building

During the 1960s I spent most of my professional time building. I worked for a variety of contractors and developers on the East Coast and the South West. In addition, I did design/build of small additions and custom landscaping and swimming pools projects (outdoor environments), as well as, sub contracting. While I executed a number of my own designs - all remodels and additions - the focus of my work was on building practices and how greater precision of component fit could be accomplished while removing great chunks of time and cost from the process.

I found that, by working with what today we would call the supply chain [link], that over half the time and more than 40% of the cost of a project can be consistently eliminated.

My conceptual architectural work was, therefore, free to explore a variety of ideas - all of which depended on a greatly improved building process. These two aspects of my work were closely coupled in my mind. On one hand, I was being paid to build [link] conventionally designed buildings, while on the other, I was using this work as a lab to discover better ways of conducting an integrated design-build process. During the week, I ran construction projects. Evenings and weekends my design work explored the kind of environments such improved manufacturing/construction processes would make possible.

In many respect these were the best of times. I was able to get in “two weeks” of work every week. One week of building and one week (end) of designing, studying and thinking. A few hours every night plus the coveted Friday night through Sunday work period allowed for great productivity. The day-to-day building provided a sense of achievement and grounded the more theretical work done during hte “after hours.”

The only problem was that this combination actually allowed me to discover - and prove out building methods - that to this day - remain largely unused. Why this is remains a mystery to me.

The Cooper House and the American Pool Building were designed while I worked a a foreman on a gunite crew - this allowed an integration of design and construction methods.

The decade started with the Cooper house and the American Pool Building projects - both circular studies to be built from gunite (sprayed concrete). These two works were actually not typical of most of my work during this decade which explored a different modular system that combined all of the basic geometrical forms (As illustrated below). This is why I include them in my 1950s work [link: matt tatylor - 1950s architectural concepts]. The more pure circular forms were explored and utilized in some swimming pool projects [link], the dome projects [link] of the 70s and and our WorkFurniture systems [link] of the 90s. Circular forms provide great amenity in the the space, ambiance and setting of an environment. They bring with them certain challenges chief among them the fact that circular layouts will (all things being equal) drive square foot upward and there are certain fabrication and construction challenges intrinsic to the form. In addition, the esthetic is sometimes tricky - the resolution between the plan, elevations and masses in specific. This make the circular building one of the most challenging to create - and one of the most rewarding when done well as rare as that is.

multi-module_system

This sketch was actually drawn while I was on vacation with Gail, Jeff and Sheri in Germany and Holland during the summer of 1997. It is was a multi-faceted exercise: First and foremost, it was vacation fun. I do not get the time, very often, to just “play” with ideas and colored pencils. Second, it was an exercise to re-think the site criteria, modular schema and materials pallet for Renascense III. Third, I was revisiting certain architectural ideas that I had developed-explored in the 1960s. It is for this reason that I use it here. It is archetypical of my work at that time many of the drawings of which have been lost [link]. A version of this project was developed for the Laura Powers Residence in the early 1980’s.

First, a few things about the sketch itself. This is how I often approach a concept sketch. The idea is not to express a solution to a specific building problem but to express a grammar - a meta pattern language [link] that contains a number of problem-solution possibilities. This sketch is a superimposed Plan, Section and Elevation - all of which, establish a schema from which a number of specific architectural pieces can be generated.

There are a number of features that this schema facilitates: a module system that incorporates rectangles, squares, triangles, diamonds and hexagons into a single system.

This module is employed in three dimensions - not just the horizontal plane. In addition to allowing great variety of shapes and forms, it facilities great precision and control of component placement and piece cutting. It is possible, using this system, to describe a building, all it’s pieces, their location in space and their sequence of erection in strictly numerical terms. This eliminates most conventional drawings and a great deal of “cut and fit” in the field - it facilitates “shipping information, manufacturing on site” processes. [February 17, 2005 Note: this process is now part of our Patent and patent pending materials].

A later development of this module is my Bay Area Studio [link] project.

As in music, where a certain scale and orchestration can be used to create a near infinite variety of pieces, this modular method and process promotes the same results. It also facilities the integration of craft and industrial methods - both technically and aesthetically. Replaceable components, be they conceptual or physical, can be re-used with near infinite variety.

It is by such methods that Lean Construction can be accomplished. I prototyped these methods over 30 years ago by doing this work on my own drawings and in the field for my crews. Doing the field layout and feeding them the right information and materials flow in the right time and sequence, eliminated a great deal of wasted time on the job. It also freed their minds to concentrate on their work. It is so easy. However, almost never done because it is considered expensive! I ran a construction site, in the 60s, much like we conduct a DesignShop process today. It was in this design-build context that I started thinking about computer augmentation [link: as we may re think].

Much of what we do today and is in our Patent [link] was conceived in the application environment of building - what today would be called lean production. My R&D lab was the swimming pool industry which was ideal for this kind of experimentation and development [link: swimming pool story].

In addition to these modular technical innovations, my 60s work explored a number of other unique architectural features. As the sketch indicates, this was a “domestic” scale architecture that employed vertical “high rise” forms and “earth-sculpting” methods that sometimes, in recent years, are found in large scale commercial projects. This provides the occupant a completely different orientation to the site than typical (except under the happy circumstances associated with very unique lots). The verticality allowed placing each room in just the right position (sun, wind orientation and view) for the specific function of that room. Traditional layouts simply cannot do this. The earth burming allows the creation of micro-climates, best use of prevailing winds and maximum development of sight lines. It also reduces maintenance and utility bills by using “earth-sheltered-building” means. These methods allow greater density of land use while providing a greater sense of space and privacy - along with - significant energy and materials economy.

In addition, this vertical organizational schema, facilitates a small foot print. It allows for engineered footings where bearing and foundation can be carefully matched. This resolves many settlement problems and exposes the structure less to certain stresses caused by earth movements.

Using these methods, it is possible to build an entire subdivision that “disappears” into the landscape. You will not see it until you are upon it [link]. I believe that this technique will be used when old work is rebuilt and the land has to be reclaimed from abusive development practices [link]. On the scale of a subdivision, “cluster housing” plot planning can be used leaving the vast majority of the land open while providing privacy to each unit and open views to all.

In sum, this schema provides the architect a far greater variety of concrete design options, compared to conventional methods, while facilitating an economy of execution by taking waste out of the building process and accomplishing minimal cost for maximum result. Each house is composed of elements, the specific shape of which, is what is required on the mico-scale of each part of the building. No waste, eloquent design.

I have not, yet, built a major work based on this schema, however, I did explore a number of these aspects in landscape designs (and their support structures) that I executed during this period. This provided enough experience to, basically, establish the feasibility of the ideas. People loved the resulting designs once built yet tended to be wary of them “on paper.” This is still true today. This module is now becoming ever more present in the production of our NavCenters [link].

If truly affordable housing is to be accomplished, many of these methods will be brought into play - this will be especially true in the transition period between today's antiquated practices and true construction sophistication [link].

Due to an unfortunate incident, in 1971, I lost possession of the drawings documenting my design work of the 50s and 60s. This was about 40 built and unbuilt projects.

To document this period will require recreating a number of these works. This is a worth while exercise because the opportunity for this “style” of architecture is just now coming about. This is so for a number of reasons. One is the technology - both manufacturing and computer. What I was exploring with this work was a hybrid architecture that employed a mix of traditional field and what we now call “lean” manufacturing methods. Another is customer “taste.” The “grip” of traditional forms is just now starting to loosen - creating, admittedly, a large number of grotesque examples with a few scattered jewels. The greatest driver, however, is new land-use standards and cost of building economics. The affordability of traditional housing is evaporating.

designbuild1

What I was driving at, with this architecture, was a new mix of technology, space utilization combined in a package of high quality and small size. Houses then - and more so today - are overgrown, wasteful, non-economical, high maintenance abortions. With this work, I was seeking the return to, continuation and new expression of the 30s, 40s and early 50s work [link] of Wright, Eichler, Drake, Ames and others - small, affordable, eloquent habitats

Unfortunately, the average architect does not participate intimately in the build process. This breaks the Design-Build-Use chain. Feedback to design options by construction opportunities, and visa versa, is mostly eliminated. The relationship between designer and builder is often adversarial and dominated by UpSideDown economics [link]. This need not be. Architecture is a practical art that demands total integration between idea and doing... and using. The best work being done, today, is being done by design-build firms. The Jersey Devils organization (which is a virtual network) is an outstanding example of a more integrated approach [link].

In January, 2000 I returned to some of these concepts with the design of a Studio [link] for the San Francisco Bay Area as part of a Course [link] I teach at SFIA [link]. On a square footage basis - as a one off - and built in the Bay Area, this will not be an inexpensive project. It will hardly be called affordable housing. However, it will prototype methods that can be with some refinement and steady production. It will demonstrate that a lot of functional space can be gotten into a small footprint. And, that all this can be done along with making exciting architecture.

posted: March 3, 1999

revised: January 30, 2006
• 20000107.142571.mt • 20050217.411120.mt •
• 20050225.565410.mt • 20060130.722100.mt •

Copyright© 1999, 2000, 2005, 2006 Matt Taylor

(note: this document is about 60% finished)