Reading Response: “Towards New Horizons in Architecture,” by Tadao Ando and “The Phenomenon of Place,” by Christain Norberg-Schulz

Both “Towards New Horizons in Architecture,” by Tadao Ando and “The Phenomenon of Place,” by Christain Norberg-Schulz provide descriptions of the importance of understanding and distilling the fundamental character of the site of a work of architecture. Specifically, these authors advocate for developing an understanding of the genius loci, or spirit of place, and then conveying that spirit through the work of architecture. In both cases, this process is described as more poetic, holistic, and comprehensive than scientific, mechanical, or reductionist. The spirit of place, or the combination of characteristics that gives a place its unique essence, is conveyed to be both a starting point and an ending point for a work of architecture. Developing an understanding of this spirit, a task that Ando describes as “meditative,” is recommended by both authors as the first step in the process of creating architecture. Furthermore, the universal communication of this spirit of place is described as the end goal for a successful work of architecture in that place. Ando describes this universal communication as a “transparent logic,” suggesting that it should be understandable, on some level, to all users of and visitors to a place. Both of these writings, which speak about the fundamental goal of defining a place through architecture, are incredibly site-focused.

Ando and Norberg-Shultz describe similar features and strategies as the tools used by architects to define a place. Norberg-Shultz defines the “boundaries of built space” as “floor, wall, and ceiling.” While these devices may be most traditionally thought of as tools of division of space, Norberg-Shultz emphasizes their ability to create a controlled connection between spaces through the implementation of openings. Ando’s writing similarly emphasizes the balance between separation and connection. However, while Norberg-Shultz discusses both separation and connection in physical terms (wall vs. window), Ando discusses a spiritual dimension. Ando describes Japanese culture as one that “de-emphasizes the physical boundary between residence and surrounding nature and establishes instead a spiritual threshold.” By praising this lack of physical boundary in a theoretical discussion of architecture, Ando seems to be advocating for fluidity between spaces and fewer physical barriers. In both cases, a discussion of barriers seems to emphasize the abilities of these devices to (define and) connect spaces, not separate them. Combined with the authors’ emphasis on the site as a source of the spirit of place, one may assume that such connections, achieved through porosity in physical barriers, can help bring the spirit of place to a work of architecture. This becomes far more obvious when one considers the opposite phenomenon: it is difficult to imagine that a box completely enclosed from its site and surroundings could easily convey the spirit of these surroundings. 

– Charlotte Kamman, July 24, 2022