Purposeful transgressions: the role of the structure in the making of new space

Full text

75Proceedings of the International b Symposium on Conceptual Design of Structures
Sept. 16-18, 2021, Attisholz, Switzerland
Conceptual Design of Structures 2021
International fib Symposium
Switzerland, September 16-18 2021
1
Purposeful Transgressions: The Role of the Structure
in the Making of New Space
Viktoriya Maleva, Tokyo University, Faculty of Engineering, Department of Architecture,
Kengo Kuma Lab, 7-3-1 Hongo, Tokyo (Japan), mail@maleva.net
Federico Bertagna, ETH Zurich, Department of Architecture, Chair of Structural Design
Abstract
The present research aims at outlining a conceptual framework for the creation of new spatial experi-
ences in buildings, supported by a conscious utilization of their structural system. The proposed meth-
odology is based on the introduction of purposeful transgressions within default structural solutions:
“purposeful” because their critical intention precludes arbitrariness and “transgressions” because they
involve unconventional interventions within the building’s load-bearing system. The methodology es-
tablishes a conceptual common ground for the collaborative relationship between the architect and the
structural engineer by outlining a process of thought through which the structure becomes integral to
the creation of new space. A selection of illustrative examples concretizes the principles of the pr oposed
framework through analysis of built projects and by examining the formal characteristics of the spatial
experience they materialize.
1 Introduction
1.1 Structure and spatial experience
The creation of a spatial experience is the aspect of building design most often allocated to the “purely
architectural”; consequently, it is perceived as separate from the concrete requirements that govern
decisions about the building’s structural system. Such division stems from the assumption that the ex-
perience of space is a largely subjective matter, and therefore not directly relatable to the quantitative
logic pertinent to structural engineering [1]. As a result, the structure is bound to simply reconcile ar-
chitectural intentions with the force of gravity and its contribution to space creation is limited to be-
coming exposed or concealed as best fitting to the architectural idea [2]. This efficiency-conducive
division of tasks between architects and structural engineers dates back to the 18th century [3] and
despite of the persistent promotion of interdisciplinarity, is largely in place today. The traditional hier-
archical approach represents a missed opportunity in utilizing the space-defining power of the load-
bearing structure [4], which as the only unequivocally permanent building system is always a silent
protagonist in determining scale, proportions, room divisions, and relationship to the ground.
The goal of the current study is to outline a design approach that purposefully uses the structure in the
process of conceiving and materializing new spatial experiences. The proposed approach draws con-
clusions from analysis of built works of architecture through the prism of recent neurological discov-
eries. It affirms that the structure has an inherent potential in the materialization of new spatial experi-
ences due to the universality of the human perception of static equilibrium.
1.2 Universality of space perception and the relevance of new space
The way in which the brain perceives, processes, and records space determines the visceral, cognitive,
and behavioural response of humans at the encounter with a spatial construct. The relevance of spatial
perception to the field of architecture and construction relies on the answer to one question: Is the
experience of space characterized by “universal validity” [5] or is it highly specific to each individual?
Meaning, the experience of space can be purposefully created and sensibly explained only if the unity
of “the nativistic (inborn) and the empirical (learned through experience) faculties for space perception”
[6] are sufficiently similar in all human beings. Proving universality would mean that it is possible to
consciously choreograph a spatial experience that universally affects inhabitants’ subjective perception.
DOI: 10.35789/b.PROC.0055.2021.CDSymp.P008
Purposeful transgressions: the role of the structure
in the making of new space
ViktoriyaMaleva,FedericoBertagna
mail@maleva.net

76 exposed or concealed
Conceptual Design of Structures 2021
2
The neuroscientific discoveries of the late 20th and the early 21st century have been helpful in
identifying a new direction for our understanding of space perception, which points to a high level of
perceptive universality among individuals. Not only our brains map and navigate spaces in the exact
same way through a universal system of mental coordinates [7]; they also generate spatial maps and
record them as a core attribute to memories to use as a source of knowledge at the encounter with spaces
in the future [8]. Moreover, the discoveries suggest that perception and conceptualization of space are
not processes that run simultaneously. This critically undermines the post-modernist culturally-domi-
nant sensibility, where space is perceived through classifications and symbols.
Within the accumulated experience of space in the contemporary globalized society, humans’ per-
ception of static equilibrium is attained and continuously confirmed. However, there are spaces that
betray expectations fostered by past experience. In the context of this research, only such spaces are
referred to as “new”. New spaces are constructs that have the ability to viscerally trigger the inhabitant’s
ability for conceptualization by being unusual compared to the conventional. The creation of new space
in architecture is essentially contained within the ability to materialize “sense-making unusualness” [9].
Its creation should be a central concern in the making of architecture, because space is the most direct
and raw influence that buildings exert on human beings. Spaces have the power to affect the plasticity
of the human brain [10], are crucial for the ability to record new memories [11], and play a critical role
in the formation of learned behaviors.
1.3 Architect and engineer – on the making of new space through structure
The proposed framework outlines a conceptual common ground for the collaborative relationship be-
tween architect and structural engineer as it entails an indivisible correlation between the materializa-
tion of the architectural idea and the structural system. The creation of space, which purposefully chal-
lenges conventional solutions to trigger a perceptive response, warrants a relationship in which “neither
the architect, nor the engineer are subordinate to the other” [12]. The structural system intentionally
becomes one with the space-defining system.
However, it is important to note that this collaborative process can start only on the basis of a clearly
defined architectural idea, which is both “sense-making and form-generative” [13]. This clarification is
crucial because the very same architectural idea can be materialized through conventional or through
new space. The only difference being that the latter, due to being unusual compared to the conventional,
interrupts the “automatization of perception” and when encountered, provokes a degree of experiential
“estrangement” [14]. When using the space-defining power of the structure, it is indispensable for the
architect to involve the structural engineer from the very beginning of the design process. The role of
the structural engineer in this case is not merely that of making the architectural project possible to
build, but it is rather to collaborate with the architect to “develop the concept of how to build from the
idea” [15].
2 Objective
The ultimate objective of the current paper is to affirm the existence and to concretize the nature of
the relationship between the structural system and the spatial experience. The methodology positions
the role of structural design in the overall spatial design process, clarifies the essence of the relationship
between structure and space, and discusses the potentials for the purposeful use of this relationship. The
paper outlines a set of consistent principles, unified in a conceptual framework, through which new
space is conceived and materialized in architecture.
Without being formulaic, the methodology proposes conceptual grounding, which precludes arbi-
trariness in the decision-making process. This shows that the making of new space in contemporary
architecture neither is the result of creative genius, nor is dependent on technological advancements or
innovative materials. Ultimately, the framework affirms the role of the structure as a protagonist in
space making and proposes a possible approach to include it as an integral part of the design process.
3 The “transgressive” approach to the design of new space
Unlike in purely scientific fields, “newness” in the realm of the spatial experience necessitates “little to
no invention, much like the reassembling of an existing toolbox” [16]. Such reassembly, however,
needs be rooted within the accumulated human experience of space, because neither a spatial constel-
lation that is totally familiar, nor one that is totally bizarre is able to provide us with a meaningful spatial

77Proceedings of the International b Symposium on Conceptual Design of Structures
Sept. 16-18, 2021, Attisholz, Switzerland
Conceptual Design of Structures 2021
3
experience. The first - because it has nothing new to tell us that we have not already experienced, and
the second - because it uses totally unfamiliar architectonic language to communicate its ideas (“the
merely fantastic soon dies”) [17].
The essence of the proposed methodology is contained in two words: purposeful transgression.
Purposeful because its critical intention “precludes arbitrariness” [18] and transgression because it in-
troduces a violation of the defaults within the constituent components of space (i.e. structure, ordering
system, scenography, and morphology). The current paper focuses on transgressions within the struc-
tural system, described here through the term structural transgressions. The general logic of the trans-
gressive approach with its conceptual steps are outlined in Fig. 1. A project’s starting point is always
the idea about space that it strives to materialize. Once this architectural idea is clearly formulated, it
becomes necessary to communicate it through coherent architectonic language. Here comes the most
crucial moment in space creation, which determines whether the project will be successful in triggering
the inhabitant’s ability for conceptualization. Such engagement can be instigated only through a con-
tradiction with defaults, solidified through past experience of space. A contradiction in the context of
space creation is more than just an opposition. In that sense, it is not the contradiction of opposites as
described by Venturi through the examples of Villa Savoye, which is “simple outside yet complex
inside” or in the Tudor plan of Barrington Court, which is “symmetrical yet asymmetrical” [19]. The
contradiction of the transgressive approach is rather a purposeful incompatibility with the expected
usualness. The method for achieving such contradiction in architecture is through purposeful transgres-
sions.
Fig. 1 Diagram showing the sequence of the conceptual steps in the transgressive approach to the
creation of new space.
The achievement of the abovementioned shift of perception aims at questioning the consciously or
subconsciously accepted conventional way in which architecture looks, functions, and/or is generally
built. The materialized product of the transgressive approach is a new spatial experience. The resulting
architectural space is characterized as unusual compared to the conventional (i.e. is new), “builds close
rapport with the conventional” [20] (i.e. is relevant) and invites to be adopted as the new conventional
(i.e. is resilient).
4 The specific potential of the structure to materialize transgressions
The choice of an effective transgression to express a specific architectural idea is governed by the as-
sessment of the status quo of perception. In a building, structural transgressions usually engage the
inhabitants’ perception of static equilibrium. Such engagement can be achieved and intensified through
different means. For example, by making the supporting structural elements seem disproportionately
small to the mass that they carry, by obscuring, concealing, or dislocating load-bearing elements, or by
choosing a material for the supported mass that makes it seem heavier than it actually is.
A simplified example of a structural transgression, which is liberated from the complex nature of
building design, is the tensegrity table shown in Fig. 2. In a straightforward manner, it illustrates the
power of a structural transgression on human perception. In a conventional table (Fig. 2c) the legs are

78 exposed or concealed
Conceptual Design of Structures 2021
4
elements mainly designed to withstand compressive forces and this influences their size, material and
proportions relative to the supported surface. However, in the tensegrity table (Fig. 2a,b), the vertical
supporting elements are actually in tension, thus inverting the logic of the structure. One does not need
to be an engineer, nor to be familiar with the concept of tensile and compressive forces in order to
perceive the unusualness of such a table. The reason for this is the accumulated human knowledge
attained through experience in the past. Having seen many tables, a person subconsciously has attained
a general understanding of what is the structural role of the table legs, how many of them, and more or
less how thick they should be. The abovementioned subconscious knowledge fosters an expectation
about space, an expectation about the formal characteristics of the spatial construct known as a table.
Perception functions in the same way at the encounter with constructs of bigger scale and complexity -
a room, an installation, a building. In the case when expectations (created and confirmed consistently
through past experience) are re-confirmed, they often go unnoticed, a concept known as “automatism
of perception” [14]. However, when those expectations are betrayed - the result is a new spatial expe-
rience - the ultimate goal of space making.
Fig. 2 Tensegrity table as a simplified example of a structural transgression. Transgressive solution-
built (B) and conventional solution – speculative (C).
In building design, despite the higher level of complexity, this transgressive structural thinking follows
the exact same logic like in the tensegrity table. Structural transgressions in buildings can include, but
are not limited to displacement or concealment of structural elements, switched or unconventional order
of structural elements, structural organization which affects the perceived visual inertia, visual unifica-
tion of tensile and compressive elements, integration of structural and non-structural elements, imple-
mentation of hybrid structural systems. The following section features a set of built projects that suc-
cessfully materialize new spaces through structural transgressions.
5 Illustrative case st udies
The current section shows a selection of contemporary buildings analyzed through the prism of the
proposed conceptual framework. Each one of the following subsections is dedicated to a specific case
study, which exemplifies a particular transgressive decision. This does not imply that there is no possi-
bility for the application of more than one transgressive decision in the same project, nor the fact that
all transgressions are equal in their space determinative force. The selected case studies include diverse
building typologies coming from different countries, thus showing that the proposed framework is not
dependent on context, program, scale, or culture.
It is worth mentioning here that the analysis of the illustrative examples is purely speculative, as it
does not imply that transgressive thinking was consciously employed in the design process. The study
uses examples only to show what spatial results can be produced through the use of the structure in a
transgressive way.

79Proceedings of the International b Symposium on Conceptual Design of Structures
Sept. 16-18, 2021, Attisholz, Switzerland
Conceptual Design of Structures 2021
5
5.1 Displacement and/or concealment of structural elements: Maison Bordeaux
In Maison Bordeaux (Fig. 3), the materialization of the architectural idea necessitates an uninterrupted
open space to be created under the floating volume of the dwelling unit. This is achieved through a
transgressive solution in which the main volume is partially supported from below and partially hanging
from above. The solution relies on a vertical shift of the transversal beam, which is connected to the
circular pillar, and on a lateral shift of the pillar itself. This results in the necessity to introduce a load-
bearing tensile element to re-equilibrate the global structural system.
This transgressive decision challenges the logical aspect of perception concerning the static equi-
librium. The shift and transformation of some of the structural elements challenges the human percep-
tion regarding the presence, location, and proportionality of the load-bearing elements to the building
mass. The sense of weight is intensified through the secondary decisions for the material of the sus-
pended mass and the minimal window openings in it.
Fig. 3 Example of displacement or concealment of structural elements. Maison à Bordeaux - arch.
Rem Koolhaas (OMA), eng. Cecil Balmond.

80 exposed or concealed
Conceptual Design of Structures 2021
6
5.2 Structural organization that affects the perceived visual inertia: Leutschenbach
School
Leutschenbach School (Fig. 4) materializes space of uninterrupted continuity in the relationship be-
tween the inside and the outside. The transgressive solution consists in the shift of the structural sup-
ports on the ground level from the perimeter of the building towards the center of the building volume.
The six massive tripod supports represent the one and only direct connection between the building and
the ground. As a result, the entire façade surface on the entrance level is not interrupted by any structural
element.
This transgressive decision challenges the logic for the anticipated level of visual inertia for a build-
ing of that size. It triggers a sense of levitation and unwarranted static equilibrium. Further intensifica-
tion of the contradiction is achieved through the secondary design decisions for the fully glass-enclosed
entrance level (accentuating the lack of structural elements in the façade), the minimal variation in the
materiality, and the steel members being painted in the color of the concrete slab.
Fig. 4 Example of structural organization that affects the perceived visual inertia. Leutschenbach
School – arch. Christian Kerez, eng. Joseph Schwartz.

81Proceedings of the International b Symposium on Conceptual Design of Structures
Sept. 16-18, 2021, Attisholz, Switzerland
Conceptual Design of Structures 2021
7
5.3 Visual unification of tensile and compressive elements: KAIT Workshop
With the intention of blurring the boundaries between interior and exterior, the KAIT Workshop visu-
ally unifies the formal characteristics of the tensile and the compressive elements (Fig. 5). A default
solution for a structural system of this type would generally entail the presence of two types of elements:
vertical compressive elements (i.e. columns responsible for the transfer of vertical loads) and bracing
elements (responsible for the transfer of horizontal loads). Due to their usual materiality and function,
such elements are generally easily differentiable. However, this project visually materializes both of
them in the same way. The building is supported by a composition of many thin vertical columns in
combination with pre-stressed vertical ties. Despite serving a completely different structural function,
these elements are visually very similar, thus challenging the perception of stability and active presence
of a building of such size. The seemingly absent diversity of structural elements and the slenderness of
their presence challenges once again the inhabitant’s instinctive notion of static equilibrium.
Fig. 5 Example of visual unification of tensile and compressive. KAIT Workshop – arch. Junya
Ishigami, eng. Yasutaka Konishi.

82 exposed or concealed
Conceptual Design of Structures 2021
8
6 Discussion and future work
The current study is part of a larger research project focused on the development of a conceptual frame-
work for the creation of new spatial experiences in architecture through the introduction of purposeful
transgressions. While the overall research project deals with all constituent components of space (struc-
ture, ordering system, scenography and morphology), the current paper focuses on structure only. Par-
ticularly, the analysis of a set of case studies has shown how structures and structural design can become
active participants in the creation of new spatial experiences in buildings. Future work will include the
application of the framework to personal projects, the analysis of additional case studies, and an explo-
ration of a possible historical grounding for the proposed design approach.
Acknowledgements
We would like to extend gratitude to Prof. Kengo Kuma and Dr. Toshiki Hirano at the Kengo Kuma
Laboratory at the Department of Architecture, Faculty of Engineering, Tokyo University. The research
project was funded by the Japanese Government through the MEXT Scholarship for research.
References
[1] Cresy, Edward. 1847. An Encyclopaedia of Civil Engineering, Historical, Theoretical and
Practical. London: Longmans, Brown, Green.
[2] Flury, Aita. 2011. Cooperation. The Engineer and the Architect. Birkhäuser Verlag.
[3] Saint, Andrew. 2007. Architect and Engineer. A Study in Sibling Rivalry, New Haven and
London: Yale University Press.
[4] Baumberger, Christoph. 2011. Structural Concepts and Spatial Design: On the Relationship
Be-tween Architect and Engineer. In Aita Flury, Cooperation.
[5] Kant, Immanuel. 1987. transl. Critique of the Power of Judgment. Cambridge: Hackett
Publishing.
[6] Järvinen, E. Jaakko, Louis Jolyon West, Pekka Yrjö Korkala, and Kai V.J. von. Fieandt.
2017. Space perception. Encyclopedia Britannica.
[7] Moser E., I., Roudi, Y., Witter, M., P., Kentros, C., Bonhoeffer, T., Moser, M., B. 2014.
“Grid cells and cortical representation.” Nat Rev Neurosci. 15(7):466-481.
[8] Buzsáki, G., Llinás, R. 2017. “Space and time in the brain.” Science. 358(6362):482-485.
[9] Shinohara, Kazuo. 1971. 16 houses & Architectural Theory. Tokyo: Bijuteu Shuppan-sha.
[10] Voss, P., Thomas, M., E., Cisneros-Franco, J., M., de Villers-Sidani, É. 2017. “Dynamic
brains and the changing rules of neuroplasticity: implications for learning and recovery.”
Front Psychol. 8:1657.
[11] Moser, M., B. 1999. “Making more synapses: a way to store information?” Cellular and
molecular life sciences. 55(4), 593–600.
[12] Behrens, Peter. 1910. transl. Art and Technology. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
[13] Olgiati, Valerio, and Markus Breitschmid. 2018. Non-Referential Architecture, Basel:
Simonett & Baer.
[14] Shklovsky, Viktor. 1919. Искусство как приём, Poet. Sb. po Teor. Poet. iazyka, no.
Petrograd: 18-aya gosudarstvennaya tipografiya.
[15] Hasegawa, Go. 2017. Amplitude in the Experience of Space. Lecture presented at Harvard
GSD. Cambridge, Massachusetts.
[16] Radic, Smiljan. 2017. “+-1 Year.” Lecture presented at Porto Academy Workshop, Portugal.
[17] Le Corbusier. 1989. Towards a New Architecture, New York: Dover Publications.
[18] Kerez, Christian. 2017. “GSAPP Conversations.” Interview at Columbia GSAPP, New York.
[19] Venturi, Robert. 1977. Complexity and Contradiction in Architecture. New Jersey: Princeton
University Press.
[20] Shinohara, Kazuo and Schaarschmidt-Richter. 1994. Kazuo Shinohara. The Institute for
Architecture and Urban Studies and Rizzoli International Publication Inc.