Useful Theory
Useful Theory
The idea of the Useful Theory Project is to assemble propositions from the theoretical literature that can aid in making architectural decisions, to concisely place these propositions in context, to suggest how one might think about their implications for one’s work, to provide examples of their prior application, and to offer sources for further study.
This idea emerged out of my lingering frustration that all the good work done in and around architectural theory from 1966 (when Complexity and Contradiction in Architecture and The Architecture of the City were published) to, say, 1996, when the space allotted to theory in architecture school had been thoroughly squeezed by the concern for sustainability and the exploration of the now robust digital realm—that the good work done over those thirty years has not been fully brought to fruition or fully appreciated.
So I made up this project, the gist of which is that I’m asking architects to articulate and share concrete instances—from their own practices or elsewhere—in which some bit of theory has proven useful. I made up a definition of useful, which I don’t intend to be universal; it’s just for the sake of this project. It is: “Helps one to make a decision.” At first, I was thinking of design decisions exclusively, but I’ve received a couple of entries that deal with practice decisions, so that’s fine.
What I’m not doing is trying to define theory, to draw a boundary around it, or—least of all—to argue that theory must be or even should be useful in this sense. Things—including theory—can be valuable in many ways other than that they help us to make decisions.
I have, however, established a few exclusions: I’m not interested in precisely deterministic methods—for example, dew point calculations. I’m not interested in theoretical sloganeering as an excuse for arbitrary shape-making. And I’m not interested in mystical processes—Ouija boards, Magic 8 Balls, opening the Bible at random.
That said, I welcome contributions from one and all. My goal is to round up as many such passages and treatments as possible—it will be an ongoing process, ultimately web-based, once a its ecumenical nature is well represented by a core of instances. (I own the URLs “www.usefultheory.net” and “www.usefultheory.org”; I decided “www.usefultheory.com” was too paradoxical.) Online, the project will be robustly cross-referenced and available as assemble-and-print-on-demand, so that an architect can select a set of ideas germane to a particular commission and have those printed as references for members of the project team; or, similarly, a teacher can assemble a collection for a course reader.
Please send entries to me at tim@www.culvahouse.net. If it works for you, please use the format given in the Useful Theory Invitation.
Here’s one example; in this case, the theoretical passage is by the author of the entry, but that needn’t be the case, and most often won’t be:
Capacity, submitted by Renee Y. Chow, Associate Professor, University of California at Berkeley
“The task of design is not to prescribe a fit between an activity and a form but to design to support a range of interpretations in the readings and uses of forms. This requires studying habitation as continuous expressions of choice…. Capacity should not be confused with programming, the specification of activities of a lifestyle. A program states that a ‘breakfast nook’ is required that has a certain area or dimension to hold a certain number of people. Capacity, in contrast, is the ability of the spatial form of the setting — through its configurations, dimensions, and positions — to contain or suggest a variety of uses. Capacity supports readings or interpretations of the environment without necessitating architectural changes in the short term. It can also support adaptational choices by suggesting how physical changes can be made in the long term. It extends the functional requirements of a program by holding multiple configurations of inhabitation and receiving multiple associations. For example, a bay window at the edge of a living area defines a territory for individual activities within the larger room of the household. It can hold a seat, a table, a work area, or a ‘breakfast nook,’ as selected by the resident.” —Renee Y Chow, Suburban Space: The Fabric of Dwelling. (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2002), p.82-88.
Background
Communities that thrive, that flourish and endure are rich and complex, manifesting the choices of residents and visitors alike. These places have an ability to transform — in lifestyle, density and use. Within the umbrella of capacity, operations directed toward the design for the temporal include flexibility, movability, configuration and dimension. Flexibility tends toward spaces that are formally neutral in order for multiple activities to be held (Friedman.) Movability requires the relocation of pieces to develop alternate readings: for example, doors to pull-down beds and sliding kitchens as well as longer term “support” with changing “infill” (Habraken 1976.) The potential of configuration has been elaborated by architects such as Herman Hertzberger, who uses the term “polyvalence,” and Robert Venturi, who talks about “double-functioning” elements. And spatial organizations that position “slack” between the fit of programmatic activities are described again by Habraken and Chow.
Questions to consider
How is capacity manifest and embedded in different environmental levels?
How does the definition of future affect the formal?
Why is it that, after more than a century of attempts by architects to design for change, the issue is still marginal to the profession at large? (Habraken, 2008)
For further study
Friedman, Avi. The Grow Home. Montreal;Ithaca: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2001.
Habraken, N. John. “Design for Flexibility,” Building Research & Information 36:3 (2008): 290-296.
Habraken, N. John With J.T.Boekholt, A.P.Thyssen, P.J.M. Dinjens. Variations, the Systematic Design of Supports. Translated by W.Wiewel and Sue Gibbons. Cambridge: MIT Laboratory for Architecture and Planning; distributed by MIT Press, 1976.
Hertzberger, Herman. Lessons for Students in Architecture. Rotterdam, Uitgeverij 010 Publishers, 1991.
Moudon, Anne Vernez. Built for Change: Neighborhood Architecture in San Francisco. Cambridge: The MIT Press, 1986.
Venturi, Robert. Complexity and Contradiction in Architecture. New York: The Museum of Modern Art, 1966, 1977, 2002.
Example: Avi Friedman’s Grow and Next Homes
In his development of both the Grow and Next homes, Avi Friedman has systematically considered the construction constraints and the potentials of a flexible house for diverse socio-economic communities. The underlying assumptions and design results should be compared with the capacity of residential communities in San Francisco as described by Anne Vernez Moudon and Renee Chow. This housing stock holds diverse ways of living through configurational and dimensional capacity at the room, building and block scales. R.M. Schindler’s Sachs Apartments in the Silverlake district of Los Angles is a precedent for an architecture of capacity. It does not achieve flexibility through the absence of form — this set of apartments in five buildings celebrates the articulation of the spaces of slack and fit.
The Grow Home
A single family narrow-front townhouse. Spaces can be left unpartitioned for the occupant to “grow” into when means become available. Cost savings resulted from the dwelling’s small size and simplicity, and lowering of cost and infrastructure. See Friedman, A., The Grow Home, McGill-Queen’s University Press, Montréal, 2001 (softcover edition 2006). Translated into Chinese and published by Jiangsu Science & Technology Publishing House, Nanjung, China
The Next Home
A narrow-front multi-family structure that can become a single family, duplex or triplex. A catalogue offers builders and buyers means to customize the interior and the exterior to their needs and budget. See Friedman, A., The Adaptable House: Designing for Choice and Change, McGraw-Hill, New York, 2002.