---

DESIGN AND TRADITION

Demaine Partnership has, in recent years, been building a portfolio of projects of remarkable stylistic diversity.  This is in contrast to the majority of Australian architectural practices who are consistent in their adherence to a modernist orthodoxy that has its origins in the mature manifestations of the modern movement, dating from the 1920s.  In this article Design Director Michael Jeffreson explores the reasons why an understanding of the broad range of architectural traditions is important in contemporary society.

Broadening Design Approaches in Contemporary Australian Architecture

It is interesting to compare the professional architectural scene in Australia with that in the United States.  In the US, there are a diversity of respected architectural design approaches, including design that seeks to develop the classical design language (practitioners include Robert Stern, Michael Graves), those that use traditional forms to develop new urban environments (eg. Duany Plater Zyberk, Moore Rubell Yudell) and those that work with design languages derived from the modern movement (probably the majority design direction now).  There are even large practices that encompass a variety of design approaches tailored to varying settings and programs, resulting in outcomes of quite different design character.  Pei Freed Cobb and SOM are large practices that show this tendency.  Then there are the architects of the re-emerging expressionist school of design, the primary flag bearers being architects such as Frank Gehry.

These architects co-exist with a high degree of professional respect between parties whose design approaches might be polar opposites.  In Australia, however, the architectural community is more polarized.  There is an almost ‘us and them’ attitude of hostility to the introduction of traditional design elements into professionally designed architecture.  Certainly, architects seeking to use a broader design language would not bother to use the architectural community as a forum for debating and developing this language.  Which seems a pity, because now, more than ever, there is a need for a more diverse approach to design and the use of design forms.

Hostility, in particular to traditional design languages, and the adherence to a certain aesthetic norm often alienates architects from the broader community.  We see this battle in Town Planning forums, where architects valiantly seek to promote a particular, currently fashionable comtemporary aesthetic approach against what they see as restrictive rules.  These rules seek to define urban character, seek integration with heritage environments, prescribe the use of certain materials and finishes, or require certain setbacks.  These requirements often conflict with design objectives, for instance setbacks may result in a reduction of the volumetric purity of a contemporary design approach.

We also see this alienation in the new residential subdivisions, where the average home owner seeks to establish affordable facsimiles of the traditional architecture found in established inner ring suburbs.  Developers seek to support these desires and, largely unsupported by the architectural community, continue to do it badly.  The reality is, the massive majority of architecture built today (and in this I include architecture not designed by architects) is traditional in form.  There are strong economic and social reasons for this.  Architects should not ignore this tendency, and they can constructively participate in directing and enhancing it.

To do so requires an appreciation of a broader range of architectural precedent, and an understanding of what a less dogmatic design approach may offer in particular situations.  I’d like to start with considering a few topics here.

The Value of a Design Language

What is better, a Neo-Georgian townhouse or a townhouse designed by Glenn Murcutt?  For architects, it’s an easy question to answer.[1]  However for a home owner who entertained formally, or was a collector, or was building in a heritage setting, or who particularly liked buildings of solid character is stone and brick, the answer might be quite different.  It’s worth positing this question because the knee jerk rejection towards particular languages is so prevalent among Australian architects today.  In the case of Murcutt, there is a passion in the rejection of certain design forms and aesthetics, reflecting a belief that those forms are generally associated with low quality reproduction of period designs, inappropriate for contemporary conditions.  However in looking deeper at the issue the only real basis for saying that one design form is inherently morally superior to another, in any particular situation, would be environmental (eg. one design results in greater waste of resources, or doesn’t last as well, or creates a degraded environment for its neighbours).  These factors do not necessarily flow from a particular aesthetic approach.

Ordinary and Focal

There is a place for good, ordinary architecture.  To architects today, it may seem a contradiction in terms, but ordinary architecture is the building block of the urban environment.  And to a large extent it is what our town planning rules are seeking to create in most of the urban environment (I say this with only a trace of irony).  Architecture that is polite, fits in, relates texturally, and ages gracefully.  Yet to create good, ordinary architecture is hard.  Adopting a design language to respond to the character prevalent in an area, and doing it successfully, requires a sympathy and understanding of the proportions, details and forms of that language, and requires more than replication but an ability to add value to the language and even advance it.  For this reason, as much as for reasons of ideology, architects have often gone to extraordinary lengths to justify adoption of a contemporary form in a traditional setting through application of abstract formal devices which, it is argued, allow the form to fit into its environment.  But stand back without the architectural mindset, and imagine the contemporary building replaced by one that really does fit in.  Perhaps the greater good of the urban environment has been served, though the architectural ego has not had its outing.

The Architectural community had a name for this kind of architecture in the 1920s (though primarily relating to inner urban environments).  It was called Street Architecture, it aptly describes a form of design that gracefully builds an elegant and uniform presentation to a street edge and creates an inviting urban environment.

Building, Street and Setting

Design languages have different strengths.  Contemporary design typically focuses on the creation of a striking object contrasting with its setting.  It is generally conceived of as a three dimensional object to be viewed ‘in the round’ , where the sculptural character is reinforced by simple application of uniform materials over each of the key building volumes.  These volumes cannot be broken down further unless by repeating patterns that do not fragment the clear volumetric reading of the sculptural elements.

Traditional architecture is simultaneously more malleable and more rigid, because its basic building blocks are smaller components (structural elements, or representations of structural elements) assembled according to proportional relationships with a reference to a gravitational logic[2].  The design form is malleable because it is applicable to a wider range of urban situations, for instance a row house is expressed purely as a façade when composed using traditional design languages, where in contemporary design the tendency is either to express a simplified plane to the street frontage, or to imply sculptural depth beyond that frontage through architectural devices.  Either way, it fights against the primary role of the row house as a building block of an urban environment whose strength lies in the uniformity of the building edge and its role as a building block of the streetscape.

Similarly, the traditional building vocabulary provides a series of devices for allowing the building form to embrace surrounding landscape settings, whether by the extension of the building form with a garden wall, or a receptiveness to allowing planting to disrupt and stand against building surfaces.

In contrast, the contemporary approach often rejects landscape of a naturalistic kind as disruptive to formal purity, which is why so few contemporary buildings have a merging relationship with their settings, and why zones of separation from surroundings in the form of terraces or other architectural devices, are often favoured.

Transition Spaces

Verandah.  Porch.  Bay window.  Loggia.  Courtyard.  Cloister.  Enfilade.  Rotunda.  These names recall spatial arrangements of traditional architecture that relate to spaces of transition, enclosed or semi enclosed areas that lead to other areas of more specific purpose.  They also have a particular role of their own, as a comfortable place that can be occupied between the boundaries of the building and the exterior, or between formal internal zones.  So while, for instance, a verandah can act as a space to greet a visitor, it can also be occupied to allow contact between the occupant of a building and the passing activities of the street.

Transitional spaces of this kind are difficult to create in contemporary design forms, because they erode the sculptural purity of the form.  If they are provided, they frequently exist in such a diagrammatic way that they fail to deliver a satisfactory habitable, non hostile setting for habitation.

A classic example of a building that would benefit functionally, if not aesthetically, from transitional spaces is Melbourne’s Federation Square.  The cafes and outdoor eating spaces that surround the square perch uncomfortably under the abrupt edges of the building forms.  Similarly, there is no option for fully developed transition spaces from the building forms to the adjoining river banks.  This absence of transition is reflected throughout the complex in the sharp juxtaposition of functions and often awkward provisions for movement between those functional zones.  This is reflective of the central design tenet of the building layout that seeks to amplify a sense of collision between forms and functional components.  Here the notion of transition spaces is largely counter to the central design intent which, by its very nature, is liable to result in spaces that are anything but comfortable or, in the traditional sense, particularly accommodating.

Spatial arrangements

Traditional architecture is frequently associated with the axial, or at least formal, arrangement of geometrically simple and contained spaces along a defined pathway.  An example might be an axial entry into a single storey ante-room, movement past a filtering column screen into a double height rotunda or stair hall, then movement via another screening device to a gallery and then to a enclosed lateral loggia, with aspect to a culminating view.  The spatial interest is defined by contrasting spatial orientations of the volumes, whether vertically oriented or horizontally, and the use of devices that make an event of the movement between each element.

The contemporary approach seeks to break down the separation between defined spaces, and to use geometries with less finite boundaries.  In the contemporary equivalent of the example cited above, we might have an entry hall that incorporates the stair hall, with open vistas to adjoining spaces, perhaps to the extent that the vista through the building is unbroken save for an element placed within the overall volume (‘open plan’).  The occupant is encouraged to move off axis, directed to a series of L-shaped pathways rather than axial ones.

Again, the absence of clearly defined transitions is a key characteristic of the contemporary spatial approach.  The reduction in wall surfaces results in a completely different approach to furnishing as well, with the contemporary approach being particularly unforgiving of the clutter of life, and arguably providing less scope for introduction of typical storage requirements.  Open plan also restricts the capacity to adapt a space for multiple discrete users, or reduce the extent of space that needs to be lit, heated and cooled for a single user.

Technology

Contemporary architecture is typically associated with technological advancement.  This is largely because an architecture that finds expression in purity of ‘weightless’ form is benefited by technological development towards lighter, thinner, invisibly fixed materials, and the lack of scope to conceal joints between materials results in an increased reliance on advanced sealants.

Beyond the technology required to support the demands of a particular aesthetic preference, both traditional and contemporary forms are receptive to life enhancing technologies, such as those that improve communications, to make internal space more flexible, more comfortable or thermally efficient.

Romance

Considering what is attractive and romantic about traditional buildings often pivots around those relatively redundant transitional zones discussed earlier: the verandah enclosed with flywire that captures a breeze, a loggia and courtyard focused around an external fireplace, a bay window seat, an open tower.  It also derives from static set pieces, highly defined and delineated rooms such as a timber paneled study, or a lounge room lined with tall French doors, where intricate furnishing reflective of an owners interests and tastes create an environment that projects an individual personality.

Where traditional forms amplify the nature of enclosure, contemporary forms seek to dissolve it.  The highlights of the contemporary lexicon are the indoor outdoor room, the sheer glazed wall to a view, the large sliding panel that blurs the distinction between functional zones.  The buildings are less receptive to evidence of occupation, the total design statement is adequate evidence of the owners progressiveness, love of health, fresh air and sun, even if the scope to delineate and express their personality from all the other people who love health, fresh air and sun is limited.

Form and Function

The 19^th century French architect and theoretician Viollet le Duc attempted to justify his view of the superiority of Gothic architecture by mapping the evolution of the form of the style as a logical response to functional criteria.  In this model, the label moulds over windows in Gothic architecture were a highly evolved profile that protected the openings below from water run off.  Similarly, the pitched roofs and eaves overhangs of much traditional domestic architecture can be seen as a highly evolved and logical means of simultaneously keeping the enclosed spaces dry, protecting external wall surfaces from water run off by casting water away from them, and  protecting window openings from sun.  The systems rely on simple overlapping layers of materials, reliant on the directional flow of water and the unchanging trajectory of the sun.  The resultant shapes express this logic of shading, sheltering and casting of water.  The disposition of materials with the hard shell materials of roof tile or sheet metal sheltering the more porous and softer walls of brick, render and stone also has a hierarchical logic.

In contrast the contemporary design approach is almost counter intuitive in its relationship to the realities of water rejection, shading and protection of surfaces.  The formal volumes react to rain and sun as a bronze sculpture sitting in an open area responds, relying heavily of the total integrity of the surface to reject water, and often needing ancilliary add ons to protect openings from sun penetration.

Materials, Detail and Time

Contemporary architectural approaches frequently express a character that denies the expression of the weight of materials.  The omnidirectional character of contemporary building forms mean that a material like stone is expressed less as a supportive element in a hierarchy of elements of reducing weight, and more as a patterning or texturing to be contrasted with other patterns and textures.

In contrast, a traditional building design would no more place stonework above a weatherboard wall than place the roof below the footings.  Again, the traditional form provides the visual comfort of what appears to be intuitively and constructionally correct, and such levels of comfort are something many architects would argue should rightly be subverted.

The traditional approach fosters a piecemeal approach to maintenance over time, repainting and patching as needed, and becoming richer for the patina on materials and evidence of care and change.

The contemporary building is treated more as one would refurbish a car, and recent history in the refurbishment of early modernist buildings has seen a comprehensive approach to dismantling, renewal of seals, resurfacing and reassembly.  The contemporary form is not generally improved by the patinas and random streaking of age.

Conclusions

Traditional design approaches have a clear and tangible value.  They do provide a compelling basis for design in certain settings, yet contemporary architecture shows a clear direction for particular programs and functional requirements.  There seems a clear argument for a reinvigoration of what is a frequently cold and arid contemporary design language with arguably more humane characteristics of traditional forms, and development of an architecture that encompasses a richer design lexicon.  In Australia, however, this may mean a more open minded approach to sources of design inspiration and a willingness to objectively assess the relative success of past cultures and our own in creating buildings that, in aggregate, create urban environments that we can actually love.