Title, Problem, Hypothesis, Precis

TITLE:

Building the Diagram: Proposing a New Diagrammatic Language for Architecture

PROBLEM:

Architects whose work relied heavily on the use of diagrams, have proposed buildings that are, in theory at least, bold, visionary, and inventive, but when these projects are built, the beautiful imagery latent within the diagram is often translated into superficial forms with little regard for the material, tactile nature of the building’s potential physicality. These architect’s have established a built architecture which is lacking in its attention to the material and visceral qualities of the building, starting from the beginning of the design process and the flatness of the diagram. The diagram has managed to reduce spatial, circulatory, programmatic, and functional qualities of buildings with little regard to the material, tactile, and tectonic aspects of the built product.

HYPOTHESIS:

By utilizing the diagram as a means of reducing architecture to its fundamental constructs, a new design methodology for architecture can be created, which adds complexity to the diagram through an attention to the quality of line, color, value, and form. This new diagram will create a new process that begins to express a material, tactile quality to the diagrams while maintaining a level of suggestiveness and interpretation. This diagrammatic process will produce buildings that when built, are spatially innovative and complex as well as expressing an innovative tectonic and tactile nature.

PRECIS:

This thesis makes the claim that while the use of the diagram in architectural practice has given clarity and freedom in the design process, it has simultaneously detached the conceptual process from the reality of a building’s potential physicality. This translates the diagram into superficial forms with little regard to the material, tactile, and tectonic aspects of the building’s manifestation. Utilizing the diagram as a means of reducing

architecture to its core, elemental constructs, a new design methodology for architecture can be established, which can yield buildings that are spatially innovative and complex as well as tectonically expressive and inventive. This thesis endures a thorough analysis of the evolving history of the diagram, as well as conducting several experiments with diagrams from architects whose work engages its use. It will also compare these

architects and study the material, tectonic, and tactile qualities of the buildings that have been built from the diagram. Eventually, this analysis will lead to a more specific study on the buildings themselves and will find the commonalities that will be evaluated to establish a set of rules. From this, a new design method can be created which classifies and merges

established diagram types into new, more dynamic diagrams that address the material, tactile, tectonic, and visceral qualities of architecture.

Rebecca Leclerc: Assignment #7: Precis/Abstract, Image List, Annotations

Precis

[Root]ing for the Diagram

This thesis makes the claim that the diagram is at the very root of current architectural flaws, but that it is capable of becoming the solution to its own problems, with the implementation of a new method of how to use the diagram. The thesis aims to establish a common ground in which the frighteningly pragmatic and the naively utopian extremes of architecture can merge to become something visionary and exciting, while still maintaining its efficiency and practicality. To support these views, the thesis endures a thorough analysis of the evolving history of the diagram, as well as conducting several interviews with architects whose work employs the use of diagram. Eventually, this analysis will lead to a more specific study on the buildings themselves and finding the commonalities between these two extremes. The audience that would best suit the article would be anyone interested or involved in the profession of architecture, and/or concerned in the rethinking of architectural approach.

Annotated Bibliography: [a diagram with words]

This bibliography ranges from a variety of journals, books, anthologies, and reviews on the topics of iconography, typology, diagrams, and methodology. What, might you ask, do these subjects have in common? In my investigation on the diagram, and its use in historical and contemporary contexts, I have found it to be quite insightful to understand its relation to typology as a type of diagram itself. Diagrams have played an integral part to many design methods. More recently, the diagram has evolved towards the creation of diagrammatic architecture, which is when the building takes the very shape of the diagram. These buildings, as well as the typologically proficient ones have ultimately established a new type of icon, and an emergence of the ‘star architects’. The key figures in the analysis of my main question are Bjarke Ingels’s book Yes Is More, Move, by architect Ben van Berkel, William Braham’s essay “After Typology: the Suffering of the Diagram”, and “The Blot and the Diagram” by Patrick Hutchings. While they appear to seem disconnected, each source provides a new outlook on my research topic. Yes Is More, and Move are both books from well-known architects that speak to the very essence of my design intent; to create tangible solutions through an artistic process, which will result in buildings that are engaging, unexpected, compelling, and cinematic. Both UNStudio and Bjrake Ingels utilize the diagram to its full extents to establish these compelling pieces of architecture in which they speak of in their books. Phylogenesis, on the other hand, proves that unlike the diagrams of UNStudio and Ingels, FOA utilizes the diagramming of typologies to create a reservoir of architectural species with which they can mutate and evolve to solve new problems. In an almost systematic and scientific classification, FOA uses the diagram by a completely different approach. FOA probably found their influences on the use of type from historical theorists such as Carlo Giulio Argan, whose notion of type was that it was the very essence of architecture. Argan also explains that type allows for variation, which stresses the very intent of the theorists of Durand, Quatremere de Quincy, and Aldo Rossi. In more recent applications, Alan Colquloun and Anthony Vidler would agree that type provides the means through which a theory of meaning in architecture can be translated.

On another note, William Braham and Patrick Hutchings would argue on the very essence of the diagram as a valid methodology. While Hutchings sees the use of diagram as a means to create clarity and elegance, Braham argues that diagrams are meant to be static representations, rather than built as they are. This idea of the ‘decorated diagram’ becomes evident, and is further argued in the essay by Klaus Herdeg, Michael Jenson and the collected works of Robert Somol. It is also important to mention how these ‘decorated diagrams’ and ‘diagrammatic architecture’ have started to become iconic. In retrospect, the most pure typological buildings have been seen as iconic, as well as the most obscure, unconventional buildings. Both seem to have derived from the essence of the diagram. But is being an icon a good thing? As Robert Bevan and Richard Rogers would explain, iconography has created architects who strive to make these buildings stand out, but is that what is best for our world? Why should buildings feel the need to become an ‘icon’?

Annotated Bibliography

1. Argan, Giulio Carlo, “On the Typology of Architecture”, Architectural Design, Vol. 12 (1963): 561-562.

“On the Typology of Architecture” is an editorial that begins to reconsider the notion of type as the essence of architecture. Argan makes the argument that typological and inventive aspects of the creative process are continuous and interlaced, and that only by criticizing and overcoming past solutions that were deposited from the synthesized “type” can the architect begin to properly utilize typology. He maintains that “type” is a principle allowing for variation, rather than a priori set of fixed entities. Argan investigates definitions and compares and superimposes the uses and forms of typologies to give evidence to his claim. This article is relevant for both historians and professionals because it speaks to the process of design and to the production of individual works. It is relevant for my research because it implies a way for typology and modern creation to work together. Argan was an Italian art and architectural historian and politician.

2. Bevan, Robert. "Architecture as icon: The architecture of aftermath." Architectural Review, Vol. 22 (June 2007): 95.

3. Braham, William W. “After Typology: the Suffering of Diagrams” Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press (June 2000).

“After Typology: the Suffering of Diagrams” is an essay which considers the issues of the diagram as well as the entirety of the non-linear design process after the removal of typology. Braham makes the inherent claim that diagrammatic methods succeed precisely where they relinquish their aspirations, by staying as a static, functional idea that can never reach its own potential unless it becomes a some point “decorated”. While Braham argues that while dynamic diagrams have yielded projects that directly connect the rapidly changing conditions of the city, it has failed to produce a building that is not decorated in a stagnant veneer. The essay uses evidence of historical architecture and architects such as Quatremere de Quincy and Corbusier to discuss the historical change in methodologies and how it has evolved today as a decorated diagram. The essay is relevant to any individual within the realm of the architectural discourse. It is most relevant for my intended thesis as a critical view on my intention of using the diagram to generate form. William Braham is an Associate Professor of Architecture at the University of Pennsylvania and has written and published several books including Rethinking Technology: A Reader in Architectural Theory, and Modern Color/Modern Architecture.

4. Colquhoun, Alan, “Three Kinds of Historicism,” Theorizing a New Agenda for Architecture (1976): 202-209.

5. Colquhoun, Alan. Typology and Design Method. Cambridge: The MIT Press, 1969.

6. Curtis, William J.R. “Transformation and invention: on re-reading modern architecture”. England, Architectural Review Vol. 221 (March 2007).

7. Cuthbert, Alexander R. Designing Cities: Critical Readings in Urban Design. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2003.

8. Davies, Colin. “Academic Constructs: holding up in theory.” Architectural Journal Vol. 10 (September 1996): 50.

Davies analyzes the usefulness of Kate Nesbitt’s Theorizing a New Agenda for Architecture in this book review. Although he states that the book is significant in its anthological parts, it lacks a clear organization and a authoritative stance by the author. Davies claims that Nesbitt has overthought her position as a collector of these essays, and should have based her role in a more opinionated stance rather than a mediator and organizer. This review touches upon the relevance of the articles within the anthology and pinpoints the key architects that were not mentioned, but should have been. The author, Colin Davies, is an architect, teacher, writer, and historian, who was the former editor of The Architects’ Journal and continues to be a leading contributor to architecture magazines worldwide.

9. Do, Ellen Yi-Luen and Mark D. Gross. “Thinking With Diagrams in Architectural Design,” Artificial Intelligence Review Vol. 15 (2001): 135-149.

10. Foreign Office Architects, “Phylogenesis: FOA’s Ark” (Edited by Michael Kubo and Albert Ferre in collaboration with FOA), Actar, Barcelona, 2003.

11. Groat, Linda N. “Rescuing Architecture from the Cul-de-Sac,” Journal of Architectural Education Vol. 45 (1992): 138-146.

Linda Groat’s essay addresses if there is a way forward which will revive the stature and task of architecture. The essay then makes the claim that a more culturist perspective of architecture will offer the potential of ensuring that the practice is reaffirmed as an essential component of societies cultural lives. The article gives a historical overview on the dilemma of Modernity and its implications in the 20^th century, and then uses evidence of the deconstructionist movement towards a more creative “self” to find a more definitive answer of the next architectural movement. The audience for this particular essay would be anyone interested in the attempt for architecture to redefine itself. In Groat’s attempt to discredit Deconstructionism, she gives the strength to my argument towards the diagram in their shared methodology and intent for ideals of reinventing architecture. Linda Groat is a professor at the University of Michigan, and has had her research published in several national media contexts, as well as architectural journals.

12. Herdeg, Klaus. The Decorated Diagram: Harvard Architecture and the Failure of the Bauhaus Legacy. Cambridge: The MIT Press, 1985.

13. Hutchings, Patrick A. E. “The Blot and the Diagram: A Note on the Diagram,” Art Journal Vol. 26 (1966-1967): 130-135+143

“The Blot and the Diagram” is a direct response of Sir Kenneth Clark’s essay on “The Blot and the Diagram: an Historian’s Reflection on Modern Art”. Hutchings claims that diagrammatic architecture is not the only aesthetically valid kind, but it has its evident merits. Hutchings uses the argument and evidence provided by a comparison of an English style home, and its diagrammatic counterpart, pointing out the qualities of both. The intended audience ranges from architectural theorists and professionals alike. The relevance of the source to the specific research topic is in its emphasis on the clarity, elegance and articulation of the diagram.

14. Ingels, Bjarke. Yes Is More: An Archicomic on Architectural Evolution, New York, NY: Evergreen, 2009.

15. Jenson, Michael. 2008. "Process, representation and architectural agency in an age of complexity and change." Journal of architecture 13, no. 2: 169-183.

16. Lavin, Sylvia. Quatremere de Quincy and the Invention of a Modern Language of Architecture, MIT Press, Cambridge MA and London (1992): 86-113.

17. Nesbitt, Kate. Theorizing a New Agenda for Architecture: An Anthology of Architectural Theory 1965-1995, New York, NY: Princeton Architectural Press, 1996.

Kate Nesbitt’s anthology is a comprehensive collection of some of the most influential articles from some of the most noteworthy architects and theorists of the last thirty years. Nesbitt does not make any criticism of the articles or state an opinion, but rather collects the articles and gives each its own introduction to better understand each article. The articles range from topics on postmodernism, phenomenology, deconstruction, feminism, and critical regionalism. Each author presents a new viewpoint of each subject, giving a wide range of attitudes. This anthology is indispensable to professors and students of architecture and architectural theory. This book gives a good foundation for the understanding of architecture from Postmodernism on, relating to the evolution of various design methods. Kate Nesbitt is Asssistant Professor of architectural theory and design at the Universiy of Virginia; she has published several essays on theory as well as this anthology.

18. Oechslin, Werner. “Premises for the Resumption of the Discussion of Typology.” Assemblage Vol. 1 (1986): 36-53.

The essay by Werner touches upon the contemporary misunderstanding and underutilized matter of typology in architecture. Werner claims that typology is more than a classifying of forms and functions, but it is necessary in the understanding of conception and history of architecture. The argument follows that functionalism and conceptually-driven architecture has been used to increase productivity, but has not succeeded in doing so, and that a resumption of typology should be imposed to give more depth to contemporary understanding of architecture. The article would be relevant for any architectural researcher and student. The article speaks on the importance of typology and the use of precedent to inform future design, which goes against the very premise of my research. Oechslin is a Swiss historian of architecture, an art historian, and an author.

19. Quatremere de Quincy, “Type”, The Oppositions Reader. Selected Reading from A Journal for Ideas and Criticism in Architecture 1973-1984, MIT Press, Cambridge MA and London (1998): 617-620.

20. Rogers, Richard. Architecture A Modern View, New York, NY: Thames and Hudson Inc., 1990.

21. Rossi, Aldo. The Architecture of the City, MIT Press, Cambridge MA and London, 1984.

22. Rubio, Ignasi de Sola-Morales, “From Contrast to Analogy, Developments in the Concept of the Architectural Intervention,” Proceedings of the ACSA annual meeting, Vol. 89 (November 1996): 125.

23. Somol, Robert. The Diagram of Matter. New York: Anyone Corporation, 1998.

24. Somol, Robert and Sarah Whiting. “Notes on the Doppler Effect and Other Moods of Modernism.” Perspecta Vol. 33 (2002): 72-77.

25. Van Berkel, Ben. Move, Netherlands: Goose Press, June 1999.

26. Vidler, Anthony, “The Idea of Type: The Transformation of an Academic Idea 1750-1830”, ed. K. Michael Hays, The Oppositions Reader, 437-459.

27. Vidler, Anthony, “The Third Typology”, ed. Kate Nesbitt, Theorizing a New Agenda for Architecture (1976): 258-263.

This important essay describes typology as inextricably linked to the origins of architectural discourse. Anthony Vidler’s editorial emphasizes the operation of type within the city as an important “emerging” third typology. Vidler goes on to argue how the first typologies were based on nature, and then on industry, but that the third typology seeks its inspiration and from internal, physical patterns of the synchronic city. He uses evidence of historical references when speaking about the first typologies, and then grounds his argument on the third typology speaking about postmodernism and the advents of the city. Anyone with interest in architecture and architectural theory would benefit from reading this essay. This editorial is a theoretical mapping and understanding of past typologies that benefits my own research in understanding the history of typologies. Vidler is a founding editor of Oppositions, as well as an architectural historian.

Rebecca Leclerc: Assignment #6: Precis/Abstract

Throughout the history of architecture, building typologies have provided the dominant model of a working design methodology. Moreover, catalogues of building typologies are so evidently bound to specific conventions, cultures, and forms of practice, it is astonishing that the practice of using abstract concepts and diagrams to generate design have retained any prevalence at all. In an attempt to reevaluate and reinvent building forms and functions it seems the diagram offers a generative and conceptual beginning to simplify and clarify ideas without the burden of type. As Bjarke Ingels explains in a recent lecture, “architecture is less an expression of our preconception than it is an expression of the specific qualities or ideas that that project is pursuing.” Primarily, diagrams are a means of reduction that respond to the complexities of building ideas through a simplification of important geometric and ordering relationships, but in the more recent past there has been a move towards diagrams realizing their potential in built, physical form. This move towards “diagrammatic architecture” has transformed the way in which architects view the use of diagrams. While some feel that this reduction should stay as a generative tool during the design process, other architects are seeing the diagrams become the buildings themselves. While these diagrams have become integral to design methodology, there is also an inevitable elegance about a physical form that realizes its function, physically, in terms of forms reduced to bare function, and to absolute lucidity.

Both diagrams and building typology are in their very intentions, a reduction of architecture. However, architectural ‘types’ as Quatremere de Quincy observed, are “formed through a process of reducing a complex of formal variants to a common root form”. While it allows for deviation, typology still maintains its presence as a formerly expended solution to another building’s demands. This approach limits the realm of imagination and intuition during the creative act of design. Even though diagrams also serve as a reductive approach to architecture, their aim is to create a subjective, and core conceptual idea. The tendency of diagrams to encourage abstractions of complex thoughts releases the architect of prior perceptions concerning program, function and form. This reliance on diagrams can evolve into a more compelling and instinctive way of designing. In other words, rather than following the typological schemas rooted in the past, contemporary methodologies can be inspired by a more distinct, present, and personal conception; from the diagram, up. Diagrams can then become the alternative to the usage of historical typologies.

In order to understand the evolution of typology and of the diagram as tools for a design methodology, I will begin my analysis with an overview of precedent studies. I will collect contemporary precedents and look at the work of OMA, SANAA, BIG, as well as other typology-based firms. These precedent studies will eventually turn into a series of sectional investigations, to help better analyze the buildings that have formed from these two approaches. These sectional explorations will prove useful in investigating the evolution of typologies and diagram-based buildings. I will investigate the theories of both methodologies and test their contemporary use by comparing and contrasting the results of both.

Rebecca Leclerc: Assignment #5b

Keywords:

Diagram, Typology, Form, Function,Program, Reinvent, Reevaluate, Relevance, Progression, Generative Tool, Lifestyles

New Sources: (w/some annotations)

Argan, Giulio Carlo, “On the Typology of Architecture”, Architectural Design, no. 12 (1963): 561-562.

“On the Typology of Architecture” is an editorial that begins to reconsider the notion of type as the essence of architecture. Argan makes the argument that typological and inventive aspects of the creative process are continuous and interlaced, and that only by criticizing and overcoming past solutions that were deposited from the synthesized “type” can the architect begin to properly utilize typology. He maintains that “type” is a principle allowing for variation, rather than a priori set of fixed entities. Argan investigates definitions and compares and superimposes the uses and forms of typologies to give evidence to his claim. This article is relevant for both historians and professionals because it speaks to the process of design and to the production of individual works. It is relevant for my research because it implies a way for typology and modern creation to work together. Argan was an Italian art and architectural historian and politician.

Colquhoun, Alan, “Three Kinds of Historicism”, in Kate Nesbitt (ed.), Theorizing a New Agenda for Architecture (1976): 202-209.

Foreign Office Architects, “Phylogenesis: FOA’s Ark” (Edited by Michael Kubo and Albert Ferre in collaboration with FOA), Actar, Barcelona (2003).

Rubio, Ignasi de Sola-Morales, “From Contrast to Analogy, Developments in the Concept of the Architectural Intervention”, Proceedings of the ACSA annual meeting, vol. 89 (November 1996): 125.

Vidler, Anthony, “The Idea of Type: The Transformation of an Academic Idea 1750-1830”, ed. K. Michael Hays, The Oppositions Reader, 437-459.

Vidler, Anthony, “The Third Typology”, ed. Kate Nesbitt, Theorizing a New Agenda for Architecture (1976): 258-263.

This important essay describes typology as inextricably linked to the origins of architectural discourse. Anthony Vidler’s editorial emphasizes the operation of type within the city as an important “emerging” third typology. Vidler goes on to argue how the first typologies were based on nature, and then on industry, but that the third typology seeks its inspiration and from internal, physical patterns of the synchronic city. He uses evidence of historical references when speaking about the first typologies, and then grounds his argument on the third typology speaking about postmodernism and the advents of the city. Anyone with interest in architecture and architectural theory would benefit from reading this essay. This editorial is a theoretical mapping and understanding of past typologies that benefits my own research in understanding the history of typologies. Vidler is a founding editor of Oppositions, as well as an architectural historian.

De Quincy, Quatremere, “Type”, The Oppositions Reader. Selected Reading from A Journal for Ideas and Criticism in Architecture 1973-1984, MIT Press, Cambridge MA and London (1998): 617-620.

Précis:

In Rebecca Leclerc’s thesis she makes the claim that typologies are preventing the advancement of ideas within the ever-changing spatial needs and wants of contemporary lifestyles. Her thesis aims to establish a break from typologies in order to reinvent and reinterpret the use, functions, and forms of both repurposed structures and future building constructs. To support these views, the thesis endures a thorough analysis of a series of precedent studies, examining the relationships between the buildings that are based on typologies and the buildings that break away from them, and also analyzes ineffective and out-of-date typological functions, programs and forms that still find their way into buildings by the application of the typological process. The audience that would best suit the article would be anyone interested or involved in the profession of architecture, and/or concerned in the rethinking of architectural approach.

Rebecca Leclerc: Assignment #5a

Book:

Nesbitt, Kate. Theorizing a New Agenda for Architecture: An Anthology of Architectural Theory 1965-1995. (New York, NY: Princeton Architectural Press, 1996.)

Review:

Davies, Colin. “Academic Constructs: holding up in theory.” Architectural Journal 204, no. 10 (September 1996): 50.

Kate Nesbitt’s “Theorizing A New Agenda for Architecture: An Anthology of Architectural Theory” is an overall reexamination of postmodern issues, compiled as a vast array of theoretical essays, in regards to disciplines such as phenomenology, deconstructivism, typology, and critical regionalism. The book includes a thorough introduction on the historical background behind the various topics and their importance on architectural theory today. One of the many reviews of this book was written shortly after the publishing of the anthology in 1996, titled “Academic Constructs: holding up in theory” by Colin Davies, a former editor of The Architects’ Journal. Many reviews, such as this one, have been made in regards to the book’s overall significance as a relevant source as well as its composition as a whole in terms of organization and thoroughness. This essay will serve as a comparison between the review of Colin Davies and my own personal review of the book as a significant and relevant source of postmodern criticism and why this anthology is pertinent to current and future architectural approaches.

The theory of architecture, and the critics who have written on these theories are a topic in which is hard to define or start to create a focus on. The field of theory defined in Nesbitt’s anthology is based on the challenging field of postmodern criticism on a variety of issues such as urban theory, historicism, and tectonic expression. While only utilizing a few authors for each subject, Nesbitt has created an anthology that does not condense the material, but emphasizes each piece as having an equal significance in the understanding of the theories discussed. The author’s role is much less of a theorist, but of a collector and organizer of important postmodern documentation. She does not form a type of opinion or views based on the readings, but provides a thorough overview of the important trends and theorists of the era. Davies approves of the idea of the book, which compiles critical research from the past, but speaks about how he felt that the introductions and the previews were dull. Davies essay expresses how he feels that the author’s role was too distanced from the writings, and that she should have took some opportunity to take a stance on the issues she is displaying. The overthought introductions, for Davies, lacked the essence of what each essay was doing; making a claim. Personally, I feel that the lack of attitude and opinion was a relief and an important break from the critical, analytic work that she presents.

One of the most defining differences in my personal review of Nesbitt’s anthology, and that of Davies, is the way in which she structures the organization of the book as a whole. I found the book to be quite organized and well thought out. In terms of researching on a specific topic, the chapters helped to delineate specific articles under a general conceptual idea, whether or not they agreed or not. Each chapter held a variety of works by vital architects and critics, whose focus was similar, but opinion on the matter was sometimes different. Before each essay is a brief description by Nesbitt that helps to summarize the sometimes lofty and pretentious writings that follow. This is extremely useful to the student or any reader to better clarify and reiterate the main points of the writing. The introduction of the entire book helps to give a basic analysis on postmodern thought, without trying to overcomplicate the process. This is where Davies and I disagree entirely. Davies biggest criticism of Nesbitt’s anthology was how overly complicated she organized it. Davies argues that the book has too many headings and subsequent sub-heading and so on and so forth. The introductions of each piece are overly repetitive and exhausting for the reader, while the overall book introduction is confusing rather than illuminating.

For my own personal research, Kate Nesbitt’s book was a thorough overview of postmodern thoughts by some of the most vital and poignant critics. The book includes essays by Robert Venturi, Peter Eisenman, Bernard Schumi, and many others. The discipline and study of typology, which I am particularly interested in, was thoroughly investigated from various points of view, making it an extremely useful resource. The review written by Davies agrees that this book is valuable to the study of postmodernist views, but criticizes the variety of authors that Nesbitt covers in the compilation. Davies argues that authors are sometimes repeated in different chapters creating confusion, and that some of the most pivotal critics and essays of postmodern theory were not given the emphasis they deserve. Davies essay also sees this collected work as important because postmodernism and its critics are now looked upon a past era, which this book helps to preserve the history of that given time. Because my current research is being directly correlated to the ideas of postmodernist thought, I would disagree that this is plainly historical, but still a prevalent thought into contemporary research and knowledge.

Nesbitt’s “Theorizing A New Agenda for Architecture: An Anthology of Architectural Theory” does its best to organize and create a thorough anthology of architectural theory. At its least, it can prove as a basic jumping-off point for further research into the topics of postmodern thought. Its importance as a historical, and in my opinion, a relevant contemporary source are one which will provide students and professors with the necessary insight into the thoughts and criticisms of the past which may very well influence the future.

Assignment #4b

Précis

Rebecca Leclerc’s “Architecture Without Typology” states the claim that typologies fail to address the complex needs of contemporary building programs by limiting our intuition and the architect’s freedom to invent new forms and functions of contemporary buildings. Her thesis aims to establish a break from typologies in order to reinvent and reinterpret the use, functions, and forms of both repurposed structures and future building constructs. To support these views, the thesis uses a series of successful and unsuccessful precedent studies, discusses the relationship between buildings that use typologies and buildings that break away from them, and also analyzes ineffective and out-of-date typical typological functions, programs and forms that still find their way into buildings by the application of the typological processes. The audience that would best suit the article would be anyone interested or involved in the profession of architecture, and/or concerned in the rethinking of architectural approach.

Assignment #4a

BUILT ENVORNMENT: Preservation/History

Rem Koolhaas, “Preservation is Overtaking Us”. Transcript from a lecture given at Columbia University on September 17^th, 2004.

TECTONICS: Typology

Alan Colquloun. “Typology and Design Methodology”, Perspecta 12 (1969); 71-74.

Précis

In “Preservation is Overtaking Us”, Rem Koolhaas makes the assertion that current architectural preservation has made everything in which we inhabit susceptible to preservation. He supports his claim by defining the types of buildings that were once the beginning of preservation efforts, into the broad spectrum of preservation efforts that we employ today. Koolhaas also gives a short glimpse into the timeline of preservation, and compares how in 1818 preservation was made to buildings up to 2,000 years prior, while in the 1960’s buildings that were only 20 years old were being preserved. Koolhaas’s purpose is to change how architecture views preservation in order to emphasize the importance of not doing anything instead of always trying to change things. The intended audience for this particular lecture would be anyone involved in the architecture community, from students, to educators, to professionals and historians, and urban planners.

In Alan Colquloun’s paper, “Typology and Design Method”, he makes the claim that architects are never truly free from forms of the past and that all architectural solutions, no matter how systematic and deterministic we try to rationalize them, will in some way be determined by intuitive, creative processes. Colquloun begins to support his claim with the arguments used against typology, and then moves onto research about the primitive hut and man’s constant relationship between representing the phenomenal world and creating a functional, objective world. He begins to pick apart modernistic views and people obsessed with technology to reveal the gap between rational, technologically driven designs, and the constant existence of a need for an intuitive and creative process that fills the gaps. He sites specific examples of architects whose designs, although driven by rational ideas, always require some intuitive process, and then again compares the architects to Expressionist painters and their break from traditional, cultural abstractions. The purpose of the paper is to prove that a certain scientific detachment towards our architectural problems is vital, and in order to create meaningful buildings that we must remember and stay aware of the values that can be carried by forms. The intended audience for this piece would be anyone interested in Modernism, science, typology, and of course, architecture in general.

Reflection

“Preservation is Overtaking Us” is the lecture that I chose from my own concentration, the Built Environment. I chose this article because of my own interests in preservation and because of my admiration towards Rem Koolhaas. Although preservation is not the field in which my thesis is geared towards, the reading has influenced my thought process in regards to my thesis on functionality and typologies. In the first paragraph, Koolhaas states, “you slowly realize that preservation is not the enemy of modernity but actually one of its inventions. That makes perfect sense because clearly the whole idea of modernization raises either latently of overtly the issue of what to keep.” This concept of modernity as something that decides what to keep, as though it was something of an overall overhaul of architectural ideals, was never realized to me until reading this article. This directly relates to my research on typologies because of modernity’s prevalence in the break from previous typologies and historical references in architecture. Preservation, in return, is what is decided meaningful and important to protect in modernist views. My focus, thus far, has been involved in understanding modernism’s role in breaking away from typologies, but Rem Koolhaas’s lecture helps me to understand modernism’s invention of active preservation.

As for the essay by Alan Colquloun, regarding typology and design methodology, it directly poses as important research within my thesis explorations. This essay, titled “Typology and Design Method”, was actually an essay that I had already chosen and skimmed over for during my sources analysis in a previous assignment. This essay is extremely important in my research because it takes the stance of the opposite view towards typology. Colquloun discusses that no matter how scientific and how sound the functionality of the building is, there is always room for the artistic, intuitive process which is not rational or mathematical. He then discusses that in a world of pure technology, the area of free choice is always dealt with by adapting former solutions. He adds that application of certain laws and systems can help to establish a general form, but that it is not adequate for defining the actual configuration. I do not see the necessity of looking into the past quite like Colquhoun has explained it. He would argue that typology is something with which is innate within our freedom to construct and design architecture, and that what becomes of our choices is something from past experiences and precedents. I would disagree with Colquloun, because I do not think that if people were to free themselves from the guidelines of typological constricts, we would be able to better understand the new and ever changing needs of current societies. From this detachment, buildings would begin to evolve into new ways of life and experiences. The way that people inhabit and use different building types will become more and more dynamic, and will function without the constraints of previous type-casting.

Rebecca Leclerc: What is architecture?

Architecture, in my opinion, and in the plainest of terms, is the built environment in which people inhabit. It is both an art and a science. At its core, architecture’s role both historically and to-date is to best suit and function for the needs of its users. In its design, architecture assumes the role of shaping experiences in both phenomenological and functional ways.

Rebecca Leclerc: #3b

Assignment #3b: Rewrite Two Good Questions, With Two New Sources

Questions and Sources

Has the application of architectural typologies prevented the progression of architectural ideas, and if so, could a break from typologies better suit the constantly changing needs of society?

How can architecture become a “machine for living” in a world of frequently changing needs and constantly advancing technologies?

Braham, William W. After Typology: the Suffering of Diagrams. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, June 2000.

Clapp, James A. The City and the Machine: The Artist’s View of Urbanism and Technology. London: Journal of Urban Technology, April 2007.

Colquhoun, Alan. Typology and Design Method. Cambridge: The MIT Press, 1969.

Curtis, William J.R. Transformation and invention: on re-reading modern architecture. England, Architectural Review, v.221., March 2007.

Rosenblatt, Nina. Empathy and Anesthesia On the Origins of A French Machine Aesthetic. Cambridge: The MIT Press, Winter 2001.

Reflection

After two weeks of toying with a couple of topics, I have made an effort to begin to weed out and identify what my true interests are. For one, I would say that I am clearly interested in exploring typologies, and what they mean in architectural standards. The buildings that I create, and the buildings I admire have all broken away from the ideals of typologies. Architects have the power to alter and change the way that people live, and I am interested in investigating if typologies only deter the evolution of making these abrupt changes in functionality and form. Many of the sources that I have found look back into Le Corbusier and Modernism as an attempt to create an aesthetic from efficiency and function. This break from the norm definitely created a divide between traditional ways of life and a new thinking of how we live. I think that it is the architects’ purpose to continue to change and evolve and even challenge the ways that people live and inhabit buildings. The sources that I have been looking at seem to speak a lot about what modernity and Corbusier’s idea of a “machine for living” are lacking. They even go as far as to speak about how modernity has created its own typology, which to me, seems against its very intention.

I think it is apparent that I am driven by functional needs, and the redefining of the expression of these needs in an architectural approach. The idea of function links back to both of my questions. In terms of the first question, I am captivated in investigating typologies and how they have either guided or discouraged the redefining of functionality and form. In the second question, I am interested in exploring how these modernistic ideals about buildings as a machine of functionality can evolve and progress in a time when society is so consistently and rapidly changing with advancements in science and technology.

Rebecca Leclerc: #3a

Assignment #3a: Compare & Contrast Essay

David Wang, “Design in Relation to Research”

B.D. Wortham, “The Way We Think about the Way We Think”

Research, in any form of academia, is a vital part of a students’ knowledge and growth, in any field that they are pursuing a career in. In terms of architecture school, research as well as design have become intricate parts of the curriculum. However, the relationship and connection between design and research is troubled with several complications. There seems to be an overall, fundamental divide between the two. In David Wang’s essay “Design in Relation to Research” the author takes the position that design and research are not the same, but that designers do research, and that design is a type of research. Wang also emphasizes the different ways in which architects use research methods to improve their designs. In contrast, “The Way We Think about the Way We Think” by B.D. Wortham, discusses his view that the discipline of architecture should become a leader in changing how research is understood. The purpose of this essay is to compare and contrast the differences between these articles and explore these varying ideas in regards to research and design within the realm of architecture.

Both B.D. Wortham and David Wang agree that the process of design and the process of research are different. Design is a subjective and multi-faceted subject, which can never be judged on a right or wrong basis like most research-based methods. Wang states that the design process “cannot be captured by rule-based propositions”, while the process of research is “rooted in rule-based frameworks”. Wortham agrees with this inherent difference between the two methods, as one that has measurable, objective rationale, while the other is unprovable, speculative, and open-ended. Wortham argues that methods are “not a mere means to an end of the research product, methods are a research in itself.” Architecture, in Wortham and in Wang’s eyes is not necessarily about proving a hypothesis. Both authors would also agree that architects and designers should be aware of the influence of research methods assumed in other fields, not necessarily as ideals to follow, but to be mindful of their existence and purpose.

The core difference between the two articles is how the authors view design as a type of research. Wang’s theory is that research about the design process can help better inform the design process itself, without giving credit to design as a type of research. Wortham would disagree unequivocally. To Wortham, architecture, and the way in which architects understand and use research should become the model for reassessing research in academe. While Wang seeks to improve architectural design by pursuing knowledge in scientific methods of research, Wortham wishes to broaden the definition of research in colleges and to professionals by using architectural methods as a model.

In “Design in Relation to Research”, Wang goes in great depth to discuss the gateways for bringing research into the design process. He explains a series of ways in which design can be examined, including design and history research, action research, qualitative research, experimental research, simulation research, and many other forms of research and analysis. In “The Way We Think about the Way We Think”, Wortham states that this way of thinking in terms of scientific reasoning and rationale only oppresses and homogenizes, rather than liberating our way of thinking. This type of empirical, quantitative research that Wang believes architecture needs, Wortham argues that it would only reduce the realm of interpretation and individual thought. Wortham also says that “instead of trying to conform to an architectural praxis to a scientific paradigm, architecture should provide a new model for research practice in all disciplines that carries academic and social mandates, that is intellectually coherent, capacious and integrative, that acknowledges that often it is the questions one asks that matter as much as, and occasionally more than, the answers one produces.” This importance on methodology and process is one that Wortham thinks is worthy of exploring in all fields of study.

Wortham’s argument also contends that scientific methods of research valorize the importance of becoming a “specialist” in a given field. America, in his eyes, has begun to put too much emphasis on knowing everything about one given thing, rather than having a greater understanding of broader ideas and philosophies. Wortham quotes Martin Heidegger by saying that “being in the world is just as important as knowing about the world”. This concept of research varies from the ideas of Wang’s essay, because it stresses the significance of the design method as a form of research. In fact, it goes beyond stating its importance, but accentuates architect’s methods as one that others should observe and understand.

It seems that the relationship between research and design is one of many conflicting views within the architectural community. Whether or not research should influence design methods, or if architectural methods and processes should influence the scientific research of current scholars is up for interpretation. While some will argue that architects must be more analytical and research-oriented, others may think that the value of architectural design as research is an ideology of trans disciplinary collaboration that is integrative of a variety of processes. It seems as though, whichever essay is correct, the importance of research within design, in any form, is a vital piece to our academic and professional understanding of architecture.

Rebecca Leclerc: #2b

Assignment #2b: Three Good Questions, With Source

BOLD, ICONIC MOVES IN ARCHITECTURAL IDEALS

What defines a building as a bold or an iconic piece of architecture?

This particular set of terms refers directly towards the collages that I made for Thesis Prep I. My past projects, similar to the collages I created in Thesis Prep II, all have a related theme. Each project has come from one, bold move, which then encompasses my overall conceptual and functional ideas for the building. The most successful of my projects have come in the studies of sections. I’m not quite sure how these sectional diagrams relate to a thesis, but I am starting to discover that these sections are usually quite bold. I enjoy the idea that every building should be unique, because every building serves a different purpose and occupies a different site. Therefore, I prefer buildings that utilize a main idea that fits the needed functions and site requirements, without concern on whether or not it has never been done before. Architects that think differently and outside the box usually create the most interesting and best functioning buildings. In a modern society it is important to build buildings that reflect our lifestyles. For example, the Seattle Public Library is considered a modern architectural “icon” because Rem Koolhas thought differently about what a library should be and how it should function. If all architects thought about the basic ideals and functions of the spaces they were designing, all buildings would be considered icons, or I suppose, they would not be icons at all, it would just become a new, modern way of typical building design and thought. The question I posed towards what defines a building as bold and iconic lead me to a lot of sources regarding 20^th century buildings that are considered “iconic”. One source in particular spoke about how architecture is competing for attention. Charles Jencks’ article also talks about how in today’s world that anything can become an icon. These ideas lead me to the think about why Jencks chose the buildings he wrote about as examples of modern icons. The buildings, such as Norman Foster’s Swiss Re and Renzo Piano’s Cultural Center in New Caledonia, are all buildings that have changed the typical framework for their given function. In my opinion, these buildings are the most compelling, not because they are different, but because their difference is changing the typical framework for their given functions.

This analysis has helped me to see that my ideas about icons are not necessarily being driven by the question of what defines the icon, but more about the icon as a functional and modern view of our most current lifestyles.

PRESERVATION, REUSE, ADAPT

Can cities and suburbs start to adapt and reuse their built structures to help preserve the natural landscape?

How can cities and towns create boundaries in order to preserve the landscape?

Preservation and Reuse of buildings is something that I have been compelled by for quite some time. Most of the time, architects, developers, and other officials choose to build a new building rather than utilize and reuse an older one. Sometimes, especially in more recent years, these newer buildings will implement some of the materials of a deconstructed or demolished building to try to help minimize waste, and contribute history into the new design. The problem with this is that these vacant and abandoned structures become eye-sores to communities and are left to decay or are demolished for a new building. The energy, costs, and waste that comes with this demolition is outrageous. Of course, remodeling and adapting a structure to house a new programmatic need is not easy, or inexpensive. But the idea of using these buildings will help to create a boundary within the built and the natural environment, because the construction of a new building would be taking away land that is currently vacant. The idea of expanding of cities and suburbs is something that worries me. Cities and their outcropping suburbs need to have boundaries before it envelops the entire natural environment. I suppose my ideas come more about preserving the natural landscape than that of buildings, but in order to preserve these places, we must find a way to control the outward growth of cities.

The interesting thing about this assignment is how it has changed the way that I think about the questions. I realized in my first two questions that, after reading my articles, those questions were not really what I was curious about. I started my searches with the question, “Why do architects tend to build new buildings, or reuse building materials, but not simply reuse the existing, abandoned building it is replacing?” Sure, this gave me plenty of sources on preservation and adaption of usage, but it wasn’t the reuse of buildings that I was concerned with, it was the expansion of cities because of new construction that concerned me.

“Machine for Living”, FUNCTION and EFFICIENCY

How has architecture affected the efficiency of our daily lives?

How does architecture influence the lifestyles and habits of the people who use it?

Can architecture become an efficient “machine for living” to better serve its occupants?

One of my favorite buildings of all time is the Maison de Verre by Pierre Chareau. The reason why I love it so much it that it is designed specifically for the owner of the house and his wife, not only for their own enjoyment and stylistic preferences, but as a machine for living. For its time, the Maison de Verre was extremely industrial and modern. The house was built to function and serve the needs of the owners. Equipped with mechanical food elevators, retractable doors, double-sided closets, and so much more, the house does not boast itself in these mechanisms to be luxurious, but to better serve the owners needs. I enjoy the idea that mechanical systems respond and work directly with the design and function of the overall building.

I have an overall obsession with the importance of function. Something just simply irks me if a building isn’t working efficiently and serving its purpose. New buildings should reflect the lifestyle of the modern people that are going to occupy them. I’m really interested in how architecture effects the daily routines of people that use it, from the home, to work, to the mall, the grocery store, and so on. For example, the programmatic layout of a building, as well as the dual use of space and using spaces for multiple functions can all begin to help create efficiency. In terms of something as small and simple as a house, there are so many ways in which architecture can provide more efficient and functional spaces, whether in terms of spatially or mechanically. People are too concerned with traditional ideas of things such as living rooms, and dining rooms, and breezeways, rather than thinking outside the box into what purpose these spaces have and how to create the best type of space for its particular use. Architecture has always transformed the way people live, similar to technology and I think that architecture has only dipped its toes into the combination of the two. With the blending of technological advances, innovative mechanical systems, and architectural design, buildings can help to better serve and fit with the modern lifestyles of the people who occupy them.

Bibliography

1. Bevan, Robert. "Architecture as icon: The architecture of aftermath, by Terry Smith." Architectural review 221, no. 1324 (June 2007): 95. Avery Index to Architectural Periodicals, EBSCOhost (accessed September 21, 2011)

2. David Garlan, R. Allen, J. Ockerbloom. "Architecture Mismatch: Why Reuse is Still So Hard.” Software, IEEE, no. 12 (November 2006): 17-26. Avery Index to

Architectural Periodicals, EBSCOhost (accessed September 21, 2011).

3. Jencks, Charles. 2006. "Cathedral and bike shed: icons and the city." Architectural review 220, no. 1315: 32-33. Avery Index to Architectural Periodicals, EBSCOhost (accessed September 21, 2011).

4. Jenson, Michael. 2008. "Process, representation and architectural agency in an age of complexity and change." Journal of architecture 13, no. 2: 169-183. Avery Index to Architectural Periodicals, EBSCOhost (accessed September 21, 2011).

5. Kolb, Jaffer. 2009. "The High Line parkland project paves the way for a new kind of urbanism in the U.S." Architectural review 226, no. 1351: 29-30. Avery Index to Architectural Periodicals, EBSCOhost (accessed September 21, 2011).

6. Kronenburg, Robert.The Spirit of the Machine:Technology as an Inspiration in Architectural Design." New York, New York, Academy Press, 2001.

7. Shigley, Paul. "Historic doesn't have to mean 'old': historic preservation is tricky in a young city [APA Awards]." Planning 72, no. 3 (March 2006): 18-19. Avery Index to Architectural Periodicals, EBSCOhost (accessed September 21, 2011).

8. Smith, Albert C., and Kendra Schank-Smith. 2005. "Architecture as inspired machine." Built environment 31, no. 1: 79-88. Avery Index to Architectural Periodicals, EBSCOhost (accessed September 21, 2011).

9. Smith, Wally, and Hannah Lewi. "The magic of machines in the house." Journal of architecture 13, no. 5 (October 2008): 633-660. Avery Index to Architectural Periodicals, EBSCOhost (accessed September 21, 2011).

Rebecca Leclerc: #2a

Assignment #2a: Rhetorical Précis

1. Mark Jarzombek and Alfred B. Hwango’s article, “Global in a Not-so-Global-World”, states that the desire to teach in a way that acknowledges our position in the world as global citizens faces several challenges. The authors back this claim up with analyzing the split between modern and traditional within institutional practices, discuss the problem of language that is implanted within historical presumptions, and finally, by arguing that students are not submerged enough in studio to see themselves as actors in global history. Jarzombek and Hwango’s purpose is to point out the need for a global critique of anti-global practices, in order to jolt the awareness of the reader into considering that without this critique of history-writing and architectural studio there would be a diminishing future cultural relevance. Given the technical language and the point of view that the authors use in the article, this writing seems to be intended for an audience of highly educated students and professors with some knowledge or understanding of architectural and global history and culture.

2. Carla Keyvanian’s article titled, “Teaching History to Architects”, asserts that the study of architectural history is necessary for all architecture students. Keyvanian supports her argument by addressing how history provides students with a vocabulary to express and formulate ideas, that history courses provide a dedicated venue in which theoretical concerns are examined, and that the study of architectural history supports student awareness of the historical context within their own projects. The article discusses the contribution of history courses to the education of architecture students, and shines light on the importance history makes in aiding students with their own designs. Keyvanian’s article speaks to an audience of historians, professors, architects, students, or anyone interested in the history of architecture and design.

Rebecca Leclerc: #1b

Rebecca Leclerc: #1a

Assignment #1a:

1. Dell Upton, “Architectural History or Landscape History?” Journal of Architectural Education (1984-), Vo. 44, No. 4. (Aug., 1991), pp. 195-199.

2. Upton argues that architectural history should accept the entire cultural landscape as its unit of analysis because it currently attempts to be universal, canonized, and unified from a normative point-of-view. Upton then explains that a cultural landscape would emphasize the fusion of the physical with the imagination of the inhabitants that construes and constructs the landscape.

3. Dell Upton

a. Education:

i. Ph.D. American Civilization, Brown University

ii. M.A. American Civilization, Brown University

iii. B.A. History, English, Colgate University

b. Awards & Prizes:

i. Louisiana Literary Award

ii. Alice Davis Hitchcock Award

iii. Abbott Lowell Cummings Prize

iv. John Hope Franklin Publication Prize

v. Guggenheim Fellow

vi. Getty Senior Research Grant in Art History

c. Major Publications:

i. Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography. Editorial Board

ii. Traditional Dwellings and Settlements Review. Editorial Board

iii. Material History Review. Editorial Board

iv. Architecture in the United States, Holy Things and Profane: Anglican Parish Churches in Colonial Virginia (1998)

v. Common Places: Readings in American Vernacular Architecture. With John Michael Viach (1986)

vi. America’s Architectural Roots: Ethnic Groups That Built America (1986)

d. Philosophy:

i. “Architecture is one subcategory of material culture, which encompasses the entire range of things people make and use, from the smallest, most ephemeral personal object to the largest, most complex landscape. As such, it is a rich avenue for exploring the complexity and variety of human existence and expression. I see architecture primarily a means for shaping society and culture and for annotating social action by creating appropriate settings for it, and the kinds of questions I ask have to do with the ways role of architecture in the social and intellectual evolution of societies and in the formation of the sense of self.” – Dell Upton (http://www.ced.berkeley.edu/ced/people/query_content2.php?id=224)

4. Upton begins his essay by discussing the difficulties for architectural historians and professions to express the relationships among history, architecture, and design. He begins to break down the historical eras of varying architectural views and that era’s influence on the history of architecture. He states that historians often evaluate and celebrate architecture that is identifiable with traditions. After the synopsis, Upton then points out the view of vernacular scholars and their argument that architect-centered studies focus too little on the human-made environment and that they are too formalistic. Even with the combination of both of these views, Upton clarifies that there is still conflict because it clashes with the analyses of the creation of both expressive works as well as artifacts. It is at this point that there is a break, and Upton begins his own views and ideas towards a more cultural landscape and begins to build on his idea through a series of very direct points.

a. Sources: Dell Upton uses sources that both support and oppose his own ideas. The sources range from his own books and essays to books and articles that date back from 1827. He utilizes these sources for quotations, and as external references for further examination. These sources also seem to share a common theme in typology, with titles such as, “Historical Perspectives on Modern Popular/Commercial Art”, “Changing Ideals in Modern Architecture”, “The Culture of Professionalism”, “Material Culture, World View, and Culture Change”, and “On Deconstruction: Theory and Criticism After Structuralism”.

5. Key Terms

a. Cultural Landscape

b. Normative Perception

c. Vernacular

6. See attached Map.

7. See attached Resources.

8. Rationale:

a. Cultural Landscape: The two pieces of writing I found relating to cultural landscape touch upon the importance of the ordinary, everyday landscapes that we see on a daily basis but fail to give importance to. The writing by Bret Wallach speaks from the point of view of a geographer and touches upon how geography focuses on the primitive and the ordinary while history focuses on the exceptions of human culture such as the Eskimos, and the Great Pyramids of Giza. These relate to Upton’s own scrutiny of architectural history due to the fact that it has been built upon these exceptions, whether or not they were grand, or a universal image of something vernacular.

b. Normative Perception: In the book titled “Culture and Human Nature”, it refers to universal human nature as something intangible and impossible. The authors believe that there are biological and cultural constants in human behavior, but to categorize them would be bias and untrue to humans’ significant differences. This touches upon the idea that normative perception cannot be true because of the amount of differences and social aspects it would be not be accounting for. The “Moral Geographies” book dives into the ideas that certain experiences of heightened feelings and consciousness involving others are transcultural, but that the meaning of a good life varies among cultures. It quotes Yi-Fu Tuan as he says that when people shift their attention to artifacts such as paintings, sculptures, and buildings that it is no longer easy to repress moral questions. This view twists the argument about a normative perception of architecture towards a question of architecture creating a normative perception.

c. Vernacular: John R. Stilgoe writes in “Common Landscapes in America, 1580-1845) “ how America reacts to its vernacular architecture. He explains how landscapes of orchards, main streets, and barns are popular architecture, which can be seen among postcards and greeting cards. This article could serve as grounds for discussion in Upton’s writings as it relates to the idea that even though these pieces of architecture as vernacular, only the most universal, picturesque, or the most different type of these vernacular categories will show as the base for architectural history. This type of universal acknowledgement towards the built environment is also discussed in “The Interpretation of Ordinary Landscapes”. It speaks more about a national identity and how these reflect the ideals and hopes of our current culture. In “Vernacular Architecture” by Henry Glassie, he acknowledges that this vernacular comes from your surroundings from the moment one can be burdened by the laws of architecture. This book speaks to Upton’s ideas on constructing and construing of cultural landscape. It agrees that architecture has created a strict set of rules, but also talks about how the human perceives and reacts to this as something that is completely their own, and cannot be fully categorized because it relates directly towards the viewers own powerful imaginations.