Structure for Space
Why not use the structure of a building as the principle element for creating spatial qualities?
Why not have the light that defines the space be informed by the structure?
Why not have the materials work optically with the light to create a further layer to its spatial qualities?
Why not have a structure for space.
Review
By designing a structural system that looks to have greater spatial implications than complete structural utility, we have stumbled upon a design with superfluity and humour at its heart. By allowing the structures spatial implications to override the goals of a structure, an extravagant and somewhat arrogant structure has emerged, but this I would argue has a lot in common with the works of Venturi, Scott Brown (VSB).
I speak of superfluity, humour, extravagance and arrogance in relation to this structure, and by implication overall scheme, and then connect this to the works of VSB, for I often see a humour and thus arrogance within the iconic work of VSB. The work of VSB often has (it would seem to me) an undertone of humour that one can only understand and appreciate if one has some architectural understanding and perhaps even further, can grasp the theoretical musings VSB published. Is this therefore then, not a rather arrogant form of design, as the general public would not be able to engage with the architecture of the building on the same level as the architect or students of the discipline?
Perhaps, but I think that architecture affords us the opportunity to create multi layered proposals of thought, design and principle. Thus the superfluity of our building’s primary structure, by only supporting itself and a lighter roof load, while being as large and complex as it is, is rather arrogant and I would say humorous in its irony. The fact we as a group have come up with this structural system not to hold our building up, but rather to create a means in which to define the internal space and create a spatial experience is superfluous and arrogant in its superfluity. Even the size of the beams and footings are extravagant and unnecessary, but justified in the spatial implication and therefore carry ironical humours tones. Furthermore, like the works of VSB, one can only truly be in on the joke if one has had some form of architectural training, or understanding of the particular building in question.
