UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI _____________ , 20 _____ I,______________________________________________, hereby submit this as part of the requirements for the degree of: ________________________________________________ in: ________________________________________________ It is entitled: ________________________________________________ ________________________________________________ ________________________________________________ ________________________________________________ Approved by: ________________________ ________________________ ________________________ ________________________ ________________________ A Study of the Lap-Joint in Architecture An Investigation submitted to the University of Cincinnati Division of Research and Advanced Studies in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARCHITECTURE School of Architecture of the College of Design Architecture Art and Planning 2003 by Matthew C. Winter B.S. Arch., University of Cincinnati, 2001 B.S. Agricultural Business, Illinois State University, 1995 Committee Chairs: David L. Niland Aarati Kanekar Abstract The threshold between the identities of different neighborhoods can be seen as a lap joint in which information about “the other” is exchanged creating a dynamically charged environment. Groups tend to respond to the tension of this space from two extreme positions. The groups tend to respond to the tension from two extreme positions. The first that the groups are incompatible and should remain separate, an impossible position most like Foucault’s Utopian Space. The second that fundamentally we are all the same, a position that undermines the power of BOTH positions. The architecture of this zone should be a lap joint which brings together differing conditions, creating a connection, while maintaining the power and identity of the two individual elements. Architecture in this position can also be seen as a doorway or gate which mediates between two places and also creates an area of crossing between the two. Acknowledgements I need to thank many different people for their input into this investigation. There are several ways in which those listed have helped. Some have been in direct support of the discovery and development of the topic. Others have helped with its realization through the written as well as design components. Still others have been important emotional supports during the process of working which has been only the most nebulous of paths. The relationship between the designing, reading, writing, and questioning has laid a foundation upon which further work will proceed. The end result of idea development is not a discrete work, but a snapshot which brackets a certain period of work. Several investigations are included in those brackets including the relationship between an idea and its realization in the built form. What has been realized is a set of critical faculties that will continue to be developed in and through various forms of the practice of Architecture. I would like to thank the following people for the part they played in the identification and development of the opening moves toward my future trajectory as well as emotional and spiritual support along the way: All of my Family My friends and loved ones here and elsewhere including all of the 2003 graduates in Architecture Special thanks to, Melissa, Bill, Aaron, Abby, Bodart, Nick, and Brooke. The Hagestad Family. Terry Boling and Jose Garcia for their mentorship as working, thinking, and playing Architects. My thesis chairs- David Niland and Aarati Kanekar. 1 Table of Contents List of Illustrations……………………………………………………………………….........2-3 Introduction and Definitions…………………………………………………………………4-9 Part One – The Lap Joint in Art, Architecture, and Popular Culture…………..10-27 Part Two - The design…………………………………………………………………….28-33 Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………………34-35 Bibliography………………………………………………………………………………………36 2 List of Illustrations Figure 1. Mies Van Der Rohe 1950-1956 - Curtis, William J. R. Modern Architecture Since 1900. London: Phaidon Press Limited, 1996, 402. 2. Mies Van Der Rohe Crown Hall 1950-1956 - Curtis, William J. R. Modern Architecture Since 1900. London: Phaidon Press Limited, 1996, 402. 3. Versailles Media Cartes Accessed 14/05/03 Available at http://www.media- cartes.fr/Plan_ville_Versailles.htm 4. Chateau de Versailles The Chateau, The Museum Accessed 14/05/03 Available at http://www.chateauversailles.fr/EN/100.asp 5. Lap Joint – Author’s Diagram. 6. Butt Joint – Author’s Diagram. 7. Jesus von Nazareth Blinde Kuh Berühmte Kinder / Jesus Accessed 18/4/03 Available at http://www.blinde-kuh.de/ kinder/jesus.html. 8. Alvar Aalto Finlandia Hall – Author’s Sketch Plan. 9. Alvar Aalto Paimio Sanitorium 1929-1933 – Author’s Photograph. 10. Alvar Aalto Paimio Sanitorium 1929-1933 – Author’s Photograph. 11. Alvar Aalto Paimio Sanitorium 1929-1933 – Author’s Photograph. 12. Alvar Aalto Finlandia Hall 1967-1971 – Porphyrios, Demetri. Sources of Modern Eclecticism-Studies on Alvar Aalto. London: Academy Editions, 1982, 15. 13. Alvar Aalto Villa Mairea 1938-1941 – Curtis, William J. R. Modern Architecture Since 1900. London: Phaidon Press Limited, 1996, 346. 14. Author’s drawing of initial site plan. 15. Author’s drawing of initial building elevation. 16. Author’s drawing of later site plan. 17. Author’s drawing of Hydrotherapy House elevation. 18. Author’s partial drawing of Hydrotherapy House elevation. 19. Alvar Aalto Synatsalo Town Hall 1949-1952 “Laura’s Photos” The Architectural Forum. Accessed 4/25/03 available at http://www.wellesley.edu/Activities/homepage/architecturalforum/photos/laur a.html 3 20. Author’s drawing of later building Hydrotherapy House plan at date of publication. 21. Author’s partial drawing of later building Hydrotherapy House Box plan. 22. Mies Van Der Rohe Barcelona Pavilion 1928-1929 “Deutschlandfunk” DeutschlandRadio. Accessed 4/25/03. Available at http://www.dradio.de/dlf/sendungen/langenacht/021026.html 4 Introduction The concepts of separation and connection or similarity and difference originate at a basic level in the human consciousness.1 Categories among groups with differing identities are well documented. Each group is well versed and represented by theories, policies, behavior, and even legislature that outline and reinforce its particular identity. Virtually every city has Hate-crime laws designed to protect homosexuals, transvestites, or trans-gendered individuals. Corporations such as Disney or Delta extend benefits to same sex partners under common-law marriage. These activities are based on the differentiation of these groups from others and simply reinforce the creation of a binary relationship among them. Binary relationships inevitably setup a power struggle where one group is favored and the “other” exists to serve the one. Humans use these processes to carve up the space on this planet. The political divisions exist at every level imaginable including the creation of boundaries defined by government, economics, sociology, religion, and every endeavor. The topic that will be addressed here is not the groups themselves, but the interpretation, character, and use of the space that exists between them. Two major interpretations of in-between space have been used by architectural critics to categorize spatial relationships. The origin of these terms and ideas is generally attributed to the work of Michel Foucault in his work, The Order of Things. The first of these terms is homotopia, which makes use of a pervasive unity; the Modernist Grid of Mies van der Rohe (Figures 1 and 2) or the Chateau of Louis XIV at Versailles (Figure 3) are two examples. 1 Simone De Beauvoir, The Second Sex H.M. Parshley, Translator and Editor (New York: Alfred A Knopf, 1957) xvi-xvii. 5 Figure 1 Figure 2 The plan of Crown Hall by Mies Van der Rohe has been described as… …an imaginary grid whose universality guaranteed an immaculate homogeneity. It was as if, by gridding space, one safeguarded against all accidents or intrusions, and established instead an idealized field of likeness. Were it not for the sudden intervention of a curtain wall, that magic screen of the grid could, in fact, extend for ever, enveloping the whole world and cleansing it of all its regularity.2 Figure 3 Figure 4 The plan of Versailles is similar, Louis XIV wanted his power to intimidate those who would visit, his power extending visually to the horizon, and metaphorically to the end Earth. The grids of both projects project power outward in an effort to exhibit and maintain control. These designs provide an ordering or referential system that generates a stability through the display of power over anyone or 2 Demetri Porphyrios, Sources of Modern Eclecticism-Studies on Alvar Aalto (London: Academy Editions, 1982) 1. 6 anything within its reach. Any element that is within the scope of the grid is reformatted in relation to the ordering system and the power it emanates. The systems are intended to extend to infinity, metaphorically eradicating any individuality within its reach. Homotopia has been defined as, “…the state of mind where differences are put aside and expansive unities are established.”3 Homotopia sets up the condition of a continual power struggle; the dominant position always seeking to capture or control the “Other” within its own frame. The political tension of the relationship is maintained, but this tension comes from that struggle for power, and not from the discovery and exchange of different information about the “Other”