Weaving as an Analogy for Architectural Design
Premise
As professionals become increasingly specialized,
architects must continue to operate as generalists. Although more specialized today, their breadth of required
knowledge is still widespread and expanding. It must range in scale from the
macro of global environmental issues to the micro of soil geology.
It spreads across disciplines from the subjective realm of aesthetics to
the objective sciences. While an
expert in none, an architect must draw from such diverse disciplines of
anthropology, art, business, construction, ecology, engineering, geology,
history, law, physics, psychology, sociology, and so on. But how does an
architect retain and process all this information? To architects these are not
separate fields existing on their own. Rather, I propose, each is a thread in a
complex matrix of information from which they must glean and weave together the
strands relevant to each project.
Weaving,
as a practiced craft, has been a common cross-cultural phenomenon for thousands
of years. While patterns and techniques differ between cultures, the basic craft
of weaving can be found in most. Because
the concept of weaving is so accessible, it is often used as an analogy to
describe various systems in our world. It
describes fabrics of different races, religions, beliefs and values all
co-existing. It is used as an
analogy for the natural world to explain the delicate web of climates, plants,
animals and organisms that depend on each other. In terms of sociology we read about the urban fabric with its
interweaving of people, neighborhoods, homes, work places and institutions.
It is an apt analogy for how systems overlap and work together to create
a harmonious living environment, as well as the possible destruction caused by
the breaking of a single element or strand in the fabric.
The fact that we exist as individual members of a cohesive team also
applies directly to the building industry.
A look at the range of trades composing any building design team will
clearly demonstrate this. Architects,
as generalists, have traditionally occupied the role of supervisor for a
building project. They are
responsible for coordinating and 'interweaving' the interests of the related
consultants, owners, occupants and contractors to produce a meaningful work of
architecture.
By
investigating the similarities between weaving and architecture we begin to see
overlapping concepts. Architects
and weavers both recognize the need to look beyond surface appearances in the
process of designing. In the same
way architects realize that quality design is more than skin deep, weavers
understand the quality of a textile is dependent on the structure of the weave
and not just the visual appearance of its fibers. As Anni Albers, a weaver from
the Bauhaus, revealingly states:
“Surface
quality of material, that is matière, being mainly a quality of appearance, is
an aesthetic quality and therefore a medium of the artist; while quality of
inner structure is, above all, a matter of function and therefore the concern of
the scientist and engineer. Sometimes
material surface together with material structure are the main components of a
work; in textile works for instance, specifically in weavings or, on another
scale, in works of architecture”1.
In their common need to relate a design's physical properties
to its aesthetic implications, weaving and architecture share a trait worthy of
further exploration
The
history of textile use in architecture is broad.
The most visible form of woven material today is tensile membrane
structures. However, rather than
concentrating on a single physical material, I chose to focus on the process of
weaving as an instructional analogy in the design process.
For example, in architectural design this analogy can inform the
interlacing of ideas, people, place, space and construction. The comparing of
weaving and architectural design from the analogical/conceptual viewpoint
constitutes the basic premise of this paper.
Woven
Construction
Before
applying the weaving analogy to abstract notions of space or culture, it is
helpful to first understand the history of physical woven construction.
In terms of architecture, weaving in its fabric form has been used in
tent structures for thousands of years. However,
the history of planar wall construction also has weaving in its roots as the
earliest building walls were likely woven.
In 1851, Gottfried Semper published his well-known theory of the Four
Elements of Architecture. Basing
his theory on the form of the primitive hut, he categorized its construction
into four basic elements of Hearth, Roof,
Mound and Fence.2 For the last of these, the Fence,
he proposed that the walls of ancient houses were not made of stone but rather
of hanging cloth or woven 'mats', thus suggesting the idea of the wall as a
textile hung off of the supporting structure, similar to the curtain wall today.
(Semper further proposed the knot as the oldest tectonic form of the
joint based upon similar German roots of the two words.3)
To construct these walls, branches and grasses of differing sizes were
interlaced to form a supportive structure that in colder climates was covered
with a weather resistant shell of mud and/or leaves.
Without this additional protective layer the cold and damp climate
would be allowed to penetrate. This
type of construction, generally known as waddle and daub, was common up to about
a hundred years ago with the woven support always hidden.
Even our closest modern relative to the woven wall, plaster on lath, has
been generally replaced by gypsum board construction. The
permeable nature of the exterior woven wall is a major reason why we do not see
more buildings utilizing this technique. They
are best adapted to tropical climates where the temperature is relatively
constant and airflow is encouraged. However
if we expand the analogy of the woven wall to conceptual level it allows for the
inclusion of solid wall construction. For
example, Frank Lloyd Wright developed a system of custom concrete blocks
interwoven within a metal reinforcing mesh into a double-layered wall.
In this form the thin walls could retain the solidity of concrete while
providing the flexibility of fabric to be shaped into any form.4
Even traditional masonry construction when bonded with mortar in
overlapping coursework can be considered a form of weaving.
The advent of new materials and joining methods has
shifted the focus of construction away from what Kenneth Frampton calls
“wet” techniques such as masonry.
5 The current trend of
“de-materializing” glass walls into separate “dry” systems of structure,
enclosure and shading/climate control opens up new opportunities to appropriate
the woven wall. The desire to admit
an abundance of light without excessive overheating or ultraviolet damage
creates one role for woven screens as shading devices.
When combined with a sealed envelope they make an effective system
against the elements in exterior walls. They
can also be extremely effective as vision screens to increase privacy or hide
undesirable views. The future of
woven wall construction looks promising in light of the proliferation of
curviplanar forms in building design today.
While our current construction systems are not well suited for complex
shapes and stresses, a new material has yet to emerge.
However there is research being done on various solutions.
One relevant example can be found in the research of Doug Garafalo who is
investigating the potential of a stainless steel mesh to realize structural
curved shapes. "The mesh
behaves like a fabric that can curve in all directions but it does have
structure and can act and react according to the forces applied - it's a weave
that can handle torque."6 The way we approach construction is changing and woven
construction could play a major role.
Weaving Analogy
as Instructional Device
Literal
woven construction is only on example of the overlaps between architecture and
weaving. The weaving analogy can also be used as an instructional technique as I
do in my architecture design studio. The
impetus for the technique arose through the prominence of the textile school in
our university. Our college was
originally established as a textile school so we have been trying to find ways
to relate architecture to textiles. Previous
collaborations with the school have dealt with the production of fabric
structures. However, I wanted to engage its people and facilities to investigate
how the two disciplines also share other ideas about construction and form,
specifically through the process of weaving.
Architecture students see what is involved in the production of woven
structures and textile students see the possibilities of weaving with
non-fibrous materials. The studio
follows one program throughout the semester divided into three topics of weaving
and architecture that range from the literal to the theoretical.
Though the studio course requires a linear format, the analogy excels as
a reminder that design is a non-linear process that requires constant
re-evaluation of site, program and construction throughout a project.
The weaving model, in its capacity to intertwine varying elements and
patterns, demonstrates the need to consider the many possible combinations of
major and minor influences on the design. Following
are the descriptions of how each project employed the weaving analogy.
The Structure
of Weaving
As students typically have had little experience with the process of weaving, the first project introduces them to the basic patterns and techniques involved. In this phase they work directly with members of the textile school. A general goal of this design studio is to examine how materials and methods of construction influence and direct the design process. Weaving provides an excellent example of how materials and patterns of weaving have a critical influence on the outcome of the fabric. The specific goal of the project is to study the characteristics of actual weaving through the empirical, hands-on making of an object at full-size. Weaving a textile by hand reveals much about the tactile qualities of the materials not evident by sight. In the same way, creating a piece of architectural construction by hand reveals qualities of the materials not evident in representational drawings. Architects have become separated from the tactile experience of construction. “Our materials come to us already ground and chipped and crushed and powdered and mixed and sliced, so that only the finale in the long sequence of operations from matter to product is left to us; we merely toast the bread”.7 Both architecture and weaving students need to understand the physical properties of materials that they normally represent by electronic pixels on a screen. To test this idea, students divide up into groups which are each assigned a weaving student to act as an advisor. They must then design and build at full-scale a woven wall structure. To introduce them to the craft of weaving they tour the textile school’s weaving facilities to watch both hand and power looms in action. They see first hand how the process of production and the structure of the weaving inform the final appearance; how plain, twill, satin or tri-axial patterns produce varying results. Professors from the textile school act as consultants and reviewers for the architects as they design their screens.
Instead of only using typical fibrous materials, they are required to mainly use materials associated with building construction such as wood, metal and plastic. This places the project in-between the realms of architecture and textiles (more akin to basket weaving) which means neither the architect nor the weaver is an expert but both can contribute equally.
While students utilized basic layout drawings to
confirm overall dimensions, many of the design decisions were made during
construction by adapting available hardware and materials to meet their
intentions. Properties of the materials dictated many of the decisions.
For example, many materials proved to be too stiff for weaving and had to be
replaced. The project required at
least one of the materials to be metal so for most of the students it was their
first hands-on experience with cutting, drilling and welding steel, copper or
aluminum. The empirical knowledge
about the properties of metal gained by physically working it can not be matched
by representational means. Through
trial and error they learn how an initial concept can change over time as issues
of real construction influence and affect revisions in the design.
They understand how materials used for weaving are critically dependent
on the manner in which they are assembled.
Weaving an
Idea; Context, Culture and
Construction
This is the first
part of the major building design project where students utilize concepts of
weaving to analyze how the site, program and materiality are inextricably
intertwined in the design of architecture.
It is generally accepted the orthogonal geometry of American city plans
originally derived from Greek city grids. However, these may have been derived
from the structure of woven cloth. The
tightly woven, right-angled patterns of cloth were seen as “harmonious” by
the Greeks. This pattern may have
been applied to the colonial cities as a way to create a “harmonious” and
recognizable living environment in a foreign and hostile land.
8 As mentioned previously, there are many diverse influences
that shape an urban fabric. While
the physical objects such as buildings and streets are more obvious, invisible
psychological and social factors often have great influence.
Students investigate the various patterns of their urban site to seek out
weaving analogies, analyze the contextual factors that influence a site and
thereby determine a site design strategy. The
location for the project is chosen in a prominent area of the city where the
urban fabric has become “unraveled” and lost its sense of an urban place.
The students must investigate its history, analyze the various factors
that remain and propose a way to re-stitch their site to the fabric of the city
through circulation patterns, built-form, and landscape design. Three groups
each present an analysis of either the environmental, social or legal influences
on the context. Each presentation is constructed in a transparent medium and
interlaced with the others to present a collective analysis.
Time constraints limit the study of the urban fabric analogy to the
immediate context. However this
exercise provides an introduction to the way in which external factors impending
on a site must be balanced and interwoven to recreate a harmonious urban
environment.
The broad range of information derived from analysis
of site and program demonstrates the need for a strategy to integrate all the
influences of a design. The weaving
analogy is presented as a unique method to integrate the "Three C’s"
of a design: Context, Culture and
Construction. Context, as previously examined, refers to all the
climatic, social/cultural, legal and especially intuitive aspects of a site.
Culture refers to the human
behavioral aspects of a project such as the functions of the program as per
occupant needs, the history of its people, and local traditions as a source of
regional identity. Construction encompasses the basic concepts for the materials,
structure, assemblies and services of physical building that influence the
direction of initial design ideas. Having
just examined the context, students now concentrate on programmatic aspects to
determine not only the relationships of spaces but also, more importantly, how
the building can meet the diverse needs of the people who will use it.
While the Construction aspect
will be scrutinized in the next phase, students now develop a basic tectonic
concept from the possible materials and structure allowed by legal code
constraints and spatial requirements of the program.
By sorting through these jumbled ‘threads’, they begin to organize
priorities en route to developing a design concept.
Just as woven cloth has major and minor threads and patterns, the
students will compose a conceptual textile of ideas to integrate the various
influences. The weaving analogy
performs as an instructional vehicle for describing the non-linear design
process.
The
concept is then expanded into three-dimensional spaces that reveal the
interwoven experience of architectural space and construction.
They examine the overlap of light and shadow, solid and void, all within
the aspect of movement in time. As
Steven Holl states: “When
we move through space with a twist and turn of the head, mysteries of gradually
unfolding fields of overlapping perspectives are changed with a range of
light-from the steep shadows of bright sun to the translucence of dusk.”
9 Students need to understand a space is not static but made up
of multiple layers that continually changing as one moves around and through it,
something rarely evident in orthographic drawings. They study complex interior spatial conditions by first
establishing hierarchies between public and private, service and served space,
vertical and horizontal circulation, bearing and non-bearing construction, as
well as how they overlap, parallel and penetrate each other.
Space is approached as a three-dimensional cloth pulled apart to reveal
changing sizes, shapes and rhythms of space and structure.
Interweaving
Construction
This phase centers on the constructive aspects of
their design. With the advent of
the iron frame in the mid-nineteenth century, the enclosing walls of buildings
began separating into distinct structural, envelope and service systems.
In 1852 Joseph Paxton gave a speech to explain the structural principle
behind his "Crystal Palace." In it he compared the iron structural
frame and the enclosing glass envelope to a "table and tablecloth". By
this description he wanted to represent the glass skin as a tablecloth separate
from the structure (table) that would now allow it to be "greatly varied to
suit changing conditions and uses".10
Kenneth Frampton employs R. Gregory Turner’s study, Construction
Economics and Building Design to further describe the shift away from the
monolithic masonry wall toward a division into his categories of podium, services, framework, and envelope. In
terms of percentage of construction cost, the structure has been reduced while
services and envelope now make up the majority of the expense.11 The
simple bearing wall building has become rare.
Instead it has been divided into separate systems providing support,
comfort and convenience which, while allowing greater freedom for design, also
create an abundance of information to coordinate.
Students first study the structural system in a
manner that also reveals the qualities of the space inside. Too often models
present the external form of a building without revealing the critical space
inside. Therefore, students make a physical model of the structural system with
templates created from current floor plans that can be mounted to board and
woven together with threaded rod ‘columns’ and basswood ‘bearing walls’.
By allowing the student to see inside the building, these
"woven" study models reveal spatial and structural issues not always
evident on computer or physical massing models.
Threaded rods also allow for quick revisions by adjusting the nuts up or
down and replacing floor plates to create new spatial conditions.
As mentioned earlier, in both textiles and architecture, the inner
structure plays an integral role in the overall form.
Thereby through this exercise, students now begin to see the overlaps
evident in the spatial, organizational, and especially the structural systems of
a building. To understand how
enclosure systems affect their design, students now study the envelope in
detail. They first complete their
structural model by clothing it in an envelope of transparent, translucent or
opaque cladding to convey their design intentions and thus adding another
element to the weave. The skin is detailed by studying a portion of the
enclosure critical to the concept and developing it at a larger scale in partial
section, plan and elevation. Typically this is a wall section that depicts an
important relationship between the structure, services, envelope and shading
systems to demonstrate how they must coexist within a thin slice of space. They
develop the wall section by selecting the specific materials and systems
required to create assembly details. While
students may desire an unbroken wall of glass, they must first address the
complicated issues of supporting, shading, fire rating and heating it.
The goal of this exercise is to demonstrate how all the physical
components concentrated at the perimeter of a building must be interwoven to
allow each to function efficiently while still reinforcing the design concept.
For a textile to exist as a cohesive work, all the
individual yarns and varying patterns must be bound together in a synergistic
and integrated whole. Similarly in
architecture, all the influences on the design must ultimately coalesce into a
final product. Therefore for the
final project of the course, a digital, compositional drawing is created that
integrates the wall section with the most critical building design drawings into
one interwoven layout similar to an analytique. Relevant plans, sections,
elevations and three-dimensional drawings are interlaced with construction
details in a drawing summarizing the design.
Students take advantage of CAD’s flexibility to overlay drawings of
different scales and views and 'weave' them together by an appropriate graphic
technique. This drawing becomes a
comprehensive tapestry of the entire semester-long project in one technically
precise document.
Conclusion
By the end of the semester students have studied the
analogy of weaving in architecture from the hands-on to the virtual.
After going through all phases, they can draw associations between
themselves, their work and the larger world.
To improve this course, the first objective would be greater involvement
fore the weavers. Although they served well as advisors, the new palette of
materials acted physically opposite of what they expected which deterred them
from deeper involvement. The next step would be to improve the presentation of
the figurative analogy. The
students had more success understanding the weaving analogy through the literal
projects such as the woven wall, the threaded rod model and the technical wall
section drawings. Finding better
ways for them to understand the abstract notion of weaving an idea or space
could be further developed.
Whether
used in this particular studio format or in a general studio, the weaving
analogy has relevant application to architectural design.
Students are always searching for a way to make sense of all the
information they acquire in college. Beyond
studio, they receive indoctrination in professional courses on structures,
building construction, environmental systems, history, and professional
management that can be applied to their design projects.
Yet they often question the need for their liberal arts courses that
reveal little evident application to their main area of study; design studio.
Weaving, as an analogy, is a useful tool for explaining the benefits,
indeed the necessity, of a wide range of knowledge.
Architects must continue to operate as generalists to acquire a multitude
of ideas that someday may be retrieved and woven into another tapestry of
architectural design.
1Anni Albers , On Weaving (Middletown Connecticut: Wesleyan University Press, 1965
2Wolfgang Herrmann, Gottfried Semper: In Search of Architecture, (Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, 1984)
3Kenneth Frampton, Studies in Tectonic Culture; The Poetics of Construction in Nineteenth and Twentieth Century Architecture, (Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, 1995)
4Frampton, 1995
5Kenneth Frampton (Editor), Technology, Place and Architecture, The Jerusalem Seminar in Architecture, (New York: Rizzoli, 1998)
6Joseph Giovanni, "Building a Better Blob", Architecture, September 2000
7Albers
8Indra Kagis McEwen, Socrates’ Ancestor, An Essay on Architectural Beginnings, (London :The MIT Press, 1993)
9Steven Holl, Intertwining, (Princeton: Princeton Architectural Press, 1995)
10Herrmann
11Frampton, 1998