humanizing of architecture

4
In contrast with that architecture whose main concern is the formalistic style a building shall wear, stands the ar chitecture that we know as functionalism. The develop ment of the functional idea and its expression in structures are probably the most invigorating occurrences in archi tectural activity in our time, and yet function in architec ture—and so also functionalism—are not so very easy to interpret precisely. “Function” is the characteristic use, or work, or action of a thing. “Function” is also a thing or quantity that depends upon, and varies with, another. “Functionalism” the dictionaries boldly define as “con scious adaptation of form to use”—it is both less and more than that, for truly it must recognize and reckon with both of the meanings of “function.” Architecture is a synthetic phenomenon covering prac tically all fields of human activity. An object in the archi tectural field may be functional from one point of view and unfunctional from another. During the past decade, modern architecture has been functional chiefly from the technical point of view, with its emphasis mainly on the economic side of the building activity. Such emphasis is desirable, of course, for production of good shelters for the human being has been a very expensive process as com pared with the fulfillment of some other human needs. Indeed, if architecture is to have a larger human value, the first step is to organize its economic side. But, since ar chitecture covers the entire field of human life, real func tional architecture must be functional mainly from the hu man point of view. If we look deeper into the processes of human life, we shall discover that technique is only an aid, not a definite and independent phenomenon therein. Tech nical functionalism cannot create definite architecture. If there were a way to develop architecture step by step, beginning with the economic and technical aspect and later covering the other more complicated human func tions, then the purely technical functionalism would be acceptable; but no such possibility exists. Architecture not only covers all fields of human activity; it must even be developed in all these fields at the same time. If not, we shall have only one-sided, superficial results. The term “rationalism” appears in connection with mod ern architecture about as often as does “functionalism.” Modern architecture has been rationalized mainly from the technical point of view, in the same way as the technical functions have been emphasized. Although the purely ra tional period of modern architecture has created construc tions where rationalized technique has been exaggerated and the human functions have not been emphasized enough, this is not a reason to fight rationalization in ar chitecture. It is not the rationalization itself that was wrong in the first and now past period of modern architecture. The wrongness lies in the fact that the rationalization has not gone deep enough. Instead of fighting rational mental ity, the newest phase of modern architecture tries to project rational methods from the technical field out to human and psychological fields. It might be well to have an example: One of the typical activities in modern architecture has been the construction of chairs and the adoption of new materials and new meth ods for them. The tubular steel chair is surely rational from technical and constructive points of view: It is light, suit able for mass production, and so on. But steel and chro mium surfaces are not satisfactory from the human point of view. Steel is too good a conductor of heat. The chro mium surface gives too bright reflections of light, and even acoustically is not suitable for a room. The rational meth ods of creating this furniture style have been on the right track, but the result will be good only if rationalization is exercised in the selection of materials which are most suitable for human use. The present phase of modern architecture is doubtless a new one, with the special aim of solving problems in the humanitarian and psychological fields. This new period, however, is not in contradiction to the first period of tech nical rationalization. Rather, it is to be understood as an enlargement of rational methods to encompass related fields. During the past decades architecture has often been compared with science, and there have been efforts to make its methods more scientific, even efforts to make it The Humanizing of Architecture a pu the s of pu rp with bett I a rg ac cc ati or a w ham Ar o ne can can it ca of ir Sc in o are in ai hos[ cial vide fro rr man fro rr psyc be i r for pati with lanc the roo I a rg Stuc te rs the

Upload: rafaelaagapito

Post on 27-Dec-2015

220 views

Category:

Documents


36 download

DESCRIPTION

Humanizing architecture - page 76 to 79

TRANSCRIPT

In contrast with that architecture whose main concern isthe formalistic style a building shall wear, stands the architecture that we know as functionalism. The development of the functional idea and its expression in structuresare probably the most invigorating occurrences in architectural activity in our time, and yet function in architecture—and so also functionalism—are not so very easy tointerpret precisely. “Function” is the characteristic use, orwork, or action of a thing. “Function” is also a thing orquantity that depends upon, and varies with, another.“Functionalism” the dictionaries boldly define as “conscious adaptation of form to use”—it is both less and morethan that, for truly it must recognize and reckon with bothof the meanings of “function.”Architecture is a synthetic phenomenon covering prac

tically all fields of human activity. An object in the architectural field may be functional from one point of viewand unfunctional from another. During the past decade,modern architecture has been functional chiefly from thetechnical point of view, with its emphasis mainly on theeconomic side of the building activity. Such emphasis isdesirable, of course, for production of good shelters for thehuman being has been a very expensive process as compared with the fulfillment of some other human needs.Indeed, if architecture is to have a larger human value, thefirst step is to organize its economic side. But, since architecture covers the entire field of human life, real functional architecture must be functional mainly from the human point of view. If we look deeper into the processes ofhuman life, we shall discover that technique is only an aid,not a definite and independent phenomenon therein. Technical functionalism cannot create definite architecture.If there were a way to develop architecture step by step,

beginning with the economic and technical aspect andlater covering the other more complicated human functions, then the purely technical functionalism would beacceptable; but no such possibility exists. Architecture notonly covers all fields of human activity; it must even bedeveloped in all these fields at the same time. If not, weshall have only one-sided, superficial results.

The term “rationalism” appears in connection with modern architecture about as often as does “functionalism.”Modern architecture has been rationalized mainly from thetechnical point of view, in the same way as the technicalfunctions have been emphasized. Although the purely rational period of modern architecture has created constructions where rationalized technique has been exaggeratedand the human functions have not been emphasizedenough, this is not a reason to fight rationalization in architecture. It is not the rationalization itself that was wrongin the first and now past period of modern architecture.The wrongness lies in the fact that the rationalization hasnot gone deep enough. Instead of fighting rational mentality, the newest phase of modern architecture tries to projectrational methods from the technical field out to human andpsychological fields.

It might be well to have an example: One of the typicalactivities in modern architecture has been the constructionof chairs and the adoption of new materials and new methods for them. The tubular steel chair is surely rational fromtechnical and constructive points of view: It is light, suitable for mass production, and so on. But steel and chromium surfaces are not satisfactory from the human pointof view. Steel is too good a conductor of heat. The chromium surface gives too bright reflections of light, and evenacoustically is not suitable for a room. The rational methods of creating this furniture style have been on the righttrack, but the result will be good only if rationalization isexercised in the selection of materials which are mostsuitable for human use.The present phase of modern architecture is doubtless

a new one, with the special aim of solving problems in thehumanitarian and psychological fields. This new period,however, is not in contradiction to the first period of technical rationalization. Rather, it is to be understood as anenlargement of rational methods to encompass relatedfields.During the past decades architecture has often been

compared with science, and there have been efforts tomake its methods more scientific, even efforts to make it

The Humanizing of Architecture a puthe sofpu rpwithbettI a rgac ccati ora whamAr

o necancanit caof ir

Scin oarein aihos[cialvidefro rrmanfro rrpsycbe i rforpati

withlanctherooI a rgStucte rsthe

The term “rationalism” appears in connection with mod- a pure science. But architecture is not a science. It is stillIn contrast with that architecture whose main concern isthe formalistic style a building shall wear, stands the architecture that we know as functionalism. The development of the functional idea and its expression in structuresare probably the most invigorating occLirrenceS in architectural activity in our time, and yet function in architecture—and so also functionalism—are not so very easy tointerpret precisely. “Function” is the characteristic use, orwork, or action of a thing. “Function” is also a thing orquantity that depends upon, and varies with, another.“Functionalism” the dictionaries boldly define as “conscious adaptation of form to use”—it is both less and morethan that, for truly it must recognize and reckon with bothof the meanings of “function.”Architecture is a synthetic phenomenon covering prac

tically all fields of human activity. An object in the architectLiral field may be functional from one point of viewand unfunctional from another. During the past decade,modern architecture has been functional chiefly from thetechnical point of view, with its emphasis mainly on theeconomic side of the building activity. Such emphasis isdesirable, of course, for production of good shelters for thehuman being has been a very expensive process as compared with the fulfillment of some other human needs.Indeed, if architecture is to have a larger human value, thefirst step is to organize its economic side. But, since architecture covers the entire field of human life, real functional architecture must be functional mainly from the human point of view. If we look deeper into the processes ofhuman life, we shall discover that technique is only an aid,not a definite and independent phenomenon therein. Technical functionalism cannot create definite architecture.

If there were a way to develop architecture step by step,beginning with the economic and technical aspect andlater covering the other more complicated human functions, then the purely technical functionalism would beacceptable; bLit no such possibility exists. Architecture notonly covers all fields of human activity; it must even bedeveloped in all these fields at the same time. If not, weshall have only one-sided, superficial results.

em architecture about as often as does “functionalism.”Modern architecture has been rationalized mainly from thetechnical point of view, in the same way as the technicalfunctions have been emphasized. Although the purely rational period of modern architecture has created constructions where rationalized technique has been exaggeratedand the human functions have not been emphasizedenough, this is not a reason to fight rationalization in architecture. It is not the rationalization itself that was wrongin the first and now past period of modern architecture.The wrongness lies in the fact that the rationalization hasnot gone deep enough. Instead of fighting rational mental-tv, the newest phase of modern architecture tries to projectrational methods from the technical field out to human andpsychological fields.

It might be well to have an example: One of the typicalactivities in modern architecture has been the constructionof chairs and the adoption of new materials and new methods for them. The tubular steel chair is surely rational fromtechnical and constructive points of view: it is light, suitable for mass production, and so on. But steel and chromium surfaces are not satisfactory from the human pointof view. Steel is too good a conductor of heat. The chromium surface gives too bright reflections of light, and evenacoustically is not suitable for a room. The rational methods of creating this furniture style have been on the righttrack, but the result will be good only if rationalization isexercised in the selection of materials which are mostsuitable for human use.The present phase of modern architecture is doubtless

a new one, with the special aim of solving problems in thehumanitarian and psychological fields. This new period,however, is not in contradiction to the first period of technical rationalization. Rather, it is to be understood as anenlargement of rational methods to encompass relatedfields.During the past decades architecture has often been

compared with science, and there have been efforts tomake its methods more scientific, even efforts to make it

the same great synthetic process of combining thousandsof definite human functions, and remains architecture. Itspurpose is still to bring the material world into harmonywith human life. To make architecture more human meansbetter architecture, and it means a functionalism muchlarger than the merely technical one. This goal can beaccomplished only by arch itectural methods—by the creation and combination of different technical things in sucha way that they will provide for the human being the mostharmonious life.ArchitectLiral methods sometimes resemble scientific

ones, and a process of research, such as science employs,can be adopted also in architecture. Architectural researchcan he more and more methodical, but the substance ofit can never be solely analytical. Always there will be moreof instinct and art in architectural research.Scientists very often use exaggerated forms in analyses

in order to obtain clearer, more visible results—bacteriaare stained, and so on. The same methods can be adoptedin architecture, also. I have had personal experience withhospital buildings where I was able to discover that especial physical and psychological reactions by patients provided good pointers for ordinary housing. If we proceedfrom technical functionalism, we shall discover that a greatmany things in our present architecture are unfunctionalfrom the point of view of psychology or a combination ofpsychology and physiology. To examine how humanbeings react to forms and construction, it is useful to usefor experimentation especially sensitive persons, such aspatients in a sanatorium.Experiments of this kind were performed in connection

with the Paimio Tuberculosis Sanatorium building in Finland and were carried on mainly in two special fields: (1)the relation between the single human being and his livingroom; (2) the protection of the single human being againstlarge groups ofpeople and the pressure from collectivity.Study of the relation between the individual and his quarters involved the use of experimental rooms and coveredthe questions of room form, colors, natural and artificial

77

light, heating system, noise, and so on. This first experimentdealt with a person in the weakest possible condition, abed patient. One of the special results discovered was thenecessity for changing the colors in the room. In manyother ways, the experiment showed, the room must bedifferent from the ordinary room. This difference can beexplained thus: The ordinary room is a room for a verticalperson; a patient’s room is a room for a horizontal humanbeing, and colors, lighting, heating, and so on must bedesigned with that in mind.Practically, this fact means that the ceiling should be

darker, with an especially selected color suitable to be theonly view of the reclining patient for weeks and weeks.The artificial light cannot come from an ordinary ceilingfixture, but the principal center of light should be beyondthe angle of vision of the patient. For the heating systemin the experimental room, ceiling radiators were used butin a way which threw the heat mainly at the foot of thebed so that the head of the patient was outside the direct

78 heat rays. The location of the windows and doors likewisetook into account the patient’s position. To avoid noise,one wall in the room was sound absorbing, and washbasins (each patient in the two-patient rooms had his own)were especially designed so that the flow of water from thefaucet hit the porcelain basin always at a very small angleand worked noiselessly.These are only a few illustrations from an experimental

room at the sanatorium, and they are here mentionedmerely as examples of architectural methods, which always are a combination of technical, physical, and psychological phenomena, never any one of them alone.Technical functionalism is correct only if enlarged to covereven the psychophysical field. That is the only way tohumanize architecture.Flexible wooden furniture is a result of experiments also

made at the Paimio Sanatorium. At the time of those experiments the first tubular chromium furniture was justbeing constructed in Europe. Tubular and chromium surfaces are good solutions technically, but psychophysicallythese materials are not good for the human being. The

sanatorium needed furniture that should be light, flexible,easy to clean, and so on. After extensive experimentationin wood, the flexible system was discovered and a methodand material combined to produce furniture that was betterfor the human touch and more suitable as the generalmaterial for the long and painful life in a sanatorium.The main problem connected with a library is that of the

human eye. A library can be well constructed and can befunctional in a technical way even without the solving ofthis problem, but it is not humanly and architecturallycomplete unless it deals satisfactorily with the main humanfunction in the building, that of reading a book. The eyeis only a tiny part of the human body, but it is the mostsensitive and perhaps the most important part. To providea natural or an artificial light that destroys the human eyeor that is unsuitable for its use, means reactionary arch itecture even if the building should otherwise be of highconstructive value.Daylight through ordinary windows, even if they are

very large, covers only a part of a big room. Even if theroom is lighted sufficiently, the light will be uneven andwill vary on different points of the floor. That is why skylights have mainly been used in libraries, museums, andso on. But skylight, which covers the entire floor area,gives an exaggerated light, if extensive additional arrangements are not made. In the library building the problemwas solved with the aid of numerous round skylights soconstructed that the light could be termed indirect daylight.The round skylights are technically rational because of themonopiece glass system employed. (Every skylight consistsof a conical concrete basement six feet in diameter, anda thick jointless round piece of glass on top of it withoutany frame construction.) This system is humanly rationalbecause it provides a kind of light suitable for reading,blended and softened by being reflected from the conicalsurfaces of the skylights. In Finland the largest angle ofsunlight is almost 52 degrees. The concrete cones are soconstructed that the sunlight always remains indirect. Thesurfaces of the cones spread the light in millions of directions. Theoretically, for instance, the light reaches an open

book from all these different directis and thus avoids areflection to the human eye from the white page of thebook. (Bright reflection from book pages is one of the mostfatiguing phenomena in reading.) In the same way thislighting system eliminates shadow phenomena regardlessof the position of the reader. The problem of reading abook is more than a problem of the eye; a good readinglight permits the use of many positions of the human bodyand every suitable relation between book and eye. Readinga book involves both culturally and physically a strangekind of concentration; the duty of architecture is to eliminate all disturbing elements.

It is possible in a scientific way to ascertain what kindsand what quantities of light are ideally the most suitablefor the human eye, but in constructing a room the solutionmust be made with the aid of all the different elements thatarchitecture embraces. Here the skylight system is a combined product of the ceiling construction (a room almostsixty feet wide needs a ceiling construction with beamshigh enough for the erection of the deep cones) and specialtechnical limits in horizontal glass construction. An architectural solution must always have a human motive basedon analysis, but that motive has to be materialized inconstruction that probably is a result of extraneous circumstances. The examples mentioned here are very tiny problems. But they are very close to the human being andhence become more important than problems of muchlarger scope.

‘The Humanizing of Architecture,” Technology Review, 1940

ent sanatorium needed furniture that should be light, flexible,easy to clean, and so on. After extensive experimentation

ie in wood, the flexible system was discovered and a methodand material combined to produce furniture that was betterfor the human touch and more suitable as the generalmaterial for the long and painful life in a sanatorium.

:al The main problem connected with a library is that of thean human eye. A library can be well constructed and can be

functional in a technical way even without the solving ofthis problem, but it is not humanly and architecturallycomplete unless it deals satisfactorily with the main human

he function in the building, that of reading a book. The eyeis only a tiny part of the human body, but it is the most

; sensitive and perhaps the most important part. To providea natural or an artificial light that destroys the human eye

1 or that is unsuitable for its use, means reactionary archiut tecture even if the building should otherwise be of high

constructive value.:t Daylight through ordinary windows, even if they are‘ise very large, covers only a part of a big room. Even if the

room is lighted sufficiently, the light will be uneven andwill vary on different points of the floor. That is why sky

A/n) lights have mainly been used in libraries, museums, andhe so on. But skylight, which covers the entire floor area,le gives an exaggerated light, if extensive additional arrange

ments are not made. In the library building the problemal was solved with the aid of numerous round skylights so

constructed that the light could be termed indirect daylight.• The round skylights are technically rational because of the- monopiece glass system employed. (Every skylight consists

of a conical concrete basement six feet in diameter, andier a thick jointless round piece of glass on top of it without

any frame construction.) This system is humanly rationalbecause it provides a kind of light suitable for reading,

Ilso blended and softened by being reflected from the conicalsurfaces of the skylights. In Finland the largest angle ofsunlight is almost 52 degrees. The concrete cones are so

ir- constructed that the sunlight always remains indirect. Theally surfaces of the cones spread the light in millions of direc

tions. Theoretically, for instance, the light reaches an open

book from all these different directiohs and thus avoids areflection to the human eye from the white page of thebook. (Bright reflection from book pages is one of the mostfatiguing phenomena in reading.) In the same way thislighting system eliminates shadow phenomena regardlessof the position of the reader. The problem of reading abook is more than a problem of the eye; a good readinglight permits the use of many positions of the human bodyand every suitable relation between book and eye. Readinga book involves both culturally and physically a strangekind of concentration; the duty of architecture is to eliminate all disturbing elements.

It is possible in a scientific way to ascertain what kindsand what quantities of light are ideally the most suitablefor the human eye, but in constructing a room the solutionmust be made with the aid of all the different elements thatarchitecture embraces. Here the skylight system is a combined product of the ceiling construction (a room almostsixty feet wide needs a ceiling construction with beamshigh enough for the erection of the deep cones) and specialtechnical limits in horizontal glass construction. An arch itectural solution must always have a human motive basedon analysis, but that motive has to be materialized inconstruction that probably is a result of extraneous circumstances. The examples mentioned here are very tiny problems. But they are very close to the human being andhence become more important than problems of muchlarger scope.

“The Humanizing of Architecture,” Technology Review, 1940

79