The Discord of Modern ‘Place’

30-12-11, 21:10

There are two persistent adages in modern architectural design which, when combined and considered, are in conflict with the mechanisms of modern production in which they supposedly operate. The first is that we should design ‘places’, not simply spaces. As with many architectural theories and idioms, this can be interpreted in a multitude of ways and applied to a variety of different design attitudes, however perhaps the only principle that cannot be stripped from this idea of ‘places’ is the implication that a sense of individuality is key.

The second adage is that the whole should be in accordance with all of its parts: that is to say that they should follow the same design principles and tectonics as one another (this adage is not modern as such, however it seems to be touted by architects just as much as it was in Vitruvius’ day).

Combining these adages would seem to imply that the whole ought to be individualistic, and also this ought to be true of the parts. Yet in actuality, even a cursory look at modern design will reveal the all pervasiveness of standardized parts, the perfect antithesis of individualistic parts. “Place and occasion” may be more important than “space and time” as Van Eyck proposes, but what of ‘object’? It seems the English language does not even possess a word which symbolically implies the individuality of a special artifact; this indicates the importance that we, as a culture, ascribe to ‘old-fashioned’ manufacture and craftsmanship.

Clearly, the triad of principles (standardized machined parts, ‘place’ not space and the whole in accordance with parts) cannot all exist, side by side in harmony – and yet all three are still routinely recited by architects as foundations of design. One of these must in fact be being quietly and discreetly neglected.

I believe it is the oldest which is most often ignored; noone could deny that standardized parts are common, and few would easily argue that designed spaces do not at least aspire to the individuality of ‘place’. Yet frequently it seems to me that a very individualistic whole is created out of standardized parts. Obviously it depends on one’s various opinions as to whether this is good or bad, however to me it represents a severe loss.

Briefly, my reasons for this opinion are as follows: firstly, as with any idea that stands the test of time, the reason that the ‘whole in accordance with parts’ theory has been popular for nearly 2000 years is because it works, and throughout this time it has been employed to great effect in a huge variety of styles, from Gothic to Modernist. Secondly, as shown in a number of my other pieces of writing, an individualistic streak is very often negative or even destructive in architecture, and this without a doubt is more of a dispensable principle. Finally, I do not see any reason why it would not be beneficial to nurture the same kind of attitude towards objects as we already have towards places and occasions – to me standardized parts are a part of our society’s abuse of resources and excessive materialism.

We need to acknowledge the fact that architecture is not necessarily adhering to the rules that it has set itself; what’s more, in my opinion we need to reorganize the priorities of these rules.

Note: A brief consideration of the matter has made me realize that I cannot see a key difference between our attitude to ‘space/place’ and ‘object/object-with-meaning’. The question still exists, however, as to why language does not reflect this similarity. If my suspicions are correct, then perhaps the argument of my above article is weakened slightly. I plan to consider this in more depth in the future.