Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer
ARSNET

Articles

Vol. 1 No. 1 (2021)

Articulating tectonic: From iteration to nexus

DOI
https://doi.org/10.7454/arsnet.v1i1.5
Published
2021-04-30
Article downloads
621
Submitted
2021-04-29

Abstract

This paper explores the articulation of tectonic as a potential basis for developing and understanding architectural programme in the context of architectural education. The piece delivers a reflective discussion that puts tectonic beyond the art of joining. Instead, tectonic, which informs the way material performs, insinuates a capacity in supporting the students to generate the spatial programme and atmospheric quality for the development of their architecture project. In particular, the study suggests the importance of tectonic articulation in generating the above spatialities. The study investigates such tectonic articulation by reflecting through a second-year design studio project in Universitas Indonesia, which focuses on developing dwellings designs driven by tectonic-based architectural design method. Through reflecting the students' projects this paper put forward three aspects of tectonic articulation, each of which explores the formal iteration, the tectonic-programme relationship, and the tectonic-atmosphere relationship. The study demonstrates contribution in understanding how tectonic is explored throughout the design process, informing multiple stages of design.

References

  1. Barata, P. M. (1999). Kenneth Frampton apropos tectonic: On the high-wire of a definition. arq: Architectural Research Quarterly, 3(2), 141–146. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1359135500001925

  2. Benjamin, A. (2006). Surface effects: Borromini, Semper, Loos. The Journal of Architecture, 11(1), 1–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/13602360600636099

  3. Chun, A., & McDonald, T. (2002). Translation and materiality: The space of invention between designing and building. Journal of Architectural Education, 55(3), 183–185. https://doi.org/10.1162/10464880252820055

  4. Dodds, G. (2001). Architecture as instauration. arq: Architectural Research Quarterly, 5(02). https://doi.org/10.1017/S1359135501001166

  5. Erdman, J., Weddle, R., Mical, T., Poss, J. S., Hinders, K., McCown, K., & Taylor, C. (2002). Designing/building/learning. Journal of Architectural Education, 55(3), 174–179. https://doi.org/10.1162/10464880252820037

  6. Frampton, K. (1995). Studies in tectonic culture: The poetics of construction in nineteenth and twentieth century architecture (J. Cava, Ed.). MIT Press.

  7. Harahap, M. M. Y., Tregloan, K., & Nervegna, A. (2019). Rationality and creativity interplay in research by design as seen from the inside. Interiority, 2(2), 177–194. https://doi.org/10.7454/in.v2i2.65

  8. Hatchuel, A., & Weil, B. (2009). C-K design theory: An advanced formulation. Research in Engineering Design, 19(4), 181–192. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00163-008-0043-4

  9. Hensel, M., & Cordua, C. H. (2015). Outlook: En route to intensely local architectures and tectonics. Architectural Design, 85(2), 132–135. https://doi.org/10.1002/ad.1888

  10. Kim, R. (2009). The tectonically defining space of Mies van der Rohe. arq:Architectural Research Quarterly, 13(3–4), 251–260. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1359135510000102

  11. Noero, J. (2018). Limits to freedom: Liberating form, programme and ethics. Architectural Design, 88(3), 24–31. https://doi.org/10.1002/ad.2297

  12. Roggema, R. (2016). Research by design: Proposition for a methodological approach. Urban Science, 1(1), 2. https://doi.org/10.3390/urbansci1010002

  13. Samuel, F., & Jones, P. B. (2012). The making of architectural promenade: Villa Savoye and Schminke House. arq: Architectural Research Quarterly, 16(2), 108–124. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1359135512000437

  14. Schumacher, P. (2014). Tectonic articulation: Making engineering logics speak. Architectural Design, 84(4), 44–51. https://doi.org/10.1002/ad.1780

  15. Schumacher, P. (2017). Tectonism in architecture, design and fashion: Innovations in digital fabrication as stylistic drivers. Architectural Design, 87(6), 106–113. https://doi.org/10.1002/ad.2245

  16. Schwartz, C. (2015). Investigating the tectonic: Grounding theory in the study of precedents. The International Journal of Architectonic, Spatial, and Environmental Design, 10(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.18848/2325-1662/CGP/v10i01/38401

  17. Schwartz, C., & Ford, E. R. (2017). Introducing architectural tectonics: Exploring the intersection of design and construction. Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.

  18. Tramontin, M. L. (2006). Textile tectonics: An interview with Lars Spueybroek. Architectural Design, 76(6), 52–59. https://doi.org/10.1002/ad.357

  19. Weber, E. (2018). Developing an architect’s tectonic philosophy through design build pedagogy: The material language of building. The International Journal of Architectonic, Spatial, and Environmental Design, 12(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.18848/2325-1662/CGP/v12i01/1-10

  20. Wynn, D. C., & Eckert, C. M. (2017). Perspectives on iteration in design and development. Research in Engineering Design, 28(2), 153–184. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00163-016-0226-3

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.