A HISTORY OF ARCHITECTURE Settings and Rituals SPIRO KOSTOF isions by Greg Castillo Original Drawings by Richard Tobias New Yort k Oxford ‘ea! OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS ‘ee’ 1995‘Oxford University Press Oxford New York ‘Atvens Auckland Sanghok Somtay Caleuta "Cape Town Dares Salaam Delhi Flowence Hong hong Isarbulharacht ‘usia Lumpur Madar Madid Melbourne Mexico City Navobi Pars Sirsapore Tape Tokyo Torn = and associ companies fn ein ada Copyright © 1985, 1995 by Oxiord University Press, Inc. Published by Oxford University Pres, ne 198 Madi Avene, Ne ak, New Yk 100164314 (Onfod iss registred waderatk: of Osord Universty Pots Al rigs reserved. No part ol his publication may be reproduced, sfored in ereval ster oF ransmted. in any form or by any rears. econ. mechanical. ptetocopyng. recoding oF erase, without the pror permosion of Oxo Unversty Pret Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Kost, Spo. A history of atchitecre «stings ad tua / Spi Kost ‘onal drawings by Richard Tobas— 2nd. revsons by Greg Casio, em Includes inc ISBN-19 970-0-19-00076-1; 9780-19-508379° (pth) 1. Achitecure—Hisery 1 Calo, Greg. Tie NADOOKES 1995 720'9—de20. 94-38787 Pare 19 Panga ne Unt States of Amenica on ackfee pape!PREFACE This book is something of a compromise, Ils a general survey of architectural his: tory that tes 19 reconcile the traditional grand canen of monuments with a broader, more embracing view of the built environ- Wt does so by making no siti! distinc tions between architecture and building, between architecture and urbanism, be- tween high cultures and low. Hagia Sophia and Versailes ate here, but so are igloos and nineteenth-centary malt-kilas; the du- Cal palaces of Urbino and Mantua are dis- usted within the larger frame of the cty- form; the Romans share their chapter with their “barbarian” adversaries, the Dacians, and the tribes of the sub-Sahara, | wanted to tell a story—the epic story of humans taking possession of the land and shaping communities through the act of building. The aims are set out in Chapter 1. Alle Inchisivenes is not one of them. I had to cantine myself to a relatively small number sites and buildings in order to be able to look at them in some detail. 11 was impor tant that this treatment of selective places be full. Architectural style comes in. of ‘course; that was the core of my training. But ham a3 concerned with use and structure and urban process, with mothaton and ritual sequence. 1 would not be at all un- happy if the book were to be seen as an offering of cultural history. Despite its seemingly ecumenical reach this cannot claim to be 2 world history of architecture. That task would ental a fair balance ia the account of architectural tr ditons in ll ages and on all continents, We are preoccupied ‘with our own Western tradition. Even with the most permissive attitude, other cultures stand as fois to this perhaps inevitable seli-absorption, My lr ited goal was to resist presenting the West- fem achievement as if it were an insulated and wholly logical progression. Wwe have ‘always been bound up wih other lands and the order we have created gains in un. erstanding when it assessed in the light bf alternate orders. As a symbolic recog tion ofthis interdependence, | have avowed discussing non-Western traditions ticity in thesr own incividual chapters. It seemed! 10 ‘me that the excitement of confrontation might outweigh the obvious advantage of separate linear nareatives. So | have brought together medieval Florence and Cairo, Pa: ladio and Sinan. have also conwnitted one further breach ff historical practice, In order to keep the discussion of one place intact, | have inteo- duced some architects ahead of their strict chronological slot. | hope old hands wall ot bbe unduly distressed to meet Gino Ro- mano at Mantua belore they meet Bra- smante in Rome Through the years, Richard Tobias has been a steady collaborator. Tis is as much, his book as i is mine. His drawings go be- yond mere illustration. They strengthen and Clarity the approach of this historical sur. vey, and they convey information far in ex cess of the limits of the tex. We agreed on some things at the begin fing and stayed with them. Except shen they temained diagrammatic, all plans Would be oriented toward the north, They would also indicate setting—land contours OF neighboring structures. Whete possible this setting is original to the building, In cases where we could not reconstruct what ‘vas there at the time, say for Chartres Ca: thedral or the imperial kullyes of Istanbul, se setiled for the best premodern coniext we could find. Finally, we wanted to con vey the sense oi the siow. accretive deve'- ‘opment of familar monuments and sites by Showing in sequence the principal stages in theie planning history. The multipari draw Ings of Karnak and the Plaza San Marco are examples. It should be self-evident that a history of this kind reaps the collective effort and wisdom of scholars in several fields. Since the nature of the book precluded the cus: tomary apparatus of notes and extensive bibliographies, 1 must acknowledge my ‘enormous debt to them all here, 2 debt which in a umber of cases approaches dependence. | must also single out at least some among ne many colleagues and fiends who offered help at various stages fl the project: Marc Teeib, Andrew Stew: ant, Walter Horn, Stanley Saitowitz, Hsia CChusjoe, and in Robetsor-Smith, Readers of drats include Chistian Ouo, Richard G. CCartot, Osmunc Overby, Christopher Mead, and Henry A. Millon. A mest patient andl sym pathetic review came. fram Elizabeth M Brown; her serutiny improved the book lang bly, and I am de-ply grateful to her The long proc ss wore out several assist: ants. I will always remember them with gratitude: Weney Tsu, Deborah Robbins, Michael Brooder, Carol Silverman, who valiantly tackled the index, and. D'vora Treisman. In tho final stretch, Mari Ade- ‘gran and Susan Shoemaker lent thet sil {0 the complet on of some of the draw ings. To Dougl:s MacDonald, | owe the most. He has worked long and hard on sources, illustrations, and the glossary, and ably served as lsison with the publisher. On that side, our mam ally was Kathy Kuht2. My fond thanks also to my editors, first, James Raimes, who took the project through its centical stating phase almost ten years ago, and, more nezentl, Jovee Bery. ‘To my student, past and future, this book ‘is fondly dedicated> it was waiter with them foremost in mind. Berkeley Sk. October 1964PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION In May 1981, Spiro Kostof delivered his last lectures for "A Historical Survey of Architecture and Urbanism”—the long. running course at the University of Cali fornia at Berkeley that some twenty years earlier had provided a springboard for the fist edition of this book. The final lec- tures, covering the state of affairs from after World War II to the present, had been thoroughly revised 3 year earlier, and Professor Kostof felt that they were 3 great improvement. Mis enduring goal had been to construct an architectural history that avoided “strict distinctions between architecture and butlding, between archi. tecture and urbanism, between high cul tures and low.” The closing chapter of the fist edition of A History of Architecture, written in the early 1980s, fell short of that resolution, having shrunk in scope 10 2 review of “the works of the masters,” Just the kind of history he hed set out to challenge In the years following the publication of this book's first edition, Professor Kostoi undertook projects that confronted archi tecture’s current events head-on. These included America by Design, a 1987 PBS series and a companion publication of the same name, as well as The City Shaped and The City Assembled, 2 two-volume study of urban form and its social mean ings. Both efforts sent him taveling 10 les that embodied the exceptional as ‘well as the ordinary in late-twentieth- centu'y environmental design. The sucer footing gained from this esearch was evi dentin the updated lectures for Berkeley's survey course, and a revised edition of A History of Architecture incorporating, these changes was put on the calendar as his next assignment. In June 1991, Spiro Kostof was diag- nosed with cancer. He died six months later at his home in Berkeley. As his re search assistant of five years’ standing, | was asked to prepare the manuscript of The City Assembled for publication. Soon aiterward, | decided to take on, as well Professor Kostof’s planned revision of 4 History of Architecture. In both cases, | have attempted to chart a conservative Course, limited wherever possible to 1 constructing his arguments and the spir- ited style with which he addressed them Professor Kostof’s working methods sreatly simplified my task. His habit was To prepare complete scripts for his lec- tures, which he then would commit to, memory. These typescripts established the narrative framework and basic text for the final chapters ofthis edition. Another use. ful resource was the collection of lecture videotapes now archived at Berkeley's Bancroft Library. Kosto’s lectures were recoded in 1990 and 1991, ostensibly for the benefit of students who had missed class, but just as much to give him the ‘opportunity to review and fine-tune his performance. More than one digression from his scrip, as documented on tape, has found its way into this edition. None- theless, the text ofa lecture, however pal ished, s not that of a textbook. Whenever site ora topic glossed in class demanded mote detailed description, Ihave added i, follawing the vector and tenor of Kostot's argument to the best of my abilities. For theit help in reining the finished text, [must thank Karl Weimer, as well as Gary Brown, Maria Gutman, Kathleen James, Roger Monigomery, and Stoven Tobriner, all at Berkeley's College of Environmental Design. Richard Tobias, Professor Kostot's original collaborator on illustrations for this publication. again contributed his skills and patierce. | also owe a debt of gratitude to Nezar Al Sayyad, Travis ‘Amos, Ken Calciwell, Sam Davis, Diane Favro, Alan Gottlieb, Alan Hess, Carol Hershelle Krinsky, Emily Lane of Thames and Hudson, Nina Libeskind, George Loisos, Christopher Mead, Jean-Pierre Proizen, Matyly snow and Claire Dannen- baum of Berkeley’s Environmental Design Slide Library, Stephen Tobriner, Susan Ubbitohde, Dell Upton, and Fikret Yegul for their help in assembling photographs for this second edition. Katheyn Wayne and Elizabeth 8yrne of the Environmental Design Library at Berkeley were, as al ways, generous with their assisiance. And Joyce Berry of Ixford University Press, now a veteran of three Kostof public: tions, again proved her considerable edi- torial and diploratic talents Every effort ofthis sort deserves a dedi- cation. In keeping with my role as the facilitator rather than the author of this volume, 1 will defer on that count to Pro- fessor Kostof, whose meditations were captured on videotape in May 1991 inone of his final public lectures. Last weok was the last lecture of the great Vincent Seuly a terrific mind, a teri imag nation. His course closed afer being tual Since the eatly 1940s, He tetited unm He wanted to go on and on until he most of us do. For whatever ite worth cate these final lectures to him, my onetime teacher, longtime adversary, and a man who did more for archi eciural history than most of put together Berkeley October 19956 CONTENTS PART ONE A Place on Earth ‘THE STUDY OF WHAT WE BUILT, 3 The History of Architecture, 3 ‘The Total Context of Architecture, 7 THE CAVE AND THE SKY: STONE AGE EUROPE, 21 The Beginning, 21 Old Stone Age Architecture, 23 ‘The Cave at Lascaux, 23 New Stone Age Architecture ‘The Temples of Malta, 32 Stonehenge, 37 THE RISE OF THE CITY. ARCHITECTURE IN WESTERN ASIA, 43 ‘The Urban Revolution, 43 Stirrings of Urban Consciousness, 4 ‘The Cities of Mesopotamia, 50 THE ARCHITECTURE OF ANCIENT EGYPT, 67 The Land of Egypt. 67 The Burial of Kings, 71 The Time of the Gods, 79 Survival of the Egyptian Temple, 88 - BRONZE AGE CITIES: THE AEGEAN AND ASIA MINOR, 91 Asia Minor, 91 Mycenaeans and Minoans, 99 The Closing of the Bronze Age, 112 THE GREEK TEMPLE AND “BARBARIAN ALTERNATIVES, 1 The Passing of the Bronze Age, 115, The Emergence of Greece, 117 The Greek Temple, 120 10. POLIS AND AKROPOUIS, 137, Athens and Her Empire, 137 The Shape of the Polis, 138 Athens—"The Eye of Greece,” 46 THE HELLENISTIC REALM, 161 The New Order, 161 The Hellenistic Temple, 168 Religious Settings, 170 The Noble Metropolis, 174 ). ROME: CAPUT MUNDI. 191 arly Roman Architecture, 191 Components of a Roman Town: Pompeii, 194 The Look of Empire: Rome at the Millennium, 207 THE WORLD AT LARGE: ROMAN CONCURRENCES, 217 The Roman Cosmos, 217 Beyond the Empire, 219 The Other Ancient World, 225 A Continent Alone, 23% PART TWO. Measuring Up THE TRIUMPH OF CHRIST, 245 The Turning Point: Third-Century Rome, 245 Housing the kingdom of Heaven, 253 The Primacy of Constantinople, 260 THE MEDITERRANEAN IN THE EARLY MIDDLE AGES, The Decline of the West, 269 Carolingian Restoration, 274 The Empire of Muhammed, 28414 5. 16. v7 18. 19, a. THE BIRTH OF NATIONS EUROPE AFTER CHARLES, 295 Europe from Charles to Otto, 295 The Eleventh Century, 298 The Romanesque Church, 305 italian Counterpoint, 314 THE FRENCH MANNER, 323 The Romanesque and Opus Modesnum, 323 Chartres, 333 Gothic abroad, 341 THE URBANIZATION OF EUROPE, 1100-1300, 349 The City Returns, 149 Bourgeois Architecture, Public and Private, 355 An Urban Contrast: Cairo and Florence, 363 EDGES OF MEDIEVALISM, 375 Florence at the Crossroads, 375 The City Center, 375 Europe in the Fourteenth Century, 386 Aging Traditions Abroad, 394 THE RENAISSANCE: IDEAL AND FAD, 403 The First Advance, $03 The Prince and the People: Patronage in Northern Naty, 412 The ttalianate Craze, 428 SPAIN AND THE NEW WORLD, 433 The American Scene, 433, The Spanish Scene, 442 ISTANBUL AND VENICE, 453 [A Turkish Renaissance, 454 The Consummation of Venice, 468 |. THE POPES AS PLANNERS: ROME, 1450-1650, 485 Making the City Whole, 485 Pasture for the Bodily Senses, 4% ABSOLUTISM AND BOURGEOISIE EUROPEAN ARCHITECTURE, 1600-1750, The Roman Baroque, 511 France: The Grand Siecle, 527 The Face of Protestantism, 538 CONTENTS 24 2, D7, 28, PART THREE The Search for Self ARCHITECTURE FOR A NEW WORLD, 547 Europe in Ferment, 547 A World to Choose From, 553, Form and Reform, 565 ARCHITECTURAL ART AND THE LANDSCAPE ‘OF INDUSTRY, 1800-1850, 5°1 |A Matter of Styles, 571 The Iron Age, 594 THE AMERICAN EXPERIENCE, 605 Colonial Dependence, 607 Architecture for a Nation, 617 Greece tor All Seasons, 629 VICTORIAN ENVIRONMENTS, 635 The Gilded Age, 635 Victorian America, 647 THE TRIALS OF MODERNISM, 669 Urban Choices, 669 Toward a Twentieth-Century Architecture, 680 ARCHITECTURE AND THE STATE: INTERWAR YEARS, 695 The 1920s, 695 ‘The Other Side, 707 The Language of Power, 717 THE ENDS OF MODERNISM, 721 Reconstruction, 721 Postwar America, 724 DESIGNING THE FIN-DE-SIECLE, 745 ‘Success and Failure, 745 Recovering the Past, 743 IMlustration Credits, 763, Glossary, 767 Index, 776 AhadPART ONE A Place on EarthTHE STUDY OF WHAT WE BUILT The History of Architecture AA history of architecture is both tess and more than a grand tour. It does not have the immediacy of walking through the streets anc public places of towns as diverse as Isfahan and London, oF stepping. into Covered spaces that range in mood from the ‘dappled, swarming tunnels of Muslim sugs to the single-minded sublimity of the Pan- theon in Rome. (Figs. 1.1, 1.2) That is how architecture is meant to be known. As the ‘material theater of human activity, its truth isin its use. Although a book such as this cannot stand in for “the foot that walks, the head that tuens, the eye that sees,” as Le Corbusier ‘once described the experience of architec- ture it has its own deliberate advantage. For fone thing, the book is a compact world. It lets one shit in minutes from Mesopota- mia to Peru. Then, it is panoramic. The reader who leats through its not unlice the lone figure in this nincteenthcentury painting by Thomas Cole entitled The Ar- ehitect’s Dream. (Fig. 13) The figure re- lines luxuriously on top of-a column of ‘lasscal inspiration; before him, past tra- ditions of buildings are composed grandly, like a hybrid movie set. Time isthe river that flows toward him, and on is bank are fined the familiar forms of his professional v- son: the pyramids, batered walls. and plant columns of Egypt; Greek temples and Ro- ‘man aqueducts; and closer still, outlined Against the glow, the pinnacles and lance- Tike towers of medieval Christendom. He an architect, and what he looks upon is the idealized heritage of his craft. He could draw from this vast and varied wealth, as pineteenth-century architects did, t0 give shape 10 contemporary buildings of his ike him, the reader of an architectural history is alone among the built riches of the past, put in ordet, illustrated, and ac- ‘counted for. He or she can learn the names ‘of buildings and their makers, and when and how they were made, and other ready faformation that is not always at our dis- posal when we travel, A visit to Rome oF Istanbul is bound 10 be confusing. There is 50 very much 1 see, and it seems to he about unsorted, helter skelter. A group of temples from the time belore Christ is ringed by recent apartment houses; brick and-concrete clumps refuse 10 yield their Identity. The histonan beings time under control; isolates random scraps and ar ranges them into a tenchant sequence; sets Up relationships among farting structures, through the hindsight of this day and the collective knewvledge of the discipline, What isa ziggurat and how was it used? What sort ‘of people built it! How does it compare with ‘an O14 Kingdom pyramid or the stepped platiorm of a Meso-American temple? The historian does this, first by insisting ‘on the recapture of the tue physical reality ‘of things built, whether they have since ‘been altered, damaged, or destroyed to- This a primary task, akin to ar- ‘chaeology, and makes use of material that ts both visual and literary in nature. And then the historian must go beyond this es- tablished reality of the buildings to under- stand what they are, how they came to be, and why they are the way they are. The Pictorial Ev.dence Buildings are otren born of images and live fan in images. Eofare there is a foundation trench or 4 single course of stone, a build- ing has to be conceptualized and its form may be represented in models and draw- ings. Models ot the building in small scale, In-cay or wood or plaster, give a full impression in three dimensions ofthe final product that is being projected. Pctonal Views might present the future building's ideal appearance: on commemorative ‘medals, for exemple, struck at the time of the laying of the comerstone, or on pr sentation drawings elaborately rendered in perspective. And there are other, more ab> Siract drawings. Plans show in two-dimen- sional pattern te horizontal disposition of Solid parts, like walls and columns, and the voids of eniramed or enclosed space. Sec tions slice through the building vertically at some imaginec plane 10 indicate the se- quence of rooms in length and the supe Imposition of Hoots and roots in height they also indicate openings, whether they are physically accessible of not, and so help to explain structure. Elevations, using a vertical plane, ilatten out ane face of the building to incicate schematically the or der ofits parts To the initiste, a ground plan of the chuirch of Hagiy Sophia in istanbul tells at {glance that strings of columns alternate with heavy piers to describe aARTHThe point to remember, then, is that graphic and plastic images are indispens able in the making of architecture—and for ts understanding after the fac. They are the conventional language through which the architect communicates wit hs partners in the act of shaping our daily ensironment These are the patton or cient who employ the architect to mold theie architectural wishes, and the many hands involved in ‘building the structure. That same languay assists students of architectural history to {get 10 know structures they have newer seen a and not comprehended in fll and one of the earliest tasks for them #8 0 icels with ease ‘Once a building is up i becomes a live presence, 1o be reproduced at will t might figure on paintings and sculpture in ee fon prints, maps, oF photographs. Models Of it might be made to serve as votive of teri ermane cult, (or example, oF to be sold as mon gris, For the history of architecture there 'S valuable information in all of these re- productions, But we have to be cautious in {architectural drawings and entoes to visitors oF pil 4AT WE BUILT THE STUDY OF interpreting the evidence they provide, be Cause the conventions of the various me- dia employed are peculiar to themselves. A photograph is a faith! fers all incidents of form, however tnting, that fll within the range ‘hands of a painter the same building generalized and rendered in sharp, simp hadow and light. (Fig. 1.6) This 's testimony of a different kind. Yet it bie just as useiul as the photograph: fo chitectural reality has mor and the history of 3 mnsions than jus the The literary Evidence LUterary sources, like images, essential insight for our study ‘oth of most structures sequence assumes the existence of wrt some of which may corn preserved by design or patrons may express their wishes to the ar ‘hitect in writing. The architec, in tun, may have passed on written instructions to sub- Legal contracts. delineate precise responsibilities of the parties con Cemned. The erection of public monuments necessitated administrative commutes whose tral can be followed in the minu of talk Galberations, reports, and records of payment, Beyond this immediate con. text, architectural production would have been affected, slrectly or indinectly, by the towns’ buldirg codes, ordinances of buulding trades and guilds, theoretical trea tises, and mancals of construction building may love in literary sources jong past its compleion, First there is selb-sere Ing advertisem-nt after the tact. Patrons often sing the praises of their creation in dedicalory oF commemoralive inscriptions OF tablets It was the function of court his: torians to extol the building program oftheir employer. We also have t0 heed descrip tions of past huuldings in old travel ac- counts of in an vals and local chronicles, In all of this, historians of architecture need to borrow the philologis’s discipline. But language, the agent of expression. is abo the hotbed of ambiguity. And the trans! tion of words into the physical substance of architecture i peculiarly open to conten We might illustrate this point by focus {ng on one mo wment of antiquity, the t3- mous tomb of King Mausolos of Caria at Hallkarnassos that gave us the word mau: soleum. Wt was considered one of the seven wonders 0! the Classical world, It dsop- peared long ag: with hardly a trace except for, fragments oF its sculptural decoration, ‘now housed in the Briish Museum in Lon- ‘don, and odd brs of the structure that were built into the castle of Bodrum which oc Ccupies the site. The Mausoleum of Halikar nassos lived on in memory through men Iterature, af which the most detailed is a passage from the Natural History of Piny the ide ded tn the second year of the 10%h Ohtopiad IBSt sc. On the north and south side exter fo" 63 fee! but the length of cubits and te onclosed by 36 column Above the colonnade there isa pyramid ws high again as the loner structure aed tapering in 24Fin 15 biking, "5-74, Las | Kab a round pls tb) sectch plan, 1963 THE STUDY OF WHAT WE BUILT is 1 tourhorse chariot of marble, and this was tmace by Pytins. The addition of this chant rounds off the whole work and brings 110.3 height of 140 feet, Recreating the physical appearance of the Mausoleum on the strength of these words is an exceedingly dificult procedure. First fone has 10 establish the accuracy of the Words themselves, Pliny lived two thou- Sand years ago, His book came down to us fn various texts, in Latin and Greek; these contain disparities or alternate readings because of different copyists—and the Interpretation of modern scholars, This is no trivial matter. Dimensions, whether written in Roman numerals or sna letters land accents in the Greek manner, are: ily miscopied or misread. And yet they have to be the basis of any reconstruction Transpose the two inital letters of the word and atitudinem becomes latitudinem. ‘changing the meaning of “a pyramid as high again as the lower structure” to "as wide’ both readings have thew adherents. There were four centuries between Maus solos and Pliny. The description itself may therefore be inaccurate and Pliny may have ferred in writing. At least one scholar be- Tieves that, when Pliny gave the with of the north and south sides as 63 feet, he really ‘meant to say cubits, a Unit of measurement that is one hall of afoot longer: there is no fother way in which the dimensions of the ‘original foundations as they have been ex tracted from the site could be reconciled with such a small figure. And of course the passage in question does not furnish all the Pariculars. It does not say, for example, how high the pedestal was or how the col uumns that surrounded the building were arranged. Historians must juggle all these variables and come up with a building that is a fai interpretation of the literary and archaeo- logical evidence—and a credible form ar chitecturally. They must deduce (rom the ‘one surviving column the style of the bases land the comice of the surrounding colon: nade, relying on the current knowledge of the general development of Greek archi tecture. It should pot surprise us, then, that two versions of the Mausoleum of Hallkar- inassos a8 gifferent as the ones we illustrate could be Spawned by the same data. (Fig. The Total Context of Architecture The efor to establish, through the sera tiny of visual and iterary documents, what past architecture really looked lke will have already ‘avolved us with questions not Stretly pertinent 10 physical form. These right include the identity of the patrons, particulars abo. the motivation for the buildings commissioned, the identity and careers of the architects, the nature of the materals of construction and their prove- nance, matters of fiance, and so on. But even this is not the outermost limit of the legitimate concm of architectural history We have to push futher stil, to the broader frame of general history, for those strands or patterns that illuminate the total setting of architectural graduction Architecture, t0 state the obvious, 16 a social aet—socil both in method and pur pose. It is the cutcom and itis there to be made use of by groups of people, groups as small as the family or as large as an ennie nation. Architecture is a costly act. I engages specialized talent, ap: propriate tech ology, handsome funds. Because this 6 60, the history of architec: ture partakes, in a basie way, of the study lf the social, eeonomic, and technological systems of human history. To understand he Carson Pirie: Scott department store in Chicago fully, we must Know something of late-nineteenth century American capitalist enterprise, the philosophy of consumer- ‘sm, and the business ethic; the urban his tory of Chicago since the Fite of 1871; cor porate financing and land values, the [genesis of the department store as a novel Concept in commercial architecture; the levator and the early history of steeframe skyscraper construction. (Fig. 1.8) This approach should be kept in the foreground 2 the ideal way to learn about our built envirenment. If we are to be sat- isfied with less, as we must it should be on the condition that we agree on what the total context of architecture is. Every build ing represents 4 social artifact of spediic impulse, energ., and commitment. That is its meaning, ane this meaning resides in its physical form. Neither material realty alone or general background of culture will ut fice to explain the peculiar nature of the building, And the task of the architecturalPLACE ON EARTTHE STUDY OF WHAT WE BUILT fig: 17 Halkarnassos (Bodrwry Turkey), fom of King Mauselos, ca 385-250 ac, Fythios and Sa architectural frame as such, it is best dealt with independently by ait ‘historians. Not fonly are Byzantine mosaics physically in: separable irom the architectural frame of their buildings. their placement takes ad saniage oF this frame to Set up a ceremon- ial hierarchy of parts basic to the theater of, Iurgy housed therein, and their subject iniorms this theater with precise theolog cal meaning. (Fig. 1.9) For simiae eas0ns, we cannot divoree the structure of a building from the aesthetic ‘conventions that shape its appearance— ‘what we cal ts style. Buildings are neither primarily structural frames, nor primarily envelopes of form: to write a history of ar chitecture from the perspective of one of these in favor of the other would be pre Tyros) reconstaction drawings al By Ke pE sen, 1958; (bby I. Stevenson, 1886, ‘cisely to deny the physical integrity of the buildings. Preoccupation with structure leads to technological determinism, the kitd ‘of thinking that is attempted to explain al major characteristics of the form of the Garson Pirie Scott store in terms of the ele cevator, prefabrication, and the steel frame, ‘The contrary preoccupation with the ele. iments of design—the intenseaving of ver- tical and horizontal members, the rounded commer at the crossing of State and Madi- son streets, the rich ornamentation of the tentrance pavilion—would tend 1o equate skin with substance and dilute the fact that Louis Sullivan's is not exclusively an ab- act mold ot visual order but a construc- tion of enormous scale that has managed to stand up and to remain standing 9 And yet here, as in many other build- ings, the special excitement of architec- Intention rasides inthe tug of war be- tween the structural and formal systems. (One or the other at times may seem to take ‘over openty and condition the final effect the building will have on its users, The fi fel Tower, for example, seems structure triumphant, By contrast, the simple under lying consirue!_of uprights and lintels transforms the Greek temple, at least su prricially, into somnothing approaching pure form. But if fer the fifel Tower the ex- posed tangle of metal struts s the better part of the form, for the Parthenon on the Athenian Akropolis the clear statement of form, the exteior colonnade with its ga bled ends, is also an appropriate diagramA PLACE ON EARTH nature and with one another w ° We mightduring the Middle Ages Parthenon looks like today, the authors are Tis 4s what the Saying: and this depiction caries at once th Guaint appeal of an exotic land and that Sense of the vanity of things which com Dover us atthe sight of the sad dilapidation of onetime splendor But when they turn from romance owing the Par thencn NOt as it is now but as it was then, Stuart and Revett restrict themselves 10 the chaeclogy, the task of macuate engravings of sharp clear lines, the Drigiral design of the temple in suitably te dduced scale and with a careful tally of di mens ons, We are conitonted again with the iit onal abstractions of the architect's trade Indeed, those arch subsequent decades, wished 10 imitate the Parthenon as a venerable form of nich 3s sociational valve could do so readily from these precise plates of Stuart and Revet, force having seen Athens tof themselves. In nineteenth-century Phila deiphia, for example, the disembodied f3 ade of the Parthenon is reconstructed a5, econd Ban vwithout the ‘of the United States in an urban muti that is completely a sting of the prototype. (Fig. 1.14) inst the engravings of Start and Rev tt, we might pit two pencil sketches of the Akropolis made by Le Corbusier during his apprenticeship travels in the early years of this century. (Fig. 1.15) The close-up view is neither picturesque nor archaeological. It does not show us the ubiquitous tounsts scrambling over the site, for example, nor any other transient fenutes of local rele vance, Nor is the sketch a reproduceable paradigm of the essential design of the Parthenon. instead, we seo the temple the way Le Corbusier experienced it, climbing toward it up the steep west slope of this natural eitadel, and catching sight of it ata dynamic angle through the nade of the Propylaia, the ceremonial of the Akropolis. The inner colon: ong view shows the building in relation to the larger shapes of nature that complement its form: the ped: tal of the Akropolis spur that lis i up like piece of sculpture and the Atic mountain And shen Le Corbusier draws perience laier in bis own work, memory of the building as a fol 10 nature that guides his vision, (Fig. 1.16) 1 this ex A PLACE ON FART This environmental approach is new tc architectural history. 1 responds primarily fo the increasing concern within th tectural profess pathetic coex ‘olde: neighborhoods within which they are planted. The move lately has been toward Fespecting the built fabric of our nities as it stands; avoiding egocentric forms ‘or monumental gestures that would chs rupt its tone and quality: steving for the enhancement of physical fates: and, finally, using 1 iner in the act of building rather than as adve sary. Such an inclusive concept of the en: vironment carries 2 double promise: soli tude for oder buikdings of any period and any style: and tolerance tor the presence of hhumbler stretches in the built fabric. Both hold important lessons for the history of architecture, 3. The Cominunity of Architecture This is what our third premise i all abou! that all past buildings, regardless of size status, of consequence, deserve to be n 30. Histo part t con. buildings of evident sub: Public monuments, and rich, stately res: Hance imposing religious architecture Idences The prelerenc> is not hard to under stand. It is on such important oF grand Structures that a culture expends its great fest energy. Built of costly, durab Hal, they last longer than their immeciate environment becuse thi They are associated with notable patrons and afchitects of rank. They are the sub of comment in ater, and th: provide the hist rian with sufficient raw Iaterial to make 4 case for them, But there is mere to it than th The his: torian of architecture has effortlessly come to identiy with the architect, and, like ‘or her, has accepied the traditional distinc tion between architecture and build Architecture in {14s polarity is high art,1E STUDY OF WHAT WE BULL English toryde Red Be li iI / ; & nla”STUDY OF WHAT WE BUI fig 15 Ue Corbusier (Charles doward ean rnetet, sketches of the Akropols in Athens touched by aesthetic canceen or devoid of aesthetic appeal. To be sure, this isan ins hocent sort of visual order. There #6 no. conscious theory behind it, no intellectual> ized system of form. But it demonstrates that delight is an elusive thing that may ap- ply as readily 1o the random and unstudied 25 it does to the calculated designs of the protessional There is perhaps a more basic considera- tion for resisting the distinction between architeéture and building. The general pur Tig. 146 Le Corbusier, stcich of Anonbiy Bulking. Chandigarh ineba, 1958, pose of architectural history is to examine the constructive impulses of distant and recent cultures. As with all investigations of the past, the belie! persists implicitly that through 2 proper understanding of the act fof making places, this most essential skill of all without which life cannot, literally, exist, we come closer to understanding ourselves. When we exhort histonans to be Dbjective, we mean not so much that they should be unfeeling or uncommitted, but that their assessments should be full and 5 representative. And so it would be as im: proper to evaluate the constructive im- pulse ofa nation exclusively through its I trate architect"e—public monuments and buildings of prestige—as it would be to de: termine its social character on the basis of its leading personages alone. To the extent that American seciety at the time of George Washington de ended on slave labor, 10 pick one random instance, the architec tural history of the period must include slave cabins as weil as Mount Vernon. ‘The truth is that modest structures in the periphery oi monuments are not simply of Intrinsic value: rey are ako essential tothe correct interprciation of the monuments themselves. Slave cabins, outhouses, herb gardens, and ater vats complete the ‘meaning of the olantation house. This may seem obvious to us because Southern plantations are « familiar institution of our Fecent past. If fuey were not and we sub: scribed to the avistacratic view of architec tural history, the neglect of the subsidiary bbuldings might well ave contnbuted to the ‘misreading of oF focal object, the plants tion house itself Our appeal, therefore, Is for a more inclusive defin'ion of architecture and, consequently. a more democratic view of architectural history. The aim is to put aside the invidious ¢ stinctions between archi-