See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/354537059

Tectonic ecologies in Architecture

Chapter · September 2021

CITATIONS READS

0 378

1 author:

Anne Beim
Royal Danish Academy of Fine Arts, Schools of Architecture, Design and Conservation
10 PUBLICATIONS   22 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Towards an Ecology of Tectonics View project

Circular construction in architecture View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Anne Beim on 12 September 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Tectonic ecologies in architecture – a critical perspective in a time
of transition

A. Beim
CINARK - Center for Industrialized Architecture, The Royal Danish Academy of Fine Arts School of
Architecture (KADK), Copenhagen, Denmark

ABSTRACT: In a time where the ecological crisis is evident worldwide there is a need for a
deeper understanding of how architects and engineers can contribute for the better. To succeed
in this we must address central questions: How to approach fundamentals in construction? How
to engage with building industry and related industries, and how can we through new ways of
construction support qualitative livable and fully sustainable built environments. Innovative de-
signs or technologies based on existing practices cannot provide the answer. Altogether, we
have to revisit, rethink and revise our understanding of materials, building techniques, and con-
struction practices – we have to study historical building traditions, explore the intelligence of
crafts, test the advantages of industrial production, and apply CAD/CAM wisely. We have to
scrutinize all cultures of construction to extract the most viable promising ideas. This article
looks at tectonic ecologies as a way to critically approach this in architecture.

1 INTRODUCTION

At present there is a well-reasoned growing attention towards the challenges fostered by the
climate changes and the ecological crises that now show across the globe in form of deteriora-
tion of natural environments, deforestation, plastic pollution, etc. In September 2015 UN agreed
on the definition of 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). They were subsequently fol-
lowed up by agreements ratified at COP21 in Paris the same year. The SDGs are momentous
both in their breath and their ambition – but also due to the fact that they are to be seen as con-
necting themes/actions. Mogens Lykketoft, former Danish Minister of Finance and Ex-President
of the UN General Assembly, explains the significance of the SDG’s this way:
“It’s a really historic and revolutionary achievement that 193 nations can agree on the analysis
and the goals to solve global problems. [For the] first time … we realise that … the continued
fight against extreme poverty in this world, and the fight against environmental degradation and
climate change, are two sides of the same coin. You can’t do one thing without taking into ac-
count the necessity of acting … on the other. And that’s … a new definition of goals. This
means that we cannot continue to work on the same path […] We have to do it different. We
have to make major changes in production methods, energy technologies, consumption patterns
[…] to solve the immense global challenges.” (Lykketoft 2015)
This article addresses the grave challenges described above from a tectonic perspective. The
nature and role of tectonics are studied in relation to the radical changes we seem to be facing. It
involves new ways to; use materials, build buildings, develop our cities, and define architectural
design strategies from a life cycle perspective. The changes points at a new model, which can be
termed; ‘radical tectonics’. The article forms a backdrop for thoughts about; how architecture
and engineering as disciplines can play an active role in reorganizing construction and translat-
ing sustainable ideas into action in our built world. Finally, the aim is to point at vital under-
standings of culture, tectonics, and ecology that may have been overlooked, in the present defi-
nitions of sustainability – and when it comes to behave ethically in construction of architecture.
2 IN SEARCH FOR FUNDAMENTALS IN CONSTRUCTION

Attempting to outline ‘the fundamentals in construction of architecture’ and how they form part
of larger systems of meaning and values in our built world, has been a reoccurring endeavor
throughout architectural history and across different societal structures and cultures. Detailed
accounts and analyses of the building materials at hand, the present state of building techniques,
and the general level of technology – have in the course of time been incorporated into signifi-
cant architectural treatises, published as encyclopedic building manuals, or as building regula-
tions they have been translated into legal documents for construction and building practices.
These sorts of work have been created for various purposes and patrons – and for the most
part they have been created because the authors felt a strong need that may have been provoked
by their general perception of the world or evaluation of the present professional environment.
Although, it seems complicated to point out the core elements in making building construc-
tion and the built environment truly sustainable – each historical attempt to define the funda-
mentals in the construction of architecture has been facing comparable difficulties. All efforts
have searched for the essential qualities in architecture and ways to define architecture’s role as
part of the world.

2.1 The art of building

As for defining the ‘the art of building’ – a clear ambition has been to establish fundamental
ideas regarding architectural orders and ethics. They have included the materials of the archi-
tect, methods of construction, and aesthetic beliefs. Efforts like these go back in history ex-
pressed in classical treatises of architecture e.g. by the Roman architect / engineer Marcus Pollio
Vitruvius in his Ten Books on Architecture (Morgan 1969), or in De Re Aedificatoria (The art of
building in ten books) by the Renaissance architect and theoretician; Leon Battista Alberti
(Rykwert et al. 1988). Yet, comparable ideas can also be found in the manifestoes for a ‘new
world’ as suggested by Le Corbusier. He apprises potentials of industrialized products and
manufacturing processes of cars, planes and industrial buildings in his books; Vers une Archi-
tecture and Urbanisme (Corbusier 1923/1925).

Figure 1. Diagram showing the evolution of services, heating, ventilation in buildings. Fundamentals,
Venice Architecture Biennale, 2014. Photo: Anne Beim
2.2 The collective memory of standards of construction
The search for fundamentals in construction has also served to establish and ensure a collective
memory of building techniques and cultures of construction as exemplified in the Chinese man-
ual for building standards; Yingzao Fashi – a manuscript copy of a book from the Song dynasty
(960-1279) found in 1918. The book describes building technologies, preliminary calculations,
foundations, carpentry, joinery, and manufacture of a number of materials based on elaborate
drawings and registers (Glahn 1984).
Similar accounts on European buildings standards have been realized by Professor Andrea
Deplazes in his decisive book; Constructing Architecture: Materials, Processes, Structures; A
Handbook. It grew from at first being a comprehensive compendium, developed and applied in
the architectural education at the ETH in Zürich, to become one of the best-selling books world-
wide communicating dry subjects of building construction. Deplazes describes architecture sim-
ilar to language; “…it has a material vocabulary (modules), a constructive grammar (elements)
and a structural syntax (structures). They are the fundamental prerequisites, a kind of “mechan-
ics of architecture”… The fragments and the whole complement and influence each other. This
is the step from construction to architecture, from assembly to tectonics” (Deplazes 2005).

2.3 The critical lens of tectonics

The eager to define ‘the fundamentals in construction of architecture’ have also been used to
critically address a questionable stagnant building practice, or on the opposite novel building
technologies that seem to change traditional ways to develop building designs and setting up
project organizations. Circumstances like these have called for reflections amongst architects
and engineers and their engagement in the dynamics of power in the building industry.
The German architect and theoretician Gottfried Semper, who influenced architectural think-
ing in the late 19th Century can be highlighted. In his pivotal books; Die vier Elemente der
Baukunst and Der Stil in den technischen und tektonischen Künsten oder praktische Ästhetik
vol. 1-2 (Semper 1851, 1878, 1879) he advocated for critically seeking alternative models for
materials and building techniques and elaborated a new set of tectonic theories.
But also, contemporary American architects as; Stephen Kieran & James Timberlake have
brought attention to the important architectural challenges (and potentials) given by present day
computer based industrialized manufacturing processes. In their book; Refabricating Architec-
ture: How manufacturing methodologies are poised to transform building construction, they
compare traditional construction practices with contemporary industrialized building produc-
tion. They picture how fabrication and building construction will alter from ‘framing’ (the se-
quential joining of separate building elements) – to ‘quilting’ (integrated assembly of larger pre-
fabricated building parts) (Kieran & Timberlake 2003).

2.4 The instrumental narrative

Finally, the Dutch architect Rem Koolhaas; founder of the office OMA and professor at Harvard
GSD has showcased ‘Elements of Architecture’ when acting as the curator of the international
architectural exhibition; ‘Fundamentals’ at the Venice Architectural Biennale in 2014 (Kool-
haas 2014). Koolhaas organized the central exhibition pavilion inspired from the hierarchical
structure of building manuals and product catalogues, where various categories such as win-
dows, roofs, stairs etc. were presented across historical periods, functional purpose, evolutionary
stage, and architectural style. (Fig. 1)
The exhibition presented itself as a large Wunderkammer that included both vernacular
building traditions, high-tech building elements, and all sorts of building techniques from across
the world. This spiced up with a range of ordinary, innovative and daring designs. Despite its
scope, and the willingness to discuss the blurry boundaries of building technology and construc-
tion in architecture – the exhibition still upheld a modernistic view, where the instrumentality of
construction was displayed as a seemingly central understanding.
To sum up, the various efforts to outline ‘the fundamentals in construction of architecture’
represent established approaches to the subject matter – largely seeing it as a range of physical
means aiding to reach specific goals – but often not addressing vital ethical matters.
Figure 2. Shed at the Kingo Houses. Built from 1957-60, architect; Jørn Utzon. To have extra roof tiles
made for future renovation and kept in several small ventilated sheds on the site shows how to cultivate
an ecological tectonic idea about material, construction, and cultural life time. Photo: Anne Beim
3 A TECTONIC TURN IN ARCHITECTURE

For centuries construction of buildings has primarily been governed by the belief that with ac-
cess to plenty resources, right materials, as well as advanced building techniques – any (archi-
tectural) problem could be solved. Consequently, the technological aspects and the ‘instrumen-
tality of construction’ have been stressed on behalf of equally important elements as: shared
ethical concerns, ecological balance of Nature, and cultural origins embedded in construction.

3.1 An ecological understanding in construction

Until just recently endeavors to define ‘the fundamentals in construction’ seem to have respond-
ed to a general understanding of the world considering it optimistically stable, and continuously
generous from an evolutionary perspective. Both in terms of; access to natural resources, expan-
sion of technological potentials, and societal prosperity through capital growth (Strike 1991).
Limitations in construction of buildings have therefore for the most part been determined by;
the authority of gravity, topographical or climatic encounters, completed budgets (leading to
‘less generous’ solutions), or sometimes lack of ingenuity to creating sophisticated construction
design. Regardless of the building industry’s dependency on Nature per se and its offerings in
terms of site and materials, ideas about construction of buildings have seldomly been ruled by
humble sensibility towards an overall ecological understanding that generally includes a larger
context of phenomena and a greater complexity of interdependent systems (Orr 2007).
As for the ecological crisis we are indisputably facing new realities in the time to come that
include boundaries in what to build and ways to build. The population growth globally will cre-
ate (already claims) wide-ranging demands for more resources and land use to supply with;
food, buildings, and infrastructure. More buildings are foreseen to be built over the next fifty
years than has been built in the past 5,000 (Orr 2007).

3.2 Scenarios of the absolute

These serious circumstances call for reflections first and foremost amongst the professions and
experts linked to fields of urban planning, building construction, and environmental science.
Secondly, it calls for alternative approaches to our natural resources, in this case our building
materials – to the quantities used and to the types appointed– both in regard of their scarcity,
their CO2 footprint, and polluting effect. But also, it calls for ideas to design and build houses in
a lifecycle perspective that include scenarios of ‘absolute sustainability’ (Hauschild et al. 2015).
‘Absolute sustainability’ builds upon a growing school of thought in geoscience and climate
impact research that looks at the planetary boundaries as a tool for analyzing ecosystems and re-
source economy. Researchers at the Stockholm Resilience Centre who have been deeply in-
volved in developing the concept describe the framework this way: “Anthropogenic pressures
on the Earth System have reached a scale where abrupt global environ-mental change can no
longer be excluded. We propose a new approach to global sustainability in which we define
planetary boundaries within which we expect that humanity can operate safely. Transgressing
one or more planetary boundaries may be deleterious or even catastrophic due to the risk of
crossing thresholds that will trigger non-linear, abrupt environmental change within continental-
to planetary-scale systems.” (Rockström et al. 2009). The concept includes nine boundaries in
total that only cover topics belonging to the natural sciences for obvious reasons: 1.) Strato-
spheric ozone depletion, 2.) Loss of biosphere integrity, 3.) Chemical pollution and the release
of novel entities, 4.) Climate Change, 5.) Ocean acidification, 6.) Freshwater consumption and
the global hydrological cycle, 7.) Land system change, 8.) Nitrogen and phosphorus flows to the
biosphere and oceans, 9.) Atmospheric aerosol loading. Planetary boundaries are now being
studied as ‘a broader framework that addresses the biophysical, socio-economic, and ethical di-
mensions of bridging across scales.’(Häyhäa et al. 2016).
Likewise, in the disciplines of architecture and engineering the existing models applied for
building construction must be revised in terms of how to defining building performance and
how to minimizing environmental impact. To match this – tectonic strategies that embrace ecol-
ogy in more radical or ‘absolute’ ways than we see today have to be envisioned and realized.
Figure 3. Example of ‘radical tectonics’ – in non-organic materials. Experimental wall 5x1x0,45 M, built
as a ‘braded masonry construction’ made of reused bricks (lower part to the right), insulating masonry
blocks (filigree block in the center), and unburned bricks (upper part to the left), all built with clay mortar.
Designed and constructed by CINARK, Circular Economy Exhibition KADK, Copenhagen, 2017.
Photo: Line Kjær Frederiksen
3.3 The ecology of tectonics
From an overall perspective the notion of ecology alludes to an ethical use of materials and re-
sources, and specific attention to the environmental consequences of building construction.
Thus, it cannot be directly adopted into architecture, as David Leatherbarrow and Richard Wes-
ley have pointed out in their latest book; Three Cultural Ecologies:
“Ecology […] was invented as a subset of biology. Insofar as this science of natural phe-
nomena was then thought to be the model science to which all other sciences should conform,
other kinds of phenomena, not a assessable to the methods and descriptive techniques of the
natural sciences, buildings and farms for example were left out of the picture. […] it explains
why the term ecology, as commonly understood today (to name the interdependency among or-
ganisms and their habitat) is inadequate to architecture, and why it must be qualified with a term
such as cultural.” (Leatherbarrow & Wesley 2018). Ecology in architecture therefore should be
defined in its widest sense. Besides ecological systems found in nature it must include contextu-
al dimensions, lifecycle scenarios of all sorts of resources, social organization, and longevity of
design qualities that reaches into the cultural realm.
But, the cultural aspects also suffers from the circumstance that over time cultural rooted-
ness, which can linked to the making of buildings, gradually has been separated from its tech-
nical realm. A discussion and movement that has been going on since antiquity, as portrayed by
the social anthropologist Tim Ingold in his book: Making – Anthropology, Archeology, Art and
Architecture (Ingold 2013).
Despite the ongoing ‘drama of separation’, which is largely determined by the evolution of
technology, core undercurrents are at play in construction of buildings that cannot be ignored.
Equally understood as construction and construing, the concept of tectonics forms a constituting
element of architecture. Late professor Marco Frascari elaborates it this way: “The use of these
binomials returns architecture to its original nature as a discipline with a system of knowledge
that can be transferred into the instrumental knowledge necessary to practice construction.”
(Frascari 1991). As part of well-defined design strategies tectonic thinking therefore can act as a
strong agent to direct the use of resources in construction, to control the overall environmental
impact of the building, and to explore buildings as cultural manifestations. Ecologies of tecton-
ics are manifold, thus hold potential to qualify sustainable architectural solutions.

3.4 Testing radical tectonics

Ways to embrace ecology and absolute sustainability from a tectonic angle was tested in the fall
of 2017 by a group of senior and junior (PhD) researchers from CINARK – Center for Industri-
alized Architecture at KADK. For the public exhibition: Circular Economy in Architecture &
Design, we proposed a set of fundamental construction designs holding elements of radical tec-
tonics. The construction designs were based on a manifesto that addressed circularity in today’s
industrialized construction for ecological architecture and it focused at two main issues: What
can be learned from traditional building techniques where; few, little processed, untainted natu-
ral materials - and simple reversible, construction and joining principles are included? And to
what extent can these predominantly craft-based construction types be developed further for in-
dustrialized processes at a larger scale?
The three wall structures each in wood, straw, and clay/brick/block (Fig. 3) were titled; “Tec-
tonic strategies for circular thinking in industrial architecture”. (Madsen et al. 2017). With
point of departure in current research at CINARK, the walls were developed by rigorous anal-
yses of; ecology, sustainability, and circularity inspired by the definitions offered by the Ellen
MacArthur Foundation. (Ellen MacArthur 2017) To reach this series of very clear frameworks
the walls were made from pure natural materials with a lowest possible CO2 footprint as possi-
ble. In addition, they were based on plain building principles, where materials and building ele-
ments could be separated for reuse or recycling at the highest level possible. Furthermore, esti-
mated energy performance were taken into account, if they were to be applied in a complete
building. The experiment showed series of challenges when employing radical ecological build-
ing techniques. The number of elements should be reduced to a minimum and disassembly sce-
narios were studied in the early design phases. These were two demanding constraints, yet the
experiments revealed that the field of tectonic proofs to hold keys for reaching absolute aims.
Fig. 4 Vaults of the Gaggiandre at the Arsenale Nuovissimo in Venice attributed to Jacopo Sansovino.
Two large covered shipyards built between 1568 and 1573. The choice of materials and building tech-
niques show how precautions have been made to meet flooding over time. Photo: Anne Beim
4 CONSTRUCTION AND TIME

In light of today’s perception of resource economy and environmental concerns questions as –

what to build and how to build – could easily be reduced to simple quantifiable measures or ra-
tional technical optimizations, since these ideas already are part of a governing mindset.
Yet, a limited instrumental approach to the performance of materials and building construc-
tions, does not seem to offer a full understanding of how they act as tectonic statements over
time – as part of a greater architectural building culture. Deeper and more multi-facetted anal-
yses of constructions ‘life-time’ therefore seem critical to develop, if we want to keep important
insights into solutions that may happen to be sustainable in the long run. But also more im-
portantly, if we do not want to lose basic comprehensions of how constructions act as cultural
signifiers across time.

3.5 The essential idea of construction

If we look at architectural constructions in the course of time; appropriate material components,
their physical properties, their sensory presence, and their representational significance – have
always been central elements and seen as an entity of correlating parts. Processes of building
have accordingly been regarded and termed as embedded actions linked to the nature of the ma-
terials, their structural principles, and their related craft traditions. Thus, the materials them-
selves and the act of construction are often referred to in architectural theory and history as; ‘the
beginnings of architecture’ as founded in Vitruvius’ ten books of Architecture, as ‘the core-
form’ (kern-form) defined by Karl Böttiger in his analyses of ancient Greek temples, and even
as ‘archaic agents’ as proposed by Kenneth Frampton in his discourse on Critical Regionalism.
The essentials of the act of building has accurately been summed up by the prominent Eng-
lish arts and architecture critic of the 19th century; John Ruskin in his short text The Valley of the
Somme: “The first idea of construction is the simplest possible; two stones set on end, and an-
other set on the top. That is Stonehenge construction – it is Egyptian construction, – it is Greek
construction. […] Next to this horizontal stone, come two stones, giving a gable – then the arch,
and then endless systems of narrower shafts and higher arches, until the mind of the builder is
mainly occupied in finding new ways of making his work stand […] But, exactly in proportion
as the builder’s mind is occupied with these mechanical conditions, it is necessarily unoccupied
by thoughts connected with human passion or historical event.” (Ruskin 1869)
Ruskin points to the fact that the attention and the skill of the craftsman is decided by the
concrete physicality of the materials combined with the bodily experience of the working pro-
cess. A key condition that brings a sense of material consciousness and resilience into the act of
construction. Jonathan Hale scholar in phenomenology in architecture describes it this way: “
…the embodied physicality of the materials is precisely what puts them beyond our complete
control, and at the same time it guarantees that we will be continually surprised by what they
produce. Likewise, it is our own bodily materiality that helps us resist the imposition of political
power…” (Hale 2017) Or as Frampton emphasizes; the role of materiality and bodily experi-
ence are two independent channels of resistance. “They may be regarded as archaic agents with
which to counter potential universality of rootless civilization.” (Frampton 1988)

3.6 Construction over time

Concepts of permanence and durability thus become important – which implies longevity of the
material construction itself, but also the deep knowledge of craft traditions based on handed
down technical skills to build it. Per se, constructions become physical testimonies, where cul-
tural narratives are directly embodied. Not only do they play different roles in course of history,
the ‘bodily memory of construction’ seems to prolong its existence in time. (fig. 3) This idea
Louis Kahn also points out in one of his lectures; “A building is not like a piece of transporta-
tion that by its use you can say wears down. A building […] is very different. It is really part of
the landscape. It becomes part of the city, of the treasury of spaces of the city. […] It tells you
continuation of history […].’Every act is an act in the past’.” (Kahn 1964) Thus, lifetime per-
spectives in construction must consider ‘true’ historical dimensions including – how performa-
tive needs may change over time, and how the act of building becomes rooted in civilization.
Fig. 5 Construction details of primary loadbearing structural elements in laminated wood (pine) assem-
bled with steel fixtures/bolts and covered with hardwood plugs. Centre for Sustainable Chemistry at Uni-
versity of Nottingham. The first carbon neutral laboratory in the UK, built with natural materials and the
energy required to run it is met by renewable sources such as solar power and sustainable biomass. As for
how to describe the tectonic presence of such a structure Jonathan Hale puts words it like this: “One
might describe what poetry does with words as a kind of ‘thickening of the surface’ of language, in the
sense that – as with tectonically articulated architecture – it draws attention to its own ‘materiality’.”
(Hale 2017) Photo: Anne Beim
4 CRAFT AND SCALE

‘The scale of things’ seems to be crucial in architectural design based on ecological principles.
In this article, the concept of scale includes the full range of environmental, social or cultural
impacts that are created through construction. Therefore two fundamental questions are ad-
dressed along this line of thought: What does the notion of scale involve when directly translat-
ed (by craft) into construction? And what does the link between craft and scale imply, seen as a
lever to understand and act on the environmental consequences of building?
Scale seen as; reliant on material consciousness, craftmanship, industrialized fabrication, and
related building practices; creates a link to the aforesaid ideas about; how physical construction
determines the work processes and building techniques – whilst the very same processes and
techniques are determining the scope of the physical and its context. This connection refers to
comparable ideas proposed by the French thinker Merleau-Ponty, which Jonathan Hale de-
scribes as: “an underlying continuity between the body and the world, providing a powerful
philosophical grounding for what we might call an ‘ethical ecology’ – a reminder that we should
all be more mindful of our ultimate dependence on our surroundings.” (Hale 2017)

4.1 Principles of scale

In architecture the notion of scale is for the most part defined as; systems of proportion relating
to normative rules or standards e.g. for constructing, as seen in the work of Vitruvius, and Le
Corbusier or as; classifications of design principles seen as part of e.g. drawing standards.
The concept of scale in construction can be defined slightly differently, where particularly
‘the scale of objects’, and ‘the scale of processes’ appear to serve as basic principles. ‘The scale
of objects’ primarily refers to physical quantifiable properties such as: size, dimensions, weight,
and sums of building elements – whereas ‘the scale of processes’ largely refers to; building
methods, ways of processing materials or building elements, the specific actions (intentions),
and how they link to other activities (doings), as part of larger bodies of principles and values
(Strike 1991). Nonetheless, it makes little sense to describe them as separate entities, since they
are typically fully entwined as part of the architectural design processes and in the execution of
constructions. Also, they relate to the more formal proportioning systems mentioned earlier.
The scale of objects and their processing are furthermore defined by the material qualities. As
Hale explains; “Wood and slate, for instance have another propensity based on the distinctive
directionality in their cellular structure. They can both be more easily cut and worked along or
in parallel to the grain, and this gives them their pronounced visual and physical character.” (fig.
4) (Hale 2017) The particular physical capacities thus help to point out the critical questions;
what is the most appropriate use, what are minimum or maximum dimensions, how will the ma-
terial itself and the way it forms part of a construction weather over time etc.?

4.2 Craft as material consciousness

Returning to the ecology of craft and scale in construction (that conceptually includes industrial-
ized building practices), the linkage between materials, environment, and ethics can be studied
further. The curators of Indonesia’s pavilion, at the Fundamentals exhibition at the Venice Bi-
ennale 2014, portray how these parts seem to connect via craftmanship: “Craftmanship is not
merely a matter of practicality and technicality; it is also a value, an ethos, and a commitment.
[…] [As craftsmen, architects] have to deal with and respond to the abundance as well as the de-
ficiency of existing natural resources. […] they dwell in material consciousness, without which
they would lose what is fundamental in their profession: the intimacy of the work process.”
(Armand et al. 2014). Understanding craft (and industry) as ‘ethical work processes’ – based on
material and environmental consciousness, allow for restoring Jonathan Hale’s idea of ‘ethical
ecology’. An idea he cultivates in the text Living materiality and environmental ethics: “As we
all rely on a constant supply of support from our environment, this might even encourage us to
think of a building itself as a living organism, which could likewise be seen as a self-regulating
system working in symbiosis with its own environment.” (Hale 2017). As central elements in
informing and directing construction, craft and scale can be showing ways to critically formu-
late ethical ecologies that appear to be lacking in design strategies of today’s architecture.
Figure 6. Foundation detail of shell structure in the main hall. Sydney Opera House built between 1958-
1973. Architect Jørn Utzon. The construction of the shells was built with concrete elements based on sys-
tems of standards, which allowed for both repetition and variety. In Utzon’s terms, it was a repetitive
principle made of identical construction elements that were repeated in accordance with a logical struc-
tural system and clear aesthetic intentions. Photo: Anne Beim
5 CONSTRUING AND SYSTEM

Houses and their constructions can be regarded as complex (living) organisms that form part of
natural and technical systems as defined in economic models by Ellen MacArthur, or indicated
in more subtle phenomenological terms by Jonathan Hale. In order to analyze how these various
systems act and interact – the scope of any kind of study therefore has to be clearly defined.
This includes basics as – what to be studied e.g. the environmental impact of certain materials
or the cultural implication of construction – how to categorizing the various components, as
well as – how to determining the boundaries of the whole system?
Fundamental parts of the analysis evidently must concentrate on how the systems are de-
signed and consequently how they are construed. As such, we have to be aware that systems are
not neutral objective ways to explain a group of elements – their performances and their corre-
lations – systems equally hold qualitative agencies and propose normative values.

5.1 Value added through systems

Systems can be identified by the typical features, correspondences and isomorphisms they share
as ‘systems’. As cited in Kasper S. Vibæk’s PhD thesis on ‘systems theory in architecture’ –
Maier & Rechtin explains; “A system is a collection of different things that together produce re-
sults unachievable by themselves alone. The value added by systems is in the interrelationships
of their elements.” (Vibæk 2011)
Similar understandings can be found in architectural systems theory and practice best exem-
plified in the ideas and architectural work of the Danish Architect Jørn Utzon. In the short text
on the ‘additive principle’ he explains:
“A consistent utilization of industrially produced building components can only be achieved
if these components can be added to the buildings without having to be cut to measure or
adapted in any way. Such a pure addition principle results in a new architectural form, a new ar-
chitectural expression […] it all depends on how many different components are added in this
game. […] When working with the additive principle, one is able without difficulty, to respect
and honour all the demands made of design and layout as well as the requirements for exten-
sions and modifications. This is just because […] the character – of the building is that of the
sum of total of the components, and not that of a composition or that dictated by the facades.
Again, when working with the additive principle, one is able to avoid sinning against the right
of existence of the individual components. They all manage to find expression.” (Utzon 1970)
Utzon envisioned a richness in system variation and liberated the whole idea of modular sys-
tem building of the 1960’ies from its; ‘purely mechanistic attributes’ and brought it into ‘direct
contact with the cosmic elements of nature’ as emphasized by Siegfried Giedion in his depiction
of Utzon’s way of thinking and working as an architect. (Beim 2004) Based on a set of clearly
defined design principles and rules for constructing, Utzon used systems as a means to expound-
ing the design process and thereby as a way to construing the meaning embedded in his archi-
tecture. (fig. 6)

5.2 Defining the boundaries

Wholes or wholeness are central focus areas in scientific exploration of general systems theory.
But not too long ago they were perceived as ‘metaphysical notions that transcended the bounda-
ries of science.’ (Vibæk 2011) Yet, in general environmental thinking a broader understanding
of wholes may be missing. When looking at systems for evaluation of life cycles of e.g. build-
ings, it is crucial – to have well-defined system boundaries – in order to compare materials,
products and processes, but also to relate or compare different systems. Researchers who work
with life cycle analysis claim that ‘the very definition of the system boundary supports the stat-
ed goal and the scope of the life cycle analysis.’ (Simonen 2014) In that sense, creating the sys-
tem boundary can be compared to creating the purpose or the normative values of the system
(whole) per se. In complex systems as architecture many often composite and different parts,
and subsystems exist together why they cannot be explained in simple terms (Vibæk 2011) or
easily quantified in evaluation systems. This complexity is vital to incorporate when analyzing
material cycles or buildings life time since the embedded values still form part of the whole.
Figure 7. The ‘Stavna Block System’ based on reused wooden floor boards. Dried wood dowels fix the
boards together into 300 mm. thick wooden blocks. Developed by architect Anne Sigrid Nordby, based
on findings in her PhD thesis: Salvageability of building materials, 2009 and the Nordic Built Reuse
Project – Re-Beauty together with Vandkunsten Architects, 2017. Photo: Anne Beim
CONCLUSIONS

As presented at the beginning of this article there is a growing attention towards the environ-
mental consequences of present day civilization. Three problems have been emphasized as main
issues in regard of architecture and construction: the global effects of the climate changes, the
far-reaching ecological crisis, and a growing scarcity of natural resources. (Lykketoft 2015)
At political level e.g. in European politics lifecycle scenarios of materials have also become a
greater focus, due to general material scarcity and waste problems, which equally counts for
building materials. (European Commission & JRC. 2018) Construction strategies and evaluation
systems are being developed to estimate buildings performance both in regard of Global Warm-
ing Potential (GWP) and their total environmental impact, ranging from a broader resource per-
spective to specific biochemical effects. (Simonen 2014)
One can observe that questions as – where do the materials originate from, how they are
‘harvested’, and processed or manufactured into products, and later ‘consumed’ or incorporated
into building constructions and finally demolished – have become well-defined ‘life stages’ that
are now studied in greater detail than earlier. Materials that form part of existing structures or
are planned to be part of future buildings are now regarded as ‘physical economies’.
To ensure that the growing need for sustainable solutions does not end up with new ways to
capitalize on nature and physical (human) resources similar as we do today, we need to change
course in the way we construct our buildings and plan our cities. This counts for the way we
think about life time perspectives, the ethical issues of construction and the value that is added
through careful architectural design and thorough engineering.
To succeed in reaching UN’s 17 Sustainable Development Goals we have to make sure that
the notion of culture will form part of ecological solutions in ethical ways. However, this will
depend on how we combine or – way of life (culture) with our – web of lifes (ecology), as em-
phasized by David Leatherbarrow & Richard Weston. (2018)
To sum up how the notion of tectonic ecologies can play a central role in developing a sus-
tainable built environment for the future, reference to basic design principles defined by David
Orr can be made. In the text: Architecture, Ecological Design and Human Ecology (Orr 2007)
he lists a series of clear design principles – here abbreviated and restated as tectonic ecologies:
– … is not so much about how to make things as it is how to make things that fit gracefully over
long periods of time in a particular ecological, social and cultural context.
–…is not just a smarter way to do the same old things.
–…is as much about politics and power as it is about ecology.
–…is not so much an individual art practiced by individual ‘designers’ as it is an ongoing nego-
tiation between a community and the ecology of particular places.
–…is neither efficiency nor productivity, but health, beginning with that of the soil and extend-
ing upward through plants, animals and people.
–…is not reducible to a set of technical skills. It is anchored in the faith that the world is NOT
random but purposeful and stitched together form the top to the bottom.
–…is not a journey to some utopian destiny, but rather more like homecoming.
Per se, tectonic ecologies offer a wider ethical, cultural and critical approach to construction.

6 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Many reflections and conversations with fine colleagues across institutions and continents have
led to the contents of this paper. Particularly, activities that founded the collaborative research
project “Towards a Tectonic Sustainable Building Culture” have provided a stimulating back-
drop. A generous research grant from The Danish Council for Independent Research | Humani-
ties in the period from 2010-14 made this possible. As part of this I want to thank; Claus Bech-
Danielsen, Charlotte Bundgaard, Karl Christiansen, Ole E. Jackson, Tomas Bo Jensen, and Ul-
rik S. Madsen. In gratitude of sharing their ideas on topics as; tectonics, ecology and architec-
tural culture I also want to thank; Henriette Ejstrup, Line Kjær Frederiksen, Jonathan Hale, Marie
Frier Hvejsel, Tillmann Klein, Ulrich Knaack, David Leatherbarrow, Nini Leimand; Ali Malkawi,
Natalie Mossin, Pelle Munch-Petersen, Nathan Romeo Muelos, Marius Nygaard, Simon Sköld,
and Franca Trubiano.
 7 REFERENCES

Alberti, L. B. 1988. On the Art of Building in Ten Books. J. Rykwert & N. Leach & R. Tavernor (transl.)
Cambridge MA. MIT Press.
Armand, A. & Sopandi, S. & Hutamia, D. & Hartanto, H. & dan A. D. Tardyiana. 2014. Indonesia Pavilion.
Craftmanship: Material Consciousness. 14th International Architecture Exhibition. La Biennale di Venezia.
Beim, A. 2004. Tectonic Visions in Architecture. København. Kunstakademiets Arkitektskoles Forlag.
Beim, A. & Madsen, U. S. (eds.) 2015. Towards an Ecology of Tectonics: The Need for Rethinking Con-
struction in Architecture. Stuttgart/London. Edition Axel Menges.
Deplaze, A. 2005. Constructing Architecture: Materials, Processes, Structures; A Handbook. Basel.
Birkhaüser
European Commission & JRC. 2018. Model for Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of buildings.
https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/publication/model-life-cycle-assessment-lca-buildings
Frampton, K. 1988. Intimations of tactility: Excerpts from a fragmentary polemic. In: Marble, S. (ed.) Ar-
chitecture and the body. New York. Rizzoli.
Frascari, M. 1991. Monsters of Architecture: Anthropomorphism in Architectural Theory. Savage. Row-
man & Littlefield Publishers.
Glahn, E. 1984. Yingzao Fashi: Chinese Building Standards in the Song Dynasty. In: VIA. no. 7. Phila-
delphia. University of Pennsylvania
Hale, J. 2017. Merleau-Ponty for Architects. Abingdon. Routledge.
Hauschild, M. Z. & Rosenbaum, R. & Olsen, S. 2015. Life Cycle Assessment: Theory & Practice. Berlin.
Springer.
Häyhäa, T. & Lucasb, P. L. & van Vuurenb, D. P. & Cornella, S. E. & Hoffd, H. 2016. From Planetary
Boundaries to national fair shares of the global safe operating space: How can the scales be bridged? In
J. Barnett & L. Lebel & M. New & K. Seto (ed.), Global Environmental Change 40: 60-72. Elsevier
Ingold, T. 2013. Making; Anthropology, Archology, Art and Architecture. Abingdon. Routledge.
Kahn, L. 1964. Lecture at the Conference on ‘Medicine in the year 2000’. In R. Twombly. 2003. (ed.),
Louis Kahn: Essential Texts: 169-197. New York. W.W. Norton & Company.
Kieran, S. & J. Timberlake. 2004. Refabricating Architecture: How Manufacturing Methodologies are
Poised to Transform Building Construction. New York. McGraw-Hill Companies.
Koolhaas, R. 2014. Fundamentals: 14th International Architecture Exhibition. La Biennale di Venezia.
Venice. Marsilio Editori.
Le Corbusier. 1923. Vers une Architecture. Paris. Vincent, Fréal.
Le Corbusier. 1925. Urbanisme. Paris. Les Editions G. Crès & Cie.
Leatherbarrow, D. & Wesley R. 2018. Three Cultural Ecologies. New York. Routledge.
Lykketoft, M. 2015. We have to make decisions together, and we have to make them now.
https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/blog/2015/09/interview-we-have-to-make-decisions-
together-and-we-have-to-make-them-now-mogens-lyyketoft/. 15.02.2019
MacArthur, Ellen. 2017. The Circular Design Guide. https://www.circulardesignguide.com. 15.02.2019
Madsen, M. & Beim, A. & Frederiksen L. K. & Munch-Petersen, P. & Sköld, S. 2017. BRICK: Circular
Tectonic Thinking. Copenhagen. CINARK/ Kunstakademiets Arkitektskole.
Morgan, M. H. 1960. (trans.) Vitruvius, Marcus Pollio The Ten Books of Architecture. (De Architectura).
New York. Dover Publications Inc.
Orr, D. 2007. Architecture, Ecological Design and Human Ecology. In K. Tanzer & R. Longoria (eds.), The
Green Braid – Towards an Architecture of Ecology, Economy and Equity: 15-34. Abingdon. Routledge.
Rockström, J. & W. Steffen & K. Noone & Å. Persson & F. S. Chapin, III & E. Lambi &, T. M. Lenton & M.
Scheffer & C. Folke & H. Schellnhuber & B. Nykvist & C. A. De Wit & T. Hughes & S. van der Leeuw &
H. Rodhe & S. Sörlin & P. K. Snyder & R. Costanza & U. Svedin & M. Falkenmark & L. Karlberg & R.
W. Corell & V. J. Fabry & J. Hansen & B. Walker & D. Liverman & K. Richardson & P. Crutzen & J. Fo-
ley. 2009. Planetary boundaries: exploring the safe operating space for humanity. In Ecology and Socie-
ty. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/iss2/art32/
Ruskin, J. 1869. The Valley of the Somme. In J. Evans (ed.) 1995. The Lamp of Beauty: Writings on Art.
301-315. London, Phaidon.
Semper, G. 1885. Die vier Elemente der Baukunst: Ein Beitrag zur vergleichenden Baukunde.
Braunschweig. Friedrich Vieweg und Sohn.
Semper, G. 1878 / 1879. Der Stil in den technischen und tektonischen Künsten oder praktische Ästhetik:
ein Handbuch für Techniker, Künstler und Kunstfreunde. (Band 1& 2)
Simonen, K. 2014. Life Cycle Assessment. Abingdon. Routledge.
Strike, J. 1991. Construction into Design: The Influence of New Methods of Construction on Architectur-
al Design 1690-1990. Oxford. Butterworth Architecture.
Utzon, J. 1970. Additive Architecture. In Arkitektur DK. 1-3. No.1. Copenhagen. Arkitektens Forlag
Vibæk, K. S. 2011. System structures in architecture: constituent elements of a complex industrialised
architecture (PhD thesis). Copenhagen, The Royal Danish Academy of Fine Arts School of Architecture.

View publication stats