STRUCTURAL DESIGN FOR ARCHITECTURE

Structural Design for Architecture

building forms which resulted therefore had to

have rectanguloid geometries with regular

layouts of elements. The shapes of the indi-

vidual structural elements were more complex,

however, than would have been specified for

equivalent structures under the 'structure

accepted' philosophy and the various devices

which are associated with high structural

efficiency were freely employed to add visual

interest. These included complex shapes in

cross-section and longitudinal profile, the

tapering of elements, the liberal use of the

circular lightening hole (used in aircraft struc-

tures to reduce the weights of components)

and the exaggeration of joints and fastening

components (Fig. 2.6). Much of this vocabulary

was 'borrowed' from aerospace or motor

technology, where its use was, of course, justi-

fied on purely technical grounds. In the field of

architecture, its employment was purely stylis-

tic but was necessary to convey the impression

of 'state-of-the-art' technology.

The need to expose the structure to view,

which is an inevitable consequence of its use

as a set of visual motifs, carried with it a

requirement to provide adequate corrosion

protection schemes, which added to the struc-

tural costs, especially if, as was often the case,

the steelwork was exposed on the exterior as

well as in the interior of the building. Where

the building had more than one storey, it was

also necessary to make adequate provision for

fire protection. This posed quite severe

problems which were often difficult to resolve^9

and which frequently required the adoption of

one of the more complex forms of fire protec-

tion (see Section 3.5).

One of the ironies of the high-tech

movement was that when structural form was

manipulated according to the dictates of

aesthetic rather than technical criteria, the

result was often technically flawed and it is a

fact that most of the high-tech buildings were

not well engineered if judged purely on their

technical performance.^10 That which symbol-

ised technical excellence was not, in other

words, itself technically excellent. This,

however, was an inevitable consequence of the

symbolic use of structure.

It should be noted, however, that the 'struc-

ture symbolised' approach is capable of being

applied to architectural agendas which are

different from the Modernist preoccupation with

the celebration of technology. If, for example,

the intention was to celebrate the idea of a

sustainable architecture the use of the 'structure

symbolised' method would yield a quite differ-

ent architecture in which attention was drawn to

the measures which are required to minimise

the input of energy and resources, of all kinds,

which are involved in the construction, main-

tenance and running of a building. Such an

approach could lead to the development of a

completely new architectural symbolic vocabu-

lary of masonry and timber. This would, of

course, also be equally 'dishonest' and probably

as basically inefficient, in structural terms, as

was 'high tech'. This development is therefore

perhaps less likely to occur than was 'high tech'

because the potential clients would, due to its

lack of engagement with physical reality, be less

sympathetic to the idea of adopting it and more

likely to favour the 'structure accepted' or true

structural high-tech' approach.

Where the 'structure symbolised' approach is

used it is essential that the designer has a clear

awareness of the type of architectural statement

which the building is intended to make. The

form of the structure must then be distorted

and exaggerated so as to make the nature of

that statement unequivocally clear otherwise

the result will be architecturally feeble.

2.2.5 True structural high tech

In this, the fourth type of relationship between

structure and architecture, the design of the

structure is accorded the highest priority and

9 It was in fact due to the impossibility of meeting the

fire regulations that the change of structural material

from steel to reinforced concrete was made in the case

of the Lloyd's building.

10 See Charles Jencks, The battle of high tech: great build-

ings with great faults', Architectural Design, 58, (11/12) pp.

(^32) 19-39, 1988.