Systematic Thinking for Architects
- David
- Jan 6
- 2 min read
Updated: Jan 9
In my last years of teaching architecture, I increasingly found students mostly incapable of—or averse to?—thinking through a problem systematically. It was true both in design studio and in classes where we analyzed historic precedents. I’ll leave the causes to sociologists, but I realize there may be a general unfamiliarity with what systematic thinking would look like. For my sake as well as for that of my former colleagues and students, allow me to outline what systematic thinking means for architects. I’d been mostly involved with students studying classical architecture, but much of this obtains as well for almost any pre-Modernist form of architecture, and indeed for the most rational forms of Modern architecture.
To be systematic myself, I’m presenting the principles in the form of a list, which is itself organized systematically, from the practical to the poetic. These should all be considered obligations, “a prioris,” or protocols, since for the sake of coherence they demand observance. Parenthetical statements here are meant as “for examples.” I’ll end with some observations on what to do in the case of unresolvable conflicts between them.
1. Proceed from the general (building size, position, orientation, shape, etc.) to the particular (modulations of surface, disposition of openings, etc.). While finer grains of information can’t be ignored in the general phase of problem solving, the larger issues should constrain the smaller. That said, a series of obligations inform the building’s organization inside and out…
2. Site obligations include the realities of terrain and solar orientations, and position vis-à-vis context, either urban (whether one is on a primary or secondary street, a square, a corner, etc.) or rural (roads, views, etc.).
3. Programmatic obligations include adjacencies (kitchens connected to dining rooms), distinguishing primary from secondary functions and their access (one shouldn’t cross secondary functions between two primary functions), and clarity or legibility of hierarchies in plan, section, and façade (bathrooms don’t look like lecture halls).
4. Structural obligations include vertical continuity of structural, or load-bearing, elements down to the ground; the thickness of floor structure; and the role of the roof—of whatever form—in shedding water.
5. Formal obligations include respecting symmetry (the relative redundancy in plan of a symmetrical system) or, conversely, recognizing the demands of asymmetry (especially balance, but also the site and program obligations that sponsor it).
6. Symbolic or poetic obligations include the recognized meaning of forms (the tholos as a sacred form) and of articulation (the orders articulate the building’s hierarchies outside and inside).
What to do if all of these obligations cannot be observed? I would maintain that cases of not being able to observe them are rare; most cases are false conflicts, which is really just a poverty of imagination of how they may be resolved. If, though, something has to give, the architect is obliged to define why, and how they can be compromised without compromising the integrity of the building (or the architect!). This is not the pinnacle of what makes Architecture, but it must be the foundation of architecture.
