Precision in Architectural Production
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Precision in Architectural Production PhD 2016 Mhairi McVicar Abstract In the professionalised context of contemporary architectural practice, precise communications are charged with the task of translating architectural intentions into a prosaic language to guarantee certainty in advance of construction. To do so, regulatory and advisory bodies advise the architectural profession that ‘the objective is certainty.’1 Uncertainty is denied in a context which explicitly defines architectural quality as ‘fitness for purpose.’2 Theoretical critiques of a more architectural nature, meanwhile, employ a notably different language, applauding risk and deviation as central to definitions of architectural quality. Philosophers, sociologists and architectural theorists, critics and practitioners have critiqued the implications of a built environment constructed according to a framework of certainty, risk avoidance, and standardisation, refuting claims that communication is ever free from slippage of meaning, or that it ever it can, or should, be unambiguously precise when attempting to translate the richness of architectural intentions. Through close readings of architectural documentations accompanying six architectural details constructed between 1856 and 2006, this thesis explores the desire for, and consequences of, precision in architectural production. From the author’s experience of a 2004 self-build residence in the Orkney Islands, to architectural critiques of mortar joints at Sigurd Lewerentz’s 1966 Church of St Peter’s, Klippan; from the critical rejection of the 1856 South Kensington Iron Museum, to Caruso St John Architects’ resistance to off-the-peg construction at their 2006 entrance addition to the same relocated structure in Bethnal Green; and from the precise deviation of a pressed steel window frame at Mies van der Rohe’s 1954 Commons Building at IIT, Chicago, to the precise control of a ‘crude’ gypsum board ceiling at OMA’s 2003 adjoining McCormick Tribune Campus Centre, this thesis explores means by which precision in architectural production is historically and critically defined, applied, pursued and challenged in pursuit of the rich ambiguities of architectural quality. 1 Francis Hall, ‘Specifying for quality’, The Architects’ Journal, 199, 23, (8 June 1994) p.38. 2 British Standards Institute British Standards BS 4778-2:1991, Quality vocabulary - Part 2: Quality concepts and related definitions (London: British Standards Institute, 1991), p.3. i DECLARATION This work has not been submitted in substance for any other degree or award at this or any other university or place of learning, nor is being submitted concurrently in candidature for any degree or other award. Signed: (Mhairi McVicar) Date: 4 January 2017 STATEMENT 1 This thesis is being submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of PhD. Signed: (Mhairi McVicar) Date: 4 January 2017 STATEMENT 2 This thesis is the result of my own independent work/investigation, except where otherwise stated, and the thesis has not been edited by a third party beyond what is permitted by Cardiff University’s Policy on the Use of Third Party Editors by Research Degree Students. Other sources are acknowledged by explicit references. The views expressed are my own. Signed: (Mhairi McVicar) Date: 4 January 2017 STATEMENT 3 I hereby give consent for my thesis, if accepted, to be available online in the University’s Open Access repository and for inter-library loan, and for the title and summary to be made available to outside organisations. Signed: (Mhairi McVicar) Date: 4 January 2017 STATEMENT 4: PREVIOUSLY APPROVED BAR ON ACCESS I hereby give consent for my thesis, if accepted, to be available online in the University’s Open Access repository and for inter-library loans after expiry of a bar on access previously approved by the Academic Standards & Quality Committee. Signed n/a Date n/a ii Acknowledgments I would like to give my sincere thanks to: My supervisors, Adam Sharr and Stephen Kite; For support in permitting access to original documentation and for interviews: Arkitektur och designcentrum; Robert Moye, Museum of Childhood; Peter St John, Caruso St John Architects; Chicago History Museum; David Kohn, Kohn Architects; Grant Turner, Stone Restoration Services; Victoria and Albert Museum Drawings collection and Blythe House; Paul Galloway, Study Center Supervisor for the Department of Architecture & Design, Museum of Modern Art, New York; Catherine Bruck and Ralph Pugh, University Archives and Special Collections, Illinois Institute of Technology, Galvin Library; The Edward Duckett collection, The Art Institute of Chicago; Papers of Mies van der Rohe, Collections of the Manuscript Division, Library of Congress, Washington D.C; Greg Grunloh, Holabird & Root Architecture; Kevin Harrington, Professor Emeritus of Architectural History, Illinois Institute of Technology; Mark Schendel, Studio Gang; OMA Rotterdam. For conversations which challenged, defined and supported this thesis as it developed, and for very kindly taking the time to share references and inspirations: Sam Austin, Juliet Davis, Paul Emmons, David Leatherbarrow, Juliet Odgers, Richard Powell, Mark Sustr, Simon Unwin, Ed Wainwright, Liz Walder and Richard Weston. Dedicated to my parents, and Kevin, Euan, Ailsa and P. iii List of Contents Abstract………………………………………………………………………...............…....i Declaration…………………………………………………………………………….….…ii Acknowledgments…………………………………………………………………...…..…iii List of Contents…………………………………….………………………………...….....iv List of Illustrations……………………………………………..…………….………..…...vii Illustration Credits……………………………………………………………………......xvii List of Abbreviations………………………………………………………………….....xviii 1. Introduction: Precision and the pursuit of certainty…………………................1 1.1 Aims………………………………………………………………………...2 1.2 Method: reading the documents of architectural production………….3 1.3 Structure…………………………………………………………………...9 PART A: PERSONAL ENCOUNTERS WITH PRECISION…………………………..14 Part A: Opening……………………………………………………………………….......15 2. Promises of precise control at Wheelingstone..............................................16 2.1 Prediction and intuition……………….…………………………………17 2.2 The flagstone wall, as built……………………………………………..20 2.3 Precisely defined intentions..............................................................27 2.4 The flagstone wall, as proposed……………………………………….33 2.5 Deviating from a precise prediction…………………………………....36 3. The precise control of ‘crude’ joints at St Peter’s……………………………..37 3.1 Precise deviations……………………………………………………….38 3.2 ‘Not a conventional neatness’: measuring mortar joints...................43 3.3 A quantitative definition of the quality of a mortar joint………………55 3.4 Two languages of architectural quality………………………………..62 PART B: INTERPRETATIONS AND USES OF PRECISION………………………..63 Part B: Opening……………………………………………………………………………64 4. Defining precision………………………………………………………………...65 4.1 Precision as exactitude………………………………………………….65 4.2 Precision as abstraction………………………………………………...68 4.3 Examining claims of precise communications………………………..69 iv 5. Interpreting precision in architectural production……………………………..75 5.1 ‘The objective must be certainty’………………………………………76 5.2 Theorizing architectural production……………………………………78 5.3 Ambiguities in precise architectural communications…………….....85 5.4 The uncertainties of the construction site……………………………..89 5.5 The productive nature of uncertainty…………………………………..93 5.6 The ongoing pursuit of precision in architectural production………..97 6. Precision in the histories of architectural production……..…..………………99 6.1. Changing definitions of precision in architectural production……...100 6.2 Emerging precision in architectural production...............................101 6.3 Analytical precision in early Renaissance drawings………………..106 6.4 Describing ‘reality with absolute precision’.....................................114 6.5 The promises of industrially produced precision……………………120 6.6 Scientific and practical perfection in a USA profession…………….125 6.7 Mediating science and art……………………………………………..135 6.8 The disputed consequences of precision……………………………141 PART C: FOUR CLOSE READINGS OF PRECISION………………….…..………143 Part C: Opening……………………………...…………………………………………..144 7. A precise specification for the 1856 Iron Museum…………………………..145 7.1 ‘An architectural front of cast iron’………..…………………………..146 7.2 Debating nineteenth century architectural production……………...151 7.3 The exactitude of the Crystal Palace………………………………...161 7.4 The design, construction, and rejection of the Iron Museum……...172 7.5 Architectural ambitions for the Bethnal Green Museum…………...181 7.6 Different drawings playing different roles’…………………………...189 7.7 Architecture as an optional extra in a precise specification……….192 8. Anticipating precision at the Museum of Childhood…………………………193 8.1 The limits of precision………………………………………………….194 8.2 ‘The Architect sets the standards’……………………………………199 8.3. A resistance to ‘off-the-peg construction’……………………………205 8.4 ‘A very fine joint, like marquetry’……………………………………...213 8.5 Precisely specifying a very fine joint…………………………………221 8.6 The construction of a very fine joint………………………………….226 8.7 Deviating from the idealised…………………………………………..237 8.8 You don’t actually hit the tolerances…………………………………243 8.9 Defining what you want………………………………………………..248 v 9. The precise control of deviation at the Commons…………………………..250 9.1 A meeting between Mies and OMA…………………………………..251 9.2 Industrial methods and mediaeval craftsmanship…………………..255