True structural high tech

In this, the fourth type of relationship between structure and architecture, the design of the structure is accorded the highest priority and

9 It was in fact due to the impossibility of meeting the fire regulations that the change of structural material from steel to reinforced concrete was made in the case of the Lloyd's building.

10 See Charles Jencks, The battle of high tech: great build- ings with great faults', Architectural Design, 58, (11/12) pp. 19-39, 1988.

allowed to determine completely both the overall form of a building and the nature of the architectural vocabulary which is adopted. It is a method which is normally used for reasons of necessity, when the limits of what is pos- sible structurally are being approached. Obvious examples of this are the very tall building and the very long-span enclosure. In the case of the former, the principal structural problem is the resistance of lateral load, in which case the systems required to accommo- date this become prominent features of the design." The achievement of a long span requires that a highly efficient type of structure be adopted, such as a steel cable network or a reinforced concrete shell. These form-active12

structure types have distinctive geometries which therefore dictate the overall form of the building.

Another example of a building type in which the highest priority must be given to structural matters is the portable building. Here there is a requirement for demountability and also a critical need to save weight and therefore to adopt an efficient form of structure. Form- active structures are therefore frequently speci- fied for this type of building. The tent, in all its manifestations, provides an example of this. Demountable buildings for travelling exhib- itions (Fig. 1.12) and any other type of tem- porary accommodation are further examples. With this type of building very few concessions are made to style, and none which conflict with efficiency.

The 'true structural high-tech' approach can be applied to the design of any building. Architects rarely favour it, however, and will rarely use it unless technical necessity makes it unavoidable, because it leaves them with little to do other than administrate the construction of the building. It leaves, in other words, little

scope for artistic statement. The methodology requires that no concessions be made with regard to the design of the structure and the resulting architecture might be described as a type of vernacular. For the majority of build- ings, in which spans and loads are modest and there are no special requirements which favour the adoption of a highly efficient form of struc- ture, the best structural solution is likely to involve the use of a very simple type of struc- ture such as a post-and-beam form composed of basic elements such as masonry walls or reinforced concrete slabs and columns.

The 'true structural high-tech' approach is the most straightforward of the possible relationships between structure and architec- ture. The preliminary design of the building becomes simply the design of a structural arrangement which is appropriate for the span and load involved. In most cases this will favour the selection and adaptation of one of the basic forms of structure outlined in the following chapters. Aesthetic, space-planning and other considerations are given a secondary role and are not allowed to compromise the integrity of the structural solution.

33

2.2.6 Conclusion

The various possibilities concerning the relationship between structural design and architectural design have been reviewed in this section. The distinctions considered have only been possible in the twentieth century follow- ing the development of the structural

technologies of steel and reinforced concrete - the strong materials which released architec- ture from the constraints imposed by the technology of structural masonry. It was not until this had occurred that the methodologies of 'structure ignored' and 'structure symbol- ised', which have a tendency to generate struc- tural geometries which are far from ideal, became possible.

The distinctions between the four

approaches outlined above to the relationship between structure and architecture are frequently misunderstood, by both architects

11 In all of the very tall buildings the structure which is required to resist wind loading is concentrated on the exterior of the building and therefore affects its appear- ance.

12 See Appendix 1 for an explanation of the term 'form-active'.

and critics, especially in connection with those strands of Modern architecture in which the idea of drawing attention to the tectonic aspects of a building has been fashionable. The confusion which arises concerns the allocation of priorities between technical and non-technical issues. If technical issues have, in reality, been allocated the highest priority the building will fall into the category of 'true structural high tech'. If aesthetic consider- ations have been given a higher importance then the building will be an example of 'struc- ture symbolised' or 'structure ignored'.

The distinction is brought into focus by a consideration of the consequences of allowing a high design priority to be given to technical considerations ('structure accepted' or 'struc- tural high tech'). If the structural problem is spectacular, such as a very long span, the resulting structure, and therefore building, will also be visually striking. If the structural problem is modest - a building of small or medium span - the best structural solution will almost certainly also be modest and of the post-and-beam kind. In the early years of archi- tectural Modernism - the 1920s and 1930s - such forms were compatible with the prevailing aesthetic theories and, as a consequence, many early modern buildings are good

examples of the 'structure accepted' approach. In the present day, post-and-beam forms are frequently considered to be visually dull and in this situation the temptation arises to

manipulate the structure for visual or symbolic reasons ('structure symbolised') or to ignore its requirements entirely ('structure ignored').

As is discussed above, the architectural symbolists of the so-called 'high-tech' school, who have often claimed that the structures of their buildings are examples of genuine techni- cal excellence,13 provide a good example of the

type of unclear thinking which has surrounded this topic. The confusion has led, in many cases, to the creation of buildings which have

an unresolved quality, because the full poten- tial offered by the purely symbolic use of struc- ture has not been exploited. A better

architecture would probably have resulted if the true nature of the relationship between