In "Architecture as Space," Bruno Zevi's defines space (in four-dimensions) as the exclusive consideration of architecture. I think he is really addressing a broader scheme, which correlates with teachings from Suprematism, that architecture, along with every other creative discipline, contains a unique quality inherent to their discourse. There is a unique abstract quality that makes architecture, one that is essential, and Zevi defines it as space. Simultaneously, he acknowledges the importance of archeoligical and philological study in the practice of architecture, but along with their boundaries to enrich the essential idea. In "Production of Space," the motion for new content is dominant but develops from the need for new form. Heneri Lefebvre encourages a constant, changing, inexhaustible dialog between context and form, which resonates with Malevich's call for constant change. And now in comparison of the two former articles, the junction between space and concept is what Bernard Tchumi deems the pleasure of architecture, found in the relationships between constituent parts.

Space in Architecture

I definitely agree with Zevi that when producing orthographic drawings you cannot really know the true space that the building will create. From my own experience, for example drawing elevations, I get caught up in trying to create an aesthetically pleasing composition with the mullions, materiality, etc, yet in reality the elevation may be covered by trees or an undulating landscape, etc. I also find it difficult to know how space will look in the interior of a building when drawing a plan because the scale of one person vs a crowd of people will change the feeling of the space. It is necessary to be able to show how space will be occupied in a given project and that is what the client wants to see, thats why you see so many computer renders today.

Creating a flow of space in architecture is incredibly important and can give a building a recognizable identity. One can manipulate space to create a certain mood or bring out a particular emotion in the occupant. I think Steven Holl and Tadao Ando do this very well where their spaces can create a calm feeling and are able to flow easily from one room to the next. I think modern architecture has tried to allow a building to define a more open space and not creating small individual partition walls that don't really relate to one another.

Architectural Space

It was very satisfying reading Zevi’s article about space as the protagonist of architecture. He gave the most cogent criticism of mainstream architectural discourse I have ever read. I greatly appreciated the fact that he pointed out that the purpose of architecture is not its relationship to some perceived socio-cultural-historical context. Architecture is about building and spacemaking, and should be judged by the success or failure of that space. This, to me, encapsulates my belief that architecture should not need justification, a theme I seem to be coming back to more and more. A building succeeds or fails on what is built and has physical form. As is made apparent in the excerpt from The Oneiric House, buildings are ultimately to be inhabited, and in both Zevi’s and my own opinion, the spatial character of a building is ultimately the most important factor in determining the experience of inhabitation. Tschumi’s article, in contrast to Zevi’s did not strike a chord with me at all. I was irritated and angered by his characterization of architecture as having value through uselessness. Certainly, a building should be pleasing, but that pleasure comes from a function that is given shape and form and made pleasurable. I would not even characterize art as useless. I would say that something useless could only be called trash, and celebrating uselessness seems to me to be reveling in decay.

Happy Candy Day!

I want to pose a question: What is it that makes a particular space more than just a space? What qualities exactly are necessary to go beyond the engineering of a shelter, and to achieve true architecture? For me this means a space that I notice; I don’t know if anyone has realized this, but I am not naturally observant. I will not observe architecture at all unless it has that special quality that catches my attention. Otherwise, I just use the spaces I inhabit within their functions and do not look for any higher experiences. Larry always said that people notice architecture, but David always said that people just don’t pay attention to it. I don’t know whether one of these is more generally true, or whether it has to do with people’s personalities. But my question is should our goal be to create an architecture that adheres so perfectly to people’s needs that they do not even notice it? Or is our goal to cause people to stop in their tracks, to forget their original purpose, to gaze and to enjoy? In my own experience, I like the spaces that cause me to slow down and to observe, and I think this could be needed in the bustling American society. If not, I feel that we are just settling for the ordinary; yes, people can function well enough in unnoticed spaces, but what if well is not good enough? I think people are so tired with the monotony of their days, getting up at the same time every morning, going through the same motions day after day, that they are just waiting for something exciting to happen. They are longing for the extraordinary.

So back to the original question: How does one create a space that has that quality about it that takes it to a new level? Does it require a composition that is surprising or unexpected? Does it have to do with the materials and their relationships to each other? Is it caused by generating awe through scale, through mass, through color? Is it the way things meet and join together? Or is it the relationships between multiple spaces and the entirety of progression through them? All I have to say is, spacey people need racy spaces. Bring on the zest and vigor!

I love Space!!!... lol

Thinking of space is one of my favorite areas of architecture. I know its not the only design factor but i believe it is one of he most important because without space there is no architecture, instead you'd have a sculpture. The idea of planes creating spaces drives me crazy. I can almost relate to Tchumis' analogies when I think of having four walls, two pairs perpendicular and running parallel to one another, running by each other and coming close but never touching, forming a space in the center with secondary spaces in between. Just the thought makes me want to build a model of it. Why a model? Because drawings although accurate and representational can only show and exhibit so much.

Plans, sections, and perspectives are crucial during the design process because without these items we would have no way of quickly representing the space we imagine other than models. Considering that they play such a large role in the process of design why is it that these items tend to be such a cripple when it comes to designing a great space? A better question might be why is it that we as architects allow these drawings to cripple our designs?

Space should be experienced and not seen but sometimes it seems like people see it the other way around. A painting is meant to be looked at and admired. A sculpture is meant to do the same. Architecture is something you experience and admire because of the experience. When architecture becomes something you admire because its pretty and you just want to sit across the street to look at it, then it has lost its meaning; it has become a sculpture, a piece of artwork lacking any space. Even though there is spaceless architecture I believe space is the essence of a good architectural experience. Space is experience...

Defining Space through Architecture

A definition of architecture as only that which encloses space is not entirely accurate. The author seems to take the position that if there is not a definite interiority to the space, or definite thresholds, then this is not an actual space. Thus, an arch is not a space. He attempts to clarify by pointing out urban spaces and courtyards as architectural. An arch may not enclose space, but it creates relationships to space that cannot be ignored. These relationships alter experience, define inhabitation, and create circulation patterns. A façade defines the space that it faces. It would appear that an architectural backdrop should define space based on its presence. This is not to say that anything is architecture; architecture still needs to define space, but it should not need to enclose space. Any object used in a spatial means could be perceived as architecture if it does more than function as an obstacle or sculpture. An object that fundamentally alters a space, even if that space is exterior or defined only on one side by the object, should be considered architecture. This is why a façade is truly important to architecture; it does not contribute to the interior but it does often create space on the exterior.

With that said, it does seem reasonable to admit that too little time is spent analyzing the spaces created by architectural moves. These spaces should not be the end all and be all of architecture, nor does the author want them to be. He does, however, want it to be the prime factor for determining if a building should be considered in architectural history. Any failure to create space should be considered non-architecture, and any building that succeeds spatially should have its other flaws overlooked. It is a bit ridiculous to weigh a building so heavily on one fact, even if it is the point of architecture, that if the building fails in every other aspect it will still be considered worthy of discussion as architecture. He chooses to leave all other forms of discussion to the artists, but these are important for architects to consider. Architects should think about what he refers to as decoration to determine if and where the building requires such detailing. Architecture can focus on interior space without relegating all of its other responsibilities to other areas. It just seems like this viewpoint oversimplifies architecture for the sake of making the case for interior space. Perhaps it would be a stronger case to acknowledge the importance of such other factors on the interior space. Decoration might improve or detract from the spatial qualities, but it will definitely have an impact. It is impossible to include something in a design and expect it not to affect the final outcome. Therefore, space is important, but its relationships to other aspects of design should not be minimized or overlooked.

Henri Lefebvre agrees with the holistic interpretation of space, and his understanding of the variables that create a space is much closer to defining the actual entity. Since every element does in fact impact a space, it is only logical that the elements should be discussed with as much intensity as the space they form. His point that the interpretation of a space is more of an afterthought is especially powerful. To think that all discussion of spaces in the realm of architecture amounts to so little would probably upset many professors. Given the wide range of interpretations for any given space, it is just as easy for a space to have no intended interpretation. If the space included the proper architectural elements, it could evoke such strong emotion that each person would create his own interpretation, conscious or otherwise. The obvious antithesis to this idea is the monument, but with the great discouragement against monuments in contemporary architecture, the examples of interpretations key to understanding a space are becoming rarer. The methods of creating space, while discussed in detail, are almost less important than the result. If a location results in meaningful, inhabitable space, then the designer may have succeeded. It becomes more important to establish the methods and criteria to determine how successful a space is. If space is really a language, then it will enjoy the same treatment of the critics that all great novels receive: scrutiny to the point of picking through superfluous information. If space is something unique, perhaps it can develop a sense of critique that evaluates its ability to create an impression as a whole.

Spaced Out...

I really like the emphasis on the idea of space in these readings. I definitely agree that reducing a building to a bunch of plans, elevations, and sections, sucks out the essence of the design. Architects sometimes forget that these are merely design tools to help aid the process of design and construction, and should not be the basis of a design. In today’s money driven world, a major chunk of the firms use the ‘copy-paste’ technique of designing buildings – draw a section in Autocad, and simply repeat the units throughout the height of the building. The idea of forming space that is more user/activity specific seems to be lost. We seem to live in an illusion that architecture is just about shelter, when it’s obviously much more than that. The space formed by four walls can have radical effects on the users - their behavior, mood, health etc.

What I really like about ‘space’ is it’s really lose, fluid character. A mere door forms the seam between my bedroom space and my living room space. A small step (grade change) can create an entirely different space and evoke a different response. Even light and dark can define spaces. This very character of space has always intrigued me.

Following up on our intense discussion about the decontructivists, I would like to throw some light on the topic from a spatial perspective. I feel that those architects are definitely examples of people who sometimes forget the value of the interior space in order to enhance the exterior, aka ‘architecture’ of the building. We as future architects need to understand the idea of complexity in simplicity, and make sure that the spaces we generate are responsive to their users.