Questions, questions!

So, when we were last together, I made a point about all of us demanding better architecture for our communities.  I then posed the question, “how do we ask for it?”  That’s a good question, even if I am the one who came up with it.  But in order to ask for better architecture, it might help to actually know what better architecture is.  And, alas, there lies the rub.

What is good architecture?  I didn’t come up with that question.  That query has been posed for literally thousands of years.  In fact, the earliest writings that we have on the subject of architecture discuss that very concept. 

The oldest surviving intact manuscript written about architecture dates from the first century BC and came to us from a Roman architect by the name of Marcus Vitruvius Pollio, or just Vitruvius to us smarmy people in the know.  Vitruvius wrote a ten book treatise called De Architectura, Latin for “On Architecture.”  This treatise, aside from its antique novelty, was treated throughout the Renaissance and for centuries thereafter, as something akin to the architectural bible.  All great architects, and those who wished to think of themselves as great architects, considered Vitruvius’ rules and guidance as the true gospel of architectural design.

So, what did an architect who lived two thousand years ago have to say about the subject, and what made him such an authority on all things buildable?  Well, first of all, On Architecture is, in reality, a very well-written book (or, ten books, rather.)  It’s also a very long and thoroughly detailed set of ideal rules by which proper classical architecture was to be built, at least according to principals that Vitruvius believed to be correct.  The treatise encompassed instructions on the correct proportions of various room sizes, column details, structural systems and so forth.  And although there are many instances in which good classical architecture varied a bit from Vitruvius’ rules, he basically nailed it when it came to laying out beautiful buildings.  Even though he was limited stylistically within his historic period, those principals can still be applied just as easily to modern structures.

Vitruvius came of age at the height of the Roman Empire and was trained as an army engineer.  In his day and well into the Middle Ages, the definitions of professions like architect and engineer were much broader than what is acceptable today.  As he outlined in his ten books, Vitruvius roamed far and wide over numerous topics that a modern student of architecture would consider quite irrelevant to their education.  He dedicated entire chapters to music theory, military emplacements, climatic conditions and so forth.  However, Vitruvius insisted that these outlier topics were in fact relevant to the education of an architect.  To an architect working in the first century BC, a wide breadth of knowledge with a tremendous variety of experiences was absolutely vital to understanding how to build successfully.

As peculiar as that may seem today, there is a giant grain of truth to what Vitruvius said.  One must keep in mind that 2,100 years ago, building technology was in a primitive state.  There was little science on which to draw, so architects had to rely on principles that they learned from other fields.  As an example, music theory may seem like a strange requirement to understand for successful construction, but it becomes clearer when you think of it in terms of acoustics and how sound flows through a space, a very handy bit of knowledge when you’re designing a theater.  A thorough grasp of climate interpretation would certainly help one when placing a building on a site so that it was oriented properly with respect to sun exposure and the direction of the predominant breezes.  And although it may seem daunting to have to learn about all of these other fields while studying architecture, keep in mind that the grand sum of accurate knowledge in any field back then was a fraction of what we know today.

But getting back to the original question, (alright, it was the second question) what makes good architecture?  Vitruvius, as you would suspect, was well ahead of us on this issue.  He stated that good architecture must contain three basic elements: firmitas, utilitas, and venustas.  OK, it’s not my fault that you aren’t fluent in ancient Latin, but I’ll help you out anyway.  The most relevant translations into English would be: structurally sound, functionally useful and aesthetically pleasing.  (Firmness, commodity and delight were the terms that architects used during the Renaissance.)  There you have it!  That’s all you need to know to be a successful architect.  Well, that was a lot easier than we all thought, wasn’t it?

Seriously, what is so remarkable about this statement is that it is so simple and yet so profound at the same time.  And, even more importantly, it still holds true to this day, two thousand years later, through dozens, perhaps hundreds of different building styles and technologies.  If a building isn’t structurally sound, it can’t be built, period!  That’s an obvious one.  Secondly, if it isn’t functional, who will want to build or use it?  Certainly you won’t likely find someone to pay for a building that doesn’t serve its purpose, like for instance, a house that doesn’t have enough bedrooms, or a stadium that doesn’t have enough rest rooms (yes, I’m looking at you Turner Field, may you rest in purgatory!)  And lastly, a building can be buildable and functional, and maybe that’s all that you’ll ask of it, but it will never be a great building.  Aesthetics must come into play at that point.

By aesthetics, we don’t simply mean that the building must be “pretty.”  Sure, a good-looking building is a start, but the concept of building aesthetics really goes a lot deeper than mere looks.  And that is where I’d like to leave off for now because that third topic is much too substantive to treat in just a few sentences.  It will most definitely require its own blog entry.  Until next time, keep looking up.