In the past architects have borrowed ideas about form and construction from the realm of automobile
design. The attempt to draw on assembly techniques from the production process of autos has met with
limited success partly because the methods of assembly for cars and buildings have been so unique to
each. However today with the forms and materials of automobiles and architecture becoming
increasingly similar, there are potential new lessons to be learned. This paper investigates commonalities
between the physical construction systems of cars and buildings and demonstrates, through the process of
disassembly and categorization, its potential influence on architectural design.

Paper

With the advent of the assembly line process for producing automobiles, Henry Ford changed the way

manufacturers approached the production process. The efficient use of standardized parts and continuous

have attempted to reproduce the technique. As far back as 1926 Theo Van Doesburg wrote, "presently

building is already assuming the characteristics of an assembly line; the assembling of normalized,

machine-produced parts. Just like our cars, our dwellings will be factory produced within the foreseeable

mobile homes, and trailers employ ideas from car production with mixed results. However with

escalating costs of new home construction and the development of new construction techniques, architects

may find answers by revisiting techniques of the automotive industry.

Previous attempts at mass-producing entire buildings reveal the impediments. These include the

uniqueness of each architectural design and the nature of their construction materials and techniques.

Most architectural designs are done from scratch to meet a client’s specific program and site. It can be

difficult to adapt a standardized framework to meet complex needs. "Architects design a prototype every

time they propose a building: components are put together in new ways each time, and new solutions to

repeatedly and there are many shared characteristics between different models. At the same time there are

a range of features with which to "customize" each car. Choices between various colors, interior fabric,

wheel style, etc. allow the consumer to at least think they are getting a ‘one-of-a-kind’ automobile. Most

architecture clients want to have many choices. They desire a unique design that reflects their personal

image. Housing developers try to accommodate this by making each of their repetitive designs look

different from its neighbors. Like an auto manufacturer they alter minor aspects like color, finish

materials and gable shapes but it is basically the same house as others on the street. While some people

are willing to accept a house that is similar to their neighbors, most still prefer a wider range of choices

for their home than for their car.

The materials and techniques used in traditional building construction are also an issue. Many materials

(i.e. brick, stone, concrete) are very heavy and therefore are not cost-effective to transport as pre-

assembled structures. However we are moving away from what Frampton refers to as the "wet"

bearing walls out of ‘wet’ bricks, mortar and plaster but instead most of our construction systems today

start with a steel frame precut in the factory. Systems that provide enclosure, interior finishes and

mechanical functions are then bolted and hung onto the frame. The assembly technique for most

automobiles resembles this "dry" method of construction. The car structure is usually based on either a

skeletal chassis or an exoskeletal "unibody" construction. To it are attached the systems that seal out the

weather, create a comfortable interior environment and power it. In this way the two objects are similar.

"Just as architecture involves many technical environmental and human aspects fused in a single design,

Fig. 2 Comparison of Automobile and Building Skeletons

Although there are some serious concerns about producing buildings on an assembly line, there are still

positive things we can learn from studying car construction. The success of the Design/Build industry has

demonstrated the desire of clients to build more quickly and cost efficiently. Building construction in

general is a rather inefficient operation. "Anybody who has ever been employed in an architect’s office,

worked on a building site or simply watched a house being erected will realize that the process of getting

a building built is a fragmented, confused and often wasteful set of operations. Wasteful in labour, time

produce both higher quality and more time and cost efficient architecture. Pre-manufacturing at least

some components could be an answer because of its efficiency and quality control. "The certainties

derived from prefabrication mean it is no longer viewed with the contempt it once was. Over the years

society has become less tolerant of defective products….Maybe this heightened expectation has been

Interchangeable parts also pay off in terms of the sustainability of automobiles. Currently the

German government requires all car manufacturers to take back their automobiles after a specified

process simpler. It also likely encourages manufacturers to use more easily recycled materials since they

know they will need to deal with them in the future. If the life cycle cost of architectural components is

taken into account, the quality and sustainability of materials may also improve. "As far back as 1909,

Walter Gropius noted that ‘only the standardization of component parts could "satisfy the public desire

some level of customization and their light weight that makes them easier to transport, a component

system for architecture may be the best approach to pre-manufacturing.

From the work of early masters such as Wright, Gropius and Corbusier to the futuristic designs of Fuller,

Prouve and Bel Geddes, architects have been interested in automobile design. "Since the earliest days of

the motorcar, architects have realized that to propose an automobile is an opportunity for an exercise in

miniature architecture, the design of a detachable mobile room. It is a way for them to perfect the

in style, the superimposition of a sculptural shell over a standard chassis, some approached car design

with a blank slate. The pre-manufacturing experiments of Buckminster Fuller with his Dymaxion House

are well documented. A more recent example came in 1978 when Fiat asked Renzo Piano and Peter Rice

to start from scratch to analyze the way it designed and manufactured its cars and to propose a prototype

comfort. After observing car assembly in the factory for 6 months, Piano came up with a system of

interchangeable components attached to an overall structural framework; a skin and skeleton system. By

making the individual body panels out of lightweight polycarbonate separate from the structural

framework, he was able to reduce the overall weight of the car by twenty percent. Another advantage of

separating the systems was that the panels could be interchanged to produce different styles on the same

framework. Because he approached the challenge of car design in the same way as architectural design,

"from a deep knowledge and understanding of the materials and process used to make an object", he has

The computer has altered the way architects approach form to more closely resemble the way car

engineers approach design. Because of CAD’s three-dimensional capabilities, architects have become

more willing to explore forms off the orthogonal grid. The multi-curvilinear shapes that are now simple

to produce via computer drafting software were avoided in the past because they were difficult to

construct. Now CAD-CAM has the ability to cut and draw sections at any point quickly and accurately

and feed the design data directly into computer-guided machinery. In many cases drawings are obsolete

and skipped all together. By looking at the double-curved forms in the work of architects like Frank

Gehry, the connection between architecture and automobile is more apparent. It is well known that Gehry

uses software originally developed for the aircraft design industry as no architecture design software

could handle the complex geometries. In Gehry’s, like most multi-curvilinear buildings, the systems are

divided into distinct layers that come together at the perimeter of the building. In his earlier work the

relationship between the curving skin and the structural frame was quite crude. The steel framework was

made up of straight beams that only vaguely mimicked the exterior form and left many dead spaces in

on his most recent work the exterior and interior envelopes more closely trace the line of the structural

frame, much in the same way as automobile construction.

To test if an investigation of automotive systems could be useful as an analogy for building systems, I

developed a project for my fourth-year design studio that compared the component systems of a car to

those of a building. To establish a system to compare the two construction techniques, I divided them into

four basic categories that are also common to cars. These were defined as Structural, which provides the

support, Exterior Envelope, which keeps out the weather, Interior Envelope, which provides comfort and

Mechanical, which provide utilities.

Experiments were conducted on two scales, the scale of the model and full-size car. To understand the

diversity of parts that go into the production of a car, the students were asked to purchase a die-cast metal

car model that was very detailed in its assembly. Before assembly they first color-coded the graphic

images on the model’s assembly instructions to match the four categories. By seeing how the colors were

distributed throughout the page, the students learned how the four systems were distributed throughout

the whole car. They then assembled the model and using a metal-cutting band saw, cut it into

approximately 3/4" thick sections to reveal the inner workings at various points. Through this exercise

they were able to view the relationships between systems and how closely or loosely they interacted with

each other.

This brief exercise prepared the students for the main part of this project, the disassembly and

categorization of the systems of a full-size car. The main goal was to understand the how the parts and

systems that comprise an automobile fit into the four established construction categories. I first procured

a 1979 Chevrolet Chevette as a tax-deductible donation. The car was documented in photographs in its

original state and then the disassembly process began. By treating the process as a ‘dissection’ we could

keep track of what each piece was and where it had been located.. The process took about three work

sessions to disassemble the entire car, except for a series of obstinate bolts that prevented removal of the

front axle.

The next step was to group all parts into the four separate categories of Structure, Exterior Envelope,

Interior Envelope and Mechanical.. Because we were comparing a movable object with a static one, we

thought it might be difficult to find appropriate groups for some of the parts. Except for the mirrors, most

pieces were easy to categorize. As the ‘Uni-body’ shell fit into two categories, Structural and Exterior

Envelope, it was kept separate from the other parts. The entire process had been documented by

photograph and now the four groupings of materials were also documented.

Fig. 7 System Categorization: Mechanical, Structural, Interior Envelope, Exterior Envelope (clockwise)

A sub-goal of this project was to understand joinery techniques through disassembly. Each type of

connector, bolt, screw, or rivet, was saved during the process. Afterward each distinct type was mounted

on a board to display the range and diversity of connectors. It was surprising to see such a broad range of

similar bolts in a pre-manufactured object. Even the custom-built construction industry uses a far smaller

set of connectors.

Studying the automobile as 4 categorized sets of building systems makes it easier to find links to building

construction and produces a ‘dialect’ of ideas that might be easier to translate between disciplines without

the need for a complex technical language. Each must deal with a complex interweaving of component

parts that need to work together efficiently in a crammed, thin perimeter space. As cars are mostly made

of steel and glass, they serve well as an analogy for the complex metal and glass wall systems so

prevalent in today’s buildings. While this language would be too restrictive for individual architectural

designs, it could be applied to mass-produced building construction that could be built in the same

amount of time but of a higher design and material quality.