history of building from a labor perspective

who “owns” the history of building?โ€‚is it mathematician/engineers and royal society professionals from the 19th century?โ€‚do scholars and academics have a claim to the history of building culture?

The professional institutions have been with us less than 200 years.โ€‚Before their introduction the culture and history of building was mostly by laborers, for laborers.

Most architects and philosophers want to start this prompt, by asking: where does medieval architecture “come from”?.โ€‚I have a wild proposal, you made up the whole framework.โ€‚In the material world: There is no such thing as architecture.โ€‚There are building methods, materials, and the descriptive geometry used to create forms or intersect surfaces.โ€‚And the human effort involved.

“Architecture” is the application of ideology about building, after the fact usually by those not involved in the practice of labor.โ€‚Put another way: Architecture is fashion.โ€‚”Building culture” is garment construction.

To that end the specifier and speculative classes fail themselves, and they have failed their brother humans as an institution and practice. Left unchecked, they will continue to make busy work for their class: inventing another debate on the origins of form that reminds us of the bozos looking for dark matter.

they will found whole schools on ways to describe cutting up a cone, or developing “a new shape” but never lay a single brick, or truly put a durable humble roof over generations.

Where is the practice? Arguing over fashion and teaching people to think itโ€™s ok to behave this wayโ€ฆ. Digging in even harder in historicism on the other end of the pool. The practice is lost as it ever was.

I want to scream.

We start our timeline the location of modern Prague: 500 bc. Celtic boii scribing floor showing the development of a cone. They have mass walls and timber frame roofs., a fully developed recognizable cannon of human scale home โ€œarchitectureโ€, similar to china and the levant. many cultures did it. Nobody did it like the boiis. The speculative โ€œmasonsโ€ on wet island will come to fetishize this building culture but improperly attribute their achievements and origins to Greek and Egyptian traditions, even though writers of the time differentiate them as โ€œnot Sicilians, not Greekโ€. They are โ€œotheredโ€ by the writers of their time.โ€‚They are noted to build villages and fortifications, by Cesar himself.

Where “architecture” comes from?โ€‚the myth of the dark ages started in the 19th century to sell “class” and โ€œartโ€.

The supposed โ€œdark agesโ€ 700 years of brick and stone, hot mixed mortars, timber joinery.

Itโ€™s called the dark ages because they could only get brown filters for the video cameras back then, and a bunch of 19th century weirdos in an institution said so.

Forms of all imaginable construction both regional and imperial. All mass wall or timber frame, all based on this continental corpus of structural integrity, in pursuit of interior comfort. The “architects” from enlightenment and victorian eras focus on the churches and high examples of cultural expression.โ€‚All of them are exploiting similar geometric tricks to generate impressive forms.โ€‚This is where the field has been lost for 200 years, myth making and hyper-analyzing the “origins” of something that is simply a rule of triangles or circles, exploited well by craft laborers .

But what about the regular folk on the continent?โ€‚Most of the population didn’t live in cathedrals or think of their buildings and labor in the same way a 19th century intellectual would.โ€‚The humans who lived within these structures have cherished words for comfort and warmth. In the indo-european root Buh: It means “weโ€™re sick of living in caves and real happy these folks showed up”.โ€‚They value textiles, and human effort to create comfort. Their homes were warm and dry. They have many words to describe the creators of comfortable places, Maestro is the Latin root. Techton in Greek. The people of ancient times described the laborers who provided comfort and warmth, from their own culture and language as โ€œmastersโ€ and โ€œbuildersโ€.

There was nothing dark about this time, if the people are to believed by their own words.โ€‚They were obsessed with being roman, no matter where they were, and so they would favor classical sources in their “library” and throw out their own periodicals and contemporary works often.โ€‚We see this bias running all the way thru the culturalโ€‚curation right up to the reformation.

Romanโ€™s who? They used the building cultures of their enslaved people: impressive only for scale and administration. We had concrete of the same chemistry in turkey and china. The forms are all stolen from Greeks jacking it about how you can make big stone blocks look like a boob if you squint real hard and the sun is just right.

Aachen 800ad: (the stadium glam rock era for crafts and building history): founding of coppersmiths for tailoring and joinery and glass making โ€œstudiesโ€. With the patronage of Chalamange, crafts in building arts become established institutions within the monasteries. The palace at Aachen becomes the โ€œJay Lenos garageโ€ of medieval Europe.

Aww Charles.. bless his little king Heart. he just loved him some workers and sciences and all the cool things they made. He would have been a Joe Rogan style guy today.โ€‚Kinda dumb, loyal like an inbred dog, surrounding himself with cool wizards and “smart guys”.โ€‚You do, unfortunately kinda have to hand it to โ€œhimโ€ for the patronage to the building arts.

16th century: Delโ€™orme: Europeโ€™s father of master builders. A retired stone cutter in his sundown years produces the first books of architecture for the modern world. His declarations Made builders, architects, and mathematicians mad for 400 years. Shout out to a master poster and troll. Taught us how to make a stone ceiling look like a smashed trumpet, with circles and witty math.

16th-17th century Compangnon is made French military secret; the march of imperial power shakes the world.โ€‚On wet island: laws are passed to stop unions of laborers forming. Machine breakers fight back. Police invented to stop laborers revolts.

Quick rewind to the 15th century to look at the dome in Florence. The guy Brunelesci was a master, but not because of โ€œthe Renaissanceโ€. It is claimed he โ€œwent to Romeโ€ to study the masters of antiquity. What he actually did was humble himself to seasoned military carpenters, and his laborers. He stood on the scaffold with them for each new step of the dome. He produced all the stereotomy. Like Toyota and Paul Akers: Bruno designed the work around the worker, he put himself in their shoes for every step. This is why the dome was completed in his lifetime. It must have been. He came to the junket with science, power and glory.

All the renaissance is stolen valor of his master achievements bringing real worldly culture to Italians. Please feel free to bully these weird pasta hicks, they couldnโ€™t even invent a tomato. The juicy, red food they are known for arrives from the new world later this century: to much rejoicing by spaghetti chefs.

1660: wet guys: English merchants and striver class wigs establish mystery guilds in the model of Compagnon, because they are mad jealous of how cool and free master builders are. They will come to own pickleball courts and hamburger restaurants in America. Real uncut Calvinist shit.

18th century: professional class and civil engineering established. American revolution: timber rights. French Revolution: Compagnon made illegal along with other labor guilds. The birth of the corporation, the specifier as a class.

19th century: newly minted professional class dismantles craft practices, invents myths about history, fully establishes its authority to speak on building and labor. Industrial practice and unchecked extraction capitalism keep the economy line โ€œproofsโ€ coming up green.

At the end of the 19th century everything is crashing. All the prophets are made liars, the lofty dreams of the charismatics and lumpen alike cut up for tenements. Paper for balance sheets and newspapers ordered on speculation for the next year. The world feels the grip of apocalypse in all cultures, then oil is plumbed.

20th century. Dark ages. We donโ€™t know what happened can someone with a degree tell us? Did yall see that? Did you see what they did there?

Letโ€™s reiterate what this jumbled drawing provesโ€ฆ. In order to lay out the curve for a groin vault, you only needed to know the surface development of its inverse, the dome vault in square, and produce that net in the scribing floor. All cuts derived from tangents of that net line. This has been unfolded but I could have done it all within the original crossing section. There is no radius โ€œoff the sheetโ€ required to produce the curve.โ€‚

The knowledge needed to cut up a circle and project rafter lengths is building culture.โ€‚it was known to all building cultures.โ€‚The knowledge to refine clay and burn limestone, also a human building culture technology. Not roman.โ€‚Never Lost. There are no mysteries or elusive building โ€œdark artsโ€. Just service to duty and a lot of hard work.

Sources: https://www.ling.upenn.edu/~rnoyer/courses/51/PIEMaterialCulture.pdf

http://www.sbebuilders.com/tools/geometry/treatise/

trad building is practical and durable

How Energy Availability Influenced Building Form (and what this tells us for the climate emergency) by Dr Robyn Pender. “For many thousands of years, buildings all over the world were constructed using just a small corpus of materials. But as a timeline of building materials shows, as we began to exploit high-energy materials, everything changes: slowly at first, then faster and faster as we began to exploit ‘fossil fuel slaves’. New materials introduced new opportunities, but with them new problems. Over just a few centuries our whole relationship with the ways we constructed and used our buildings changed radically, and we are still finding out the unintended consequences of a giant experiment.” – Dr Robyn Pender. Dr. Pender is a Senior Building Conservation Advisor at Historic England, working in the Building Climate Change Adaptation Team. A physicist specialising in building environments, with a degree in Wall Painting Conservation from the Courtauld Institute of Art, she helped to write and edit English Heritage’s 10-part Practical Building Conservation Series, which introduced her to the history of building materials and systems. Robyn remains fascinated by the links between that history and the availability of energy, and how this can give new insights into the causes of the climate emergency.

Floating stairs

The heart of the design starts with the stairs. The stairwell is the central feature in this building. Here is the detail sections for the cellar stair, of which the third landing is the garage floor level and walk up to first floor.

Back to the board.

I’ve took the last week away from titusville and stayed in Butler. While here i’ve been working on a new project: refining a new build of an authentic 2nd empire style house.

The initial design is centered around the lot/building size, and some very huge existing antique doors..

A modern architect had done some preliminary work, but the overall effect seemed to include a lot of added expense and aplique with no added value.

Proportions and overhangs all over the place…
McHistoric.

A new design was needed that fit the “shell” or building line, and those existing doors. Classical orders aren’t just for columns. The same rules of subdivision and segmentation should be used through the whole design. This is quite possible to do with off-the shelf profiles if you know how to layer them properly…

Classical proportions typically yield very large platform/ ceiling heights compared to spec building ceiling heights.  In order to have an authentic second empire design, and keep the current fixed variables of door size and building width: a commitment to a much taller ceiling/platform height will be required.  This will add expense in some places, however it will simplify other aspects of the build.

Simplicity comes from many places: The original plan features two different roof/cornice levels, and a costly porch on the north side with no prospects of use.  As designed it will create a huge fabrication cost, and later maintenance/ cost center with flat roofs, protrusions, and two levels of cornice intersecting. 

Proposed is a much simpler, yet much more detailed facade:  First the main feature and โ€œcurb appealโ€ is created through proper proportions and detailing rather than aplique.  The porch has been removed, allowing the brickwork on the foundation to shine, as well as the functional shutters and large โ€œshow peiceโ€ windows.

The entryway has been simplified as well, there is no longer a portico, but rather twin square column segments and paneling, with the platform now being inside the building line, and the doors moved to the foyer wall, on the interior.  The cornice for the first floor will have brackets with a metal shelf above, no gutter. This design actually hides the imposing size of the doors and frames them within the entryway. This would have been typical for many classical entablatures as the beam and nape of the columns are usually 12-16โ€ lower than the ceiling.

The cornice on both platforms is real, however the built-in gutter has been removed in place of a low-pitch shelf.  Roof plumbing is accomplished with a 6โ€ half-round gutter at the eave of the mansard. This configuration gives the ease of maintenance and service life of a hanging gutter, with the look of a full cornice from below.  The shelves above the cornice help to shade the windows during high sun, and direct run-off from the upper walls during heavy rains. Functional shutters on all the south-facing windows further help to protect this elevation from brutal summer thermal loading.

Throwback: helping “The Plaza” condo assn. at St. James Court navigate stifling restrictions from a very un-informed historical commission.

Posted 10th November 2008 by Kurtis

I’ve been working with the residents of this condo building for some time now to navigate the waters of the local landmarks ordinance with the intention of removing these hideous and poorly built entryway awnings.  These things were assumed by the landmarks committee “experts” to be original, and therefore in need of preservation. I’m not sure if they ever did any true survey or research work to come to this conclusion because there was evidence all-over a classical portico that preceded the current installation.

These things are corroded through and besides being an eyesore, they are a burden to maintain and would be impossible to recreate with the condo association’s budget.


In this photo it is easy to see the “ghost lines” of the former entryway surround with a flat roof. The sheet metal rectangle against the wall is also covering a limestone lintel that would have fit perfectly inside the original surround.

This is my design proposal which includes eliminating the rusty heaps and building a proper portico with a doric entablature.  The original wrought iron supports are retained and used as a partial load bearing aspect of the system.  The corbels do transfer some of the load, but more importantly they visually transfer the load and make the whole thing seem more believable.

After much back-n-forth with the “experts” at landmarks, we got our approval and demolition began! Further inspection upon demolition revealed even more clues.  A cast stone lintel, previously covered by the barrel vault, flanks the doorway.  The new design frames the stone lintel.

Posted 31st March 2009 by Kurtis

Things are starting to shape up on the Court.  We finished the trim carpentry on one of the two structures today.  Here are some photos of the progress:

Corbels installed…

View of the ceiling from the inside.

Throwback: Design slam

Posted 5th September 2008 by Kurt๏ปฟ

Traditional vs. Traditional “looking”

Here is a good real-life example of traditional design intentions being executed poorly. This new house is infill on a street of mostly antebellum houses. It looks like it was constructed well using good materials by today’s standards. But they screwed up the proportions and some details which make the whole thing feel inauthentic. First: the pop-out in the center with the gable roof makes this a single oversized bay with symmetrical 2-bay wings. It puts too much emphasis on the center, making the other parts feel less significant. The large “paladian” window on the second floor is almost as big as the whole entryway on the first. It is poorly massed. A better configuration would have been a standard symmetrical 5-bay configuration with a single gable roof plan. This would be in character with most of the other houses on the street which are 3 or 5 bay with single gable. I know a stone foundation is not really cost effective for most building projects these days, but they should not have raised the foundation as high as it is. This is out of character with every structure around it. The oversized brick stoop is also too much.
Now the details: The large window casings are out of place on a brick structure. The windows should have a simple lintel and sill of stone or brick if stone is not in the budget. Considering the expense involved to produce those custom casings, they probably could have afforded limestone lintels and sills instead. And finally the cornice: the entablature is massed properly, but they used a tiny cyma molding in place of a bed mold, and again a tiny cyma where the crown should be about double the size of what it is. 

Compared to a traditional building:

Important characteristics to note on the traditional plan:
Size of the windows suggest hierarchy; the first floor is emphasized. The stoop is simple and understated. There is almost no setback, making the home contribute directly to the public space. There is no gratuitous trim or ornamentation, not even a cornice. The overhang is accomplished with corbeled brick.

Postedย 5th September 2008ย byย Kurt