Summaries
Deep Space, Thin Walls: Environmental and Material Precursors to the Postwar Skyscraper.
A lot of thought has been into buildings and their exteriors. Windows within buildings has become something of a norm when looking around at buildings that surround us. Looking back at the 1920s, natural ventilation and light was depended on in the creation of buildings; other ways of circulating air and incorporating light were minimal. Though glass skin on buildings was seen on creations by Mies Van Der Roe, it would be a while before glass was actually considered in the making of buildings. In the 1930s, windowless buildings started to become popular. It started with the Simonds Saw and Steel Company in Fitchburg, Massachusetts, who replaced all the windows with 1,000-watt electric lights. This was extremely innovative for its time, and it had people delving in deeper to how they themselves could turn buildings windowless. Soon after, the idea of using air conditioning in the building to accompany fluorescent lighting came to fruition. With these functional and cost-effective additives, it was now time to think about how glass really could be incorporated into buildings. There were many factors to consider, and those like Richard Byrd, George Fred Keck, Donald Ellsworth Sharp, James Bailey, and Pilkington all influenced glass making in one way or another. Thanks to consistent innovation and trial and error, buildings will always be evolving. Whether it be windowless buildings to leave room for shelving or keeping windows for enchanting views, there’s always something new in the works.
Tall Office Building Artistically Considered
While office buildings are a necessary part of the working life, it’s argued from various points of views what exactly is entailed regarding these tall office buildings. The readers are informed of the author’s take on construction and building. It’s questioned how exactly beauty and aesthetic can come from something so crude and harsh, though the author does explain that it’s only really very rarely that a building is aesthetic. One major characteristic outlined when it comes to tall buildings is the term lofty. As the name of this article suggests, this thrilling tallness that office buildings take on, are something for which the author states are incredibly important. The intention and emotion behind it, the height of a building must be where an architect’s confidence and excitement must come forth. When analyzing this characteristic, there are a few individuals that have theories of what the true prototype of the tall building is, but they all seem to have a commonality. Threes. There’s the mysticism of 3 and the beginning, middle, and end of a building. Like a few readings have stated before, a key element brought to light is ‘form follows function;’ that all things have shape, evolve over time, and in nature they express life. These tall office buildings may be essential, but as the author has let his readers know, it’s imperative that to adhere to form follows function, the buildings’ appearances should be consistent floor to floor to keep the flow of life.
Space
There is an abundance of ideas regarding the term space. It’s made clear that time and its effects must be taken into account when thinking about space and what it means. As time goes on, the meaning becomes subjective and different to how it might have been thought of in the past. Gottfried Semper is one of the first mentioned, but not the last. Semper believed that space is a principal theme of modern architecture and that material components are only secondary to space. Although he did have some followers who believed along the same lines as he did, there were others that believed ‘space’ to be known in a differing context. Kant, for example, understood that space exists in the mind, and that art and life are one. There are many architects and writers that are mentioned throughout the text, all having various ideas and theories about what space means to them. Of these individuals there is Theodore Lipps, August Endell, August Schmarsaw, Adolf Loos, Frank Lloyd Wright, and multitudes more. Ultimately, space has been looked at in empathetical, philosophical, theoretical, and material lights. Space has allowed architects to present their work as mental, not just physical.
Critical Response
I understand the point that Forty is making in “Space,” about how ‘space’ as a theory or a definition is ever-changing, but I can’t help but to think about how much more he brought into the conversation than I felt he needed to get his point across. I had difficulty pinpointing why certain individuals and their ideas were mentioned and how they connected to the subject as a whole. The variety of theories proposed by countless individuals had the author running around trying to figure out how he could piggyback one idea off of the other. As a whole, the background on these approaches was there, but it was difficult to wrap my head around what exactly he was trying to say or prove.
Application and Interpretation
Windowless Building in New York.
The windowless building in New York coined the “Long Lines Building”, was built in 1973 and is known as one of the most mysterious buildings. In the article, a worker there explained his experiences with the building. I found it ironic that windowless buildings were built originally not only because of climate issues and costs, but they also helped to save space in the building, yet in this building, workers weren’t allowed access to certain rooms. I think of all the potential space that the architect probably saved inside, yet the majority of its rooms aren’t accessible.
What it’s like inside 33 Thomas Street, NYC’s mystery ‘spy hub’ (nypost.com)
Takeaways
- There’s been an extensive amount of trial and error regarding the skin of buildings and there are so many varieties of glass that have been made and tested against climate.
- The idea that tall office buildings should look similar on every tier but now it’s more accepted when buildings have some variety to them.
- Space is a transient term and will evolve with time just like theories and ideas regarding space will.
I fully agree with your critique of Adrian Forty’s “Space,” and enjoy the way you’ve summarized that in your post title. At the end of the reading, it seemed that Forty’s ultimate argument dealt with the way that architects’ handling of space is a part of systems of domination in capitalism, but I couldn’t pinpoint any concrete references to that idea prior to that final page. I wonder how Forty could have integrated that argument more clearly, if it’s truly the main claim he wanted to make?
I enjoy the word you used, transient, to describe your takeaway from the space reading. If you agree with the logic that is is up to the architect to design space, both conceptual and physical space, then does the logic go further to assign the word transient to architecture itself? Can a physical building be transient? Through studying architecture, we know that historical, social, and economical context is key to understanding a structure. Perhaps this context can be described as space, unseen but at the same time tied to the building. Essentially the changes in context around the building change the essence of the structure itself giving way to transiency.
I also came away from reading “space” confused as what the author wanted to impart to us. They did provide us with quite the buffet of different thoughts though and perhaps that was his goal.