probably will be sort of at the end remain as as uh appear as as actual structural walls some will have been aises that uh that he drew into the plan
• 95:30 - 96:00 but of course they were just sort of like diagrammatic um in the end non-material nonvisual interventions that that uh helped him organize the whole thing and so uh I think when we try to understand the notion of the diagrammatic construction of of the of type uh it there is this sort of uh issue of of what is actually visible and what is what is invisible uh and that the relation
• 96:00 - 96:30 between what you actually see what you pay your attention to and what is sort of like a medium and so the idea of of of medium enters into architecture with Duram because these grids these diagrams act as a media for the subject to enter the project and enter into uh the the actual say Fe field of of of the site uh uh and so uh uh it is it
• 96:30 - 97:00 could I think it is an important uh um uh problem and issue particularly uh when you're trying to understand how you're going to deal with type in an actual project what are you going to actually draw what are you going to take out uh how do you sort of manage instabilities uh during the whole process of the project I think these sort of issues uh still remain quite important um of course um this idea of
• 97:00 - 97:30 of of uh the intervention of the subject uh and it's um presence and absence in the sequence of the project is a fundamentally uh modern idea which was never really quite I think understood by by the general architectural profession and so in many cases uh in the early 20th
• 97:30 - 98:00 century you obviously have bad bzaro practices and mostly the reason is that they accept these uh typologies without understanding the principle of spatial uh composition how the subject enters and that he's free and the architect is free to organize these things and so you have you see a lot of these um manual sort of uh uh standardized ways of typological um interpretations which I think uh were the reasons for a lot of
• 98:00 - 98:30 bad uh buildings uh and and obviously we all know that uh in the early 20th century that the bzar practice bzar system uh falls down it collapses and and and and uh when you study the process of why you know the bzar tradition which could be extended for for 300 years let's say why that collapsed during the early 20th century or how it collapsed let's say
• 98:30 - 99:00 you can understand that the first thing that breaks down is the um the Reliance on on style uh and already in durang you know style becomes a secondary issue he talks about how style is not important uh and so with the with the meu of the 20th century which is very specific I won't get into that uh I think it's different from uh from country to country but um the first thing that uh is uh that gets under attack in the bzar system is is
• 99:00 - 99:30 stylistic uh uh preference for historical uh um styles and so uh what happens in the early 20th century is that the bzar system the kind of spatial composition that was at the basis is some is somehow retained but then you have to do away with all the the Styles and and figures and and classical elements and what happens Uh I that and I argue is is you have the what you call might call the emaciated sketch and so you
• 99:30 - 100:00 have these sort of uh uh principles of organizing space without the basic elements that sustained it and made it a a very uh um dense analytical and analogical systems and so you end up with a lot of these kinds of Baron buildings and what happens with Architects is that without the kind of basic elements that were part of this uh system you sort of get anxious I think people sort of want expression and so so
• 100:00 - 100:30 they start to sort of twist buildings and and try to make different kinds of forms or to use the term Mass becomes very important in providing expression in um in this kind of situation and of course we've uh We've thought about uh Lov and his importance and of course uh we know about the Revolutionary um instance that the five points or more specifically the Domino
• 100:30 - 101:00 grid uh brings to modern architecture and uh when you read uh lovier he understands uh the traditions of the Bazar and how important the introduction of the axis is in uh the trajectory towards um towards a modern architecture and uh there's a there's a very interesting part in uh toward w a towards an architecture where he discusses the Pompei house and at that moment he talks about how fundamental
• 101:00 - 101:30 the axis is to uh to architecture and to humanity and so uh he retains the idea of the AIS and that he understands that the it is through the axis that the subject intervenes into into the world and into architecture at the same time we all know that this subject in Lov now sort of roams about and so you can't really sort of set the subject as a fixed uh spatial Center and then sort of organize the other elements uh into that
• 101:30 - 102:00 center now we have this kind of uh grided system a kind of neutral expansive repetitive system which uh uh he he I think rightly called a desert and so we have this kind of repetitive neutral system where the subject uh who is sort of at the center of the axis now moves along and freely and so the idea of the a I think Lov brings uh the idea of uh durang's access
• 102:00 - 102:30 to its sort of logical conclusion now that if if it's a spatial subject then then you don't have to confine that subject with these given elements and with this given kinds of uh structure U uh of at least you know the 19th century uh and so we understand you know the ways the Revolutionary Ways that the grid system changed architecture but at the same time we have to remember that
• 102:30 - 103:00 uh even lovier sort of relied on specific kinds of typological uh Mes in in in designing his uhu his particularly his early 1920s um uh houses and so you see these kinds of uh uh uh proportional uh diagrams uh that is is his typology is the way that that he organized through the Domino grid a kind of of loose typological
• 103:00 - 103:30 system in which um the moving subject intervenes okay so now we we we uh we talked about the way uh the bzar system uh was actually a fundamental modern uh phenomena and that uh that the important think was that of the the introduction of the spatial subject through the axis and how Lov brings that into a new kind of of disciplinary formation based on on
• 103:30 - 104:00 the repetitive grid uh so we're now around the early 20th century uh so now I begin to just talk briefly about the formation of the functional diagram and I won't get into it too much but uh uh the the functional diagram historically Begins the modern diagram the modern functional diagram begins with uh the interventions of Scientific Management
• 104:00 - 104:30 in the early 20s Century so this is a very American phenomena that did spread out to uh to Europe uh during the 1920s and 30s and it begins with uh the urge to control uh labor and and production and so these diagrams were devised by uh early uh management engineers and and and U and uh uh what you call industrial engineers and when you see these lines here in in
• 104:30 - 105:00 uh in scientific manage they are usually representations of of the Workman or of of products and uh they developed extremely you know interesting ways of of uh controlling the worker and so you would have these kind of systems where you put a light spot on on the top of the head or on the hand and uh and and when this worker sort of is writing
• 105:00 - 105:30 probably a secretary writing a memo or something like that how do you sort of uh uh make efficient the secretary's work that's the kind of um um thing that we're doing and so when you put a light spot here and then use uh uh highspeed photography you end up with this diagram here and through this diagram you sort of train the worker to work efficiently and save a lot of money and time and so the diagrams the representation of the diagram was based
• 105:30 - 106:00 on in scientific management on the control of the worker so the diagram the lines themselves actually represent either the the the the person uh the body or the product the way it moves around uh the office space uh but when you look at the way that the this functional diagram moves on to architecture you quickly understand that in architecture uh the lines that appear as diagrams are not
• 106:00 - 106:30 actually uh do not actually represent the body or the material actually they are sort of like a vague indications of spatial boundaries let's say and so you have these kinds of uh architectural uh Research into uh uh functional spaces but in fact what they're doing is sort of the l d are are delineating spaces rather than the body or or the material or the
• 106:30 - 107:00 productive within uh scientific manage and and these kinds of research eventually end up into the uh new kinds of of of data and and scientific uh uh research of the early 20th century uh this kind of thing enters this the architectural graphic standards noer uh the Japanese data they were all sort of produced uh during the 1930s and so when you look at U at the architectural diagram as it sort of
• 107:00 - 107:30 emerged through the influence of Scientific Management actually they're not that dissimilar to the diagrams formulated by the bzar because the bzar diagrams here uh are indications of you know they're based on the spatial axis so the indications of how the space is organized and that was actually the same role that the functional diagram had and so we have this
• 107:30 - 108:00 question about what the difference is between the typological diagrams that evolved out of the bzar tradition and the functional diagram uh that comes out from a different uh path but but somehow at a certain point they look extremely similar and uh so I will read um from my book that was mentioned the portfolio and the diagram um the question then becomes how
• 108:00 - 108:30 one distinguishes the bzar partti diagram from the fun from the functionalist bubble diagram as we have carefully examined the distinction is not simply between form and nonform of course when the uh functional diagram goes moves on to to architecture the primary idea is that we're not dealing with form we're dealing with program with functions and we're sort of delaying the entry of form uh uh through a kind of logical process uh that that
• 108:30 - 109:00 uh that the diagram uh administers uh and so the idea here is that this is not form while of course B architect would say that this you know form is here and so uh I would argue that that uh the distinction is not simply between form and nonform though the bubble diagram insists that it does not represent the physical building it is in fact a loose configuration of the building implying
• 109:00 - 109:30 relations between volumetric units designated by verbal statements on movements and activities and so the idea of the the early functionalist diagram I think that logic extends to most of the diagrammatic practice that we saw in the late 1990s um and and I I think I think Ben was in London yesterday or so and so I thought you know M's house would be a good example to show that actually uh
• 109:30 - 110:00 recent diagrammatic practice actually follows uh the early functionalist um uh diagrams uh of the early 20th century uh and so you know obviously I think Ben already knew what form he wanted to create and uh created this so-called d diagram uh as the basis what he called nonform actually
• 110:00 - 110:30 um okay uh in the case of the party diagram here these things and and we can also uh hug back to Duran uh we may refer to Kang's famous definition of type that it presents less the image of a thing to copy or imitate completely than the idea of an element which ought itself to serve as a rule for the model of course this was already
• 110:30 - 111:00 in Sam's uh presentation and I would like you to uh to um focus on the idea of the the the statement of the idea of an element uh in the case of uh the party diagram we may refer to ki's famous definition of type here and the proposition of the idea of an element is an understanding that the architectural element cannot be conceived in and of itself but must be defined in relation to a larger hole a column in relation to
• 111:00 - 111:30 the Ure and base a colonade within a courtyard a house within an open Fabric and so on and so the idea that that the type implies relations Is I think the central idea um here in other words the bzar partti must be also be understood as a system of relations but one in which the transformation occur within the lines of its diagram in the bzar system the diagram was embedded within the plan uh that was why analysis and
• 111:30 - 112:00 projection abstraction and figuration could occur within the lines and surfaces of the portfolio and so we we when we talked about the way that the Early N until the early 20th century the way the diagram works is within the kind of uh plan figuration and within uh the the the structures of the material structures uh of of the building uh the initial sketch of the party diagram the esis the the quick sketch indicates the overall character
• 112:00 - 112:30 of the design the distribution of rooms the details of its form and the specifics of entrance circulation light ventilation and Views the bza plan was able to function as an analog because in uh using Nelson Goodman's terms it was part of a syntactically dense and articulate system and so once the uh the the commitment to style to to figures to these elements collapses then actually we have what we I previously call the
• 112:30 - 113:00 emaciated uh sketch the emaciated ESC in the discourse of the diagram uh so when when the diagram appears the analogical circle is en tied and the diagram is dislodged from the dense hermetic system um but I I don't talk I I won't be able to get into to that part in this um in this talk but uh when the diagram appears it brings with it together a
• 113:00 - 113:30 whole different way of of seeing other kinds of relations and So within the bzar system uh you have a kind of dense um conglom conglomeration of images that you refer to you know the Norms that you look back to uh in your own design with a diagram now this is all dispersed and so the way you sort of pull in different kinds of references images becomes uh dispersed and there's a very specific sort of transition in the way that
• 113:30 - 114:00 journals and books appear and the you know the data books the architecture graphic standards noord is just one sort of um aspect of that um as noted this was as much the consequence of the diagrams moved toward the program as it was the result of the demise of the analytic that is the the the stylistic commitment um the discipline that facilitated the transformation of the eskee into the final design
• 114:00 - 114:30 um uh which was uh the analytic carrying little indication of the elevation sections and details the D bubble diagram no longer sustains the density of The Skys okay finally um so uh when we look at the relation between uh the diagram and the way that uh form architectural form relation to it was
• 114:30 - 115:00 assumed when you look at the functional diagram we realize that that if a diagram can generate form then it is already uh the diagram is already a form and the correlation to that that diagram is form is that form is a diagram and so this is the important aspect when we understand the kind of Transformations towards modern architecture and of course the the uh Lov understood this that that U uh that
• 115:00 - 115:30 now that he's dealing with a kind of desert before he actually sort of begins his ambition uh begins his his work and so um in modern architecture uh the diagram has become form and form has become a diagram though these two propositions may seem one and the same they imply quite different ways of approaching architectural design in the former that is when diagram is a form uh
• 115:30 - 116:00 the architect's gaze remains centered on the line and as we saw in the housing designs oh this is I didn't mention uh and and we we should pay heat to what lovi talked about this aspect when when diagram becomes form uh Lor has characterized this kind of approach as the chemic fixation on type plan when the plan becomes a kind of fixed sort of formul Lake um uh diagram the cor knew
• 116:00 - 116:30 that this fixation result in the most Barren of solutions and thus he insisted that technology and standardization establish type elements not the type plan uh stripped of its dense conventions the type is no longer the central visual object of a tightly woven analogical system but a loose diagrammatic conf configuration and um the last images I'm going to show is is um is Sima work for Toledo Museum of Art and
• 116:30 - 117:00 um I won't go into that but uh I think during the late 990s when you know the diagram was was very much the attention of of the architectural Community I think one of the best sort of characterization of what it means for form to be a diagram and what it means to work with a diagram was uh toyo's sort of uh characterization of saima's work and so he toyoo uh tells us that
• 117:00 - 117:30 seima uh has this sort of intuitive uh uh approach to the diagram that she doesn't normally sort of uh go through that process where the diagram is considered nonform and through a kind of planning and logical process you end up with the final form and so Toyo states that Sima understood that the diagram that she Drew of course based on painstaking research and the assumptions of of Japanese sophisticated construction and
• 117:30 - 118:00 and all those things um I think she does this because she has an assumption that the building Institute will just sort of realize this work um and so in in in U in saima's case she understands that that form has already become a diagram and so this this gesture this sort of uh drawing is both diagram and and it's both form and and it becomes of course uh it coincides
• 118:00 - 118:30 with this ambition with this Vision coincidentally and so it's not like that this diagram becomes this but um that uh she's able to to conceive this uh as one thing and so uh uh I will conclude with actually uh Julio car aran's uh definition of type which I I don't I didn't check but it was I think in the early 1970s and I think it still uh
• 118:30 - 119:00 Rings U is is is very much relevant to our discussion today um to use Julio car aran's expression the type is a scheme of spatial articulation devoid of value judgment and so I'm not sure how actually I have to look into the again but he did understand that the instrumental nature of the diagram already of the type and so that the type here uh through in argon's definition is
• 119:00 - 119:30 not the kind of sort of perhaps lost origin uh but um but intend I think in line with durang's uh interpretation that this is a kind of um instrument uh that we now have uh to approach form as a diagram is to understand that when the analogical relation between diagram and plan is severed when the discipline is dislocated from the lines The Gaze must move away from them that is the simple
• 119:30 - 120:00 yet difficult lesson of the dimensional type a lesson that such seemingly dispirit documents and uh and plans such as lov's houses and the plates of architectural graphic standards tell us uh what they telling us in very different ways is that the discipline is no longer located within their lines and that we dealing with basically instrumental and non you know without any fundamental value uh in them and but
• 120:00 - 120:30 uh I I don't really talk about that in in the book itself but when you look at at seima despite all or together not despite I think together with the idea of the instrumentality of the diagram and instrumental form there is this requirement I think to do uh to do relevant architecture is to infuse these kind of uh instrumentalized forms with a kind of em ambition a kind of vision toyoto calls uh Simma's interventions a
• 120:30 - 121:00 kind of personal intuition but I think you know there is much more uh than you know intuition going on in the way that these projects are realized and so the whole social apparatus the industrial complex the technological basis the kind of uh programmatic Ambitions that these kind of projects come into the way that Sima brings a certain uh vision and idea to this sort of in instrumentalized desert of the diagram thank you very
• 121:00 - 121:30 much [Applause] just um thank you for all the great presentation by um Sam Larry and uh um human and now we're glad to take some
• 121:30 - 122:00 questions from the room about all three um presentations is fine have a one
• 122:00 - 122:30 yeah I wonder when um the three of you are speaking um in fact whether you're talking about the same kind of diagram or not because it seems that at a certain moment um there was an idea of a kind of social diagram and then a diagram is something that could be graphically represented and maybe you could talk a little bit about the different uses of the diagram because it's something that you both concluded with and that you you elaborated on uh I think quite a lot
• 122:30 - 123:00 so that's my question you um yeah I suppose that's probably directed at me because I you know talk about people who go to work and you know people sleeping in chairs and it doesn't it doesn't sound like it's the same sort of diagram that um uh that that young men is is referring to but in fact um what I mean to indicate is that there there's
• 123:00 - 123:30 already um there's already a social pattern um implied in the walls um and there's there's a way of of um of I I think youngman's first point about capturing both the understanding of space from a subject position as well as the constructability of things uh has always been infused with this sense of active and sleeping bodies um now
• 123:30 - 124:00 um I think that what I'm trying to get at also though is that um we didn't have a chance to discuss it but that to make to imagine that these things are discursively organized I don't think we actually concern ourselves so much with the form of that sleeping body it doesn't get quite it's not detailed in the same way um there are other kinds of arguments depending upon which um which discursive formation we're talking about so I I
• 124:00 - 124:30 think what there are several points that I think were really essential in h youngman's um presentation and in his book and and these are not only that um the that form is already present in the uh in the so-called 20th century functional diagram I think that's absolutely critical uh and that furthermore there's already a diagram or a kind of force that is there in um in
• 124:30 - 125:00 the description of form through drawings uh but also beyond that that there is a a a kind of relationship between the disciplinarity of architecture and something else which is a discursive formation and the the diagram um to me I think in a way belongs more in the discursive formation and the type belongs more in architecture but the two entangle um I think that we often make
• 125:00 - 125:30 the mistake of uh approaching the issue of the diagram solely on on the on the figure itself and so when you look at the figure I think you can sort of analyze how these diagrams are different but I think when we talk about the diagram in in a in a more expansive way uh that we have to understand that the diagram is part of a larger uh discursive formation where where uh it's part of many different sort of changes
• 125:30 - 126:00 in the way we look at things and the way we interpret things so I think rather than concentrate on the way a specific figure is different I think it has to be approached as as a larger formation of how that sort of let's say figure if it is the central sort of point of uh concern uh sort of configures relations it can be societal it can be formal it can be technological and so I think I I
• 126:00 - 126:30 have a sentence in my book that the diagram is is is um the symptom is the quintessential symptom of the discourse of the diagram and so when we talk about the diagram this we need to sort of understand it as part of a larger sort of configuration of both social and um architectural um elements and forces like to thank you I did enjoy it
• 126:30 - 127:00 all the presentations and they seem to me that they have left many issues to be discussed the very first thing that I would like to say is that types in my view resist representations I don't believe that types can be drawn can be said that is a type and almost as a result of that I think that using Duran Duran to speak about typology I will say that this
• 127:00 - 127:30 misleading in my view the the plant that you have shown with the axis and the big Central space and say this is a building that is drawn by the idea of a diagram I wouldn't say that there is anything diagrammatic at the end diagram has to do much more with description of movement with the disposition of functions and then you are able of of just locating that in the space and
• 127:30 - 128:00 saying I I I would be able to translate directly into the building but is much moreable valuable when R has didn't explain the diagram of the athletic building in New York he says what happened in this building but he's not just saying that the building is going to be structured throughout diagram it's quite the therefore may you
• 128:00 - 128:30 you are able to to describe which is the movement of some production but you are unable to translate that directly in the building this seems to be misleading even when you are taking the the S Building and you look at that you are able to follow some contiguities that happily doesn't happen to in the building exactly the same you have shown in the diagram in the the building is indeed the cor are taking much more protagonist and and then I structuring
• 128:30 - 129:00 then the architecture operation is just the location of the coras and how those coras are going to assume the system of contiguities that could be let's say put together in the diagram I indeed I believe that when the quote you have done of Kes by saying diagrams underline all
• 129:00 - 129:30 typological Theory all typological theories I wouldn't say that at the end any type is just able to be represented of being drawn that at the end we you identify the types in in the things that has been built but it would be difficult to say that the buildings are serving to some of those diagrams I think that is misleading also to offer all the
• 129:30 - 130:00 geometrical let's say figures by Duran and say that those are diagrams of buildings when you have SE the the the drawings of haniman that is just the contrary of what the diagram is yes in my view I think that we should try to clarify obviously I believe that the the notion of type underlies a lot of architecture
• 130:00 - 130:30 but is very difficult to translate that and therefore it's such an slippery Andy concept anyway I me perhaps if I can comment on this I think the I think of course you're uh on one hand you're you're completely correct right because um you also know that um Duron
• 130:30 - 131:00 in many ways precedes even hisor historiographically um Kat but I think the the the reason why to think this together to me is well I tried to kind of explain it with L because I think that in a way L is the forefather of two ideas um or or he's symptomatic I think for for certain kind of problem that gets discussed and I think on the one hand it gets articulated in the theories of Kat on sort of much more explicitly
• 131:00 - 131:30 on the idea of type on the other hand of course it it get um it leads to some someone like Duron which I think is a very different tradition right I think it has nothing to do with the kind of U art historical discourse or the question of knowledge that um I think K talks about it is actually in fact I think what we were probably now called sort of much more d itic tradition that has to do with drawing right how do we draw things um um how do we conceptualize these things but sure I think um you are
• 131:30 - 132:00 correct it's misleading but of course that's also in a way why I guess it's it's just kind of acknowledging also that I think today when the majority when we when we talk about types people talk about building typologies right so of course the closest is um Durant even though he of course he doesn't talk about building typologies in fact he talks about genres that come out from the idea of character right so there's a complication but I think the um I mean to to come back to the the point right I
• 132:00 - 132:30 thought the to me the the sort of interesting part was when the idea of history and Theory comes together right and I think it both is about how do we conceptualize the knowledge but also how do we actually start to kind of draw it right and I think this is why the idea of type or or the sort of diagram how it was used by L and then of course by Durant and and you know everyone following up from that um I think it's very very instrumental now of course you're completely right that doesn't
• 132:30 - 133:00 mean they've drawn types right but I I think they they've actually AP part in a way I guess of of the problem but how do you conceptualize it or how do you actually translate it if I may maybe if I could go on slightly from that we we we play a funny game in uh one of my courses and it it's you know an image comes up when we say is it a diagram and then of course you know we're all you know all of us we kind of you know collapse in various levels of
• 133:00 - 133:30 Doubt um as um as soon as we encounter the question now um I I completely agree with you about the table uh that was put up um hanan's table and in a sense what we finally decided is we like to call it a a table of um of form and organizational um description of form organization relationships Preparatory to being able to talk about diagrams and types you know and uh and
• 133:30 - 134:00 so in a sense it's something that you might think you kind of have to digest in the 19 century if you were ever going to go on and try to diagram things or sketch things or analyze things all the things that you have to do in a way are indicated in the table but it's not it's clearly not a a diagram nor a set of diagrams but com coming to your your other point yes I I think one of the things we share is the sense that type is a synthesis
• 134:00 - 134:30 but but what precisely it's a synthesis of is is always remains I think somewhat open to question so have beened when I I wonder whether I understood properly what you said but when we watch at all those inner spaces in the latest part of your presentation and you say all those spaces are the way we feel
• 134:30 - 135:00 nowadays that the the lobby of a public space should be and yet it would be completely impossible in this very moment to say that you are talking about the type and that you are talking about very specific space type that is extended everywhere nowadays and then we are almost unable to identify that as a type and yet it is a type of space as it was the entrances to the skyscaper no in
• 135:00 - 135:30 New York in the 50s and 60s that is a sense those State you have shown four or five or six examples of that quite quite clear and yet I I guess that you would agree with me that that is very difficult to say and to grasp and to express graphically what means these sprays absolutely at the end we
• 135:30 - 136:00 was when talking about type and I wouldn't to anticipate something of what I would like to say this afternoon but uh at at the end you you identify what has been the past throughout some times should it happened again the same in the time to come when looking at what for us is so evasive nowadays they will be able
• 136:00 - 136:30 to identify and say well in the early 21st century they thought spaces this way because under this point of view the way in which Seattle library dissolves the idea of let's say an ideal Public Library you know that that that came from those example we have seen as well is very represented represents quite well the the true resistance to
• 136:30 - 137:00 recognize ourselves in any style nowadays then just comments without the way the way I would sort of set this disc discussion uh or or the kind of connection between our three presentation is that that my interests have have been on
• 137:00 - 137:30 disciplinary processes and and while I think Larry uh was concerned with the effects in in a in a very expanded meaning of that term uh interpretation meaning and effect and I think one of the primary sort of issues nowadays is how how these two things relate and so for the disciplinary concerns I think you can go down to little things like what do you actually draw or and and and
• 137:30 - 138:00 for me when you actually draw something in a specific figure it means that you're committing to that you have you're making value judgments about certain things however the logic uh appears and so the issue about what you actually draw and do not draw within perhaps a kind of large synthetic idea of of type seems to meet a very crucial issue and then we have to think if I draw this what will happen when the building actually is built up and people
• 138:00 - 138:30 occupy it and and the effects that it it creates and so I think um for those I think for mature architects who do interesting work they've made this sort of decision how they're going to connect these two things whereas I think uh people who are searching for for different issues I think uh it's a very difficult problem about what you commit to in a kind of of system whether you call it type or not and so the issue about about what is drawn and
• 138:30 - 139:00 not drawn is is can be very fundamental and if you believe that there are certain sort of types that cannot be drawn then you have to find a way to to as an architect to create that and but I I have difficulty imagining uh without actually representing it how you're actually going to sort of argue or attain a kind of effect that can be very fundamental
• 139:00 - 139:30 or or original or well Prim primordial I think in some way to to follow on from that that the intersection there I think it's very difficult to imagine um The Becoming typical of the Seattle Public Library From This Moment that is as we treat it prospectively I can see all the reasons as you've picked up I can see all the reasons why characteristics of it seem to be um seem
• 139:30 - 140:00 to be in keeping with things that we may want to see under certain configurations economic and social and urban today at the same time if I try to imagine who would set about drawing the next version and the next version and the next version and and creating the series that one might imagine could begin to describe an approach towards type I mean obviously it's not a typical building now it has precedent um and it
• 140:00 - 140:30 there is at the heart of it a series of considerations within the discipline that that um that have guided how we look at its possibility and yet it doesn't all come together um yet as a as something that we could describe as a type there is no synthesis there where we'd say yep okay that's it I've got it um and um and so I think in a way this question that young men is Raising how
• 140:30 - 141:00 do we go from this moment to to begin to extract from it the things that we would be committed to as distinctive the next time it would be is a very interesting challenge I think can I ask you something that seems to me rather paradoxical and contradictory about donon that uh the justification as I understand it in his lectures for this new method of composition is that the inherited forms
• 141:00 - 141:30 from the ancient world the palano and the temple and the Basilica and so on are insufficient for this range of new institutions and new um societal forms and Industrial forms that we forms of activity that is that we find in the late 18th 19th century and yet when and and yet when he you come to his method of composition it is people have said it is essentially a method of formal composition and I think I'm right saying that nowhere is there nowhere does he
• 141:30 - 142:00 talk about the process where programs and functions are mapped onto these um symmetrical forms which is kind of strange um I think you indicated that this is something that happens when the bozar architect who's got all this apparatus comes to the dra important does it all but he doesn't talk about that I think despite the fact that in the ra he he he explicitly sets out types that are classified in terms of
• 142:00 - 142:30 use and activity but those are not brought to bear um I wondered whether I I've been interested a lot in biological analogies and I think you mentioned Sam that the possibility and I think it's certainty that U Duron and others were inspired by contemporary activities in Natural History history in bu and CU and so on but that Natural History is at that stage really descriptive and is quite to quite a large extent formal and
• 142:30 - 143:00 it is awaiting the kind of physiology and uh Anatomy that comes in later in the 19th century and I wonder whether that's what durong is drawing and and is is arriving at this kind of formal system um which has seems to have this disjunction from from program and activity in Institution is it I mean I think it U what it relates to is that um I think you're
• 143:00 - 143:30 correct to say um that that these the employment of of all these drawings and in these taxonomies are descriptive um but of course it's also the kind of Tipping Point when it turns into something else right and I think that's kind of um in some ways it's a recognition I think also by all these Architects to say that kind of descriptive meth meod actually allows us to talk about architecture in a very different way whereas before it was of course much more um driven by a question of archaeology but at least in the 17
• 143:30 - 144:00 18th century so what you get is a different kind of method of description right so it's a in fact it's a description that is in in in one way I guess what's the most critical is it turns away from looking backwards to the past and sort of archaeology purely actually something that looks at in terms of what will happen but of course it's not quite there yet but in many ways because we know in in the in the 19th century 18th century what happens evolutionary evolutionary theory as such
• 144:00 - 144:30 doesn't exist as we know it today but of course they are the beginnings right of and I think uh you also why of course this kind of whole discourse I think with kuier and so on becomes so important not just for I think zoologist is because they it was this sort of belief that uh the discour of these Origins would in fact reflect back on a societal problem right I mean looking back and understanding what what the past is we will understand actually where we should be as a as a modern
• 144:30 - 145:00 society and I think that that belief um I think also well I think this is where it goes beyond the descriptive right and I think this is also why there's this kind of belief also with donon that to uh mobilized drawings in in a in a different way will actually reveal something else about form now having said that I think um it's also correct to say that um Durand I think never set this whole thing up to uh make Architects inventive it was set up in
• 145:00 - 145:30 fact to teach uh Engineers how to execute basic buildings and I think this is in a way I think the kind of tragedy I think today that we actually refer back to someone like Duron and the process and think that was actually a solution that was that was uh meant to teach us how to be inventive it was never like that right but I I so what I was trying to say is one important thing it did is it actually gave us a different kind of tools or different understanding of how to analyze
• 145:30 - 146:00 architecture now there are of course certain limitations to that right but I think that has become then a very rich tradition that led into different ideas of the diagrams right and I think this is where I see kind of the the potential of that yeah I I I think this won't be an answer uh to your question but within the limited sort of uh boundaries of the budah tradition we have certain ideas about the relation between uh program
• 146:00 - 146:30 and design and composition let's say and so that that in the bzar tradition uh architecture was never seen as a result of the program and so that architecture was uh particularly in the late after line it was sort of seen as a formal mechanism and a solution to to to the program but that the architect was never burdened or responsible for the program and so the idea that architecture comes out of the program was totally alien to
• 146:30 - 147:00 that tradition and so they talk about Elegance of solutions to to different programs and so um even Duram I think within that milu did not have the kind of programmatic uh uh sort of interest that that we now uh always have in the end these structures of fill with people and and institutions so yeah so so there is there there are I think historically we do need to understand that that how they
• 147:00 - 147:30 sort of approached um social issues we I have concentrated on on these formal mechanisms but I think there this whole area of interest of historical and theoretical interest uh I have a question uh I think that the C the library uh opens a quite interesting question in relation to uh the the convention and um and the conventional
• 147:30 - 148:00 right I mean the conventional uh as for example all these libraries that you showed before uh so in that sense um is it possible to to challenge the problem of conventions through uh typological reasoning so in one in one sense uh typology uh seems uh a kind of heavy rest in terms of how history is uh
• 148:00 - 148:30 coming again and again and on the other hand uh you see like the the the the tool of the diagram as a much for much more a free instrument to operate in cases like I think the this this Library so I don't know what's your general opinion yeah oh good um well uh I guess this let's say the
• 148:30 - 149:00 larger question uh does type potentially contest convention yeah actually I I think uh the reason why it does I I guess from my point of view the best way to understand type is not as the repetition of the same but as the repetition of difference um so so what you're really trying to identify when you uh try to to capture the idea that is apparently in type is what is it that
• 149:00 - 149:30 makes it distinctive uh what is it that allows one to see a a force that uh that veers away from something else uh and so for me type in a way is always trying to capture that that um that distinctiveness that pushes towards alteration variation uh now every once in a while it seems that instead of just a series
• 149:30 - 150:00 where things all share a kind of family resemblance it seems to me that something kind of dramatic happens now in the case of the Seattle Public Library um I um as as I understand it the exploration of form an organization going on inside of om wasn't necessarily you know focused on the question all along can we make a better Library uh instead there's an exploration of form
• 150:00 - 150:30 and organization that is independent of that question but it turns out it can be applied to questions of light information the the uh the absorption of a public in uh in a certain kind of Civic building a whole series of other questions you suddenly go hang on the way we're seeing the stabilities and instabilities in in a program allow us to deploy um a set of ideas that we've been working on materially for quite a
• 150:30 - 151:00 long time uh and also starting to think about it in relation to a range of other Library projects and finally get a chance to to build it and then it becomes something that uh that where it begins to challenge the convention now I would expect that the things that are learned from the Seattle public Public Library would begin to inform Library design at the very least but it hasn't overturned all the libraries that you know the design of all the libraries we're seeing now you
• 151:00 - 151:30 know recently was in the new library in in Amsterdam what a mess um you know it it doesn't seem to have learned very much at all from the the the the problems of you know light organization you know that that in a way you would start thinking about after looking at the Seattle public light Library um not to mention the question of you know that I was trying to get at is is can can the organizational principles uh through the discipline
• 151:30 - 152:00 start to become indicative of directions for other genres like workspace and so on we didn't really get into the depth of that but I think in both cases the the point that I'm trying to suggest is that there are there are antecedants to that building that um can only be thought about if you question the fundamental basis uh not of libraries but of
• 152:00 - 152:30 organizational specificities at the heart of type um and it's the questioning those organizational specificities that seems to me to lead to a veering away from convention can I just I'll just briefly sort of take the question to a different sort of line and and U is that I your question seems to assume that conventions are sort of a negative thing that you have to overcome or critique no
• 152:30 - 153:00 no I'm saying that it's it I mean of course it's really it's really hard to work with something without any convention I think but but at the at the same time sometimes like I don't know in the case of the library it looks much more straightforward to to break this conventions through the diagram uh I'm taking this to a totally different sort of issue but I I think we do have to sort of point it out because I'm from a kind of different uh
• 153:00 - 153:30 situation um I think the there was extremely interesting discussion in the 80s I think 7080s about the relation with type tradition and Convention and so uh and there's a kind of specific Western configuration in the relation between the three but then when we deal with uh certain situations particularly where I'm from or where China is at now is that there is a kind of U uh Schism in this sort of tradition and and type
• 153:30 - 154:00 and so a lot of times in those cases we rely on convention rather than a broken tradition and so when you say when the institution of the modern Library hasn't been established and it's sort of still evolving and all things you have to build a library in in Beijing or in Soul then you do have to rely on conventions rather than traditions and then you
• 154:00 - 154:30 don't have the uh Western typologies that operate and so you have to create new kinds of I'm not sure whether we we would call that type in that kind of situation actually no but but talking about the extremely interesting to speak about the two libraries of R Kul as the France library and seatt because I would say that are quite quite different I guess that it it was much more certain typological interest in the
• 154:30 - 155:00 France Library than in this one in France he wanted to give how let's say a national Li should be and then this this there there is a clear effort for this ambition innovation that I would say that the the SE Library my view the building speaks more about what the architect knows of how to build a
• 155:00 - 155:30 building that just an specific library at the end it is more something about the entire site conditions how he proceeds and it you could say at the end that the SE Library could be whatever kind of a public building it could be using whatever yeah paradoxically at the end some of the images that you see of the library have the greatness and even the monumentality of all libraries as well yeah and falls in a rhetoric that
• 155:30 - 156:00 probably wouldn't like to R has to to speak about instead the the building is a clear statement of how he has mastered a certain way of dealing with how to put the building in the middle of the city but the fact that that we are talking about type has enter in a rather deceptive way the the the discussion whether C library is establishing the
• 156:00 - 156:30 path for the new type of of contemporary buildings I guess it doesn't is it something else what what value of do yeah I think that's right yeah any questions okay I think then we we'll break and uh we start again at 2:00 so please open back
• 156:30 - 157:00 [Applause] uh Mary we have met before around MIT I think no you know you know I I know I I face yeah well the same you