Arts & Crafts Movement

 

In England, parallel to the Art Nouveau, another movement emerged which had a lasting influence on architecture. This was the Arts and Crafts movement, which arose out of the ‘Romanticism’ movement in literature, and promoted the simple rural lifestyle. Inspired by the writings of John Ruskin and William Morris, which centered on the evils of the industrial revolution, the movement laid a great stress on the virtues of pre-industrial society, and advocated the use of traditional arts & crafts as an antidote to the ill effects of the industrialization, and hence the name.

 

The disruption of the established social systems due to the industrial revolution were a cause of concern for many humanitarian writers. Moreover, the manufacturing by machines made the products cheaper but deprived them of the artistic craft traditions, and made them purely utilitarian. They thought of 'the craftsman' as free, creative, and working with his hands, 'the machine' as soulless, repetitive, and inhuman. In Ruskin’s view, the industrial production carried out by the ‘servile labour’ demeaned both the process and the product. A healthy and moral society, he argued, requires free workers who design the products they make, and incorporate in them both the knowledge base and aesthetic traditions of a society.

 

This was in tune with the ‘pre-Raphaelite’ movement in art, which was critical of both the industrial culture which they considered barbaric and the renaissance art (particularly after Raphael) too ornate & formal. The pre-Raphaelite movement thus shared the sentiments of the ‘romanticist’ movement in its glorification of the pre-industrial society and the traditional crafts which reflected the simple, down to earth nature of the rural lifestyle.  

 

It was natural, therefore, that the ‘back to roots’ philosophy of the Arts & crafts movement got its inspiration from the based its design on the British vernacular architecture expressing the texture of ordinary materials, such as stone and tiles, with an asymmetrical and informal composition of built form. Many elements of this traditions like the solid form, wide porches, steep roof, pointed window arches, brick fireplaces and wooden fittings became the identity of the style.

 

The Red House, in Bexlyheath, London, designed by Philip Webb and William Morris, is a one of well known examples of this style. Its plan organization is based on function and is asymmetrical, and the elevations are a result of this organization, which gives it quite an informal character. A major element of the elevation is the informal arrangement of a varied type of windows, made to suit the spaces they served, instead of any planned composition of the façade. The house was quite unusual for its time, in both its the informal composition and in the complete absence of surface any decoration. The house relies for effect solely on its massing and proportion, and the colour and texture of materials used, like the red brick and roof tiles.

 

Charles Mackintosh was another architect who was influenced by the movement, and his hill house near Glasgow, built after about 30 years after Red House, is similarly designed with its composition of solid masses, and its asymmetrical organization, though the brickwork in this case is plastered and painted. But Mackintosh also absorbed influences from the modernist ideas of Art Nouveau and the simple unadorned style of Japanese art which relied for effect on the natural texture of the material and use of light & shadow. A combination of these ideas made Mackintosh’s work original and unique. The interior design of the hill house is actually quite contemporary by today’s standards, in that Mackintosh uses great restraint in design, relying on the functional organization and use of natural texture of materials instead of ornamentation. The most notable of his work is the Glasgow School of Art, which effectively demonstrates his skill in free spatial compositions with use of double height spaces, and combination of the simple geometric façade in stone with large windows, and art nouveau style detailing for the main entrance, with a free-flowing curve of the entrance steps.

 

The arts & crafts movement extended to many other products of everyday use like furniture, textiles, and stained glass. A notable addition was light fittings. Electricity for lighting was the latest innovation and many fixtures were designed exclusively for lighting at home and other establishment, based on the simple geometric shapes that the vernacular style dictated.

 

But the practitioners of the movement like Morris were also influenced by medieval styles, particularly the Gothic, and though they refrained from using the overt elaborate detailing  ornamentation of the classical Gothic architecture, the principles of organization like symmetry, rhythm, balance and formal layouts which was actually against the professed ideas of the arts & crafts movement.

 

There was also an ambivalence in the use of machinery for making products. The art & craft practitioners were perfectly willing to manufacture a product designed by them by use of machines, provided exacting standards were met in the process. This actually led to a debate on whether the artist really has to make the entire product all by himself, or whether he should be content in designing and letting others carry out the execution, including manufacturing of some components by machine. This contrasted sharply with the vision of arts and craft as a movement going back to roots, where the craftsmen did everything from design to execution, without involving the machinery.

 

Even with these contradictions the association of the arts & craft with the British vernacular architecture made it popular because of its nostalgic appeal and influenced many other architects, notably Sir Edwin Luytens, who later designed the Indian capital complex at New Delhi. In his early work, Lutyens followed the British vernacular style faithfully, with asymmetrical compositions, simple massive forms without any surface decoration except the texture & colour of the materials, creating informal spaces which was the hallmark of the style.

 

But his later work borrows heavily from the classical traditions. This was partly the result of the ideology the Arts & Crafts movement which glorified the past traditions, and partly the fact that in the design of palatial houses of the lords or the design of churches, the Arts & crafts movement had little to offer as design guidelines; its philosophy was based on the simple vernacular architecture of humble residences. For the same reasons, Luytens later work for the Indian capital is also based on the guiding principles of the classical traditions like symmetry, scale, proportions and so on. The agenda here was to create a monument befitting the strength & character of the British Empire, and the simple vernacular traditions could hardly be a guide for this kind of architecture.

 

In Europe & North America, the main appeal of the movement was its emphasis on rejuvenating the traditional culture through handicrafts. The American society looked forward to Europe for inspiration in arts & culture, and the movement spread there through journals & news papers and also by exhibition of exhibitions of contemporary craft objects. However, the movement remained largely concerned about the handicrafts, its appeal for architecture was not universal.

 

The architect who is said to have a significant contribution to the traditional craft traditions in the USA is F. L. Wright, whose early work shows distinct similarities with the vernacular architecture of Arts & Crafts. But F. L. Wright was a genius, and a far more original in all his work, which elevated the status of the craft traditions like stained glass and wrought iron, among others.

 

The major influence of Arts & Crafts on the modern architecture is its emphasis on simplicity and honesty in the use of materials. Its philosophy of following vernacular traditions was also followed by many eminent architects in the modern period, who found that the vernacular traditions of a place are culturally relevant, and reflect the lifestyle of society in its design & detailing. Not only that, in a world increasing concerned with the ecological impact of architecture, vernacular traditions are now seen as more eco-friendly in their use of local materials & a climate compatible design.

New Theories- Art Nouveau

While the literary world was centered on the new social order brought in by the industrial revolution, architectural theoreticians were engaged in the debates about the response of architectural design to the new phenomena. Though the classical traditions were in vogue and used for most of the public buildings, there were a few who argued that a new style of architecture was the need of the hour to match the requirements of the new age; historical examples were not appropriate for the new building materials & technology, and the functional requirement of the new building types.

One of the first of such thinkers was Viollet-le-Duc who postulated that each material has an ideal from and this form should dictate the design of the buildings. He called for studying the styles of the past and adapting them in a rational manner, taking into account both structure and design. He wrote extensively about the new style of architecture needed for the new era which would based on the capabilities of the new materials like cement and steel, and proposed many innovative designs for new kind of steel trusses. He also stressed the need for new forms of structure based on the organic forms in nature, like the leaves and animal skeletons. Many of his principles, including the emphasis on using the materials honestly and reflecting the rationale of the construction in its visual appearance eventually became the agenda for modern architecture.

But the time was not yet ripe for a totally different kind of architecture. Architects were looking for a new form of architecture, but they were still thinking in terms of a new visual style – Violet le Duc’s writings led designers to the use of new materials in their original state, like the new entrance to the Paris Metro, where the lightweight glass canopy with its metal frame was in stark  contrast with the heavy classical detailing of stone. But this is an exceptional example. Inspiration of form from nature changed only the detailing of ornamentation and many other minor features of the structure, it did not led to the overall change in the architectural form, as the search for a new style stopped at the external visual appearance. The Sagrada Familia by Antoni Gaudi is a classic example of the new architectural style, which changed only the external appearance of the church, but in its overall form, the church was not much different from the Gothic cathedrals of the earlier period.

In both of these examples, the inspiration for architectural form was derived from ‘Art Nouveau’, the  new movement in art, which had originally emerged as a style of painting. Art Nouveau had its inspiration from nature, its flowing curves and asymmetrical forms. This was quite distinct from the classical art form, and in this context, Art Nouveau had affinity with the pre-Raphaelites, who advocated natural forms in art in contrast with the strict symmetrical and idealized depiction of renaissance paintings after Raphael.

The freshness of the form and its contrast with the classical ornamentation of Art Nouveau had already led designers in other fields to experiment with the style – including graphic art, interior design, jewelry, textiles, and many other artifacts of everyday use.

In its adoption in architecture, Art Nouveau architects established the free form and honesty in the use of materials as the two major principles of design, and though the movement later gave way to the modern movement, these principles continued to be a part of the new theories of architectural design.

The free form of building was a major break from the traditional architecture. The new type of buildings had complex requirements for organization of functional spaces, and it was getting more & more difficult to manage these requirements in the classical symmetrical formats. Architecture thus was slowly coming of age, in trying to address the issues of functional organization and structural systems.

The new building materials like steel & concrete were capable of free-flowing & slender forms and they were now being creatively used in many elements of the structure. The steel & concrete were also capable of longer spans, and coupled with the large panels of glass now available with the new technology, a dramatic change in the appearance of the building was now possible.

But the inspiration from nature remained largely on surface, and the functional organization of building still remained subservient to the appearance of the building. A notable example of this can be found in design of an opera house, in which the architect argued that it was not possible to design the building so as to have the view of stage from every seat in the auditorium. Some people, he added loftily, will have to be content to listen to the music alone. An argument like this would put an architect out of work today, but was accepted at the time as aesthetics was clearly considered the more important aspect of the design than function.

On the philosophical front, ‘Art Nouveau’ as a movement was neutral about the social impact of the industrial revolution and the debate of industrial processes verses traditional craft traditions. It welcomed the new materials and manufacturing processes and went on to design with their help. A major element of the style was use of curvilinear metal forms with irregularly shaped glass, both of which was possible only because of the new industrial processes, and gave sculptural qualities to architecture. In fact, in many cases, the cost of the projects increased to a great extent due to the curvilinear forms, which was one of the major reasons for its discontinuation in architecture after the first world war, when the economy of many European countries had been suffered because of the war.

There are many notable architects from this period, but for our purpose the works by Victor Horta, Hector Guimard and Antoni Gaudi would be most illustrative.

Of these, the Belgian Architect Victor Horta is credited as the first architect to introduce 'Art Nouveau' to architecture. Horta was inspired by the free-flowing and curvilinear compositions of the Art Nouveau, and used this influence for the first time in his design of Tassel House. The design is done with a open plan floor layout and incorporated interior iron structure with curvilinear floral forms. Both of these features were path-breaking innovations for the design of a house at the time. He was also conscious of the context of the house and concealed his ornate and elaborate designs behind a stone façade to harmonize the building with its surrounding of rigid stone masonry houses.

However, the flamboyant style of detailing of Art Nouveau was no longer affordable in the aftermath of the first world war. Horta had already began experimenting for a more simpler style of design, and his post-war work is based on the simplified geometrical patterns. But Horta continued his use of rational floor plans, and application of the latest developments in building technology and building services engineering.

In France, the entrance to the Paris Metro, designed by Hector Guimard, still remains one of the most  outstanding examples of Art Nouveau. This was based on the theories of Viollet-le-Duc about the free form and honesty in the use of materials. Through this design, Guimard also wanted to standardize the components, and thus could be called a precursor of industrial standardization. His major breakthrough as an architect came in with his design of Castel Beranger, an apartment building that he designed for Mme. Fournier. It is a classic example of how the industrial arts could be combined with architecture, but in its essence, the elements of the exterior are a modified version of classical stone detailing.

Influenced by Victor Horta’s work, Guimard made many experiments in space & volume in his later projects, and employed structural innovations in his design, like the acoustical design with use of structural frame for the roof of the concert hall Humbert-de-Roman. He used abstract forms of plants and organic matter and created flexible mouldings which gave a sense of movement even though they are made in heavy stone masonry. He also created abstract patterns for stained glass, ceramic panels and wrought iron, in many of his buildings, and created custom-built interior design for his projects including wallpaper & fabric.

Antoni Gaudi’s work, which includes the world famous Sagrada Familia and many other projects like Casa Mila, and CasaBatllo, provides another version of the Art Nouveau architecture. Gaudi used the natural forms and the curvilinear flamboyance of the Art Nouveau in stone & concrete. Gaudi was also inspired by the oriental arts, and the philosophy of Viollet-le-Duc, but went on to develop his own version of architecture through organic form from nature.

But Gaudi’s style of architecture was more in tune with the ‘Romanticism’ which criticized harsh nature of the industrialization and called for a return to the cultural roots of the society. Thus the Catalan culture associated with Gothic architecture is a major inspiration for Gaudi’s architecture, though he also integrated the principles of design of ‘Art Nouveau’.

Another important contribution by Gaudí was in the field of structural design. He used scale models to experiment and used catenary curves and many innovative structural solutions in construction. These forms were most suitable for cheap materials like brick. In the construction of Sagrada Família, Gaudí used a complex form of columns inclined to resist better the angular load of the hyperboloid roof vaults, eliminating the need for buttresses. The hyperboloid roof vaults also allowed for voids in the design of the roof structure, which Gaudí used to provide light in the interior. In this way he used the structural logic of his times in combination with the form of the traditional Gothic architecture.

Summary

The ‘Art nouveau’ was basically a movement in art, but when it was translated in architecture, its practitioners established many principles of architectural design, which were later embraced by the modern movement in architecture. The most important among these principles were: the free form, functional organization of structure incorporating the structural aspects & building services and honesty in the use of materials. However, as a style, it related only to the external façade of the buildings, and its stylistic detailing made the construction very expensive. Both these factors were responsible for its discontinuation after the first world war.

 

Neo-classicism & Eclecticism - Architecture as status symbol

Architecture before the industrial revolution was essentially architecture of the establishment, be it the king & lords or the religious institutions. These patrons of architecture had huge resources at their disposal, and the agenda for architecture was to create monuments befitting the status of the establishment.

So it follows that a major part of architecture of this period is either the palaces or places of worship. Agriculture was the mainstay of the economy but the farmers were at the lowest level of the social pyramid and had no means to make any spectacular construction. It was the elite section of the society that collected taxes on agriculture, the landlords and the king, the so called idle rich, that had superfluous wealth which they used to build monuments.

Religion encompasses all the sections of the society, and it would seem that the religious structures would reflect the aspirations of the masses, but this was not the case for religious architecture. It was actually built with the support of the ruling elite as it was in their own interests to do so. When the Roman Emperor Constantine realized that majority of people under his rule had turned Christians, he embraced Christianity himself in order to prevent possible revolts against his rule. In fact it was Emperor Constantine who built Hagia Sophia, the biggest byzantine church, using all the resources he had as an Emperor. Rulers everywhere in the world were willing to support religious activities, including financial support to the religious establishment & building of religious structures. In turn the religious institutions granted sanctity to the ruler, by performing the coronation ceremony of every new king (symbolizing divine sanction) and thereby making his rule seem legitimate in the eyes of the people.

In the Egyptian culture, where the king was also the head of the religion, the tombs of the Egyptian Kings were symbols of power of both the state & the religion. It was not a question of how large a structure one would need as a memorial, it was basically an issue of how great & imposing monument could be built to commemorate the might of these institutions. The pyramids defy all norms in terms of functional suitability or the ratio of carpet area to built-up area. Greek & Roman temples fared better in this aspect, but that was not relevant anyway. What mattered was the visual quality of the structure, and hence the importance in the classical architecture on use of noble materials, scale and form, balance, rhythm and proportions, and ornamentation.

The later periods saw the bifurcation of the state & the religion, but both the institutions continued to build in the same fashion. Architecture, it is said, is the ultimate status symbol of a civilization. A permanent reminder of the might of the establishment, it is a tool to showcase the best a society can offer in terms of material wealth, its technological advancement and cultural finesse.

What the industrial revolution fundamentally changed was the very nature of power in the society. It was during this period that for the first time in human history that the divine right of the kings to rule was questioned, and United States America became the first republican state of modern history, a state managed by people themselves democratically. The French Revolution also tried to end the institution of monarchy and was nearly successful, though it gave rise to a new emperor in Napoleon. Many other states in Europe, though monarchial in their constitution, had slowly moved towards the democratic rule. In England the House of Commons became more important and though the British monarchy continued, the de-facto rule of the state was in the hands of the elected representatives of the people.

Naturally, the agenda for the state changed to the welfare of the people, and though the construction of new palaces did not end immediately with the industrial era, these had to be built with personal resources as the state support for construction of these kind of structures was not forthcoming anymore. 

The state support and funding was now directed towards institutions for the general public – education, health, and utilities like public transportation. As industries were now becoming the major source of employment for the people, development of infrastructure for the industries and trades became a priority for the state.

Hence architecture now had to cater to the new kinds of buildings that this changed focus of state required – public institutional buildings like government offices, hospitals, schools & colleges, Town halls, libraries, museums, railway stations and so on. The industries were another group of patrons for architecture, and they required trading halls, markets, industrial sheds & so on.

None of these building types had any historical parallels, and no standards for design. The issue before the architects was either to provide a new theory of architectural design for these new structures or to follow the classical renaissance architecture, modifying it to some extent to accommodate the new function of the building.

The first option was not only difficult as a new theory of design would need originality of thought, but its fate also would be uncertain because there was no guarantee that it would be accepted by the client & the society. The second option – following the classical building style - was easier and preferred by both the architects and their patrons alike, and was followed to a large extent for almost all the public buildings of the period.

It would seem strange that the symbols of the bygone powers would be embraced by the new democratically elected leaders of the state, but these leaders were also in search of new status symbols through architecture and thought it befitting to borrow from the classical traditions.

This apparently strange phenomena is not without its precedents. The St. Peters, the most important symbolic building for Christianity has borrowed its architecture from the idol-worshiping cultures of the Greek & Romans, and the grand obelisk in the center of its large piazza is borrowed from the Egyptian culture. It was simply a quest for providing the most impressive form in architecture, based on its visual quality, the origin of the form or its earlier religious, social & cultural association was irrelevant.

Thus the state sponsored architecture saw a revival of classical tradition all over the new democratic republic of the United State of America. The White House and the House of Representatives are both based on renaissance architecture, the Washington memorial is a replica of the Egyptian obelisk, and the façade of the Lincoln Memorial is a copy of Parthenon without the pediment. A powerful image for the democratic rule was sought using the classical renaissance architecture for the new national capital,  as it was associated with power and the cultural supremacy of the earlier feudal societies.

The Washington example was the model not only for other state capitols and government buildings in the United States of America, it became the architectural style for the new rich class of industrialists all over Europe & America, who were also obsessed with the idea of creating symbols of their newly acquired power through architecture. So the same architectural style was followed for the buildings of everyday use like banks & financial institutions, public libraries, museums and even theatres: what mattered was the visual quality of architecture, not the actual function of the building.

So large-scale was this phenomenon, that eventually historians gave it a title – neo-classicism. The buildings further got divided in two sub-categories – historicism & eclecticism. The difference is in these two styles was based on the extent to which the classical tradition was followed. Historicism would mean that the new construction would be based on some specific classical example (like Parthenon) and from the outside would look like a Greek temple or a Cathedral, but would be housing a bank headquarters inside.

Naturally, there arose a lot of issues with this kind of compromise. One often quoted example is that of a bank building, designed on the basis of Parthenon, where the architect refused to make any subdivisions in the ground floor, thereby cancelling out the demand for a partitioned cabin for the bank manager, stating that such partition would spoil the classical beauty of its architecture. The Owner of the Bank sided with the architect and the manager had to be content with a cabin in the basement.

Fortunately, the examples chosen were mainly cathedrals, which had good height, spacious outlay, and lot of light befitting its original purpose of religious assembly, and this was actually quite appropriate for majority of the public buildings of the period. The most popular among the classical examples was the Parthenon, with its huge colonnade and triangular pediment, which served as the entrance lobby for the new age public buildings. The main floor was raised high to create a huge flight of steps, and the subfloor was used to house most of the services required by the new function of the building like toilets & locker rooms and so on.

For a majority of public buildings, with large floor area and a few floors (typically two to three floors), the palaces were also a good model. The renaissance palace with organization of services on the ground floor, large reception halls on first floor and private rooms & bedrooms on the third floor, worked very well for such structures. Even here, the Parthenon frontage was used extensively for the entrance porch.

The capping feature of many of these buildings was the high dome of St. Peters with its lantern lighting, and has been used right from the House of Congress in Washington DC to many of the state capital buildings. The materials of construction and the technology however, was modern and this created certain issues for design. For example, when the roof was flat reinforced concrete slab, the pediment was out of question. The original Greek version was designed for a sloping timber roof, resulting in the front gable end. So we have here variations on theme, like elimination of the pediment in the Lincoln memorial at Washington, or creating a pediment for the front porch only, while the remaining portion of the building rose high with a flat roof and cornice.

The problem arose when the buildings had to be built for more than two or three stories. Here the classical precedent was of no use directly. Most of the classical structures were only Ground Floor structures, though this is not directly apparent due to their great heights (St. Peters, for example, is 452’ high, though it has only one functional floor), and such a pattern was impossible to follow in a skyscraper. The main problem was the height to width ratio of the building, which would never match the historical examples.

While the proposal submitted by Adolf Loos in the Chicago Tribune competition, where the skyscraper takes the form one single classical column may seem like parody of the attempt to build a sky-scraper in the classical tradition, a practical solution to this problem was found – by using specific elements from the classical building, and selectively applying them to the building elevation, while the overall form of the building had no relation to the classical tradition.

This compromise of combining the classical elements with the modern forms had two advantages. It enabled the designing of the building for its function without bothering about the classical precedent, while the visual effect was classical as most of the elements in its elevation were borrowed from the classical traditions. It satisfied the seemingly contradictory requirements of a modern building with functional design but a classical appearance, but needed a good designer to compose all the varied classical elements in the elevation in a harmonious manner like the winning entry by Raymond Hood for the Chicago tribune building.

Called ‘eclecticism’, this style of design was followed by many others as a valid architectural design solution, and became immensely popular. The lower floors of a large skyscraper thus would have the Greek Temple Frontage, all with the large Doric/Ionic/Corinthian column arcades, creating a public entry with a large flight of steps leading directly to the first floor, while the upper levels of the building would have renaissance palace windows with repetition of the pediments. Multiple combinations of colonnades and windows appeared, including the topping of domes & so on.

It must be clarified here that the architects of all these buildings were equally concerned about the functional issues of design. Most of these buildings were designed with due consideration to the function and organization of the building, the structural system and services. The fact that the building should function well for its current function was not lost on the Owners and the architects alike. The classical model was followed only for its visual appeal.

The problem was that this solution came with a cost of duplicity. Concrete & steel was used to create an appearance of stone, and the size of columns & many other parts of the elevation (the column base, pediments & so on) was too huge and not really appropriate as both these materials had much larger structural capability which not used. Most of the structural organization, at least in the elevation of the building, was false. But by far the most relevant issue for the architects was – how can a feudal or religious building become a model for an office building or hospital which had no thematic connection with these feudal structures with a different societal structure, different materials and building technology and a much different lifestyle of the users?

A solution to this pertinent question was sought to be answered by many theoreticians of the era, whose theories we shall discuss in the next chapter.

Dawn of the Modern Society - The Industrial Revolution

Alvin Toffler, in his monumental work, 'The Third Wave' has postulated has there have been only three major transformations in the 50,000 years of human history. The first major transformation was in the neolithic era, in about 10,000 BC, when the human society invented agriculture and society changed from groups of wandering hunter-gatherers to settlers, which was the starting point of architecture. The second change occurred almost 12,000 years afterwards, in about 1750 AD, which was the starting phase of the Industrial Revolution. The third change is happening right now, all around us, triggered by the revolution in computing, which started about 1960 AD, with the advent of personal computers.

It is significant that out of the many epoch-making events in human history, Toffler picked only these three events as they are the only events which dramatically altered the entire set of relationships in the human society. Transformation from the hunter-gatherer phase to agriculture did not only made available a stable supply of food, it led to a distinct hierarchy of in the society with the protectors of stability, the Kings, noblemen and the military at top, landowners, businessmen and professionals in the middle and the craftsmen, agricultural workers and slaves at the bottom of the social pyramid.

As the human society became stable, the settlements started dotting the landscape, initially as groups of houses huddled together to form villages in the center of farmlands, some of them grew into cities as the centers of power and marketplaces. The individual houses eventually became important identities of the social and economic status of the owner, starting from the humble huts of the slaves and farmers to the large houses of landlords and businessmen culminating in the large-scale monumental palaces of the lords and kings. Dominated by the feudal lords and kings, this era came to be called as the Feudal Era.

Religion as a unifying theme for all human settlements, was institutionalized in the feudal era. Prior to this era, religious sentiments and themes have been there since the inception of the human civilization, but prior to the feudal era, religion was restricted to distinct groups, and its manifestation was limited to the rites and rituals of a specific settlement or group of people in a specific geographical area. The feudal era slowly brought together a consolidation of power, leading to large nation-states like the Roman empire, which many a times transcended geographical regions, a multitude of cultural groups with multiple languages and religious practices. Along with the political power, spread of a unified religion thus became imperative for the political stability of the nation-state.   

Architecture in the Feudal Era
Architecture, it is said, is the ultimate status symbol of a society as it incorporates the multitude of facets of the society in which it originates. Architecture needs resources to build, so it follows that those who provide these resources would decide the scope and nature of the construction. In the feudal society, the entire resources of the land were concentrated in the hands of the lords and the kings, so they were the decision makers, and the obvious building types were the palaces and the religious places.

Divine Sanction
In fact the religious places at times acquired more status than the palaces, but that was solely due to the fact that the authority of the lords was based on the idea of divine sanction, i. e., the idea that their position in society was ordained by the God. It was important for the feudal lords to perpetrate this belief, as the stability of their rule was dependent on universal acceptance of this myth. It is no wonder, therefore, that all the resources of the state were utilized to build the religious places, and the best of the materials and technology was employed in the construction of these buildings.

Creation of Monuments
The idea was to create monuments as a symbol of divine power and the same principles followed the construction of palaces. If we look at the treatises on architecture in this era, the emphasis is on scale and proportion, symmetry and order, grandeur and aesthetics. As architecture was seen as a monument, visual characteristics of buildings acquired the highest value, irrespective of the fact that the basic tenets prescribed by Vitruvius are Firmatis, Utilitas and Venustatis (Durability, Utility and Beauty).

Buildings for Education and Leisure
The feudal society in Europe also supported the construction of other kinds of buildings, like educational institutions and recreational places like theaters. But these were solely for the use of the lords and their families and not for the common public. The designs of these buildings therefore followed the same norms as for the palaces and the churches, and the detailing and ornamentation of these structures is also on the same lines.

Industrial Revolution-Transition in Economy
Industrial revolution marked a transition in that it changed this socio-political order totally and irrevocably. Though it started as change in the manufacturing processes by use of machines instead human or animal labour, it ended up re-structuring the entire economical order in the society. The large-scale manufacturing made capitalists richer than the erstwhile lords, and the societal relationships changed from being based on birth to one based on the wealth. In one way this was a welcome change, as it gave the new industrialists an opportunity to climb the social ladder and be a part of the social elite.

Background
Of course, this was not a sudden transformation as might be suggested by the word 'revolution'. A series of events preceded and facilitated this transformation. European traders sought new trade routes by sea after the loss of Constantinople (Istanbul) leading to many voyages all over the world, and new discoveries and establishment of colonies. This increased the knowledge base of the society in various fields and also enlarged the scope of international trade. Many European nations established their colonies in the underdeveloped areas of the world, which had huge natural resources which could be exploited for the large-scale manufacturing processes.

Intellectual Traditions
Parallel to these events, in Europe, the intellectual tradition of renaissance continued with development in physics, chemistry and mathematics and many other fields. All this culminated in the dramatic change in the process of manufacturing and invention of new products like steel, cement, plate glass, gas lighting and paper. The first three made major changes in building construction and technology, gas lighting made night-life possible for the city and large-scale production of paper made printing cheaper and made publication of newspapers possible.

Effects on society-Mass urbanisation
The industries which provided employment opportunities to a large section of people were all concentrated in the cities, resulting in a large movement of people from rural areas to urban centres, making villages deserted and the towns overcrowded, with the large immigrant population living in makeshift and unhygienic settlements.

Harsh Living Conditions
The working conditions in the industries were also harsh. Workers were exposed to injury without any safety provisions, child labor was used as it was cheaper, and the long working hours made the life of all workers miserable. Though the industrial workers were better off than the farm workers in terms of sustained wages and livelihood, it does not follow that the industrial revolution brought in overall rise in living standards of the entire society immediately. The condition of the working class in the first phase of industrialization was no better than the slums in Indian cities today. People lived in crude makeshift shanties, grouped together with narrow alleyways. The density of population was very high, but there were no sanitary facilities, and diseases spread through contaminated water supply.

Survival at the cost of privacy
The only thing these places were free of was the famines, as the cities gave employment to everyone, but people died due to diseases spreading through the cramped living and working conditions.  the cramped urban settlements in the city took away the privacy and personal dignity of rural life. However, the cities also gave opportunities for education and healthcare- facilities lacking sorely in the rural areas and made survival and better future attainable.

Distinction based on wealth
The industrial revolution did not bring about equality in the society, but its major contribution is that it changed the basis of inequality in the society. Feudal society made the birth as the major distinction which was impossible to change, while industrial society made wealth as the basis, which made it possible for people to change their class. Of course, it was still a long way for the universal acceptance of the equality amongst all human beings, but at least it made the status based on birth redundant.

Social theories
Capitalism and Communism
There were many intellectuals who welcomed the industrial revolution for its practical use of scientific applications and innovations. They argued that industrialization made the lot of the common man better, as really was the case in its later phases, and made a case for Capitalism, with the welfare state as an ideal form of social structure. The industrial society is based on the market, and gives opportunity of growth and prosperity to every individual in the society, irrespective of race, religion or social position. Capitalism, they argued, was responsible for the liberation of the mankind from the rigid social structure of the feudal period, and thus should be welcomed for its positive role in the society.

Marx, who promulgated the theory of ‘Communism’ accepted that Capitalism was an improvement over the feudal society, but disagreed with the premise that industrialization was beneficial to the entire society. The major problem, he argued, was not with industrialization but with its resultant polarization of society into the rich moneyed class who owned the means of production on one hand and the much larger section of population who were workers on the other.

The Capitalist society, he argued, was neither just, nor it gave equality to all, as the workers were entirely as the mercy of the industrialists, and though they were responsible for creation of the wealth, received only a minor share of the profits. Marx postulated that the inherent contrast in the lifestyle of these two classes, brought about by exploitation of the working class by the capitalists, will bring about a revolution, and the society shall eventually progress towards socialism and communism – an ideal version of society according to Marx, based on equality of all mankind. The premise of equality of mankind in Socialism and Communism, had a major influence on the theories of architectural design of this period.

Romanticism
A vastly different view of the industrial revolution and its effects of society led to theories of romanticism. The disruption of the social fabric due to the industrial revolution was seen as a social evil by many thinkers, calling for a ‘back to nature’ philosophy. The proponents of this movement named ‘Romanticism’ were poets and writers like William Wordsworth, John Keats, Byron and Shelley.

The movement criticized the industrial society, called the large factories and their machinery "monstrous" in comparison with the traditional methods of work which was considered closer to "nature" and natural processes, and stressed the importance of ‘nature’ in art and language, in contrast to  machines and factories.

This movement glorified the rural traditions and culture, and the unspoiled & serene landscape of the rural settlements, and praised the virtues of traditional crafts. The Arts & crafts movement in architecture, which stressed the importance of traditional arts & craft, owes its origin to this Romanticism movement in literature.

Summary
The industrial revolution was responsible for dramatic change not only in the manufacturing of goods, but in the entire social structure, in making wealth the center of power, instead of birth. It was also responsible for the large-scale urbanization, leading to the problems of unhygienic and cramped human settlements and led to a debate on planned urban settlements. But most importantly, it shifted the focus of architecture from monuments to buildings of everyday use. Eventually this led to new theories of architecture and made creation of conducive environment for the end user as the main purpose of architectural design. Though the industrial revolution is also responsible for invention of new materials like cement, steel glass and cement, it was not the materials but the change in the focus of architectural design that made modern architecture possible, and changed the face of the human settlements.

Does Context Matter?

Does Context Matter?

Architects consider themselves as creative professionals, and take great pride in the visual quality of the built form of their creations – the only part of architectural design that the rest of the world understands. Unfortunately, this has resulted in identifying architecture only with its visual form, at the cost of all the other finer aspects aspects of design. In most of the cities today, there seems to be some kind of competition amongst architects in trying to make their designs strikingly in contrast to their contexts, without a second thought as to the effect this would have on the overall urban landscape. The more outrageous the form, the more the project gets talked about. The developer is happy as a building in news gets more buyers and more rate, the architect is happy to be in the limelight, may even get awards, and if the city becomes more chaotic, neither the architect nor the developer have to live or work there anyway; what we really preserve are the photographs on the day of the inauguration. I recollect a photograph of Hongkong documenting the resultant chaos, in a presentation by Jimmy Lim, with his typical dry comment about how you need to shout in order to be heard in a scenario where the background noise is too loud.

Of course, saner voices too prevail sometimes, calling for confirmity to the context and providing a sense of belonging to the context, but when they become institutionalised in the form of guidelines or regulations, they tilt the scale to the other extreme, refusing to accept any variation in the theme, putting a virtual stop to all creative intepretations of the context. It is no wonder that architects resent this. The urban design guidelines for Chandigad is a case in point. The interpretation of the context of Chandigad is frozen in a set of regaulations so rigid that they have effectively killed all creativity and made the city monotonous in character.

The correct response to any physical context must lie somewhere in between these two extremes, though not always in a manner directly apparent. Sometimes the new project itself may redefine the context. When the Eiffel Tower was being built, there was a lot of opposition to this ‘monstrous’ building, and it subsided only when it was clarified that this was a temperory structure anyway, and would be eventually dismantled and shipped away. But its continued presense has redefined the context, and has equated it with the image of the city, so much so that you can not think of Paris now without the Eiffel Tower.

And there are many more examples all over the world. The Sydney Opera House, which has become an icon of Sydney now, was built over a site which had an existing structure with heritage value. Conservationists may now have an academic debate over the virtue of promoting current iconic architecture by demolishing the heritage of the past, but there are no clear-cut conclusions or solutions.

Indians in general have scant regard for the historic setting which most of our old cities have, but there are exceptions too. First we had the Delhi Urban Arts Commission Act and then the Mumbai Heritage Precinct Regulations and the regulations for protection of French Quarter in Pondicherry. But these are very typical and interesting exceptions. Perhaps we have some kind of awe still left over about our colonial rulers, and the remnants of western classical architecture which they have left here as legacy of that rule.

So when Charles Correa designed the LIC Building in Connaught Place, New Delhi, people derided it as they felt that the huge concrete and glass tower would deface the heritage quality of the place. Little is known about the original design by Correa in which he sought to integrate the huge plaza at the ground level as an extension of Connaught Place, making it directly accessible from the street; a proposal that was rejected by the authorities, brought up in the British tradition of treating the common people of the city as an undesirable element that the building and its occupants need to be protected against by a high compound wall and an entrance gate with armed security personnel. It was much later, in the design of the city centre for Kolkota, that Correa would actually realise the creation of a truly accessible public place for the city.

What Correa was trying to do was to reflect the ambience of Connaught Place as a democratic public place; without following any of its architectural styles, which are british versions of the renaissance architecture in India, like the rest of the Lutyens Delhi. The problem with such an approach is that it is a bit too difficult to understand on paper and hence may get caught up in the regulations about confirmity to context. Delhi Urban Arts Commission, had it based its approving process on the basis of Chandigad regulations, would never have cleared Correa’s proposal. Correa, being a much acclaimed and respected architect, has been credited with the statement ‘the context of Connaught Place begins with the new LIC building’, though I am not sure whether he himself said this or any one his ardent admirers. However, I agree totally with the sentiment, and I think we must give him credit for now redefining the context of Connaught Place, in spite of the fact that his original scheme was not fully executed.

But in general, we are not much bothered about all these issues, most of the them are debated only in academic circles. Contrary to this, the journalists of the first world are quite active about this as I have remarked earlier. A case in point is the shifting of Apple Flagship retail store in San Francisco. Apple Inc., an American multinational corporation headquartered in Cupertino, California, is the world's second-largest information technology company by revenue and the world's third-largest mobile phone maker. Fortune magazine has named Apple the most admired company in the world. Naturally, people in California are proud of its achievements.

Apple recently submitted plans for its new retail store in the Union Square in place of the Levis Stores that now occupies the site. Initially everybody thought it would be a welcome addition to the place. San Franciso’s Mayor Lee described the new Apple Store as “quite simply incredible” and that he could think of “no better location for the world’s most stunning Apple Store than right here in Union Square”.

But when people realized that Apple, and the store’s architect Norman Foster had not accounted for the famous bronze folk art fountain existing in the site, it became a point of public contention. The Mayor retracted his statement and admitted that he didn’t realize that the plans called for the elimination of the Ruth Asawa fountain.

The reason for this turnabout lies in the history of the fountain. It is designed by Ruth Asawa, a Japanese American sculptor, who was the driving force behind the creation of the San Francisco School of the Arts, which was renamed recently as the Ruth Asawa San Francisco School of the Arts in tribute to her. The fountain was Installed in 1973 and was made of baker’s clay and cast in bronze. It is seven feet high and a focal point of a triangular-shaped public square behind the Levis outlet. According to Asawa herself, “The fountain depicts San Francisco, and approximately 250 friends and school children helped in its making by contributing self-portraits, cars, buildings, and various San Francisco landmarks.”

The fountain is part of the public memory in SF for 40 years now. Apple’s proposal therefore evoked strong resentment. Not only that, the initial proposal for the building is a characterless box of metal and glass that contributes nothing unique to the local landscape, and has no identity except the Apple symbol in the centre of the huge glass façade on Post street, while the façade on Stokton street is a dead wall with a similar symbol. The Glass façade of the building faces Post street on South, and would be exposed to direct solar radiation for most of the day, a design feature that shows utter disregard to the climate of the region.

San Francisco Chronicle urban design critic John King pointed out the absurdity of “a company renowned for design innovation hiring one of the world’s most acclaimed architecture firms, only to unload a box that would look at home in Anymall, U.S.A.”

About the dead wall of the building on the east side facing the Stokton Street, another critic sarcastically commented that perhaps “Apple envisions that side of the building to be livened up occasionally with lines of consumers around the corner waiting to buy new iPhones”, revoking memories of the long queues of Apple-crazy Americans at all Apple stores at the launch of almost every new Apple product.

However, the news item from arch.daily.com also mentioned that ‘..not every Apple store design is as disquieting as this one. Their store in the Georgetown neighborhood of Washington DC, for example, is fairly well-integrated into the existing style and framework of the street while still maintaining its trademark sleek and modern style.’ This was rebutted by a respondent claiming that Apple had no option in the Georgetown site, and can not be given credit for respecting the context there. Indeed, the Georgetown area in Washington DC has a very strong historical character, like many other parts of Washington DC, and has Conservation Guidelines in place. So the San Fracisco example is what Apple can do, left to itself, while the Georgetown Apple store seems to be something that Apple was forced to do, not what it would have been willing to do on its own.

This in fact is true of all the multinational companies and their views on architectural design at large: they would go at any length to promote a brand and its image and would like to create a standardised architecture that would be identified with the image of the company rather than the urban context in which it is situated. It seems that they are afraid of losing their corporate identity if their flagship projects integrate into the existing streetscape instead of outshining every other building by their forms and structures.

But this is not the only issue: in trying to reflect the corporate brand identity we tend to convert architecture itself into a product, reliquinshing its primary role in place-making in an urban setting. Architectural intervention in any existing context goes beyond merely confirming to the heritage regulations. It is not the treatment of façade or such other features of the existing buildings around that matter in the long run, but the sensitivity to the needs of people and enhancing the quality of public place in an urban setting. This is what gives the place a unique identity and which tends to get destroyed by the imposition of brand images. As a respondent on the article in arch.daily commented, ‘the world would be better off without the generic chain stores of drive throughs, gas stations, shopping malls etc that plague our cities.’

Fortunately, in this particular case, Apple bowed to the will of the people, and made a revised proposal, which incorporated the fountain, but reduced the size of the open plaza, as the apple building is rectangular (the existing Levis building is triangular) and covers a part of the existing triangular plaza. This gesture could not have come at a more appropriate time - Ruth Asawa died on 5^th August. So it became some kind of tribute to her. The news item in SFGate starts with the line - ‘Ruth Asawa fans can rest easy - the artist's beloved bronze fountain near Union Square is staying pretty much right where it is.’

The design of the building, however, has not changed, its remains a tall, taut cube of glass and steel from Post Street (South side). The only difference is that instead of being walled off by steel panels on the Stokton street, the design includes an 8-foot-wide glass "window" in the centre of the East wall, which continues over the roof, becoming a skylight. Both these changes – retention of the fountain & the opening up of the Stokton street façade have been appreciated by the Mayor, as Christine Falvey, Lee's director of communications has been quoted in the news. And here the matter rests. As it happens, the last item on the SFGate online news is an announcement of the Public Memorial service for Ruth Asawa.

Public memory, so it is said, is short. A former head of KGB would never have become a democratically elected President in Russia otherwise. But it seems that when public places in an urban setting have been retained in collective public memory for more than a generation, the sentiments attached to them do not fade. Architects, as creative professionals, need to be sensitive to this intangible aspect of our public spaces.

Neo-classicism

Neo-classicism & Eclecticism - Architecture as status symbol

Architecture before the industrial revolution was essentially architecture of the establishment, be it the king & lords or the religious institutions. These patrons of architecture had huge resources at their disposal, and the agenda for architecture was to create monuments befitting the status of the establishment.

So it follows that a major part of architecture of this period is either the palaces or places of worship. Agriculture was the mainstay of the economy but the farmers were at the lowest level of the social pyramid and had no means to make any spectacular construction. It was the elite section of the society that collected taxes on agriculture, the landlords and the king, the so called idle rich, that had superfluous wealth which they used to build monuments.

Influence of Religion

Religion encompasses all the sections of the society, and it would seem that the religious structures would reflect the aspirations of the masses, but this was not the case for religious architecture. It was actually built with the support of the ruling elite as it was in their owninterests to do so. When the Roman Emperor Constantine realized that majority of people under his rule had turned Christians, he embraced Christianity himself in order to prevent possible revolts against his rule.In fact it was Emperor Constantine who built Hagia Sophia, the biggest byzantinian church, using all the resources he had as an Emperor. Rulers everywhere in the world were willing to support religious activities, including financial support to the religious establishment & building of religious structures. In turn the religious institutions granted sanctity to the ruler, by performing the coronation ceremony of every new king (symbolizing divine sanction) and thereby making his rule seem legitimate in the eyes of the people.

In the Egyptian culture, where the king was also the head of the religion, the tombs of the Egyptian Kings were symbols of power of both the state & the religion. It was not a question of how large a structure one would need as a memorial, it was basically an issue of how great & imposing monument could be built to commemorate the might of these institutions.The pyramidsdefy all norms in terms of functional suitability or the ratio of carpet area to built-up area. Greek & Roman temples fared better in this aspect, but that was not relevant anyway. What mattered was the visual quality of the structure, and hence the importance in the classical architecture on use ofnoble materials, scale and form, balance, rhythm and proportions, and ornamentation.

The later periods saw the bifurcation of the state & the religion, but both the institutions continued to build in the same fashion. Architecture, it is said, is the ultimate status symbol of a civilization. A permanent reminder of the might of the establishment, it is a tool to showcase the best a society can offer in terms of material wealth, its technological advancement and cultural finesse.

Industrial Economy

What the industrial revolution fundamentally changed was the very nature of power in the society. It was during this period that for the first time in human history that the divine right of the kings to rule was questioned, and United States America became the first republican state of modern history, a state managed by people themselves democratically.The French Revolution also tried to end the institution of monarchy and was nearly successful, though it gave rise to a new emperor in Napoleon. Many other states in Europe, though monarchial in their constitution, had slowly moved towards the democratic rule. In England the House of Commons became more important and though the British monarchy continued, the de-facto rule of the state was in the hands of the elected representatives of the people.

Naturally, the agenda for the state changed to the welfare of the people, and though the construction of new palaces did not end immediately with the industrial era, these had to be built with personal resources as the state support for construction of these kind of structures was not forthcoming anymore. 

The state support and funding was now directed towards institutions for the general public – education, health, and utilities like public transportation. As industries were now becoming the major source of employment for the people, development of infrastructure for the industries and trades became a priority for the state.

Change of focus for architecture

Hence architecture now had to cater to the new kinds of buildings that this changed focus of state required – public institutional buildings like government offices, hospitals, schools & colleges, Town halls, libraries, museums, railway stations and so on. The industries were anothergroup of patrons for architecture, and they required trading halls, markets, industrial sheds & godowns.

None of these building types had any historical parallels, and no standards for design. The issue before the architects was either to provide a new theory of architectural design for these new structures or to follow the classical renaissance architecture, modifying it to some extent to accommodate the new function of the building.

Problem of precedent

The first option was not only difficult as a new theory of design would need originality of thought, but its fate also would be uncertain because there was no guarantee that it would be accepted by the client & the society. The second option – following the classical building style - was easier and preferred by both the architects and their patrons alike, and was followed to a large extent for almost all the public buildings of the period.

It would seem strange that the symbols of the bygone powers would be embraced by the new democratically elected leaders of the state, but these leaders were also in search of new status symbols through architecture and thought it befitting to borrow from the classical traditions.

This apparently strange phenomena is not without its precedents. The St. Peters, the most important symbolic building for Christianity has borrowed its architecture from the idol-worshiping cultures of the Greek & Romans, and the grand obelisk in the centre of its large piazza is borrowed from the Egyptian culture. It was simply a quest for providing the most impressive form in architecture, based on its visual quality, the origin of the form or its earlier religious, social & cultural association was irrelevant.

Revival of the classical tradition

Thus the state sponsored architecture saw a revival of classical tradition all over the new democratic republic of the United State of America. The White House and the House of Representatives are both based on renaissance architecture, the Washington memorial is a replica of the Egyptian obelisk, and the façade of the Lincoln Memorial is a copy of Parthenon without the pediment. A powerful image for the democratic rule was sought using the classical renaissance architecture for the new national capital,  as it was associated with power and the cultural supremacy of the earlier feudal societies.

The Washington example was the model not only for other state capitols and government buildings in the United States of America, it became the architectural style for the new rich class of industrialists all over Europe & America, who were also obsessed with the idea of creating symbols of their newly acquired power through architecture. So the same architectural style was followed for the buildings of everyday use like banks & financial institutions, public libraries, museums and even theatres: what mattered was the visual quality of architecture, not the actual function of the building.

Neo-classicism

So large-scale was this phenomenon, that eventually historians gave it a title – neo-classicism. The buildings further got divided in two sub-categories – historicism & eclecticism. The difference is in these two styles was based on the extent to which the classical tradition was followed. Historicism would mean that the new construction would be based on some specific classical example (like Parthenon) and from the outside would look like a Greek temple or a Cathedral, but would be housing a bank headquarters inside.

Naturally, there arose a lot of issues with this kind of compromise. One often quoted example is that of a bank building, designed on the basis of Parthenon, where the architect refused to make any subdivisions in the ground floor,thereby cancelling out the demand for a partitioned cabin for the bank manager, stating that such partition would spoil the classical beauty of its architecture. The Owner of the Bank sided with the architect and the manager had to be content with a cabin in the basement.

Cathedral as prototype

Fortunately, the examples chosen were mainly cathedrals, which had good height, spacious outlay, and lot of light befitting its original purpose of religious assembly, and this was actually quite appropriate for majority of the public buildings of the period.The most popular among the classical examples was the Parthenon, with its huge colonnade and triangular pediment, which served as the entrance lobby for the new age public buildings. The main floor was raised high to create a huge flight of steps, and the subfloor was used to house most of the services required by the new functionof the buildinglike toilets &locker rooms and so on.

For a majority of public buildings, with large floor area and a few floors (typically two to three floors), the palaces were also a good model. The renaissance palace with organization of services on the ground floor, large reception halls on first floor and private rooms & bedrooms on the third floor, worked very well for such structures. Even here, the Parthenon frontage was used extensively for the entrance porch.

The capping feature of many of these buildings was the high dome of St. Peters with its lantern lighting, and has been used right from the House of Congress in Washington DC to many of the state capital buildings. The materials of construction and the technology however, was modern and this created certain issues for design. For example, when the roof was flat reinforced concrete slab, the pediment was out of question. The original Greek version was designed for a sloping timber roof, resulting in the front gable end. So we have here variations on theme, like elimination of the pediment in the Lincoln memorial at Washington, or creating a pediment for the front porch only, while the remaining portion of the building rose high with a flat roof and cornice.

Problems with high-rise buildings

The problem arose when the buildings had to be built for more than two or three stories. Here the classical precedent was of no use directly. Most of the classical structures were only Ground Floor structures, though this is not directly apparent due to their great heights (St. Peters, for example, is 452’ high, though it has only one functional floor), and such a pattern was impossible to follow in a skyscraper. The main problem was the height to width ratio of the building, which would never match the historical examples.

While the proposal submitted by Adolf Loos in the Chicago Tribune competition, where the skyscraper takes the form one single classical column may seem like parody of the attempt to build a sky-scraper in the classical tradition, a practical solution to this problem was found – by using specific elements from the classical building, and selectively applying them to the building elevation, while the overall form of the building had no relation to the classical tradition.

This compromise of combining the classical elements with the modern forms had two advantages. It enabled the designing of the building for its function without bothering about the classical precedent, while thevisual effect was classical as most of the elements in its elevation were borrowed from the classical traditions. It satisfied the seemingly contradictory requirements of a modern building with functional design but a classical appearance, but needed a good designer to compose all the varied classical elements in the elevation in a harmonious manner like the winning entry by Raymond Hood for the Chicago tribune building.

Called ‘eclecticism’, this style of design was followed by many others as a valid architectural design solution, and became immensely popular. The lower floors of a large skyscraper thus would have the Greek Temple Frontage, all with the large Doric/Ionic/Corinthian column arcades, creating a public entry with a large flight of steps leading directly to the first floor, while the upper levels of the building would have renaissance palace windows with repetition of the pediments. Multiple combinations of colonnades and windows appeared, including the topping of domes & so on.

It must be clarified here that the architects of all these buildings were equally concerned about the functional issues of design. Most of these buildings were designed with due consideration to the function and organization of the building, the structural system and services. The fact that the building should function well for its current function was not lost on the Owners and the architects alike. The classical model was followed only for its visual appeal.

Problem of relevance

The problem was that this solution came with a cost of duplicity. Concrete & steel was used to create an appearance of stone, and the size of columns & many other parts of the elevation (the column base, pediments & so on) was too huge and not really inappropriate as both these materials had much larger structural capability which not really used. Most of the structural organization, at least in the elevation of the building, was false. But by far the most relevant issue for the architects was – how can a feudal or religious building become a model for an office building or hospital which had no thematic connection with these feudal structures with a different societal structure, different materials and building technology and a much different lifestyle of the users?

A solution to this pertinent question was sought to be answered by many theoreticians of the era, whose theories we shall discuss in the next chapter.