Architecture Ruminations on Some Fundame

Architecture
Ruminations on Some
Fundamentals

Architecture
One of the chapters of Le Corbusier’s seminal work ‘Vers Une
Architecture’ is entitled ‘Architecture, Pure Creation of the Mind’.
Many, have perhaps interpreted this statement as a support for the
idea that ‘anything goes’ in architecture, particularly in a time
when technology allows almost limitless possibilities in this regard.
What Le Corbusier actually said on the subject is as follows:
‘You employ stone, wood and concrete, and with these materials you build houses
and palaces; that is construction. Ingenuity is at work.
But suddenly you touch my heart, you do me good, I am happy and I say : “This is
beautiful”. That is Architecture. Art enters in.
My house is practical. I thank you, as I might thank Railway engineers or the
telephone service. You have not touched my heart.
But suppose that walls rise towards heaven in such a way that I am moved. I perceive
your intentions. Your mood has been gentle, brutal, charming or noble. The stones
you have erected tell me so. You fix me to the place and my eyes regard it. They
behold something which expresses a thought. A thought which reveals itself without
word or sound, but solely by means of shapes which stand in a certain relationship to
one another. These shapes are such that they are clearly revealed in light. The
relationships between them have not necessarily any reference to what is practical or
descriptive. They are a mathematical creation of your mind. They are the language
of Architecture. By use of inert materials and starting from conditions more or less
utilitarian, you have established certain relationships which have aroused my
emotions. This is Architecture.’

Pevsner was of course paraphrasing this when he said:
‘A BICYCLE shed is a building. Lincoln Cathedral is a piece of architecture’
What is curious about both quotes however, is the extent to which
they seem to take for granted the architect’s ability to fulfil the
utilitarian demands of ‘shelter’. Well, since the time ‘Vers Une..’
the world has experienced roughly 80 years of cold, leaky,
overheated and ‘badly maintained’ (for which we should really read
badly designed) modernist (Corb’s creations included) and varying
hues of Post-Modernist buildings that would suggest the faith
placed by Pevsner and Corb in the architect’s practical abilities has
perhaps more often than not been misplaced.
This reminds us that in fact ‘the practical house’, for which Corb
would thank his architect as he thanked a railway engineers has
throughout history been the building type that architect have had
least to do with. More often than not, such houses have been
planned and built by the simple people who lived in them with
succeeding generations learning from their forefathers by osmosis.
Today, the existence of specialist house builders continues this
separation between architects and mass housing (after a brief and
disastrous attempt at bringing them together in the 60’s and 70’s)
Figure 1. Park Hill Flats, Sheffield, 1961.

The higher building types; Palaces, temples, art galleries and the
like, have always been a different matter. In Ancient Egypt, the
high priest was responsible for the planning and erection of such
structures for which the inherent ability to inspire awe, love, hope
and fear was perhaps more important than the kinds of utilitarian
concerns mentioned earlier. The rain and sun of course had to be
kept out, but craftsman would see to that rather than the high
priest. It’s easy to see how the high priest eventually became the
architect. The thing about a high priest of course, is that he can tell
you what is good architecture and what isn’t, and you have to
listen!
Figure 2. Ancient Egyptian Temple at Karnak.
But, as I sit here 4 months unemployed having recently qualified
after 13 yrs of hard slog (almost twice the length of time it takes to
become a GP), I can tell you that there are far too many architects
in the market today to justify having ‘temple or palace design’ as
the be all and end all of your skill-set. The replacement of skilled
craftsmen by ‘operatives’ in conjunction with the practicable
measurable outcomes that the’ sustainability agenda’ demands of
modern building practice has also meant that architects have in

recent years had to learn the art of the practical and the utilitarian,
and the rise of real proficiency in this area is to my mind very
recent, emerging, with few exceptions from that generation of
architects, at least in the UK, who were training during the fall out
from the ill-fated housing experiments of the 60’s and 70’s.
Jonathan Sergison and Stephen Bates were both born in 1964,
which means they were 20 yrs old when Prince Charles made his
famous ‘Carbuncle’ speech to the RIBA. At the turn of the 21st
Century, about 70 yrs after Corb had talked about it, Sergison
Bates architects produced a series of designs for mass housing that
you could thank them for as you would thank a railway engineer.
Figure 3. Sergison Bates unbuilt entry for the 2001 Circle 33 Innovation in Housing competition,
Bow east London.