ON PLANNING & MEANING – MENTAL STRUCTURES & IMPACTS

It was a publication on brochs,* but one article's summary was surprisingly revealing in its understanding of architecture. Although an archaeological paper, it showed a remarkable insight into the significance of building and its experience. The publication was the oddly named Tall Stories? 2 Millennia of Brochs, edited by Val E. Turner, et).al., published by the Shetland Amenity Trust, Lerwick, 2005. The text that was so impressive was on page 106, in a paper by Niall Sharples, titled Life Histories and the Buildings of the Atlantic Iron Age:

Recent work in anthropology has emphasised that house shape and form not only provide shelter and comfort to the occupants (Carsten and Hugh-Jones 1995) but also a social framework through which individuals and groups can make sense of their lives. Structure is used to constrain and guide the body as it moves through space# and in doing so mediates encounters between individuals. The process of architectural creation captures a particular event in time, and alteration and abandonment delimit a temporal sequence of considerable importance to the occupants.

Archaeological applications of these new approaches have been restricted to the British Isles. They have largely focused on the use of the house for mapping the inhabitants' cosmological understanding of their environment. The plan of the house appears as a template for the mental structures of the inhabitants. This type of approach has been particularly important in rethinking the Iron Age round houses both of southern England (Hingley 1990; Fitzpatrick 1994) and Atlantic Scotland (Pearson and Sharples 1999; Pearson and Giles 1999). The models suggested for these areas provide alternative views, (core/periphery and sunwise movement) of how this cosmology was envisaged. These may well respect a plurality of views in the past but they imply a general homogeneity of beliefs throughout Britain which is otherwise difficult to perceive in the archaeological record.

In this paper I do not wish to examine these cosmological interpretations of the house; instead I wish to look at some other anthropological insights into how the house (or perhaps more appropriately a home) provides a framework for understanding the temporal sequence of prehistoric life. This is to conceptualise the house in terms of life cycle. We can assume that a house undergoes the basic cycle of birth, life and death and that it is analogous to that of an individual. Further-more it is possible that the transitional points are significant events (liminal periods) which might form the focus for ritual or ceremonial activity. Archaeological applications of this form of interpretation are much rarer (Gerritsen 1999).

What is remarkable about this text is that it shows a greater sensitivity to understanding the impact of planning than architects currently do. Once again, architecture can look to other fields of knowledge to learn more about itself. Here one recalls the study on the impact of the loss of familiar places - Peter Read's Returning to nothing: the meaning of lost places, Cambridge University Press, Melbourne, 1997 - where a rich understanding of feeling for place and identity are embodied in another historical/archaeological study that should be read by all architects, just as this broch text should be, for we seem far from ever reaching such perceptions and interests from within the profession of architecture today. It is something to ponder, as we still have quirkily quaint nostalgic feelings for things old, even ancient, sensing something sensitive and meaningful in them without asking what, why or how, just being enthralled by them as a tourist might be – see: http://springbrooklocale.blogspot.com/2012/06/who-or-what-is-tourist.html

These studies highlight how remote architecture currently is from its roots - providing shelter for the human body, soul and spirit, to enrich and support them; managing encounters while defining relationships with each other and the cosmos. Do architects ever consider a home as having a birth, life and death? Little wonder that the world is now plagued with mental health problems** as bodies and souls seek physical and emotional support from 'clever-dick' architecture more interested in its smart self and its unique gymnastics than anything else, creating voids echoing "ME, ME - LOOK!", mocking those who look on doubtfully with the pomposity of the acclaimed success of the “WOW!”

If architecture is to regain any respect and re-establish its important role in life, then it must heed the understandings in these texts and their implications. Without this, architecture will remain merely an indulgent 'look at me' display - boastful and arrogant; and architects will remain self-centred, self-serving, self-promoting princes providing services for like-minded folk who choose to play games with narcissistic expressions for everyone to admire and yearn for, in order to confirm their self-proclaimed importance. One could name this stance 'Trumpish.' It seems to be the sign of our times that tramples the Biblical promise to the meek, dismissing it as a weak irrelevance considered meaningful only by idiots.

Sadly it is almost a joke today to suggest that an architect might plan to shape 'a template for the mental structures of the inhabitants.' Rather it seems that architects perform in order to reveal the brilliance of their own mental states, to proudly declare, like Trump, their 'stable genius.' Similarly, they are just making fools of themselves, but they are so engrossed in their own self-perceptions that they remain totally unaware of how others see them, and what they do.

If this understanding of home and its potential cannot come from architects, then we must turn to other specialties, fields of knowledge and research that can see clearly without the distorting rose coloured glasses of our profession. It has happened before - c.f. Levi Strauss, and semiology and linguistics in the 1970s and 80s. Once the bewildering brilliance of the blinding digital world has become familiar and ordinary, perhaps architects might turn their attention back to those that they build for, and shape buildings for their experience and enrichment as contented, living, feeling, spiritual beings, rather than play as if with new toys in the lolly shop, seeking the unchallenged praise of all others doing likewise.

*

On brochs and experience:

Back to brochs: Sharples' text starts impressively, but the body of the reported research in this paper is less significant. It appears to be a rather bland description of the obvious - that others move in and re-use the structures. There is a bit more than this, but even Sharples comments in his summary that it is all very obvious. Yet he continues with what appears to me to be one of the best theories for broch occupation yet read. It is interesting that this idea comes from the original perception of buildings - see above.

Wheelhouses were temporary structures when compared to brochs. They were probably dismantled with the death of the occupant and reconstructed nearby - (see construction of new 'Iron Age' roundhouse: https://voussoirs.blogspot.com/2019/04/more-on-building-brochs-thinking-doodles.html). The hypothesis is that brochs were occupied by a selected individual chosen by the community for some particular reason. This person became the link to the ancestors who had previously occupied this space. The broch became the community core for remembrance, both symbolic and real. While one suspects it was more than this - see: https://voussoirs.blogspot.com/2019/04/building-brochs.html https://voussoirs.blogspot.com/2019/04/more-on-building-brochs-thinking-doodles.html https://voussoirs.blogspot.com/2019/05/the-game-of-brochs.html - it appears to be a fertile beginning. Sharples explains why the archaeology of brochs is so confused: the constant re-occupation muddles the clarity of discovery, research and interpretation. What seems to be the most appropriate interpretation is that brochs were multi-functional. If they were singular in function, one might have thought that this would have become more than evident by now.

With such activities, one can see how a cosmology can be read into community ideas; how buildings do reveal a mental structure. One wonders what archaeologists might make of us from our building remains: what 'satisfactory progression of tasks designed to sustain life in and around us' might be gleaned from our structures? Just imagine a future archaeologist discovering a Gehry.

#

Gropius spoke of this aspect of the plan in his Scope of Total Architecture, Allen & Unwin, London, 1956. This, along with other experiences of architecture has been forgotten: c.f. Steen Eiler Rasmussen's Experiencing Architecture, The MIT Press, 1962. Why do old texts get trashed by the mad trampling of progress that blindly, brashly, demands the constant rush forward named progress, leaving gems in its mire.

**

On witches: one wonders if witches are needed, if not religion. Francis Thompson, in his book The Supernatural Highlands, Luath Press Edinburgh, 1997, writes about witches, on:
p. 18

. . . the 'unknown', as these intangibles often were, developed into something to be feared, particularly by those whose minds were riddled with trouble; or revered by those whose minds had the key to gain access to the mental planes of peace, solace and solitude that these areas offered.

p.19

This Soisgeul, (Gospel for weak minds), was a charm intended to strengthen the weak mind so that grace might be conferred on a poor soul.

p.20

. . . white witchcraft was respected for the good it did in a community; those responsible for it held a high place in the esteem of the people.

p.82

It is, perhaps, but a short step from the applications of concern for the ailments of one's fellows to concern for the natural and satisfactory progression of tasks designed to sustain life in and around the household, and to keep one free from both clinical and spiritual ills. Belief that one's life was overshadowed by unseen spirits which influenced the success or otherwise of human activity was widespread, and led to the build-up of a significant corpus of lore which, at first sight, might seem to be rank superstition but which, on careful scrutiny, reveals the close affinity of man with nature. The latter was a relationship which was encompassed by a simple and pure belief that all in Nature was for the common good and must therefore be treated with respect.

Note: This is a world far removed from our era that thrives on self-important, self-promotion, and selfies. It is no new cry to note the importance of humility, contentment, and care for others, but it is a stance that our Trumpian times sadly knows little of. Maybe an interest in Nature might restructure ambitions and intents?

p. 84

Life, however, was not governed by the rhythm of days. The seasons, the months of the year, all contributed to the Gael's orchestrated life as he progressed from birth to death, participated in community affairs and enhanced his own life by courtship, marriage and parenthood.

p. 86

The work songs cover the whole range of domestic and community activities and contain elements of tradition that have since disappeared from other forms of lore. The songs take in such work as weaving, spinning, walking, shoemaking, herding, milking, churning, driving cattle, fishing, collecting seaware, and the tasks associated with land use.

The simple Prayer at Rising shows the attitude to the world, one of respect and contentment

p.134/135

Thou King of moon and sun,

Thou King of stars beloved,

Thou knowest Thyself our need,

O Thou merciful God of life.

Each day that we move,

Each time that we awaken,

Causing vexation and gloom,

To the King of Hosts who loved us.

Be with us through each day,

Be with us through each night;

Be with us each night and day,

Be with us each day and night.

One can sense the quality of feeling and responsibility here, the humility, a circumstance best highlighted when it is seen as something that Trump would never Tweet.

and on p.135/136, the Prayer for Protection:

O Father of Truth,

O Son of mercy,

Free us at this time,

Free us at every time.

Thou Son of God, grant me forgiveness

In my false swearing,

In my foolish deed,

In my empty talk.

Sain me from the hurt of the quiet women,

Sain me from the hurt of the wanton women,

Sain me from the hurt of the fairy women,

Sain me from the hurt of the world-women.

Maybe one can recite this for Trump?

THE HAWTHORNE HOUSE – CONTEXT, PLACE & STREET

The challenge was to find the Edition Office (EO) residence on Street View, just to see its context: see - https://voussoirs.blogspot.com/2019/05/edition-office-re-calibrating-denial-of.html  As seems to be the norm these days, all of the published architectural images excluded every detail of context that could reasonably be dismissed - see below. The first clue was the name Hawthorne House; one knew the house was in this portion of Melbourne, but more was needed. The plans of the project were inspected - see below: one should look for two rectangles on a long, narrow site when viewed from above. The north point was indicated, so one could exclude all sites that were orientated differently. Interestingly, this meant that most of Hawthorne could be excluded; that only the houses within the red outline of Google Earth that defined the Hawthorne limits had to be perused; and, of this conglomerate mix, only those that faced east need be of any interest. This meant that only the sites on the western side of the streets that ran north/south were of any interest: the search began.

It continued, and started again and again. Maybe the place is in East Hawthorne – no; nothing could be seen there either. The Edition Office images and drawings were again checked to search for more clues. There was no doubt that two rectangles should be clear from the air. An image of ‘THE SITE’ was viewed as a part of the rationale explained in the EO site; this showed the inspirational tree in front of the original cottage that was removed for the new home: see - http://edition-office.com/  Again, even here, the context was excluded, with the old tree being photographed to reveal its grandeur. Only a tiny glimpse of the top of the tall, tiled gable of the original cottage could be seen. It was decided that perhaps there was a schism between the aerial view of Google Earth and the Street View. Sometimes there is no match. Once, with another search, the aerial view showed the house being sought, that became a vacant site on Street View. Maybe there was a difference here, in Hawthorne, too?

The tree and the ridge.

It was decided to search out the tree that stood in front of a gabled roof with a ridge running east-west. The aerial view showed that most houses in Hawthorne had hipped roofs, with some of the newer developments having what looked like flat tops. The new search began. Eventually one combination was seen, and Street View was opened: bingo! The needle was found in the haystack of Hawthorne. There is was, the Hawthorne House at 36 Robinson Road, Hawthorne, VIC, 3122. With some degree of utter disbelief, the aerial view was again checked: there were no rectangles, just a tiled gabled roof with an east-west ridge, and a large tree. There was a difference here between Earth and Street as had been suspected.

Why are architects so reluctant to give the details of the precise location of their projects when they are so public? It is not as though this house was hidden deep in a private forest, or that it had no relationship to the street at all. The idea of concealment looked as if there was an ambition to exclude everything but the bespoke – the genius of the place itself that sought to have nothing to do with its context. Indeed, Edition Office has argued that it wanted to ignore the context. Might this be a matter of theory explaining the problem away – legitimising the concern by turning it into a clever, philosophical intent? WOW! Am I not shrewd? The idea sounded something like the assertive statements in the early twentieth century manifestos of the Futurists: “We no longer give any recognition to context!” - a stark change to the popular discussions about place and purpose frequently said to be the inspiration for projects.

Entry: one assumes that the gate for pedestrians is near the letterbox.*

Street View was interrogated: 36 was boldly declared on the architectural letterbox beside the gate entry that was disguised as a solid, boarded fence that used what looked like recycled timber – neat and fashionably modest. At the other end of the frontage, there was a driveway crossover that was nicely shared with the neighbour, but there appeared to be no vehicular access – no driveway gates. Might these be secretly concealed to read as timber fence too?# Could the car park on the street? The familiar grey concrete mass stood behind the marvellous tree. Oddly, the house was not as offensive as one might have supposed with the reluctance of the designers to publicise the street identity. One could say that the box excluded everything, but EO has declared this is what it wanted to do – so? Great! Success! What else can one say?

The house held something of the character of the electrical substations seen in the older city suburbs – bold, solid, introvert masses that have their own pride of functional place without offering too much offence with their being there.

Brisbane's substations.

One did wonder how one would find the front door if one walked in through the gate after its discovery, but the entry might become self-evident with the approach; it was not clear. Looking at the EO images again, one can see a concentration on detail – very nice detail too: see - http://edition-office.com/  One can see how this home works as an enclosed indulgence. Just why the architects couldn’t touch place and context with some gentle recognition, some subtle resonance, remains a problem; a question. Thank goodness for the mature tree! It turns out to be the magnificent landmark for the project, and the clue for its discovery on Google Earth. Is this good enough?

One can test the proposition by supposing that one had a whole suburb full of concrete boxes just like this – all very carefully considered concrete boxes too. What might the street feel like? What would the street be? Might it feel voided; a little intimidating; disconcerting, like standing outside a jail? Does a street get a little life from the glimpses that go between inside and out; outside and in: those tiny responsive surprises; those miniature, miracle wonders; the minuscule, muffled delights? The test of repetition is always interesting, because a one-off is easily able to look astonishingly different, entertaining with its bespoke brilliance, like a Gehry. One concrete box might be stunning; but hundreds? Can we all ignore context and still maintain some relevance for public places; or is this only a private, individual game, good for one only?

The driveway identifies the vehicular approach disguised by the fence detailing.

There is no confusion with the neighbour's vehicular approach.

Street furniture; the demands of necessity.

One might guess that the blinded street could be a little intimidating, eerily voided, avoided, as if it held nothing of importance for us, or for anyone; but the dwellings themselves could all be very pleasant places. This EO home would be lovely to experience; but might one miss the street, the other: that 'I - Thou' experience? Is the problem a lack of engagement with the other? Such enclosure as provided on the upper level, when forced, is seen to be less than desirable. Can we all really ignore the street in our projects when it is only the street that we have as connecting public place? - see: https://voussoirs.blogspot.com/2015/02/the-importance-of-street.html It appears that some gesture towards these spaces is desirable; that there needs to be something given to the street other than exclusion if we are to have vibrant, living public zones in our cities. One has to be careful here, as the 1970/80s engaged in an exaggerated self-conscious awareness of the street, with planners forcing much onto projects that was irrelevant and undesirable, all in the name of theory.

The street address.

The opposite side of the street.

That the theoretically-repeated, boxed homes might all be privately pleasant, is as they should be – and EO has managed this beautifully, elegantly; but one does wonder about that in-between, the mediation between private and public that holds a subtle ambiguity in its open intrigue, rather than being confined, silenced within a bland concrete box that is unresponsive to all else but MY interior world. Is a flash letterbox enough of a public gesture for recognition? It is this ignoring of others that worries here; the turning of one’s back on to everything but the private, personal delights that fill this little place – for the other surprise here is its intimate scale. One cannot complain about any overbearing presence; it has an identity that has a modest quiet about it.

The opposite side of the street.

Robinson Road.

One is not trying to offer solutions here; just seeking to explore matters so that our understanding can be tested, our reasoning challenged, juggled with possibilities seeking a wholeness that can enrich rather than engaging with an interesting piecemeal jigsaw of specialities; a scattering of iconic buildings that seek to ignore others: is it even possible? It seems that the critique here has to be with the strategy itself rather than the outcome. We need to know more about how we can make better streets rather than letting our public places be shaped in the negative, by neglect – fashioned by what remains of our conscious efforts elsewhere, that frame them; that make them what they are, by way of default. The street is what is left over after everyone has attended to other things.

The neighbours.

The question seems to be not: what is a house, a home?; but: what is a street? What might a street be? Louis Kahn could have put it this way: “Street, what would you like to be?” Gorgeous detailing of private place and its clever, spatial intertwining does nothing significant for the street, for public purpose. How do we make a good street? Should we? Can we? Sadly, apart from our private places, the street is all we really have: it deserves our attention.

THE ARCHITECTURAL PHOTOGRAPHS

For more images and detail, see:

https://www.archdaily.com/920206/hawthorn-house-edition-office/5d1b09d5284dd1b18300000c-hawthorn-house-edition-office-photo?next_project=no

Note the exclusion of all references to context. The occasional glimpses one gets of the neighbours seem to be there out of sheer necessity, with the camera being unable to exclude them in spite of, so it seems, every effort having been made.

View to street from the residence.

# Note the car parking area to the left.

The gate is indeed disguised as the fence, like the pedestrian gate.

It seems that the illusion is necessary in order to ensure that the strategy to ignore context is complete in every way.

THE DRAWINGS

*

NOTE:

One is reminded of Saarinen's CBS building that raised the question that Post Modernism sought to respond to: Where is the entry?

This proved to be a turning point in Modernism. Are we now dealing with a 'Modernism.02'? Perhaps we need a 'Post Modernism.02'?

24 February 2020

What is it with Melbourne? Does the city have arches in its genes?

INSPIRATION?

 The high-end New York hotel designed as a homage to ancient Roman architecture

https://www.domain.com.au/news/the-highend-new-york-hotel-designed-as-a-homage-to-ancient-roman-architecture-20180720-h10jom-753139/

17 December 2022

NOTE

This recently published video gives a good overall impression of the residence: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8jCuQGN3fOc

While there are a couple of images of the house in its context, the majority of the images are carefully framed to exclude the neighbours, with the interiors remaining remarkably like the spaces that are voided for ‘architectural’ presentations, instead of being filled by life and its living; its natural messiness.