THE SOCIO-SPATIAL AESTHETICS OF SPACE FORMATION A New Perspective on the Concepts and Architecture of Walter Gropius and Aldo van Eyck LIST OF CONTENTS SAMENVATTING 9 SUMMARY 25 PREFACE 41 INTRODUCTION 43 Structure 49 1 THEORETICAL ASSUMPTIONS, BASIC AND METHODOLOGICAL 53 APPROACH AND RELEVANCE 1.1 The Thesis of the Socio-spatial Aesthetics of Architectural Space Formation 53 1.2 Basic Approach 69 1.3 Research Questions, Methodological Approach and Relevance 73 2 THE APPROACH OF AUGUST SCHMARSOW AND TWO OTHER 79 APPROACHES TO ARCHITECTURAL SPACE FORMATION 2.1 Space Formation in Architectural Theory until the Beginning of the 80 Twentieth century 2.2 Relating Aesthetics and Purposiveness: Three Approaches to Space 84 Formation 2.3 Conclusion 98 3 WALTER GROPIUS’S APPROACH TO (THE PERCEPTION OF) SPACE 101 3.1 A Perception-oriented Approach to (Architectural) Space 102 3.2 László Moholy-Nagy and Theo Van Doesburg 110 3.3 Conclusion 115 4 WALTER GROPIUS’S (IMPLICIT) REFERENCE TO ARCHITECTURAL 119 SPACE FORMATION 4.1 The Overall Approach to Architectural Design 122 4.2 From Overall Approach to Architectural Work: 132 Gropius’s (Implicit) Reference to Space Formation 4.2.1 From Bauhaus Dessau to Harvard Graduate Centre: 137 Architectural Space Formation in the Context of Designing Use 4.2.2 From Wabenbau to Gropiusstadt: Architectural Space Formation 150 in the Context of Typification in Residential Building Construction 4.3 Conclusion 175 5 ALDO VAN EYCK’S APPROACH TO (THE PERCEPTION OF) SPACE 179 5.1 ‘Interiorizing’ Space and Time 181 5.2 Place, Experience and in-between 187 5.3 The Coincidence of Architecture and Man 195 5.4 Conclusion 197 6 ALDO VAN EYCK’S (IMPLICIT) REFERENCE TO ARCHITECTURAL 201 SPACE FORMATION 6.1 ‘Twin Phenomena’: A particular Reference to the Concept of Relativity 202 6.2 From Overall Approach to Architectural Work: 205 Van Eyck’s (Implicit) Reference to Space Formation 6.2.1 Orphanage, Pastoor Van Ars Church and Sonsbeek Pavilion: 211 Architectural Space Formation as the Designing of ‘in-between’ Spaces 6.2.2 ESTEC extension, Tripolis Complex and Court of Audit: 224 Designing the Twin Phenomena ‘Part-Whole’ 6.3 Conclusion 233 7 CONCLUSION: GROPIUS’S AND VAN EYCK’S WAYS 235 OF RELATING THE AESTHETICS AND PURPOSIVENESS OF ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN 7.1 Walter Gropius 236 7.2 Aldo van Eyck 239 7.3 Final Considerations 243 BIBLIOGRAPHY 247 ILLUSTRATION CREDITS 261 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 263 CURRICULUM VITAE 265 SUMMARY Introduction and problem statement This dissertation deals with ‘architectural space formation’, which is understood as the part of architectural and urban design that concerns the creation and structuring of physically defined spaces of inside and outside character separately as well as in relation to each other and to open space. Furthermore, it focuses on the fundamental significance of space formation in architectural design and aesthetics as well as the question of how Walter Gropius and Aldo van Eyck referred to space formation in their approaches towards architectural design and aesthetics separately, compared to each other, and in relation to the discussion of architectural space and space for- mation at the beginning of the twentieth century. In English, the term ‘space formation’ is a neologism; it exists merely as the literal interpretation of the German term ‘Raumbildung’. In the English language, the phe- nomenon of the creation of physically defined spaces has been addressed as either the ‘defining’ (Ching 1979) or ‘organisation’ (Unwin 1997) of space; within the Ger- man language, this phenomenon has remained a familiar concept in architectural dis- course since the end of the 19th century. However, and whether or not it is explicitly named as such, the phenomenon of space formation in architecture has been dis- cussed in different ways over the last five decades. Firstly, and mainly apart from the German language, the phenomenon has appeared in several educational books that explain the basic artistic principles of architectural design.9 Secondly, in other pri- marily German-language studies, architectural space itself has taken centre stage in a 9 Ching 1979, Von Meiss 1986, Unwin 1997, Janson 2006. 26 | SUMMARY conceptual way.10 Despite the diverging perspectives, both types of space formation examination primarily deal with architectural space at the level of its physical condi- tion and as a synthesis of solid forms and ‘empty’ space. Next to this, the purposive (i.e., use-related and socio-spatial) meaning of space formation is addressed in a ra- ther marginal way, while an aesthetic examination of space formation—that is, the handling of space formation in terms of sensuous perception—is more or less ne- glected. Since the 1980s, several other studies have quite successfully approached architectural space from a use-related, socio-spatial, and partially cultural perspec- tive.11 In comparison with the aforementioned educational books and the explicit theories on architectural space, these studies focus on architectural (and urban) space in terms of its individual and collective use and appropriation—including the mo- ment of use-related orientation and movement in space—and also partially in con- nection with its perception, which includes that of associated social and cultural meanings. In relation to all these (implicit) references to architectural space and (aspects of) its formation, this dissertation’s firstly focuses on space formation itself to thereby add to the existing knowledge a more concrete understanding of the artistic and aes- thetic significance of space formation within architectural design and aesthetics. By adopting the previously mentioned studies’ use-related and social perspective on ar- chitectural space, my research takes as its starting point the assumption that the fun- damental significance of space formation firstly lies in its purposive meaning to create defined spaces for particular and various uses and kinds of appropriation. Further- more, the significance lies in the corresponding quality of space formation to separate and connect spaces with one another and with open space through their physical enclosing and opening as well as through their spatial arrangement or configuration. In this vein, I regard space formation as representing an essential means for the spa- tial organisation of practical and social life. Secondly, this research departs from the assumption that space formation also represents the constituent of architectural de- sign that characterises architecture as a visual art and epitomises its aesthetic qual- ity—that is, the quality of architecture to generate a particular aesthetic experience. My contribution to a more concrete understanding of space formation’s signifi- cance within architectural design and aesthetics is now oriented towards the theoret- ical question of how—at the space formation level—the (use-related and socio-spa- tial) purposiveness of architectural design and its aesthetic experience are related. 10 Ungers 1963, Joedicke 1968, 1985, Van der Laan 1977, Meisenheimer 1978, 1984, Hajnóczi 1988, Schubert 2016. 11 Hillier and Hanson 1984, Feldtkeller 1989, Hertzberger 1996, Hillier 1996, Van Gameren 2006, Psarra 2009. THE SOCIO-SPATIAL AESTHETICS OF SPACE FORMATION | 27 This orientation has resulted in the elaboration of a particular theory on space for- mation: the thesis of the socio-spatial aesthetics of space formation, which I explain in Chapter 1. This dissertation’s second concern is to both combine this design–theoretical fo- cus on space formation with historical research and investigate Walter Gropius’s and Aldo van Eyck’s approaches to architectural design and aesthetics from the perspec- tive of this thesis. Here, I refer to Gropius as a protagonist of the so-called ‘Neues Bauen,’ and to Van Eyck as a protagonist of Team 10. The reason for particularly focusing on Gropius and Van Eyck is motivated by the fact that they likewise ap- proached architectural space from use-related (Gropius) and socio-spatial (Van Eyck) perspectives, which played a decisive role in their overall approaches to archi- tectural design. Next to this, both perspectives include a clear reference to space formation, although this reference is implicit in different ways. Most importantly, however—and different from the aforementioned studies as well as the approaches of all other protagonists of the Neues Bauen and Team 10—Gropius’s and Van Eyck’s approaches include a theoretical examination of the concept of space, within which the individual human perspective on space plays a pivotal role. This last dif- ference is highly significant, since in my thesis of the socio-spatial aesthetics of space formation, the moment of the individual, sensuous perception of space plays a deci- sive role in the abovementioned relationship between the aesthetics and purposive- ness of architectural design at the space formation level. As a result, my investigation of Gropius’s and Van Eyck’s approaches to archi- tectural design and aesthetics focuses on both their specific references to space for- mation12 and their respective approaches to the perception of (architectural) space. Furthermore, I investigate whether and how they relate space formation and spatial perception to each other, and whether and how space formation and the associated purposiveness of architectural design are related to architectural aesthetics in a dif- ferent way. The underlying ambition in combining design-theoretical argumentation with his- torical research is to firstly position my thesis of the socio-spatial aesthetics of space formation in a broader theoretical and historical context. Secondly, this provides me 12 Rather than referring in my investigation to different ‘concepts’ of space formation, the term ‘(implicit) reference’ was chosen because neither Gropius nor Van Eyck explicitly dealt with space formation as an independent subject of architectural design; accordingly, they did not use the term ‘space formation’ at all. Both acknowledged and dealt—in different respects—with the self-evident reality of architectural space and the corresponding design-related significance of the arranging, enclosing, and opening of spaces.