Space - 08.2019

092 PROJECT QUAD

A Problem of

Necessity Dissolved

by Arbitrariness

Joh Hahn

professor, Hongik University

Quad is an extremely rational product. As a

multifamily housing and a neighbourhood

living facility, the maximum floor area ratio

and building to land ratio were prerequisite

conditions of the design. It was imperative

to make use of every last volume, as

permitted by the road width, the sunlight

setback regulations and as stipulated by

the law. For the client, this building had to

achieve a necessary result. As such, what

critique is possible of such a building?

What value does such building have to a

young architect who expresses his style and

ultimately wants to solidify his brand?

A young architect’s style, unlike that

of famous architects, has not attained

recognition for its brand value in the

architecture market, which by consequence

means it has not been generally accepted.

It is difficult to claim that an architect’s

style has value for a client, or that it will

fundamentally influence a client’s decision

regarding a commission. Instead, a young

architect’s style is often observed as one of

juvenalia and can be easily neglected by the

client’s preference or economic rationale.

This is why for architects Kim Jinhyu and

Nam Hojin necessity is the only window

through which to express their colour. The

crux of the problem lies with how to relate

what is considered most arbitrary, such as

the relationship of one’s style to necessity,

or, in other words, how to dissolve the

arbitrary into the necessary demands of the

design.

The description of Quad is full of

necessities. First, the different finishes for

each floor — the exposed concrete on

the 1st floor, the Pochon granite on the

2nd and 3rd floors, the stucco on the 4th,

and the coloured steel plates on the 5th

and attic floors — have all been adopted

from materials commonly used in the

neighbourhood.

The unfamiliar polygon on the top floor

was created by drawing on the surrounding

limiting oblique lines and the window facing

the street at a peculiar angle, which is

offset▼^1 by the outer line of the polygon.

Moreover, contrary to the expectation that

such an exquisitely curved interior space

would have introduced other grandiose

ideas or design elements, this is the

product of offset, tangent lines and fillets▼^2.

The surrounding context determined the

exterior finish, and the width of the road and

sunlight setback regulations determined the

form of the building; even the shaping of the

top floor and its window were directed by

AutoCAD.

Let’s consider the indoor spaces. The first

floor rental space accepted the vague

semi-basement depth created during

construction, and the interesting split-level

space on the top floor accommodated

the upper level space created by setback

lines. The irregularly placed windows on

the façade of the 2nd and 3rd floors were

intended to secure visual channels or the

observation of green areas to provide

maximum spaciousness in each house.

The surreal triangular terrace on the top

floor can be explained by necessity, with

its intention to secure privacy from other

buildings, and to allow natural light while

facing southward.

However, the architects’ explanation of

the Pochon stone finish, which lumps the

2nd and 3rd floors into one mass, appears

different from the aforementioned products

of necessity. They decided to maximise

the length of the module to distinguish

it from other surrounding Pochon stone

finishes and to expose their working marks.

They have also preserved the strangely

obtuse angled corners of the pentagonal

site. It seems as if the architects refused

the conventional results of necessity and

instead chose a stance of ‘arbitrariness’.

In Sobre el concepto de arbitrariedad en

arquitectura, José Rafael Moneo Vallés▼^3

claims that the quintessentially decorative

elements of Anthony Gaudi’s architecture

are actually the product of a process

of necessity, concluding that Gaudi is

different from other architects that have

considered arbitrariness as actually derived

from architectural form. He added that

the masters of modern architecture Le

Corbusier and Mies van der Rohe, who

based their work on the appreciation of

formal consistency, assumed to be in

conflict with arbitrariness, also share this

same path. While Corbusier tried to avoid

any definition or association with form

that was not the result of an architectural

system, Mies strove to lay the foundations

for a general and decisive language from

steel structures through five principles of

modern architecture derived from steel

concrete structures. In particular, Moneo

can be understood to stand among the

ranks of architects throughout history who

have bravely fought to forget their sin of

compressing a sense of arbitrariness, and

simultaneously interrogate an arbitrariness

claimed, paradoxically, to be a prerequisite

of architecture’s necessity. Architectural

creativity is infeasible without arbitrariness,

and the products of a certain arbitrariness

have become the long-held essentials

now perceived as necessities. However,

Moneo argued that when the epoch of John

Hejduk, James Stirling, and Frank Gehry

concluded at the end of the 20th century,

form gradually attained a freedom and the

sense that architects must discuss a formal

arbitrariness based on subjective impulse

gained in influence.

Let’s return to Quad. Truth be told, this

incredibly rational and inevitable product

was triggered by the architect’s sense of

arbitrariness. In other words, it has become

the product of the architect’s desire to

express one’s colour and contemplation

when trying to create difference. The

processed marks on stone, the peculiar

angles of the corners on the pentagonal

site, the virtual volume governed by

local laws, and the geometric system

provided by AutoCAD are all elements

092 PROJECT QUAD

A Problem of

Necessity Dissolved

by Arbitrariness

Joh Hahn
professor, Hongik University

Quad is an extremely rational product. As a

multifamily housing and a neighbourhood

living facility, the maximum floor area ratio

and building to land ratio were prerequisite

conditions of the design. It was imperative

to make use of every last volume, as

permitted by the road width, the sunlight

setback regulations and as stipulated by

the law. For the client, this building had to

achieve a necessary result. As such, what

critique is possible of such a building?

What value does such building have to a

young architect who expresses his style and

ultimately wants to solidify his brand?

A young architect’s style, unlike that

of famous architects, has not attained

recognition for its brand value in the

architecture market, which by consequence

means it has not been generally accepted.

It is difficult to claim that an architect’s

style has value for a client, or that it will

fundamentally influence a client’s decision

regarding a commission. Instead, a young

architect’s style is often observed as one of

juvenalia and can be easily neglected by the

client’s preference or economic rationale.

This is why for architects Kim Jinhyu and

Nam Hojin necessity is the only window

through which to express their colour. The

crux of the problem lies with how to relate

what is considered most arbitrary, such as

the relationship of one’s style to necessity,

or, in other words, how to dissolve the

arbitrary into the necessary demands of the

design.

The description of Quad is full of

necessities. First, the different finishes for

each floor — the exposed concrete on

the 1st floor, the Pochon granite on the

2nd and 3rd floors, the stucco on the 4th,

and the coloured steel plates on the 5th

and attic floors — have all been adopted

from materials commonly used in the

neighbourhood.

The unfamiliar polygon on the top floor

was created by drawing on the surrounding

limiting oblique lines and the window facing

the street at a peculiar angle, which is

offset▼^1 by the outer line of the polygon.

Moreover, contrary to the expectation that

such an exquisitely curved interior space

would have introduced other grandiose

ideas or design elements, this is the

product of offset, tangent lines and fillets▼^2.

The surrounding context determined the

exterior finish, and the width of the road and

sunlight setback regulations determined the

form of the building; even the shaping of the

top floor and its window were directed by

AutoCAD.

Let’s consider the indoor spaces. The first

floor rental space accepted the vague

semi-basement depth created during

construction, and the interesting split-level

space on the top floor accommodated

the upper level space created by setback

lines. The irregularly placed windows on

the façade of the 2nd and 3rd floors were

intended to secure visual channels or the

observation of green areas to provide

maximum spaciousness in each house.

The surreal triangular terrace on the top

floor can be explained by necessity, with

its intention to secure privacy from other

buildings, and to allow natural light while

facing southward.

However, the architects’ explanation of

the Pochon stone finish, which lumps the

2nd and 3rd floors into one mass, appears

different from the aforementioned products

of necessity. They decided to maximise

the length of the module to distinguish

it from other surrounding Pochon stone

finishes and to expose their working marks.

They have also preserved the strangely

obtuse angled corners of the pentagonal

site. It seems as if the architects refused

the conventional results of necessity and

instead chose a stance of ‘arbitrariness’.

In Sobre el concepto de arbitrariedad en

arquitectura, José Rafael Moneo Vallés▼^3

claims that the quintessentially decorative

elements of Anthony Gaudi’s architecture

are actually the product of a process

of necessity, concluding that Gaudi is

different from other architects that have

considered arbitrariness as actually derived

from architectural form. He added that

the masters of modern architecture Le

Corbusier and Mies van der Rohe, who

based their work on the appreciation of

formal consistency, assumed to be in

conflict with arbitrariness, also share this

same path. While Corbusier tried to avoid

any definition or association with form

that was not the result of an architectural

system, Mies strove to lay the foundations

for a general and decisive language from

steel structures through five principles of

modern architecture derived from steel

concrete structures. In particular, Moneo

can be understood to stand among the

ranks of architects throughout history who

have bravely fought to forget their sin of

compressing a sense of arbitrariness, and

simultaneously interrogate an arbitrariness

claimed, paradoxically, to be a prerequisite

of architecture’s necessity. Architectural

creativity is infeasible without arbitrariness,

and the products of a certain arbitrariness

have become the long-held essentials

now perceived as necessities. However,

Moneo argued that when the epoch of John

Hejduk, James Stirling, and Frank Gehry

concluded at the end of the 20th century,

form gradually attained a freedom and the

sense that architects must discuss a formal

arbitrariness based on subjective impulse

gained in influence.

Let’s return to Quad. Truth be told, this

incredibly rational and inevitable product

was triggered by the architect’s sense of

arbitrariness. In other words, it has become

the product of the architect’s desire to

express one’s colour and contemplation

when trying to create difference. The

processed marks on stone, the peculiar

angles of the corners on the pentagonal

site, the virtual volume governed by

local laws, and the geometric system

provided by AutoCAD are all elements