See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/309531476

Structural Concepts and Spatial Design: On the Relationship Between

Architect and Engineer

Chapter · January 2012

CITATIONS READS

0 2,383

1 author:

Christoph Baumberger
ETH Zurich
35 PUBLICATIONS   152 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

ISPA Philosophy of Architecture Conference: 'Public Space: the Real and the Ideal' (Switzerland, 2020) View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Christoph Baumberger on 29 October 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 A
In: Cooperation. The Engineer and the Architect, ed. by Aita Flury.
Basel: Birkhäuser 2011, 57–70.

Structural Concepts
and Spatial Design:
On the Relationship
Between Architect
and Engineer
Christoph Baumberger

The profession of the master builder has become differentiated in the course of
the technological developments stemming from industrialization, separating into
the professional disciplines of the architect (in the modern sense) and the struc-
tural engineer. Ever since, the question has been about the relationship between
architect and structural engineer and the nature of their collaboration. Differing
responses have been propagated in architectural theory and exemplified by build-
ing practice. In this essay, I distinguish between the models of the monologue by
an architect or engineer, the soliloquy of the engineer-architect, and the dialogue
between architect and engineer as equal partners. For the third model, upon which
we will focus our attention, I characterize more precisely the method of collabora-
tion and discuss two construction methods—shear wall-slab systems (also known
as deep-beam/slab structures) and truss structures—that call for the method pre-
sented. Beginning with a clarification of the concept of tectonics, I conclude by
examining whether, with regard to the discussed structures, one can speak of a
“new tectonic culture.”

Monologue – The Engineer in the Service of the Architect and the Engineer
Who Behaves Like an Architect  The first model is seldom postulated, yet it is
practiced more frequently. Depending on who has the say, there are two manifesta-
tions. According to the first, the domains of the architect and the structural engi-
neer are separated as cleanly as possible; the interfaces in their cooperative effort
are clearly defined and reduced to a minimum. The architect designs the building,
the engineer calculates the planned structure. The engineer’s work is limited to
working out some technical aspects of the architectural design. He is thereby sim-

57

DDK002_RZ_E_INHALT.indd 57 12.10.11 10:10

 ply one of the ever-growing number of specialists with increasing differentiation
who are drawn upon for the realization of a project. His approach is essentially
deductive: the application of a known structural system yields its dimensions and
reinforcement. The conceptual part of his work is restricted to dimensioning ele-
ments so they are as delicate and cost-effective as possible, and helping to realize
the architect’s formal and spatial concepts without asking too many questions.
This subordinative differentiation between calculating engineer and designing ar-
chitect is typically accompanied by distinctions between the engineer as technician
and the architect as artist, as well as between the engineer as constructor and the
architect as designer. The work of the engineer or constructor, it is said, is only
subject to functional and purposively rational terms, whereas that of the artist or
designer also underlies aesthetic and symbolic terms. Because the art of construc-
tion is not a liberal art, it must take into account the terms of structural engineering
and construction (as well as those of function and materials). But as the idea goes,
these only serve to restrict the creative will or the will to art.
The typical situation is easily recognized in this model of collaboration between
architect and engineer. Not only the vast amount of that which is built, but also
those broad portions of progressive architecture, in which the form is developed
without regard to—or even against—the constructive logic, are attributable to
the delineated model. This is reinforced by the fact that, with the introduction of
skeleton construction, load-bearing structures and facade design have developed
asunder. Conversely, the delineated model in turn fosters this divergent develop-
ment, since it allows the domains of the architect and the engineer to be correlated
with various components of the building. While the engineer works on the struc-
ture according to purely functional and purposively rational criteria, the architect
tends to focus his design—as does Jean Nouvel with his tower in Cologne—on the
cladding, which must primarily satisfy aesthetic and symbolic criteria. Indifference
between the structure and cladding according to the model set forth by Robert
Venturi’s concept of the decorated shed is just the paradigmatic case. The cladding
can also make reference to the structure by allowing it to partly appear through the
curtain wall, by exhibiting an analogous structure, or by suggesting, simulating, or
masking it.
Of course, engineers do not limit themselves to merely carrying out calculations
for architectural designs; rather, they also develop new design concepts. Yet their
collaboration with architects falls under the first model as long as their technical in-
novations do not actively affect the architect’s design of form and space, whether it
is because they limit themselves to addressing the structure hidden behind the ar-
chitectural form, or—as with the Actelion headquarters in Allschwil by Herzog & de
Meuron with WGG Schnetzer Puskas Ingenieure—because they are acting solely
in the service of realizing the architects’ expressive gestures. In this case, the form
does not result from engaging with the logic of the structure. Rather, structural pos-
sibilities are sought to realize an independently conceived form.
As long as that is the case, we are dealing with a monologue by the architect.

58

DDK002_RZ_E_INHALT.indd 58 12.10.11 10:10

 Structural Concepts and Spatial Design  A

Actelion Headquarters,
Allschwil, 2007–2010
Architect Herzog & de
Meuron, Basel
Engineer WGG Schnetzer
Puskas Ingenieure, Basel

Rather than an equal discussion partner for the design process, the structural engi-
neer is a specialist whose services are called upon for a well-defined area within the
entire planning and construction process, in order to enable the architect to hold a
monologue. Such a separation is not conducive to making use of the architectural
potential of new structural concepts nor to the optimization of these concepts in
terms of their architectural opportunities. It may indeed reduce the planning effort
and make fewer demands on the engineer in particular. But precisely in that way, a
potential for optimization is wasted, which can have a negative impact on both the
construction costs and the quality.
The situation is similar with the second manifestation of the delineated model: the
monologue of the engineer, which is hardly less common and is the usual case in
civil and underground engineering. But while in the first manifestation, the archi-
tect consults the engineer as a specialist—and these days must do so—in the sec-
ond manifestation, the engineer does entirely without the architect. If he means to
develop the form alone on the basis of structural, economic, and use requirements,
in other words he intends to develop it solely according to purposively rational and
functional criteria, he is succumbing to an illusion, since design leeway always ex-
ists. And when he actively seeks to use it by incorporating aesthetic and symbolic
criteria into the development process and tries to act as an architect himself, the
results are often enough naive.

Soliloquy – The Exceptional Engineer-Architects  In a few cases, the engineer
and the architect are united in one person. The monologues of the technician
and the artist, of the constructor and the designer, are interwoven with the great
engineer-architects such as Pier Luigi Nervi, Félix Candela, Eduardo Torroja, Frei
Otto, and Santiago Calatrava. Their act of designing is one of constructing: the
architectural form is developed from the principles of structure and construction,
and in paradigmatic works, it exists in the structure itself. As a result, however, not
only must the form also meet criteria of purposive rationality, but the structure must
also meet aesthetic and symbolic ones. Thus their act of constructing is conversely
also a matter of design: formal concepts guide the development of structure, and

59

DDK002_RZ_E_INHALT.indd 59 12.10.11 10:10


Palazzetto dello Sport,
Rome 1956–58
Architect Marcello Piacentini
Engineer Pier Luigi Nervi
Section
Elevation
1
Stefan Polónyi: “Die Trag-
konstruktion als architektoni-
sche Dominante,” in: Hans
Kollhoff (ed.), Über Tektonik in
der Baukunst, Braunschweig:
Vieweg, 1993, pp. 26–37,
here p. 31
2
For this obsession, but
above all for more on the
search for the remains of
the weighty, see Joseph
Hanimann, Vom Schweren:
Ein geheimes Thema der
Moderne, Munich: Hanser,
1999
3
Cited in Fritz Neumeyer
(ed.), Quellentexte zur
Architekturtheorie, Munich:
Prestel, 2002, pp. 349–359,
here p. 355
DDK002_RZ_E_INHALT.indd 60
generally this is carried beyond the constructional necessities (and often beyond
the economically beneficial and functionally required), in order to generate a spec-
tacular figure, which orchestrates the flow of forces with expressive exaggeration
and often takes on an ornamental or decorative character. With the great engineer-
architects, this tendency toward exaggerating the structure in the service of artistic
expression generally only goes far enough to ensure that the structural behavior
still remains interpretable (even if not necessarily directly discernible). For exam-
ple, the buttresses of Nervi’s Palazzetto dello Sport in Rome can be interpreted
structurally even though, as Stefan Polónyi notes, they could have been omitted
if a tension ring had been used at the top.1 The exaggerated representation of
structural behavior often accompanies a penchant for organic forms. With some of
Calatrava’s built works, they are distorted in surrealist manner and transformed into
zoomorphic figures.
Both in the tradition of those architects who argued for the primacy of structure
and who, like Eugène-Emmanuel Viollet-le-Duc, typically cited the Gothic, as well
as in the spirit of the engineers whose ambition was always directed, with the aid of
the science of statics, toward minimizing the use of materials for the structure while
maximizing the dimensions spanned, the typical buildings of engineer-architects
also display a tendency toward dissolution of the mass, and increasingly delicate
structures. In so doing, they are following an ancient obsession: to have the object
appear lighter than it actually is.2 If this position is pushed to an extreme, it can
come into conflict with the intrinsic objective of architecture: design of forms and
the enclosure of space.
Dialogue – Architect and Engineer as Equal Partners in Discussion  In the
wake of increasing specialization, engineer-architects must remain the exception,
regardless of how their individual works may be judged. The separation of architect
and engineer, by contrast, offers the possibility of cross-fertilization. Thus a close
collaboration between architect and engineer as two equal partners was called
for, even early on. For instance, Peter Behrens wrote in his lecture “Art and Tech-
nology” from 1910: “It is unlikely that a special profession which could be called
engineer-architect will develop. Instead, I believe that the future will make a close
coexistence of artist and engineer necessary. Neither the architect nor the engineer
should be subordinate to the other.”3 Neither a monologue by one or the other,
60
12.10.11 10:10
 Structural Concepts and Spatial Design  A

nor a soliloquy of the engineer-architect is sought in this third model, but instead
a dialogue between two specialists with different perspectives on the same: build-
ing. In the dialogic design process, both perspectives, which in the architect’s case
might focus on spatial design, and in the engineer’s case on the structural concept,
are combined, and brought into—possibly exciting—harmony with one another.
The architect’s spatial ideas and material concepts provide the engineer with start-
ing points and useful information for conceiving and elaborating the load-bearing
structure; and the engineer’s three-dimensionally conceived structural concept af-
fects the architect’s spatial design and choice of materials.
The dialogue between architect and engineer often builds upon a building struc-
ture proposed by the architect. A convincing example of how such a structure can
be implemented in various structural concepts that, in turn, conversely alter the
spatial composition of the building and the associated spatial perception, is pro-
vided by the engineering competition organized by the architects Jüngling & Hag-
mann for the administration building for Würth International in Chur. Jürg Conzett’s
proposal, which is based on the idea of a suspended truss, results in an emphasis
on the vertical articulation and thus produces an almost Gothic sense of space. The
realized proposal by Hans Rigendinger, which operates with frames arranged floor-
by-floor, results in a horizontally articulated composition and thus a more classicis-
tic sense of space. Such engineering competitions could be a means to break the
established pattern of commissioning work on the principle of seeking to minimize
4
Cf. Andreas Hagmann:
planning fees, and to give a chance to the design-intensive form of collaboration “Struktur und Raum,” in the
between architect and engineer in the service of quality. 4 same volume, (pp. 143-45)
Conzett and Rigendinger
proposals. Engineering
A Logic for Developing Structural Hypotheses  Whereas the engineer’s pro- competition for the admin-
cess is a deductive one for the first model in the paradigmatic case, that can no istration building for Würth
International, Chur, 2002
longer apply for the third model. In the delineated design process, the engineer is Architect Jüngling & Hag-
not merely responsible for calculating the dimensions, reinforcement, etc., by ap- mann Architekten, Chur
plying a structural system to the planned load-bearing structure. Rather, it is a mat- Engineer Jürg Conzett,
ter of developing the structure itself. The process for doing so can be described as Chur, suspended truss
Engineer Hans Rigen-
a modified form of the reasoning of abduction. dinger, Chur, frames located
An “abduction” denotes a conclusion identifying the best explanation for the ex- at each floor (realized)

61

DDK002_RZ_E_INHALT.indd 61 12.10.11 10:10

 istence of certain circumstances. Assuming that a hypothesis best explains the cir-
5
The abduction, or the con- cumstances, one presumes the truth of this hypothesis. 5 A detective concludes
clusion identifying the
best explanation, plays an
that the butler is the murderer because that is best explained by the evidence;
important role in con- a doctor diagnoses the disease that best explains the patient’s symptoms. Since
temporary epistemology and
philosophy of science; cf.
the conclusion of an abduction goes beyond what is contained in the premise, it
e.g. Thomas Bartelborth, Be- follows only with probability. That the butler is the murderer can be the best avail-
gründungsstrategien: Ein
Weg durch die analytische Er-
able explanation for the evidence and still be wrong; the doctor’s diagnosis can
kenntnistheorie, Berlin: be wrong even if it is the best available explanation of the symptoms. Abduction
Akademie Verlag, 1996, pp.
138–148
is therefore an insight-expanding, non-deductive conclusion. Together with induc-
tion, it belongs to the logic of discovery. But while inductions typically provide
generalizations, abductions provide explanations. In the first case, the instruction is
“collect as many observations and then generalize!”; in the second case, it is “think
about what could explain the known circumstances, compare the explanations,
and choose the best one!”
According to the dialogic model, the engineer’s process is a modified form of
abduction, because its contribution to the planning is less a matter of explaining
certain data, but more one of developing structural hypotheses under certain con-
6
For clarification of the func-
ditions that result, among other things, from the architect’s spatial ideas and ma-
tional concept (using the terial concepts, and from user requirements and functions. 6 Beginning with such
example of museum architec-
ture) cf. Christoph Baum-
conditions, the engineer concludes a structural hypothesis (structural concept) by
berger, “Kunst aktiviert Kunst: showing that it best enables fulfillment of the initial conditions upon application
Ein Framework für eine
funktionale Analyse der Muse-
of a suitable structural system. The structural hypothesis then affects the archi-
umsarchitektur,” in: Julian tect’s spatial design, which can lead to modifications of the initial conditions, which
Nida-Rümelin, Jakob Stein-
brenner (eds.), Kontext-
could, in turn, require the structural design to be adapted. The engineer’s struc-
architektur, Ostfildern: Hatje tural concept fulfills the initial conditions best when it combines with the architect’s
Cantz, 2010, pp. 49–76
spatial concepts into a homogeneous whole. The load-bearing structure now sup-
7
In the case of the mixed-use ports the architectural idea, and the architectural form displays the load-bearing
building on Ottoplatz and
with the Volta school, this stip-
structure to its advantage, which however must by no means imply straightforward
ulation appears sensible: presentation of the structure.
with the first, the user needs
for the ground floor were
For a simplified example, the call for a large, column-free space beneath floors with
still unknown in the design smaller rooms can be examined as the initial condition. With the residential and of-
phase, and sports halls
should not be interrupted by
fice building on Ottoplatz in Chur by Jüngling & Hagmann Architekten with the en-
columns. With the Kerez gineer Jürg Conzett, the required column-free space is a public ground-floor zone,
building, in contrast, it comes
dangerously close to sim-
in the Volta school building in Basel by Miller & Maranta Architekten, likewise with
ply being an ambitious target Jürg Conzett it is a gym, and with the Forsterstrasse apartment building in Zurich by
8
Jürg Conzett presents
Christian Kerez with the engineer Joseph Schwartz, it is an underground garage. 7
the idea of such structures, The stipulation can of course be ideally met, through the application of structural
which he attributes to Ro-
bert Maillart, in “Tragende
systems known from bridge construction, if the structure is designed as a box-like
Scheiben im Hochbau” system of prestressed concrete slabs and walls. 8 The example is simplified, be-
(Werk, Bauen + Wohnen, 9
(1997), pp. 34–39) and in
cause of course in every case many more—and in the three projects, different—ini-
“Bemerkungen zu räumli- tial conditions were to be taken into account and because the structural proposal is
chen Scheibensystemen”
(Schweizer Ingenieur und
only the first step in a complex mutual coordination of structural concept and archi-
Architekt, 26 (2000), pp. 4–8) tectural idea, which has yielded very different results in each of the three projects.

62

DDK002_RZ_E_INHALT.indd 62 12.10.11 10:10

 Structural Concepts and Spatial Design  A

Shear-Wall/Slab Systems and Truss Structures  Many of the contemporary Volta school building,
Basel 1997–2000
buildings that result from close collaboration between architects and engineers as Architect Miller & Maranta,
equal partners continue the tendency toward the dissolution of the mass—toward Basel
Engineer Jürg Conzett, Chur
lighter structures, more transparency, and more flexibility—and therefore employ
delicate forms of construction, typically making use of the skeleton system. Often
they also continue the tendency toward decorating buildings with superfluous con-
structs (supplemented by over-dimensioned mechanical equipment) and radical-
izing them insofar as, in contrast to buildings by engineer-architects, the individual
elements of these structures can often no longer be interpreted as load-bearing.
One can recall works by Renzo Piano with the engineer Peter Rice (discussed by
Christian Penzel in his essay) as well as examples of so-called light-tech architec-
ture.
Buildings such as the residential and office building on Ottoplatz, and the Kerez
building follow neither of these two tendencies. They are distinguished precisely
because their massive structures based on pre-tensioned horizontal and vertical
concrete slabs demonstrate an alternative to the skeleton system of construction.
Firstly, this alternative leads to abolition of the separation between load-bearing
structure and space-articulating elements. The structure acts not as decoration
meant to give the buildings a constructional or technical appearance, but as a
space-defining system. Thus unlike with skeleton construction, with the structural
principle of vertical and horizontal slabs, a clear interface between the work of
architect and engineer is not possible.
Secondly, the alternative yields a different kind of flexibility. Whereas the skeleton
specifies the same grid system for all stories, the slab system enables different
layouts on each floor, whose degree of flexibility can be adapted to different uses.
Thus it allows the bridge-like structure of both buildings, where the upper floors
span above the ground-floor level or the parking garage like a bridge, in order to
accommodate small-scale space above large, column-free areas. Since their walls
are parts of the structure, however, in these stories the flexibility—in the sense of
the possibility to relocate the partition walls—is relinquished in favor of clearly
defined spaces. Moreover, in neither building is the idea of different layouts on
each story translated to the section or developed further in the direction of spatial

63

DDK002_RZ_E_INHALT.indd 63 12.10.11 10:10

 planning. The floors cantilevering around the Kerez building make this limitation
more conspicuous.
Thirdly, the structural behavior of the various elements of the structure, as will be
shown, can without exception be interpreted, even though it is not discernible at
Forsterstrasse apartments,
first glance.
Zurich, 2003 Finally, the structure of horizontal and vertical slabs also counteracts the tendency
Architect Christian Kerez,
Zurich
toward ever more delicate and transparent structures and fosters a more suspense-
Engineer Joseph Schwartz, ful relationship between weight and lightness, between open and closed. For in-
Zug
stance, the mass of the upper floors of the residential and office building on Otto-
Structural model platz bears unsettlingly upon the open, column-free ground floor, whose glazing is
Exterior view
slightly recessed, intensifying the effect even more. And with the Kerez building,
the weight of the load-bearing concrete walls and slabs is in harsh contrast to the
lightness and transparency of the nearly circumferential story-high window surfac-
es, which are recessed behind the front edges of the slabs and thus recede behind
the concrete structure. Through them, the composition of heavy concrete slabs
inside can also be seen in outline form, overlaid by the dancing green reflections
of leaves on the glass.
In recent years, interest has shifted from the massive, shear-wall/slab construction
method to lighter truss structures. Both with the extension of the Graubünden

64

DDK002_RZ_E_INHALT.indd 64 12.10.11 10:10

 Structural Concepts and Spatial Design  A

Cantonal Bank in Chur by Jüngling & Hagmann with Hans Rigendinger (see p. 144)
and the Leutschenbach school building in Zurich by Christian Kerez with Joseph
Schwartz (see p. 194 –197), the structure is built partly of multistory trusses. These
trusses, which span over the ground-floor banking hall of the Cantonal Bank and
are stacked above each other in the Leutschenbach school building, like the con-
crete slabs in the building on Ottoplatz, form a bridge-like and space-enclosing
structure. As with the preceding buildings, there is no strict separation between
the load-bearing structure and space-articulating elements. But since the mas-
sive shear walls have been resolved into a series of lattice struts, the ratio of wall
to opening within the load-bearing elements as well as the resulting relationship
between structure and space are more ambiguous than in the earlier buildings.
The dissolution of the shear walls is emphasized, because at the Leutschenbach
school the interior walls are built of Profilit (profiled glass elements) and at the
Graubünden Cantonal Bank, the glazing plane is separated from the truss. Struc-
turally, the trusses in both buildings function as walls; visually, however, they are
simultaneously openings. Thereby, the pendulum has not only swung back toward
more delicate and transparent structures. At least at the Leutschenbach school,
where some of the trusses were moved—with great technical effort—to the exte-
rior, the tendency of utilizing the structure as ornamentation is again noticeable,
giving the building a structural expression; one in which, however, the structural
elements can be interpreted structurally, as is the case with buildings by engineer-
architects.

Ottoplatz apartment and

office building, Chur, 1999
Architect Jüngling & Hag-
mann Architekten, Chur
Engineer Conzett Bronzini
Gartmann, Chur

65

DDK002_RZ_E_INHALT.indd 65 12.10.11 10:10

 9
For example, Ulrich Pfam- Tectonics – A Distinction from the Neotektoniker  When it comes to the cor-
matter, Building the Future:
Building Technology and
respondence of structure and form as well as the interpretability of the structural
Cultural History from the In- behavior, the notion of tectonics is often brought into play. Probably because the
dustrial Revolution until
Today, Munich: Prestel, 2005,
discussed buildings are distinguished by such correspondence and interpretability,
p. 152 one speaks of a “new tectonic culture” in connection with them, and especially
10
Cf. Nikolaus Pevsner et al.
with regard to shear-wall/slab structures. 9 The expression ‘tectonics,’ which—like
(eds.), Dictionary of World almost every basic term used in architectural theory—usually serves more to propa-
Architecture, Munich: Pres-
tel, 1992, p. 630. Kenneth
gate certain architectural positions than to describe buildings, comes from the art
Frampton sometimes has a of carpentry. This is still evident with Gottfried Semper, who used ‘tectonics’ for
much broader (and arguably
too broad) concept in mind,
wood constructions and ‘stereotomy’ for stone constructions in his book Style in
whereby the tectonic—as the the Technical and Tectonic Arts. The term has subsequently sometimes been re-
“poetics of construction”—
generally involves the poetical
served for delicate or skeleton-framed structures as opposed to solid structures
“expressive potential” of (even though solidly constructed wooden structures exist, such as log cabins). As
structure and construction
(Studies in Tectonic Culture:
a rule, however, following Bötticher’s Tektonik der Hellenen [The Tectonics of the
The Poetics of Construction in Hellenes], it is applied to building in general. According to a standard definition
Nineteenth and Twentieth
Century Architecture,
that picks up on Bötticher’s ideas, tectonics identifies the science of assembling
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, rigid individual parts into a building that aims for a correspondence of form and
2001, p. 2)
structure. 10 He thus unites, as Hans Kollhoff observes, “the seemingly contradic-
11
Hans Kollhoff, “Der tory pairs of appearance and construction, art and technology.”11 A building is
Mythos der Konstruktion und
das Architektonische,” in:
thus recognized as tectonic when its individual parts are assembled together, and
idem, Über Tektonik in der it must be in such a manner that the form and structure correspond. I call the first
Baukunst (note 1), pp. 9–25;
here p. 17
stipulation the ‘assembly requirement’ and the second one the ‘correspondence
requirement.’ Of course, everything depends on how the two conditions are un-
12
Key texts on this debate,
about whether coursed
derstood. In order to clarify whether a “new tectonic culture” can be spoken of in
masonry is still an architectur- connection with buildings like those discussed with shear-wall/slab structures, a
al criterion and whether
it can be real or merely in the
final distinction will be attempted: that of the advocates of a rehabilitation of the
form of facade cladding, tectonic in the 1990s dispute over principles centered in Berlin.12
are to be found in Gert Kähler
(ed.), Einfach schwierig:
Eine deutsche Architektur- The Structure Hidden Behind its Descriptive Image  The Neotektoniker [ad-
debatte, Braunschweig:
Vieweg, 1995
herents of Neotectonic architecture] start from the premise that with the establish-
ment of the skeleton construction method, the separation of structure and clad-
13
Hans Kollhoff, “Der
Mythos der Konstruktion”
ding has been irrevocably consummated. “The architecture of cladding,” writes
(note 11), p. 11 Hans Kollhoff, “is simply a fact.”13 But of course, as Fritz Neumeyer says, “structure
14
“Diskussion,” in: Kollhoff
is by tendency non-tectonic. The structures of modern engineers have led to the
(ed.), Über Tektonik in abrogation of the tectonic; they irritate our senses.”14 This assessment is not sur-
der Baukunst (note 1), pp.
126–135, here p. 130
prising if one adheres to the assembly requirement in some form or another. Be-
cause monolithic reinforced concrete structures, at the least, are not assembled; at
15
Stefan Polónyi, “Die Trag-
konstruktion” (note 1), p. 26
most, as Stefan Polónyi notes,15 non-structural parts are attached to it. The sought-
after rehabilitation of the tectonic thus does not take place at the level of the struc-
ture, but at the level of the cladding. To soothe the irritated senses, it is typically
structured (as in Hans Kollhoff’s high-rise on Potsdamer Platz) according to the
model that supplies a paradigm for the architectural assembly of parts: the joining
together of blocks into solid masonry (which, according to Semper, is not precisely

66

DDK002_RZ_E_INHALT.indd 66 12.10.11 10:10

 Structural Concepts and Spatial Design  A

tectonic, but stereotomic). The concept of the tectonic thereby focuses not on the 16
Fritz Neumeyer, “Tektonik:
Das Schauspiel der Objek-
“structure itself as a technical reality,” but instead on a descriptive “image of the tivität und die Wahrheit des Ar-
structure”;16 its “goal is not the visualization of the structure itself, but their recol- chitekturschauspiels,” in:
Kollhoff (ed.), Über Tektonik
lection.”17 The image is usually a fictive one and the recollection (despite the meta- in der Baukunst (note 2), pp.
phor, going back to Adolf Loos, of clothing as a skin that the structure neither ex- 55–77; here p. 62. In the
following, I use Neumeyer’s
hibits nor cloaks) is one not of the structure behind the cladding, but of structures expression “image of the
as they once were. Because the actual structure, in the case of monolithic concrete structure,”even though what
it denotes is naturally not
construction, is not at all assembled—or, as is the case with steel construction, it is a matter of images in the
assembled differently than the cladding. Moreover, these attempts at rehabilitat- proper sense
ing the tectonic feign solidity more than they actually create it, because behind the 17
Hans Kollhoff, “Der My-
‘stone wallpaper,’ whose joints very often imitate the pattern of load-bearing stone thos der Konstruktion” (note
11), p. 15
construction, minimally dimensioned concrete or steel skeletons carry the whole
building [see overleaf: high-rise on Potsdamer Platz]. There is, in other words, a 18
Fritz Neumeyer, “Tektonik”
(note 16), p. 63
curious reversal of the old obsession: instead of lighter, the object suddenly ap-
pears heavier than it is. All this simulation, however, apparently does no harm to 19
Another notion of tectonics,
one used by Eduard Sekler,
the tectonic character of such buildings. On the contrary, because “architecture incorporates the descriptive-
must,” according to Fritz Neumeyer, “not be honest in terms of its construction, ness or expression require-
ment into the correspondence
but it must instead create an appearance of the honestly constructed. The magic requirement. A building is
necessary for this characterizes the art of tectonics.”18 accordingly considered tecto-
nic if it is assembled from in-
What, of course, does this mean for the correspondence of form and structure, to dividual parts and if the struc-
which the assembly of individual parts according to the standard definition of “tec- ture and its flow of forces is
descriptively expressed
tonic”aims? With the separation between structure and cladding, construction and (“Structure, Construction,
form have grown apart. Their correspondence lies in the form acting as a descriptive Tectonics” in: Gyorgy Kepes,
Structure in Art and Science,
image of the structure or as a recollection of it. But since the image is fictional and New York: George Braziller,
the recollection is one not of the structure hidden behind the cladding, the corre- 1966, p. 89ff)

spondence turns out to be illusory. The buildings in question thus do not satisfy the 20
The facade of Kollhoff’s
correspondence requirement. That probably explains why Hans Kollhoff and Fritz high-rise building on Potsdam-
er Platz is precisely not as-
Neumeyer omit this stipulation in their conditions for tectonics. At least the sec- sembled of blocks, but con-
ond appears to be replaced with something like a “descriptiveness requirement.” 19 structed of precast facade
elements with inset clinker
Furthermore, they relate the assembly requirement to the structuring of the outer bricks. The building attempts,
form, which to them means: the cladding. A building is considered tectonic if its however, to avoid this im-
pression and suggests that
cladding at least appears to be assembled from individual parts, 20 and indeed in the facade is assembled from
such a manner that it produces a descriptive image of a structure, which can also be individual bricks

fictional. 21 Like the correspondence of construction and form, the unity of technol- 21
Fritz Neumeyer remains
ogy and art sought after, at least by Hans Kollhoff, also proves to be virtual: whereas vague in his stipulation: “ The
core of the notion of tectonics
the load-bearing structure is essentially the prerogative of the engineer and can be refers to the mysterious rela-
attributed to construction technology since it must only satisfy functional and purpo- tionship between a thing’s abil-
ity to be assembled and its
sively rational criteria, the cladding—which is primarily intended to meet aesthetic descriptiveness, and con-
and symbolic criteria—is, as the domain of the architect, at the heart of architec- cerns the relationship between
the order of something built
ture. The delineated understanding of tectonics, which underlies much of what the and the structure of our per-
advocates of the rehabilitation of the tectonic propagated in the dispute over prin- ception” (“Tektonik” (note 16),
p. 55). But the further remarks
ciples and have also realized, thus falls under the first model of the relationship be- referenced above appear to
tween architect and engineer. The intended dialogue turns out to be a monologue. justify my interpretation

67

DDK002_RZ_E_INHALT.indd 67 12.10.11 10:10

 High-rise building on
Potsdamer Platz, Berlin,
1998–2000, by Hans Kollhoff

The Structure Concealed by Our Viewing Habits  The collaboration between

architect and engineer that underlies buildings like the residential and office build-
ing on Ottoplatz or the Kerez building, in contrast, belongs to the third model. The
separation of structure and cladding presumed by the Neotektoniker is reversed
in these buildings. Their form is like the paradigmatic works of engineer-architects
in the structure itself, or it at least comprises a substantial part of their form. But
unlike the works of engineer-architects, they renounce a spectacular display of the
flow of forces. Neither an expressively exaggerated staging of the structural be-
havior nor a clear image of the structure is sought. The relationship between the
structural characteristics affecting the structural behavior and their perceptibility is
more complicated.
Consider again the residential and office building on Ottoplatz. On the one hand,
the load-bearing structure is not cloaked by cladding. The elements that appear
to be load-bearing—and only those—actually carry loads (the built-in elements are
inserted into the primary structure like large pieces of furniture with round edges);
and the load-bearing elements are as a basic principle visible. On the other hand,
the structural behavior of the visible structure is not easy to recognize. In the lapi-
dary way in which the building stands, the clever and ambitious structural concept
is not showcased. The use of horizontal and vertical prestressed concrete slabs
supports this ambivalence, because the walls and slabs may be visible, but the pre-
stressing tendons that are crucial for their structural function remain hidden like the
ordinary reinforcing as well. So one will hardly be able to immediately recognize
that the offset, slender concrete walls (deep beams) constitute a kind of lattice gird-
er, inasmuch as they are connected diagonally by means of prestressing tendons
arranged in a diamond-like pattern. Without even giving it further attention, one
will notice that the openings between the concrete walls are a result of the crossed
tendons. But perhaps one wonders how this column-free, glass-enclosed ground
floor is possible; and perhaps one will notice that the vertical concrete slabs are
staggered from floor to floor, so the strong vertical accent is overlaid with a diago-
nal orientation. Such clues can stir silent amazement that affects our experience of
the building, and they can persuade us to concern ourselves more precisely with
the underlying structural concept and to investigate its hidden elements.

68

DDK002_RZ_E_INHALT.indd 68 12.10.11 10:10

 Structural Concepts and Spatial Design  A

So is the building on Ottoplatz a tectonic structure? Can it serve as evidence of a

“new tectonic culture”? The following considerations speak against it. Even though it
satisfies the correspondence requirement because the form consists substantially of
the structure itself, it firstly violates the standard definition’s assembly requirement,
and therefore behaves downright contrary to typical buildings of the Neotekto-
niker. Whereas the building’s facade, for which the prefabricated concrete slabs are
used, can perhaps be described as being assembled from individual parts, it ap-
pears that is no longer the case for the rest of the structure, which (like the entire
structure of the Kerez building) is constructed of monolithic reinforced concrete. Sec-
ondly, the structure violates the Neotektoniker’s descriptiveness  requirement, be-
cause its form does not especially produce a descriptive image of the structure.
Of course, one could attempt to expand the concept of assembly so much that
all types of structures, even monolithic reinforced concrete ones, are included.
In so doing, one would consummate the complementary strategy providing an
alternative to Hans Kollhoff and Fritz Neumeyer: the correspondence requirement
is retained and the assembly requirement would be forsaken de facto. But whereas
the result of their strategy is still a tectonic concept because the descriptiveness
requirement takes the place of the correspondence requirement, with this sec-
ond strategy the question of the tectonic would be replaced by the more general
question of the relationship between construction and form. If, in contrast, one
holds fast to the assembly requirement and combines it with the descriptiveness
requirement, what becomes clear is: it cannot be understood so broadly that our
building satisfies it. Because, since the descriptiveness or “legibility” of the image
is considered more important for a building’s tectonic character than is its cor-
respondence to the actual structure, the joints relevant to this image are typically
oriented to the paradigmatic assembly of blocks into a wall. This is descriptive, and
“readable”: we are familiar with it. But precisely this familiarity could be a factor in
why we are only able to “read” with difficulty the behavior of structures comprising
prestressed deep beams and slabs. The load-bearing structure of the residential
and office building on Ottoplatz is admittedly not hidden behind cladding, but the
perceptibility of the structural behavior is concealed by our viewing habits. And
buildings that are identified as “typically tectonic” especially appear to perpetuate
these viewing habits.

Constructors’ Dialogue  The structures discussed—and of course not these

alone—reveal, on the one hand, alternatives to the art of the architect’s mono-
logue; whether it is the decorative art of packaging, which in the service of brand-
ing, often relies on an appealing or communicative envelope, or whether it is the
conservative art of disguise (cladding) that, in the service of a stone-like city and
the legibility of its facades, aims for a descriptive image of the structure. On the
other hand, they reveal alternatives to the excessive constructional art of engineer-
architects, which is often also in the service of demonstrating technical possibilities
in an expressively exaggerated staging of the structural behavior. The alternatives

69

DDK002_RZ_E_INHALT.indd 69 12.10.11 10:10

 Ottoplatz apartment and
office building, Chur, 1999
Architect Jüngling &
Hagmann Architekten, Chur
Engineer Conzett Bronzini
Gartmann, Chur

Architect and engineer's

concept sketch
Stress fields

build upon a close partnership between architect and engineer. Massive shear-
wall/slab structures differ from other efforts in the same direction in that they do
not continue the trend to ever-more-delicate load-bearing systems and increasing
transparency and flexibility, nor do they continue the tendency toward decorating
buildings with superfluous constructs. Rather, they stage an exciting game between
the light and transparent, on one side, and the heavy and opaque on the other,
enable customized flexibility with comfortably defined spaces, and conceive of the
structure as a space-defining system. Trussed structures, as currently in vogue, by
contrast, partly follow the first tendency again; and at least some of them utilize the
structure as ornamentation. But even with these, there is no strict separation be-
tween load-bearing structure and space-articulating elements. The development
of the load-bearing structure and the spatial design thereby conflate, and the do-
mains of the structural engineer and the architect are no longer cleanly separated
from one another. Both work on the structure, one primarily from the viewpoint of
the structural concept, the other primarily from the viewpoint of spatial formation.
Theirs is a constructors’ dialogue.

70

DDK002_RZ_E_INHALT.indd
View publication stats 70 12.10.11 10:10