Methods and Analysis BK8040 2007/2008

1. Methods and Analysis BK80402007/2008 ir.Marc Koehler ir. Erno Langenberg ir. Ali Guney Dr. Karina Moraes Zarzar, PhD

2. Objectives The objective of “Methods and Analysis” is that: Students are introduced to essential terminology, concepts and numerous aspects (such as context, program of requirements) of the architectural field.

3. Objectives The objective of “Methods and Analysis” is that: 2. Students develop programmatic and typological knowledge in architecture through the study of relevant cases.

4. Objectives The objective of “Methods and Analysis” is that: 3. Students learn how to use and adapt design precedents in the creation of innovative designs through the analysis of an architect’s oeuvre.

5. Some questions • What means Analysis? • What means Methods? • Why should you analyze something? • Does it help you during design? • Does it help you in developing your position as architect?

6. How can you analyze a building/project? You can analyze it by: • Visiting the building • Studying visual material: • technical drawings • perspectives • Via photos, videos • Reading about it

7. 2 Approaches • Approach 1: You don’t have written material about a particular building • You base your analysis on the physical aspects of the building • You study the drawings (maybe also visit the building) • You start your explorative (almost exhaustive) analysis according to the methods • You make the synthesis of all the parts

8. 2 Approaches • Approach 2: You know something from the architect’s position and want to know how some aspects are expressed in his designs • You study the drawings (maybe also visit the building) • You start a specific analysis on the physical aspects of the building to uncover the specific themes found in the architect position) • You present a partial synthesis in explaining the specific themes

9. 2 Approaches • Both ways: • You need METHODS to REPRESENT your findings • To compare with other buildings • To communicate with other people • You will understand how to “read” a project/building

10. Objectives • By the end of the course, students should be able to: • Bring together an adequate documentation of projects • Understand basic architectural concepts • Understand basic principles of composition • Critically perform a descriptive analysis of a precedent through: • numerous methods: Ching, Clark and Pause, Steadman and in particular the F(m).O.P) • and diverse approaches: composition, function, context, construction - according to Leupen’s Ontwerp en Analyse • Make a comparison of projects • Analyze the oeuvre of architects in relation to their worldviews (themes), their use of precedents • Make a proper presentation of the analysis • Be able to transfer their knowledge from precedent analysis to design

11. Course Structure • The course is subdivided into 7 seminars of 4 hours each and a series of 7 lectures on methods. • Lectures = • general relevant terminology • methods • Study of the Oeuvre • Seminars = • discussion about selected architectural aspects • discussion about lectures • exercises

12. The Assignment: • The students select (groups of 4 students): • The architect (from proposed list) • The themes (at least 2 themes) • Two representative projects of this architect • Apply Method(s) (to be learned during the lectures and seminars) to analyze, describe the findings, produce the parti, • Compare the two buildings • Analyze the oeuvre in relation to the selected themes: re-use, transformation and shifts • Result: Poster (format: A0) of the analysis • Introduction about the selected architect and his/her position(s) • Documentation of two projects of one architect: drawings, sketches, perspectives, pictures, texts • General description: primary and secondary elements, topological + functional representation and parti • Comparison of these projects referring to the selected themes. • Study of the oeuvre referring to the selected themes • Conclusion: reflection of the whole analysis • Attention: • results are always delivered in a CD as well as in a printing version. • Groups: max. 4 students.

13. Poster Lay-Outon the blackboard

14. List of Architects: • James Stirling • Tadao Ando • Herman Hertzberger • Louis Kahn • Frank Llyod Wright • Rem Koolhaas • MVRDV • Jorn Utzon • Jo Coenen • Hendrik Petrus Berlage • Richard Meier • Aldo Rossi • Norman Foster • Renzo Piano • Toyo Ito • Peter Zumthor • Zaha Hadid • Alvaro Siza

15. Seminar Course: Method and Analysis Seminar 1: Concepts Intro. FOP Ching Aspect: Theme Seminar 2: Concepts Ching Clark & Pause Aspect: Prog. Of Req. Seminar 3: Clark & Pause Steadman Aspect: Design concept Seminar 4: Aspect: Materials: Sensorial, texture, esthetic System & Construction Architectural Details Seminar 4: F.O.P. Seminar 5: Aspect: Typology; Design Precedents; Oeuvre Seminar 6: Aspect: Design Precedents and identity Seminar 7: Presentation of the comparisson of two buildings + oeuvre Lecture 1: ALI Lecture 2: ALI Lecture 3: ALI Lecture 4: Erno Lecture 5: ALI Lecture 6: KARINA Lecture 7: KARINA • Terminology • Introduction to F.O.P. • Ching: • Sp. Relations • Sp. Organiz. • -Ching: • Movement • circulation • -Program of Requirement • -Clark and Pause: • Geometry • Light Fall • Structural System • -Clark and Pause: • Hierarchy • Massing • PARTI • -Steadman: • Topological Relations -Materials, Structures and Details Analysis F(M) – O- P Design • Precedents and Innovations Precedents and Identity

16. SEMINARS Discussing Architectural Aspects: 30 minutes Literature Analysis Critique Discussing lecture “n” 30 to 60 minutes Work in Sub-groups (exercises) 1:15 hr Seminar Round table 40 minutes New Assignments 5 minutes Course structure per seminar Not all seminars

17. Literature REQUIRED LITERATURE: • Leupen, Bernard et al. 1999. Ontwerp en Analyse. Rotterdam: Uitgeverij 010. • Ching, F.D.K. (1979) Architecture: form, space and order • Clark, R.H. and Pause, M. (1985) Precedents in Architecture • Steadman, J P. 1989. Architectural Morphology-Topological (graph theoretical) representations of plans • Tzonis. A. 1992. “Huts, ships and bottleracks: Design by analogy for architects and/or machines”. In: Research in Design Thinking. Edited by: N. Cross, K. Dorst; and N. Roozenburg. Delft: Delft University Press: pp 139-164. • Tzonis, A. and L. Oorschot. 1987. Frames, Plans, Representation, Conceptdictaat inleiding programatische & functionele analyse. Delft: TU Delft, Faculty of Architecture, Art.nr. 236 • Meiss, Pierre von. 1990. Elements of architecture; from form to place . New York: E & FN SPON, An Imprint of Routledge. (Oorspr. titel: De la forme au lieu, 1986) • Moraes Zarzar, K. and A. Guney (Editors). 2008. Understanding Meaningful Environments. Research in Design Series, Volume 4. Amsterdam: IOS Press under the imprint Delft University Press • Moraes Zarzar, K. 2003. “Breaking the Type”. Milan: GA2003 • Moraes Zarzar, K. 2004. “Precedents and Identity”. Milan: GA2004 • Christian Nobert-Schulz. 1976. “The Phenomenon of Place”. In: Kate Nesbitt (ed.). Theorizing a New Agenda for Architecture, an anthology of Architectural Theory 1965-1995. New York: Princeton Architectural Press. 1996, pp. 412-428 • DVD series: Architectures. Art Video. Vol. 1/2/3/4/5 RECOMMENDED LITERATURE: • Jong, T.M.d. and H. Engel. 2002. “Typological Research”. In: Ways to study and research urban, architectural and technical design. Edited by: T. M. d. Jong and D. J. M. v. d. Voordt. Delft: Delft University Press . • Jong (2002) Mathematical models 24.14 Graph theory • Moraes Zarzar, K. 2003. Use and Adaptation of Precedents in Architectural Design, toward an evolutionary design model. Delft: DUP • Leupen, Bernard. 2002. Concept and type • Leupen, Bernard et al. (1999) Design and Typology • Meiss, Pierre von. 1998. Elements of architecture; from form to place. London, Spon (First Edition: De la forme au lieu, 1986) • Rossi, A. 1966. The Architecture of the City. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press. • Tzonis, A. and L.. Lefaivre. 1986. Classical Architecture, The Poetics of Order. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press