Unit Summary: Foundations Unit

Foundations are the basic unit of a space: what holds a building together, the beginning of a structure, the basics, and in some considerations the most significant part. Either in buildings – if the foundation is not secure then the building may collapse – or in architecture as a whole – the first bits of architecture that influenced everything thereafter. To begin this review, however, I feel I should set my own foundation; we began with a very important concept, the power of three. Many strong architectural designs stem in threes and, ironically, there are three main forms I have learned in this unit.

The first, as declared by Sir Henry Wotten (Roth 11), is commodity: function: delight, all of which must occur in a building for it to be great. For a building to live up to its potential, it must have a sturdy structure, serve its intended purpose, and bring pleasure to those who pass through/by it. A church, for example, usually fulfills these three concerns; it is used as a place of worship, it is sturdy, and more often than not, the building makes its worshipers feel joyous.

The next power of three group it archetype: prototype: hybrid, which can be experienced anywhere in architecture. The archetype of columns, for example, came from Egypt and was known as the Doric column. The Grecians took this idea of the column and expanded on it, creating Ionic columns. Ionic columns were prototypes because they stemmed from the original idea; they became sturdier and more appealing to the eye. The hybrid in this situation would be Corinthian columns, which were the most delightful to the eye, most full of life, and sturdiest. A further example of this would be how the Romans took the Doric column and created a prototype – the Tuscan Doric – which was more slender. (Roth 31)

The last power of three we learned was porch: court: hearth, and can also be found throughout architecture. Take for instance an average house in the suburbs; it has a porch area (the entrance, which can create a change in mood), a living room functioning as the court (the gathering center; this can also be a kitchen), and a master bedroom which is the hearth (the private, sometimes most important space). This can also be applies to whole cities, Acropolis in Athens, Greece is a good example of this. There is a large winding path to Acropolis in which a traveler may encounter multiple other people, and become overwhelmed with the importance of this grand space, followed by the actual entrance itself with towering walls, all part of the porch. The court was the gathering area near the front where there weren’t many buildings, and the hearth was the Parthenon – the large temple built for Athena.

There were many buildings constructed for people, and they were most often dedicated to men who were Pharaohs or rulers. There were also buildings, cathedrals for example, which rose in height in attempt to connect the heavens and the earth, or used a dome shape with a hole in the center to the heavens could always be visible. Of the buildings dedicated to people, the ones which were tallest and spotted the landscape the most were more often for men (such as the temples in Egypt and the towers in Rome), and this is because the height imitated the male form, and was expressing his power. Some buildings were made for women, such a Queen Hatshepsut’s Tomb; it was still a heavy structure, but was more feminine because it centered more on the horizontal, and seemed to be built of the land. The difference between being of the land and on the land was how much its appearance differed from the land, or how much the structure utilized (or didn’t utilize) its entourage. The Romans, for instance, preferred ignore the natural landscape, and cut through and hills or mountains, and attempt to move water. (Roth 250)

The shapes that were first used in architecture were very basic – circles were utilized in Stonehenge, lines were found in Carnac, and triangles were used in Egypt. Each of these shapes would later be improved upon and create more options; a plain circle, for example, was used in later Roman architecture to make domes and even octagonal shapes. The use of squares and rectangles came into play in the Roman Empire as well to create ordered areas of axially disposed buildings (Roth 250). Order was important to the Romans, and they made buildings appear the same on the outside, as well as sit in straight lines.

The section on foundations explained the basic principles that created architecture in its very beginning. The first architects used basic shapes, as well as directional cues to create order and fluidity. Designs from these times are the archetypes of architecture today.

OPUS 5

An interior view of Hagia Sophia.*

The grand Basilicas and Cathedrals found in the Roman era created a very strong spiritual presence. The designers of these buildings, such as Isidoros of Miletos and Anthemios of Tralles who built Hagia Sophia, used domes to create a connection between heaven and earth, as well as tall columns to show height. (Roth 290) These structures, as well as numerous windows were used to shed luminous dazzling light. This light also increased the presence of high spirits because it made awe-inspiring reflections and colors.




The Greek architecture was used as a precedent to the later Roman buildings – Romans took the best of Greek arches, as well as ideas for large interiors and other structures, and then improved on them. (Roth 290) The Roman building types all came from the same ideas, but started to become more diverse. Also, the architects became much more focused on materials such as concrete and mosaics. (Blakemore 53) The use of mosaics unified the peoples, because they created pictures which told stories, even ones the illiterate could read. Also, the concrete and mosaics proved a functional purpose; they kept buildings such as the Baths clean.
There were other small details used as well, such as flowers, leaves and mythological scenes all steming from a Greek prototype. (Blakemore 67)


Many moments were shared in these great Baths, as we talked about in class. These places were used as a gathering area, a center for exercise and learning, and a place of course public bathing. Since it was public, men and women were not allowed at the baths at the same time (and neither were servants); however it still served its purpose, allowing people to bathe and socialize. These moments enable us to tell the story of how Romans lived during this time; creating a general area for the ‘circuses’ part in ‘bread and circuses’, distracting people by engaging them in many opportunities for social situations.

The building worked as a system of separate interests. These separate metrics, such as the bath being used as a place for bathing, a place for reading, a gymnasium, and even a theatre, create unity once again. Everything is being done in the same general building, but there are vast differences in what can be going on in each specific area, as well as the issue of who is supposed to be there – as I have already mentioned, there are separate times of the day for men, women and slaves.
Along with the different metrics presented by a bath – it is a single area for many purposes, and serves many dualities. This is to say, as I have previously stated, that they are separated into different spaces based on what a person wants to do, and different times of day based on whom the person is. It tells the story, as well, of how the Romans lived in this time – divided in some ways, but brought together in others.



This week we concentrated on the end of Roman architecture, before the Dark Ages began. We learned specifically about the Baths of the Diocletian, as well as many other structures. In all, the precedents to these types of buildings were other Roman and even earlier Greek buildings. Also, the architecture helped to create moments, which along with the buildings system (metric), and it’s many dualities, created a story of how the Romans lived. Last I found that in much of the architecture at this time, there was a Holy presence, sought after in cathedrals and through minute details, such as mosaics.

*This picture can be found at www.uncp.edu/home/rwb/lecture_mid_civ.htm the photographer was not credited.

Building selection and Justification:

I chose the Johnson Wax Building, also known as the Administration Building. Construction began in 1936 and ended in 1939, until the Research Tower was added in 1944. This building was designed by Frank Lloyd Wright in Racine, Wisconsin. It is located in a suburban area, which usually experiences a warm summer and a snowy, cold winter.

I chose the Johnson Wax Building first and foremost because it was designed by Frank Lloyd Wright. Wright’s buildings are very popular, and a staple of twentieth century design, however I don’t know much about Wright’s designs and would like to learn more about his take on architecture. While I do know that I won’t always agree with his design styles, I respect Wright for his unorthodox designs.
My analysis of this building may introduce a new perspective, one that may understand the design theory, but won’t always agree with the design elements in the building. This is because I have never seen or read about this particular work of architecture and his buildings have always been of interest to me.





Picture by Prof. Jeffery Howe.
http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/fnart/fa267/FLW_JWax.html

OPUS 4

This week we learned that in architecture there seems to be and archetype, prototype and hybrid for most or all building forms. This is to say that ideas for buildings generally originate from older buildings - the new buildings take the best aspects from the old, and improve the ideas. Therefore the archetype is the foundation - the first step. An example of this would be the Doric columns used in Greek architecture. These Doric columns were improved on; the basic structure was the same but the shape was slightly changed, and detail was added to create ionic columns. The hybrid in this example is the Corinthian columns. While the Romans used Doric as well as ionic columns, they modified them once again to create thinner, more precise columns which had still more decoration. Another example of the archetype, prototype, and hybrid comparisons would be the use of arches. In Greece, post and lintel construction was used (the archetype) which gave way to the idea of arches. The arches were then constructed by the Romans to create a larger appearance of space, and vaults were then formed out of those (prototypes). Finally two vaults were placed on top of each other in opposite direction creating groin vaults (the hybrid) as well as making the most possible room.




The evolution of architecture based on archetype, prototype, and hybrid brings to mind the idea that there is a source for everything. Something I have already mentioned was that the source of vaults used in Roman architecture were arches, and the source of arches were columns from Greek architecture. Much of Roman architecture came from Greek buildings - whether it was improving their ideas, or discarding them and beginning all over, the Romans took what they new of Greek architecture and created new, fantastic buildings. Another form of source is architecture being based off of the landscape and the warfare. (Roth, 247) Many Roman buildings were constructed on the land, ignoring any natural surrounding features. Also, different roman villages were build with a large wall border, separating the city from outside predators.

In many areas during Roman rule, cities and buildings were named after priests or kings in charge, to show their status. Hierarchy in the Roman empire important, for instance, because only priests and the social elite were allowed to go inside many buildings and experience their awesome interior. (Roth, 247) Ordinary civilians and especially servants and slaves were not allowed into some of these more precious buildings, but were only able to admire them from the outside. Also, priests had very little contact with ordinary artisans, merchants and slaves. (Roth, 250) It was not very often that they were around these people, but instead were surrounded with people of equal status. A simpler example of hierarchy can be seen on the columns in the Coliseum - the first floor has Doric columns, the most basic; the second floor had ionic columns, becoming greater; the third Corinthian, the most complex. (Roth, 267)



Order was a main influence in Roman architecture. In the Roman empire they tried to achieve order ond unity by the way they shaped urban spaces. The Romans "ordered ranks of axially disposed and colonnaded buildings." (Roth, 250) What this means is that the roads formed what looked similar to a series of right angles, creating lines of homes. Also, urban spaces looked very similar, and did not vary on outward appearances. In this way, the Romans created some form of order, and they even sliced through nature (ex. mountains, hills) to make it as perfect as possible. Old cities used somewhat irregular rectangles in their building design, but the basic idea of "axial disposition" was still in use. (Roth, 253) The main streets in a city moved from north to south (the Cardo) and east to west (the decumanus), which was known as orthogonal planning. (Roth, 253)



The entourage, or the landscape surrounding a piece of architecture, was not an important feature to the Romans. As I have already mentioned, they cut through nature in order to make their order possible, they changed nature for their benefit. As explained in Roth, p. 250 "if a stony outcrop loomed in the way, they simply cut through it. They captured streams and conducted water more than 30 miles...to the cities, tunneling through hills and lifting the aqueducts over valleys." Instead of building closer to the water, or moving the stream with the land, the Romans actually went straight through everything that was in their way, as in this example.

I have learned in this last week that the source of architecture today was heavily influenced by Roman architecture, just as the roman architecture was influenced by Greek buildings and so on. A major way to show this is by the use of the archetype, prototype and hybrid comparisons. Hierarchy played an important role in the Roman empire as well - slaves built the beautiful buildings, but were not allowed into some of them. The use of hierarchy also helped create order, such as the hierarchy and order of the Doric, ionic, and Corinthian columns. This order was also a very prominent aspect of Roman architecture. The societies, in some ways were surrounded by order - the order of buildings, of roads, and even of external appearances. Lastly, the order they employed would not have been possible without the manipulation of the surrounding nature, or entourage.

OPUS 3

We spent some time in class this week not only comparing and contrasting two buildings in particular - Khufu's Great Pyramid at Giza with Hatshepsut's Tomb - but also male and female architecture. We found that the scale of a building had a lot to do with the specific sex it was made for. For example, Khufu was a male pharaoh, and his pyramid was large, reaching toward the sky, and was surrounded by smaller pyramids. These smaller pyramids were most likely for his wives and mother. (Roth, 196) Therefore, in this case the women's temples were not nearly as grand, causing Khufu's pyramid to stand out. Even when compared to the female pharaoh Hatshepsut's tomb, hers was not as large in scale or quite as intimidating.






In this same light, Hatshepsut's tomb did not stand out as much as Khufu's pyramids did. Instead, her tomb seemed to be unified with the land. It appeared that her tomb was actually a part of the mountain behind it, and that she took consideratin for others and the land, using similar materials. Khufu's Pyramid on the other hand was built to contrast the land and be noticed as a completely seperate ground. Another example of unity would be the cities and homes in ancient Egypt. Most homes were built the same way with flaired edges, were about the same size and were built connected to each other, almost like a townhouse in our current times. (Roth 207)




Also when comparing the before mentioned pieces of architecture, we found that the Tomb of Hatshepsut had many openings and, though it did have some large male comumns, it was more open and accessible than Khufu'd pyramid. The pyramid seemed to have many boundaries - for one it had no easy visible entrance. Also, anyone who wanted to enter knew there were traps set inside, and passage ways which were kept secret, creating more boundaries. (Roth 199)

A hypostyle hall, such as the one in the Temple of Khonsu, houses many columns. (Roth, 206) These comuns are usually massive and may even have engravings on them called heiroglyphics. These heirogliphics tell a story, much like a vignette. They were very deep, complex markings with intricate designs, made in an attempt to stand the test of time.



Many important elements in architecture, as we have discussed, come in threes. The one that has come up most reciently was porch, court, and hearth. I learned that to every building, and in some cases to every city, or just every room, one can find a porch a court and a hearth. This divides an area into sections. A porch would the transition place from out to in, and creates a change in atmosphere (a famous example of a porch would be the Loins Gate); a court is a place for gathering, a place to be seen; the hearth section is usually only available to specific individuals. This means it can be a master bedroom, which sould only be entered by the owner, or a place of worship, with a statue of a god, which should only be entered by someone of great importance or religious hierarchy, such as a priest.

OPUS 2

Henry Wotten claimed "well-building hath three conditions: commodity, firmness and delight" (Roth, p.11). This is to say that any truly high-quality piece of architecture needs to be functional – at least in most cases, since it is difficult for a room to always function to its highest potential – have a secure, reliable foundation, and bring joy as well as satisfaction to those who enter, or at the very least look at it. An example of this would be the ziggurat at Ur: functional in its time because it brought people together to worship the moon god; firm because it is still standing after thousands of years; delightful because of its beauty.

The ziggurat in Ur was made out of hard brick which was laid in bitumen, a thick crude oil which came from the springs in Hit. (Roth 184) Hit was relatively nearby, providing them easy access to this lasting material. Like the Sumerians who constructed the Ziggurat in Ur, Cro-Magnons made shelter out of materials that were easily accessed from the areas they inhabited. The ones found across what is now Eastern Europe were constructed out of internal frames of wood, which were covered with hides, then surrounded at the base by mammoth skulls and bones. (Roth 163) Some may have also used caves or other shelters found naturally on the earth, or clay from nearby rivers. Unlike the Ziggurat however, these vernacular structures may have been commodious and even firm in very few cases (because some structures were found intact thousands of years later), but were most likely not pleasing to the eye.

As I have already mentioned, these structures were built at different time periods, by tremendously dissimilar cultures, and therefore they convey separate attitudes and feelings. Any piece of architecture communicates by a specific fashion, one that is affected by the society which built it, and the time they did so. The idiom, or distinct style, of the ancient Egyptian era for example conveys how important they thought the afterlife was, especially of pharaohs. They created pyramids which served as the instrument used by the king to ascend to the heavens. (Roth 200).

There were more structures which were illuminated by their relationship with the heavens. For example, though we do not know the exact meaning behind Stonehenge, one assumption is that it was a place to mourn the dead, and the circular formation of it could be seen from the heavens. Another more common idea is that it may have served as an astronomical observatory, marking phenomena such as eclipses and the summer solstice. (Roth 173) This also brings the idea that people spent much time and concentration making the stones, and placing them in a particular pattern, which shows how intelligent they were even then.

In conclusion, for architecture to be appreciated to its highest degree, it must be commodious, firm, and bring delight. The different materials used to build can influence how sturdy the structure is and even how beautiful or appealing it is. The materials used also translate what the meaning behind the architecture is, meaning that each culture and society, each architect has their own specific language, their own idiosyncrasies, which can be understood through the exploration of the architecture.