Professional Documents
Culture Documents
PETER WIEDERSPAHN
Northeastern University
The Architect is not bound to exhibit structure; nor uous expression in architecture would, therefore,
are we to complain of him for concealing it, any produce multiple and conflicting interpretive and
more than we should regret that the outer surfaces
tectonic possibilities in the same building.
of the human frame conceal much of its anatomy;
nevertheless, that building will generally be noblest,
which to an intelligent eye discovers the great se- The impact of a perceptual ambiguity in buildings
crets of its structure.1 -John Ruskin can be profound: it can create a visual conundrum
due to a misleading structural logic; it can induce
This paper analyzes the connotations produced by a psychological tension due to a structural uncer-
buildings that require significant structural resolu- tainty; it can produce an aura of mystery due to
tion but nonetheless intentionally confound their an inexplicable organization of forces. Although the
structural expression. When we consider the term engineering of ambiguous structures is no less de-
structural expression, we typically think of archi- manding than in an explicit structure, the architec-
tecture that visually makes evident the forces in its tural expression moves from rational denotation to
structural form. In this type of explicit expression, an uncertain connotation, and from physical cer-
a buildings image and structural form are closely tainty to metaphysical curiosity. To demonstrate
aligned. This includes a broad range of architec- this, I will use three case studies of contemporary
tural expression from a soaring arch in a Gothic ca- architecture and engineering that have effectively
thedral to the diagonal bracing in a structural steel manipulated structural form to achieve ambiguity.
frame. Another type of structural expression is a I will focus on buildings that are visually unstable,
more ambivalent expression of forces, where the visually reductive, and visually mysterious. By vir-
structure of a building has no consequence rela- tue of their ambiguity, these buildings draw us into
tive to the image of a building. Here, structure is their eccentricities by inducing a perceptual disso-
an unarticulated necessity with no influence on a nance with the architecture.
larger tectonic expression. Many tall buildings, for
example, hide their rigorous structural engineering STRUCTURE AND EXPRESSION
behind a curtain wall of glass and mullions. The
buildings structure and statical performance re- Edward Ford, in his book, Detail in Modern Archi-
main anonymous relative to the buildings image. tecture, identifies divergent attitudes to the ex-
pression of structure in architecture.2 He draws
A third type of structural expression, which will be the distinction between two modes of structural
the focus of this paper, is an ambiguous expression expression: monolithic construction and layered
where buildings suppress structural explication to construction. Monolithic construction derives its ar-
subvert our visual understanding of a buildings chitectural expression through the material of the
form relative to forces acting upon it. Ambiguity structure itself, such as a steel frame that is both
implies that something can be understood in multi- structure and the primary image of a building as
ple ways without an apparent hierarchy. An ambig- in Mies van der Rohes Farnsworth House. Layered
136 Re.Building
construction produces its architectural expres- qualities, which are expressive of a relation of form
sion by cladding over the actual structural mate- to force, the term tectonic should be reserved.3
rial but still following its contour such as a marble Here, Sekler connects architectural expression, or
revetment over a frame as in Terragnis Casa del tectonics, to phenomenological experience.
Fascio. Ford explains that both of these strategies
are deployed to tell a truth about the architecture, Sekler expands his use of the term tectonic to in-
whether it be literal, in the case of a monolithic clude an ambiguous structural expression in a sub-
architecture, or analogous, in a layered architec- sequent article where he analyzes the architecture
ture. But not all architectural expression is about of Josef Hoffmann. Of the Stoclet House, he writes,
telling the truth: some buildings are intentionally The visual result is very striking and atectonic in
deceptive in their structural explication. Buildings the extreme. Atectonic is used here to describe a
that purposefully make the internal forces illeg- manner in which the expressive interaction of load
ible or confused separate the architecture of sup- and support in architecture is visually neglected
port from the image of the architecture. Rietvelds or obscured.4 By using the root tectonic to cre-
Schrder House, for example, is an architecture ate its antithesis atectonic, Sekler demonstrates
that appears to consist of planes floating in space the affiliation between an explicit and ambiguous
unencumbered by the effects of gravity (Figure 1). structural expression. Both are perceptions gener-
Such an ambiguous structural expression displaces ated by an architectural organization of structure
an explicit reading of a buildings forces with a vi- and construction, but the former affirms a structur-
sual conundrum. al logic while the latter distorts structural legibility.
Koolhaas ensures that the elements of this archi- dependent on all of the elements that appear to
tecture do not cohere visually by carefully detailing be architecturally unrelated. Structurally, the cyl-
them so there is no evident structural interaction inder is a large supporting column, even though
between them. For example, the I-beam on the its center is occupied by a spiral stair. This extends
roof has no detail that demonstrates its connection through the concrete box of the upper level and
to the concrete mass on which its sits. Instead, the supports the I-beam that looks as if it is passively
unarticulated I-beam looks like a pop-art carica- sitting on top of the roof. Although the beam is
ture of a beam resting on top of the concrete like a asymmetrical to the box, it is on center with the
still life on a table. Similarly, the cylinder that sits cylinder. The vertical concrete walls of the box are,
asymmetrically under the concrete box is visually in fact, one-story-tall structural beams that are be-
dematerialized by its highly reflective surface, so it ing hung from the I-beam. As deep beams, these
is not read as supporting the mass above. Instead, concrete walls allow the box to cantilever well be-
the cylinder appears to be just distorted reflected yond the few points of support.
images of the surrounding landscape. Since the I-
beam on the roof sits on the concrete mass that The eccentrically positioned dead load of the con-
itself appears to be unsupported, the elements of crete box creates a potential over-turning force
this architectural composition seem to have been around the supporting cylinder. This force is coun-
thrust into mid-air like Salvador Dali and his flying teracted by the thin steel rod attached to the over-
cats in Philippe Halsmans photograph Dali Atom- hanging end of the I-beam. The other end of the rod
icus. In a perverse juxtaposition, the only element is affixed to a large counterweight buried under the
of vertical continuity is the steel rod that is far too grassy plane in the courtyard below so that the rod
thin to inspire confidence that it is a structurally acts in tension holding the I-beam down. Because
supportive element. the counterweight is not visible, one cannot see all
of the necessary evidence to understand fully how
the building remains standing. This structural bal-
ancing act diverts ones attention away from the ac-
tual statical equilibrium and creates a visually pre-
carious relationship between the box and the forces
of gravity. To further confound the viewer, the bent
frame supporting the concrete box at the end op-
posite the cylinder is slid out from under the box, so
the frames vertical supports do not align with the
concrete walls above. This further induces a sense
of instability of the large looming volume. Of the
supports at either end of the concrete box, Balmond
says, It was so simple and informal or nontradition-
al a move, like a Karate move with the arm going
in and out; here the legs slipped both ways and one
jumped up to the top. I broke with symmetries.5
STRUCTURE AND ABSENCE ume to stand effortlessly in the sky. The absence of
detail renders the building as a mute giant.
There are two qualities that strike one immediately
when seeing the T-House, by Simon Ungers and The architects eliminate any detail on the exterior
Thomas Kinslow: its looming abstract volume and steel by having the quarter-inch thick steel plate
weathered-steel exterior (Figure 3). The house is seam-welded and ground, so it appears as if it were
two sixteen-foot wide bars set perpendicular to a solid mass of steel. The steel exoskeleton was
each other. The lower bar is embedded into the fabricated off-site in six parts, trucked to the site,
sloping earth, and the upper bar overhangs the lifted into place with a crane, and seam-welded on
lower bar equally on both sides. The two bars are site. The seam-welding of the exterior creates the
held apart by a sixteen-foot square volume creat- perfect moisture barrier: there is no opportunity
ing a tee-form with the upper bar. The width of for water to penetrate this enclosing layer of steel.
the repetitive windows and the surfaces between The continuity of the exterior steel also creates a
the windows are the same, creating a drum-beat continuous structural membrane that can distrib-
rhythm of void, solid, void, solid, etc. . . The abso- ute gravitational and lateral forces throughout the
lute symmetry and repeated dimensions create an exoskeleton. Ironically, the structure becomes
uncanny regularity. The T-House emerges out of surface and, therefore, becomes invisible.
the landscape like a symmetrical vessel surfacing
from the depths of the earths core. The engineers for the project, Ryan-Biggs Asso-
ciates, were also cognizant of the expansion and
contraction of the steel in the extreme seasonal
temperature differentials. As the sun hits some sur-
faces and not others, different parts of the building
will expand while others remain cool. The welded
joints will not allow the different surfaces to distort
separately: the stresses are shared throughout the
steel exterior.
This void space, which varies from a few inches to ing glass surfaces to ambiguously tether the roof to
a few feet thick, acts like poch in a traditional neo- the ground. Naturally, the inability to justify visu-
classical plan: it is an amorphous zone that defers ally how the roof is supported causes a perceptual
to the geometrically regular but differently shaped tension.
interior figural spaces. Traditionally, poch is made
of solid material and therefore encompasses the The structural engineering team of SAPS/Sasaki
load bearing structure for the building. What is rad- and Partners, and Guy Nordenson and Associates,
ically different in the Glass Pavilion is that its poch generated unique solutions to satisfy the architec-
is not produced with a binary void-and-solid, or fig- tural criteria, that is, to minimize the presence of
ure-and-ground, relationship. It is all void and all vertical and lateral structure and maintain a thin
visible: this is a transparent poch that strangely roof profile. For example, the few vertical pipe-col-
reveals both the figure and the ground simultane- umns that do exist are solid steel to support the
ously. In this case, complete visibility of what is exceptional loads generated by the dearth of ver-
conventionally divided into the seen and the un- tical support opportunities. The lateral forces are
seen produces an x-ray-like view into its transpar- resisted by constructing one of the few opaque, in-
ent thickness. The realization of this cunning com- terior, figural spaces with three-quarter-inch-thick
mentary on traditional plan-forms in contemporary plate steel that is curved, seam-welded, and weld-
architecture comes as an epiphany, an intellectual ed directly to the steel roof structure. Also, pre-
gift, revealed by gazing through all the layers of cise coordination was required among a plethora
glass and space. of sub-disciplines to integrate the roof girders and
beams with the lighting, sprinkler, insulation, roof
This poch space is not just a quiescent void: it is membrane, and roof drain systems, all within a
integral to the thermal performance of the build- depth of twenty-four inches.8 In the Glass Pavilion,
ing. Cosentini Associates produced the mechanical these extraordinary structural solutions are a cre-
engineering with thermal modeling by Transsolar. ative response by the engineers to an architectural
The interstitial space is conditioned with a hydronic vision that intentionally obfuscates a perceptible
radiant heating and cooling system to mediate the structural resolution.
temperature differential between the exterior en-
vironment and the interior of the figural spaces. The power in this architecture resides not only in
The void space, therefore, architecturalizes the its spectacle of transparency and reflection, but
quarter-inch gap typically found between sheets also in its thwarting of basic expectations of build-
of double-pane glazing, that is, the detail becomes ing structure and stability. It draws the viewer into
large enough to conceivably inhabit. The hydronic its idiosyncrasies, slowly forcing the viewer to con-
system is imbedded in the concrete floor and plas- front the interrelated tectonic mysteries. The archi-
ter ceiling so it remains unseen. Since there are no tecture asks, What is surface and what is reflec-
ducts or grills within the void space to denote the tion? What do the inaccessible spaces serve? How
presence of mechanical systems, the transparent is the roof being supported? How can the roof be so
poch plays a cryptic performative role. thin? I am not implying that the Glass Pavilion is
an architecture parlante: quite the opposite. This
Since the transparent poch cannot serve a struc- architecture demands ones consideration by what
tural role, the viewer is struck by the lack of verti- it does not say. Once an architectural structure is
cal structure to support the roof above. Due to the not visually explained, then the building projects
slenderness and paucity of the vertical pipe-col- a provocative ambiguity that draws the beholder
umns that one can apprehend in the layered glassy into a process of deduction to solve its architectural
spaces, and the lack of confidence that one has in riddle.
the ability of transparent sheets to support the load
of a roof, it appears that the pipe-columns are less STRUCTURE AND AMBIGUITY
holding the roof up (i.e., acting in compression) as
they are holding it down (i.e., acting in tension). Although these three buildings analyzed here are
Perceptually, therefore, one discounts the ability structurally ambiguous, they have no less an ob-
of the pipe-columns to support the roof. Instead, ligation to their structural engineering than con-
the minds-eye relies on the ubiquitous shimmer- ventional buildings: the physics of buildings is con-
STRUCTURE AND AMBIGUITY 141
stant. As seen in these projects, the constructed the aid of the engineers exactitude, the architects
ambiguity requires even greater cooperation be- of these three buildings engage the viewer in an
tween architects and engineers since more explicit active intellectual dialogue of perceptual possibili-
engineering solutions would foil the spatio-percep- ties and impossibilities.
tual schemas. Not only does this architecture blur
distinctions between architectural expression and ENDNOTES
structural reality, but also the roles of architects
and engineers merge through the design process 1. John Ruskin, The Seven Lamps of Architecture, Se-
lected Prose of John Ruskin (New York: Signet, 1972),
into less distinct and more affiliative relationships.
p. 66
2. Edward R. Ford, The Details of Modern Architecture
We may ask, do these disciplines becoming diluted (Cambridge: The MIT Press, 1990), p. 1-5
in the fusion of such close design cooperation? To 3. Eduard Sekler, Structure, Construction, Tectonics,
Structure in Art and Science, Gyorgy Kepes, ed. (New
a degree, and in a most beneficial way, the answer
York: George Brazilier, Inc., 1965), p. 89
is yes, new fruit is being born of this disciplinary 4. Eduard Sekler, The Stoclet House by Josef Hoff-
grafting. To further this inquiry, we could question mann, Essays in the History of Architecture Presented
whether the architects are thinking more like engi- to Rudolf Wittkower (London: Phaidon Press, 1967), p.
230
neers, or whether the engineers are thinking more
5. Nina Rappaport, Support and Resist: Structural En-
like architects. An answer here would need to be gineers and Design Innovation (New York: Montacelli
proceeded by more rigorous definitions of both dis- Press, 2008), p. 19
ciplines, but this grounding in the respective fields 6. Gustavo Gili, Simon Ungers (Barcelona: GG Portfolio,
1998) p. 16-23
would likely lead only to a dogmatic classification--
7. Manuel Gausa and Jamie Salizar, Single-Family Hous-
-one that would not reflect the fluid and diverse ac- ing: The Private Domain (Basel: Birkhuser-Publishers
tivities practiced by design professionals on a daily for Architecture, 1998), p. 136-139
basis. A more constructive question, therefore, is 8. Kiel Moe, Integrated Design in Contemporary
Architecture (New York: Princeton Architectural Press,
to ask how architects and engineers distinctly con-
2008), p. 104-111
tribute to the design process. What these buildings 9. Eduard Sekler, Structure, Construction, Tectonics,
demonstrate is that the architect establishes the Structure in Art and Science, Gyorgy Kepes, ed. (New.
perceptual relationships through architectural de- York: George Brazilier, Inc., 1965), p. 94
tails while the engineer determines how to support
and reinforce them.