DESIGN PRINCIPLES

FOR THE INTEGRATION OF NEW BUILDINGS

IN SENSITIVE ENVIRONMENT

Helen Maistrou
Architect, Associate Professor N.T.U.A.

BRIEF SUMMARY

This paper examines if and how possible it is to derive certain design principles in modern
architecture when integrated in sensitive environments – i.e. places of high cultural value –
through the careful reading and interpretation of their characteristics. We are looking for
design principles that will nourish contemporary architectural and urban design, will be
integrated into modern social and technological structures and lead us creatively towards an
evolutionary continuance of the distinctive characteristics of each place.

Terms and concepts

Talking about the environment we should clarify that the term environment means not only
the natural surroundings but the whole of natural and man-made elements that surround us.
And then we can clarify that the term ‘sensitive environment’ means every place that is
characterized by a special cultural identity, the material elements of which are formed by the
natural and man-made environment and have derived from the course and evolution of the
place through time.

“A place is a space which has a distinctive character” N. Schultz says.1 “What do we mean by
the word place is a totality made up of concrete things having material substance, shape,
texture and color. Together these things determine an environmental character. A place is
therefore a qualitative total phenomenon made up by concrete things having material
substance, shape, texture and surfaces” and he continuous “There are man-made places where
the variety and mystery of the natural forces are strongly felt, there are places where the
manifestation of an abstract general order has been the main intention and there are places
where force and order have found a comprehensible equilibrium”

The careful reading of these man-made places and the distinctive characteristics they embody
– which mostly identify with pre-industrial housing ensembles, as they have developed
through time - may offer us important principles in contemporary design.

“The work of art is the place which gives us our identity. Only when understanding our place,
we may be able to participate creatively and contribute to its history”, N. Schultz notes.

Urban design

In urban design the reading of the intervention site, is very important, since the aim of the
reading is to add to the design those elements that will not offend but will enrich the

1
in his book “Genius Loci”

1
distinctive characteristics of the place and contribute to the continuance of its evolution.
Elements that do not form abstractly but through the interpretation of the characteristics and
qualities of the place: human scale, aesthetic values, feel of locality, interaction between
private and public space, interconnection and composition of architectural forms from various
times, multifunctional aspects of public space as a free and open field of social contact, etc.

“Could we, however, revive the humanized aesthetic of pre-industrial towns and transfer it to
the urban world of our future; Could we pinpoint the qualitative characteristics of this ideal
urban environment for mankind so as to direct it towards the achievement of human goals; a
large part of modern development failed because it ignored these issues”, says Arnold
Berleant2, professor of Philosophy, while many city planners such as Bruno Zevi, Camillo
Sitte, A. Rapoport, Fr. Choay, Rob Krier, etc. have referred to the multiple values of
traditional space.

Architectural composition

In architectural composition likewise, the anonymous as well the official architecture of the
past may serve as an inspiration source for new architectural creation, with the design
principles that distinguish it: the clever planning of functions/facilities, the integration to the
natural or man-made environment, the use of local building materials, the wise standpoint
against climatic conditions and the aesthetics of the final outcome.

Nevertheless, “how can a culture be contemporary and at the same time return to its roots;
how can one revive an old obsolete/inactive culture and at the same time participate in an
international culture?” wrote Raul Ricoeur Universal in “Civilization and National Cultures”
in 19613 and claims that “the conservation of any local culture in the future will depend on
our ability to create lively forms of local culture while adopting foreign influences at both
culture and civilization levels”. Venturi, on the other hand, claims that “we must not take
local cultural for granted and as relatively unalterable but as something that we must, at least
today, cultivate with self-consciousness”.

In the same way, Aris Konstantinides –a Greek architect renowned for his architectural work
as well as his writings - writes4 that ‘tradition’ is the true essence handed by the old times to
the new and that the new times accept it consciously because they have already found ‘their
own truth’. “It is then when we establish that whatever the old ones had discovered and said
and done in their own way, the modern man must discover, say and do exactly the same thing
in its essence but in his own way” and he continues “The truly contemporary, the perfection
of today can exist because something true and perfect has already existed yesterday as well as
because the perfect and the true of tomorrow or a future time will follow, where yesterday,
today and tomorrow constitute a co-essential entity that gives meaning to what we want to
call tradition”

Within the framework of the above questioning, the architect is called upon to suggest a new
creation which must not imitate traditional forms but express its own time, it must not
destruct their character but enrich it and complement it.
“What we will keep in our conscious as tradition will not be a static shape that each new era
owes to copy its external shape and size, but something that derives and evolves eternally
with the standards of each new era and holds an eternal and universal value” notes Aris
Konstantinides.

2
in his book The Aesthetics of Environment, 1992
3
see the intro of the chapter “Critical Localism” in Kenneth Frampton’s book Modern Architecture. A
critical history, 1981
4
in his book “for Architecture”, 1987

2
In criticizing modern architecture, Arnold Berleant writes: “Most new buildings reproduce
the trend for an ever larger monumentalism, usually accompanied by an undefined
standardization and a lack of style, which cannot hide behind the gleaming surface of high
technology. That is the general rule from eastern Europe to the western world”
The issue of monumentalism and show-off that constitutes a ‘symptom’ of modern
architecture is also reflected upon by K. Frampton, who, in an attempt to interpret Meiss’
views, writes5: “Every building ought to be constructed as an occasion for making a place or
for adding to the continuous articulation of the human habitat, rather than as another
monument in which to display the ego of the client and the competitive prowess of the
designer”.

“The inclination of post-modern architecture to revive the particular characteristics of past/old

spaces is an attempt to construct more humane buildings, which combines the variety of detail
with historical references. This comparison, however, instead of providing an authentic
individual character, more often than not ends up being a collage of different architectural
styles”, says Arnold Berleant6, while a few years earlier P. Mihelis7 wrote about the necessity
“to synchronize architecture with the requirements of our new mode of life, in order to better
serve the needs of the individual and the masses” and “to synchronize [architecture] with the
technological progress thus putting to use new construction methods and materials.
Synchronization means in essence, the radical reformation of the forms of architecture
liberated from the imitation of the past, so that it expresses the spirit of the era. Often, such a
stance is presented as the total rejection of the past, as a rejection of every traditional form.
On the contrary, tradition is always alive, for it hands down values and not forms. This is not
an easy venture but it is creative, cosmogonic even”.

In view of the above, architects are called upon to design a building or an ensemble in a
specific site taking each time into account the particular parameters of the site as well as a
total of design principles that they have to come up with.
“The site as a place is always linked to human history. The site which we choose or which is
assigned to us to construct a building is perhaps already a place in the country or in the town.
This place can be destroyed, reinforced or transformed by our intervention” says Pierre von
Meiss, while at a subsequent point he adds:
“However, understanding of the site is not sufficient. The art of design requires the ability to
interpret the meaning of the brief by linking it to the underlying opportunities of the site8”.

Basic design principles

In the search for the needs of new construction, a basic criterion is the architectural program
and the function that the new building or ensemble is called to serve, its significance for the
town and the meaning it contains. For example, a public building must express its role within
its public dimension whereas a housing building must abide by the principles of a social
group.

Another important criterion is the positioning of the new building or ensemble in the existing
urban tissue. Is it positioned in the connective part of an urban housing ensemble that has
distinctive architectural characteristics or is it positioned in a location where the landscape

5
in the preface of the book ‘Elements of Architecture. From form to place’
6
in his book The Aesthetics of Environment, 1992.(σελ.153)
7
Professor of Morphology at the School of Architecture at NTUA and one of the first Professors to
introduce exercises for the mapping of historical and traditional forms, in his book :Aesthetic
Theories”, in 1972
8
in his book Elements of Architecture. From form to place

3
and the natural elements have had a more determining role?. And what is the degree of
homogeneity or variety against the environment it is integrated in.

The conservation of the urban characteristics of the area is a crucial objective: form of the
urban tissue, construction system, size of building blocks and private properties, positioning
of the structures in accordance with the landscape and orientation of the area, correlation
between built and open space, private and public, volume arrangement, balance of heights
against the streetscape, clever use of space, moving around without cars, small distances
between facilities, multifunction of public areas, etc.

The plan defines the typology of the building or ensemble and determines the size and shape
of the ground coverage, the ratio between built and unbuilt and the ratio between pubic and
private and plays an instrumental role in the successful integration of the structure in the
environment. Design options inspired by structures of the past can be traced mainly through
the functional solutions to human needs, the correlation between closed, open and semi-open
spaces, the connection between materials and construction system and their consistent
expression in the form of the structure, the clever stance against climatic conditions. “The
plan, bears itself a primary and pre – determined rhythm: the work is developed in extent and
in height following the prescriptions of the plan, with results which can range from the
simplest to the most complex” as Le Corbusier writes,9 and he continuous “To make a plan is
to determine and fix ideas. It is to have had ideas…….It is essential to exhibit a precise
intention”

The building’s section should ensure its connection to the landscape in a way compatible with
the characteristics of its environment and retain through the cover of the building with a roof
or a terrace, its aesthetic integration in the ‘aerial view’ of the ensemble.

The formation of the building’s surface in combination with its volume, determine its
architecture. “Mass and surface are the elements by which architecture manifests itself” as Le
Corbusier writes.
The consistent expression of the materials and the construction system in the form of the
building, the securing of a interactive relations with the architectural characteristics of the
buildings in its immediate environment, the options concerning the plasticity and the
arrangement of the faces, the relation between voids and built spaces, the texture of surfaces,
the color and of course the avoidance of copying morphological characteristics of the past, are
only few of the design principles that could qualify new architectural creation.

And of course the quality of the design and the quality of construction must lead us to a final
result that corresponds to the high aesthetic of the environment.

The city is an assembly of places vested with the care to uphold the sense of a way of life.
The concept of place unites modern architecture with the past. Both above and below the
surface of this century there is a new demand for continuity.
(N. Shultz)

9
in his book “Towards a new Architecture”, 1923