This is who I am.

My design process is something that I have never understood. I always felt like I would just go, go, go and try to make sense of things. I felt as if each site, each program had something that it already wanted to be. I felt as if I was a sculptor. I felt as if the site boundaries were extruded up into a block and that my design would be chiseled out of this block based on the wealth of information that the site and program gave me. However, over this year I have found that to not be the case so much. I used to view architecture simply as architecture. I never really believed in meaning or anything deep with in architecture. I feel like that is a fine way to view architecture. However, over the course of this last semester I have started to gain another meaning to what architecture is and what it means to me. I have also started to look back at some of the things I have designed and pulled themes from them. On top of all of those things I have begun to learn about myself, I have learned what field of architecture I like to work in.

                Architecture, to me, used to just be the design of a building. If it looked cool to me, it was good architecture. It wasn’t because I wasn’t passionate about architecture. It was simply how my brain functioned. I simply didn’t have a deep personality. Everything was surface level. I thought people were silly with all of these different meanings and symbolism. However, over the last year I have grown as a man, and as an aspiring architect. My mindset has changed in the way I approach life. Every day I am evolving. This evolution has allowed me to see things in a new light. I no longer am stuck seeing things in a surface level perspective. My eyes have opened. Some of the things I once thought were silly are still silly. But, I now have a deeper understanding for architecture.

                I was on LinkedIn the other day; I was looking at an article written about Dan Overbey. That is when I truly realized how I approach architecture. I have never been good with words and often times have trouble putting what I mean to words. He practically spoke for me. Dan said, “I believe that designers always need to be cognizant of the relationship between spirit and matter. If our contributions to the built environment are not inspiring, they will not be appreciated.” This was the first time I ever had that, “ah ha!” feeling about my own architectural theory. It all made sense at that point in time. It wasn’t that the buildings looked “cool” to me. It was because they provoked a spirit inside of me due to the matter of what was in front of me. This can start to be seen in different scales. You can see how architecture brings out emotion. There are small moves that can be made to make people feel comfortable in a space, to feel safe in a space, to feel alone in a space. It is all about designing the perception of space. That is what architecture is to me.

                Looking back at a lot of my projects that I have worked on during my time here at Ball State I have done a lot of design work. I have a pretty good background in the construction industry as I have interned at a construction company for 3 years. This experience has been very valuable to me, but I can also see ways in which it has negatively affected my design process. I tend to dismiss ideas before I have ever even put anything down on paper. I simply say to myself, “Nah, not practical.” I have worked with clients who want things that look good until they see the price tag. Then, they start wanting to pull everything out of the project. By the time it is done, the building is as plain as can be. This is reality and I have accepted it. However, I am in school. I don’t have clients. I need to be pushing my design intentions as far as I can while I am here. Not sticking to practical solutions. In every project I have stuck to a square grid. This isn’t a bad thing. But, when you never break the grid it can start to limit the design. This is something I have been doing. When it comes to a design idea, I love the idea of pods. They are so adaptable to almost any situation. I love that I have started using pods in almost every design I do. But, I need to redevelop the pod. It doesn’t have to be square. They don’t have to line up. They don’t even have to have an order. I have a lot of untapped potential.

                If I were to pick an industry of architecture I would like to focus my career on it would be the education industry. I have always been above average in school. I have never been a stand out student. But, I always did well. I would like to help impact the lives and futures of children and adults alike in a way that can truly shape their future. I want to design classrooms that can adapt with the users. I want to help kids learn better at a younger age. I want to design educational facilities that promote healthy learning; not just industrialized learning that is only worried about kids’ tests scores. This is the type of architecture I want to design.

                This is my idea of architecture.

Open Plan///Le Corbusier Vs. Mies Van Der Rohe

The open plan for Le Corbusier and Mies Van Der Rohe were similar in a few ways but also had their differences. I like the way both of them accomplished the open plan. They have done it two different ways but they both do it in a way that works quite well. Le Corbusier uses a system of columns to capture his open plan affect. While, Mies Van Der Rohe uses a series of planes to capture the open plan. Mies Van Der Rohe does use the column as well. He even uses the column in some interesting ways that were somewhat of a revolution. However, Mies really changes things up with his use of planes.  Their horizontal elements are very similar to each other though.

Le Corbusier

Mies Van Der Rohe

                If you compare Le Corbusier’s Villa Savoye to Mies Van Der Rohe’s 50 x 50 House, you will begin to see some big differences between the two.

Villa Savoye

Floor Plan

Villa Savoye is an open plan but, by looking at the plan you can begin to see how much of the plan is open but then Le Corbusier places a lot of spaces in the back corners to allow for some more privacy in places that may need privacy. Comparing that to Mies Van Der Rohe’s 50 x 50 House and you can begin to see how truly open his plan was.

50 x 50 House Model

House Concept

The 50 x 50 House was never actually constructed. The interesting thing about this project is the column placement. Columns, at the time, were thought to be a corner element. Mies began questioning that and actually placed the columns on the center of the walls meaning all the weight was supported in the center of the exterior instead of the corners. This created a very different feel to the building. In terms of program Mies eliminated a lot of privacy. Not only did he eliminate a lot of privacy within the house he eliminated it from outside the house. The house was all glass curtain walls allowing the house to be somewhat of a doll house. You could see inside the house at all times. One area where they were very similar was their ceilings/roofs. They were quite low. The user didn’t have double story spaces or anything of that height. It was all very low. This compressed the user and forced them to look outward of the building. In Mies Van Der Rohe’s Barcelona Pavilion you can really see how he uses the plane.

Barcelona Pavilion

Floor Plan

He almost makes the user wonder when they have entered and exit the buildings because he has broken the building up so much and extended the building out onto the site. The open plan is still used here and created simply using planes with a few columns. The ceiling is low once again here and frames the view of the world.

                As you can tell, they both viewed the open plan a little bit different. But, you can still see some of the same aspects in each other’s work. Mies Van Der Rohe and Le Corbusier were very successful with the open plan and really helped push the new idea along. To this day people still love the open plan. Thanks to these guys, it may be something that never goes away.

Ornament - Is it still there?

Modern architecture begins in the late 19^th century and transforms throughout the years. It starts off in the arts and crafts movement where there was still a high amount of decoration but, it was much less than gothic architecture. Modern architecture continues to transform as the years go on. The further into modernism you go the more simplified things become. Once you reach Russian constructivism you have really got to as far as it goes before it starts back tracking to some of the previous ideas and combining some of the movements. So really, there is a lot of development in modern architecture until it went too far and then there was some back tracking.

            The arts and crafts movement is what started the whole thing. During the arts and crafts movement you can notice the decoration almost disappear compared to gothic architecture. The decoration is still there in certain places but, it has become much more simplified and in a lot of cases, flattened. A lot of the decoration that is still used started to take floral patterns and was very common around windows. The arts and crafts movement lasted about a decade and flowed into art nouveau.

            During art nouveau you almost see a small increase in decoration. I believe this is in part some nostalgia simply coming back. Art nouveau only lasts about a decade too before they start simplifying the decoration again. But, art nouveau really is the beginning of steel as decoration. Floral motif was huge for art nouveau.

            As we move into expressionism we begin to see the material palette change away from just brick or steel. Also, decoration has diminished to almost nothing on the exterior. The decoration on the exterior is now the form of the building. The form is now much more important. The next transition continues pushing these ideas of decoration.

            The De Stilj movement was huge a big change. The decoration is gone. The form has changed. Horizontal and vertical lines are now very prominent. You can see the changes in form. De Stilj is taking on a much more planar design. Straight is key. Color is really the only sense of decoration you get. Instead one large mass buildings start to appear as bits and pieces. From here, architecture keeps progressing.

            Futurism is much more about the material palette than the decoration. Decoration is still almost nonexistent. They begin to use only certain materials. Some materials are even banned. Wood is one of those. Instead, they are using concrete, steel and glass. The forms are not as planar as they were in the de stilj but, instead they are really a series of extrusions.

            Russian Constructivism is much like futurism. It is not ornamental. The forms are similar. But, the biggest difference here is the scale. Things are almost at a monumental scale. This was being reinforced by politics. Stalin wanted to show the power of Russia. What better way of showing power than building massive buildings that would reach for the skies? Maybe even a statue of Stalin that would reach for the sky.

            The Bauhaus was the next sort of movement. It began to combine a lot of the ideas that had previously happened over the last several decades. The Bauhaus was not ornamental at all. The pieces of the building really began to be thought about for the users. The students needed light to wake up so the building was rotated to bring light into their rooms in the morning. Stairwells were made into real spaces where human interaction could happen. The building began to take upon a sense of transparency. You could tell what was going on in the building from outside. Open spaces were very prominent so spaces could evolve with the people that were occupying it.

            To me, ornament did seem like it disappeared over time. However, I don’t completely agree with that. I believe ornament simply evolved, just like architecture was at the time. I think it began to take simpler forms and even changed its medium. For example, I think architects would use material, color, and form as ornament. In art nouveau you have obvious steel ornament. But, where does it go during de stilj? De stilj uses color or ornament. Futurism uses materials as ornament. The transitions between glass, concrete, and steel begin to take on an ornamental feel. Even in the Bauhaus, ornament is still there. The material changes are once again used in an ornamental fashion. I think it depends how we define ornament. Do we limit our definition to simply the physical changes in surface, or do we allow ornament to become much more complex than that?

The Father of Modern Architecture

  Hendrik Petrus Berlage was born in Amsterdam in 1856. He grew up and attending Zurich Institute of Technology during the 1870’s. While at Zurich Institute of Technology he made one of the most impactful connections he ever made. He connected with Gottfried Semper. This understudy for him may have been the defining moment for him in his career. Today we often regard Berlage as the Father of Modern Architecture. If you take this understudy away from Berlage, we may not know who Berlage is today. You can see the connection in his work even today. When he finished with school, he decided to travel across Europe.

Berlage didn't only gather inspiration for his work from Semper though. Berlage also made a trip to the U.S. where he began to study the works of Henry Hobson Richardson, Louis H. Sullivan, and Frank Lloyd Wright. He mainly focused on their organic forms and woodwork. This trip in 1911 was very impactful as it really began teaching Berlage about materiality. It began teaching him how to use certain materials. He learned the strengths of woodwork along with the weaknesses. He learned the strengths of brick and steel. He really began to immerse himself in the materiality of architecture. This is one reason he became so successful.
Hendrik Berlage has several very famous works of architecture. However, one of them really stands out to me. The Amsterdam Commodities Exchange is a fantastic example of modern architecture.

This building is of such a large scale and was handled with the right mindset. You really start to see a lot less decoration on the exterior compared to the art nouveau movement. The facades are very organized. You can begin to see a grid like pattern with the windows. The exterior is very nice. But, the interior is really where this building shines. The interior has had these large exchange halls. This is where Berlage really begins to show off his knowledge of materials. The combination of the steel and brick work is just amazing.

  
These large exchange halls really make this building what it is. The skylights really help to reinforce his ideas and bring your eyes up towards the steel rafters. Also, notice the minimal decoration. On the trusses you have very minimal decoration there are two small flower like pieces poking off of each truss. Also, the brickwork in this building is just amazing. He uses the brick in many different ways. You can see him forming with brick work. He uses the brickwork to create patterns and voids.
Berlage is the “Father of Modern Architecture”. He really shows it in his work. He did gather inspiration from many architects during his time period. But, he didn’t simply just take their words for it. He developed his own style. It just so happens his style stuck and turned into the world of modern architecture as we know it today.

Viollet Le Duc, Ruskin, Semper

If there was one word that described the architecture of in the 19^th century it would be, chaotic. Architects across the world had drastically different beliefs. The 19^th century begins to mark the end of the gothic architecture. Steel begins to be introduced. Some architects take hold of this wonderful material, but other architects, seem to have a much harder time willing to make the change and feel as if they would be sinning if they used these materials. On the opposite side of the spectrum you have people taking steel for what it is and let it mold their style and let it influence their designs. Some of their names are John Ruskin, Eugene Viollet Le Duc, and Gottfried Semper. These men all had different views of how architecture was to be designed.

Eugene Viollet Le Duc was a man who embraced change. Le Duc was mostly known for his restorations. He had studied architecture and its history for many years and was a man of reason. He had seen so many projects he believed he could interpret what the original architect was trying to do with a building. When Viollet Le Duc was given a project to restore he would not only restore the project, he would update it. He would analyze what the architect meant to do and he would make it better, at least in his eyes. The biggest example of this was Saint-Chappelle in France. Le Duc really liked bringing steel into his projects. He realized what it could do. He looked at the material for what it was, a way to span much further distances.

Saint-Chappelle

John Ruskin was a very stubborn man. He wasn’t one who simply accepted change. He liked things to stay the same. This was also true in his architecture. He would rather a building set as it be and collapse than restore it. Ruskin didn’t want to include steel; he didn’t want these new innovations to “ruin” gothic architecture. He wanted to keep the craftsmanship. Ruskin was a man of emotions, not form. That is why he came up with the Seven Lamps. The Seven Lamps were Sacrifice, Truth, Power, Beauty, Life, Memory, and Obedience. He created the seven lamps to describe what requirements good architecture at the time must meet. This begins to show what kind of a man he was.

Gottfried Semper, shared a lot of qualities with both Ruskin and Viollet Le Duc. Semper was also a rationalist but, he followed the steps of Ruskin with the very ornamental designs. Semper’ book The Four Elements of Architecture really begin to display the way he thought of architecture. The four elements are the hearth, the roof, the enclosure, and the mound. To Semper the hearth was the most important. The hearth is the materials. Semper believed architecture was truly found in the materials and the ability to use them correctly.

Semper Opera House

These men led the thoughts and minds of many people during this time. They also had just as many people disagreeing with them at the time. Today, we can see where these men were coming from. We can see why Ruskin didn’t want change and why Viollet Le Duc did. We can even see what Semper really wanted was to master materials. The Gothic Revival existed because of these men; their ambitions and beliefs.

Welcome!

Hi! My name is Bryan Baer. 

Welcome to my blog for Arch 329. Arch 329 is a architectural history course. We will be looking at modern architecture this semester.

Please enjoy.