One type of architecture can lie is through symbolic deception, this is when builders use symbols or motifs that have cultural or historical meanings but reinterpret them in a way that is not what they were meant to mean. Another example is the facade vs. interior discrepancy. This is when the outside of a building presents a certain image or style, but the inside may be very different in terms of how it works, how well it’s made, or how it feels. Historical revival styles also play a part in this trend, as buildings built in these styles may make you think of the past while using modern materials or technologies, creating a mix of old-fashioned aesthetics and modern convenience. Lawrence Hall lies in the way of facade vs interior discrepancy. The exterior of Lawrence Hall looks dated and old but the class rooms on the first floor look extremely new and modern. This could be due to renovations of the interior to refresh the design but when looking at the building from the outside the classrooms are not what you would expect to see on the inside.
Lawrence Hall in the 1990’s
Lawrence Hall today
Modern lecture hall in Lawrence Hall
I completely agree with this statement, Lawrence Hall is very deceptive and confusing in many ways. Lawrence Hall is filled with many different interior design styles, none that represent the front of the building. The floor plan of Lawrence Hall is probably one of the most confusing and complex spatial arrangements I’ve seen and been able to experience.
One aspect of the facade that you would think would reflect strongly in the building is the curved wall/structure in the center of the facade. Seeing this element from the outside, you would think this organic language would reflect strongly in the interior, yet it is very lacking. This reminds me of what was mentioned in the lecture, the pediment in Greek and Roman architecture, how it implies a roof within the interior, yet it’s just facade vs interior discrepancy like you’ve mentioned.
This example reflects the essence of architecture with how we define the terms of structure as well as what is essential or ornament. Although, I find it very interesting that there are deceptions in architecture, as it adds weight to the experience of the user.
I agree with your statement about the differences and complexity between the interior and exterior of Lawrence. On the exterior it fits the cohesiveness of the surrounding buildings and uses historical motiffs to display the importance and gradur of the building itself. It represents order and neatness however the interior tells a completely different story. It is very industrial and the spatial arrangement of the floors and room makes almost no sense. It is in complete disorder and chaos.
I think in relating this response to the lectures of this week it almost goes completely against representing architecture as a language. In class we learned a lot about the logic, order and reason that was being brought to light instead of faith. The interior of the building does not represent logic and the proportions of the rooms and halls make you truly question the thought process behind the layout.
This example reminds me of a lot of the structure of the buildings on campus. I think it is really interesting how a lot of the buildings connect to each other and how you can get from Lawerence to the new science building, but unless you know the way already it is almost impossible to figure out. Examples like this really shine light on how important it is for the interior and exterior of a building to communicate and use logic.
Lawrence Hall is a great example of how the interior can be disconnected from the exterior style. This is not an issue that is apparent when looking at a newer building, like the knight science research facility. You could walk into that building and know exactly the innovative and clean style of the classrooms, lobby, lecture halls, and lab spaces. There is clarity in the design and what is being communicated. Lawrence Hall, evokes many strong feelings from those who use it, claiming many of the elements make it an example of a poorly designed building.
I think that this may be similar to how there is a disconnect between the 18th-century French neo-classical style buildings that continued to express a Rococo-style interior. This isn’t necessarily to lie to the observer, but more so to continue with a traditional method of decorating and design. I feel like this continuation of tradition can be seen in other areas of Lawrence Hall. The upstairs studio spaces have a very traditional feel that would seem to contradict the newer renovated lecture halls. The is a major discontinuity between the exterior and interior of Lawrence Hall, possibly contributing to the confusion and critiques of the building.
Architectural deception involves using symbols or motifs in unintended ways and discrepancies between a building’s exterior and interior. Historical revival styles contribute to this trend by blending old-fashioned aesthetics with modern conveniences. Lawrence Hall illustrates facade vs. interior discrepancy, with its dated exterior contrasting with modern interior classrooms. This may result from interior renovations or the use of modern materials. Such architectural deception challenges perceptions of a building’s identity and function.