Unit Summary 2 - Reverberations: The Global Design Pendulum

The 1400 years of architectural history covered by this second unit are best characterized by the Foucault Pendulum, in particular the one on exhibit at the Franklin Institute in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. There are three themes in particular that are specifically inspired by the pendulum: struggles between the localization and the globalization of design and architecture, the emergence and importance of science and innovation in material use, and the impact of colonization on the style movements for both the colonized and the colonizers.



The Foucault Pendulum at the Franklin Institute demonstrates that what goes around, comes around in design (retrieved from: http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4037/4449119128_4902f85ce8.jpg).



Coming out of a desire to demonstrate faith, the buildings of the first millennium become progressively grander in scale and more elaborate in design and decoration. Examples of this are in the unsurpassed quality of ecclesiastical stone work coming from the Persian and Byzantine Empires (Roth, pp. 288-298) and the massive public works that allowed the Zapotec (Ching, pp. 257-259) and Mayan cities of Central America (Ching, pp.264-266) to become the largest civilizations of their time. Those who sponsored new construction demanded it be built taller, stronger, and more decadent in appointment. The limits of materials used for construction were tested and pushed to the limit – new materials were developed to keep up with the demands. The design pendulum swung from simple stone churches, mosques, and temples to highly ornamental and sophisticated structures that were emblematic of the ingenuity of those who designed and built them.

The apex of the design pendulum swing brings us to the Gothic design movement of western tradition and the intricate designs of temples across Asia. We start to see two distinct views of design – East and West. Both sides now send the pendulum away from regionally- or locally-defined architecture by setting down rules that clearly articulate what good design means. Prototypes for Asian temple architecture are set by imperial degree in both the Song (Ching, pp. 400-403) and Ming (Ching, pp. 439-443) dynasties in China, the Chola of the India subcontinent (Ching, pp. 405-410) and the Khmer empire in southeast Asia (Ching, pp. 392-397). In the west, Renaissance architecture coming out of Italy (Roth, pp. 357-381) is clearly defined with its own set of rules. Through these rules for design eastern and western builders brought consistency, tradition, and stability to architecture.

Just as soon as rules for design are defined empires from both east and west begin widening their reach into new geographic areas. China takes its political and cultural reach into Japan, Mongolia and Tibet. What was universal for the Chinese becomes regionalized. The Japanese incorporate their own Shinto perspective on the landscape that surrounds Chinese-inspired buildings (Ching, pp.486-494). The Chinese emperor’s Summer Residence at Chengde takes on both Tibetan and Mongolian details (Ching, pp. 602-604). The design pendulum, fueled by both opposition and assimilation, is pushed away from the set rules.

In the West, Greek and Roman classical rules for architecture take on new meanings when relocated to new climates in France, England. The quintessential example of this is the Palace at Versailles where the seemingly classical Greek-inspired Roman façade opens up to an interior that is decorated in a French Baroque fashion (Roth, pp. 415-420). We see it again in the Pantheon- mimicking that Sir Christopher Wren employed in designing of St. Paul’s Cathedral in London while also incorporating clear English Baroque elements (Roth, pp. 420-427).

Finally, we come back to the Unites States and the pendulum at the Franklin Institute. Named for one of our own revolutionaries, Benjamin Franklin, the exterior is typical for the Neo-Classical and Greek revival styles of the late 18^th and early 19^th century though it was built in the 20^th century (http://www2.fi.edu/shared/history.php). Like the state capital buildings of Virginia and Tennessee the Institute is characterized by Greek-inspired design rules (Ching, pp. 619, 645). An embodiment of Greek republican ideals, government and public buildings describe the desire of our founding fathers to return to classical values and invent a new kind of political system (Ching, pp. 644-645). Even Philadelphia is saturated in classical language. Planned on a Roman city grid system (Ching, pp.194-195) Philadelphia gets its name from Greek meaning “City of Brotherly Love” (http://www.ushistory.org/philadelphia/philadelphia.html).

A symbol of both Greek governance ideals and the innovation of the American people the Franklin Institute embodies Greek Revival in the Philadelphia (retrieved from: http://www2.fi.edu/shared/images/museum.front.jpg).

The design and architecture pendulum brings us back to the classical, but with a new set of rules. The world continues to turn and the pendulum at the Franklin Institute continues to follow the path of our orbit – spiraling round and round like the shell of a nautilus we all revisit our creative past with a new view, we incorporate what has meaning for us and adapt to new political, economic and cultural realities.

Reading Reflection 10 - Boston's Architectural Mosaic

Blog Post 9 - Chatting with Spain

Though many will naturally think of northern Europe as having a strong influence on architecture and design in the United States we should also remember the millennium-long exchange between the U.S. and Spain. Our first colonial power was Spain with the founding of St. Augustine in the 16th century (http://www.cr.nps.gov/nr/travel/geo-flor/24.htm). As "The Oldest House" the Gonzalez-Alvarez House is an example of how Spanish colonialism has had implications on architecture in the United States.

The original single-story building was the first to be built by Spanish colonizers in St. Augustine, Florida (Image retrieved from: http://www.essential-architecture.com/STYLE/STY-18-01.htm)

Using the language of arches, stucco, and whitewashing the Gonzalez-Alvarez house brings, for the first time, architecture for warm and wet climates. The Spanish colonial style is repeated in the southwest and Californian building traditions of the later 18th century.

One of the few places where the U.S. was an outright colonizer is Guam. Taken from Spain after the Spanish-American War we briefly lost control of the territory during World War II only regain control in 1945 (http://guampedia.com/guams-political-status/). Many structures of the time were built by the U.S. Navy including the Guam Congress Building.

An example of U.S. military construction using concrete blocks this was the first of it's kind on the island of Guam (Both photos retrieved from: http://www.cr.nps.gov/nr/feature/asia/2007/guamcongress.htm)

Both buildings are examples of the firsts of their kind in a colonial context. Both bring a new form of building to the landscape. The use of materials for both buildings were also controversial. For the Gonzalez-Alvarez the builders had to get special permission to use locally sourced material to build something to withstand attacks from pirates and other would-be colonizers (http://www.staugustinehistoricalsociety.org/oldhousehistory.pdf). The majority of construction material for the Guam Congress Building was brought in from mainland U.S.

These buildings tell the stories of how two cultures can have a conversation through the buildings they design because of the use of new and different materials in order to address local needs. Use of materials common to institutional building in the U.S. meant actually bringing the materials to the island. The building created by the U.S. military is also quintessentially institutional more than it is where one might expect the legislative body of a democracy country. Both of these buildings show that it more important what the colonizers have to say than those who are colonized.

Blog Post 10 - Revolutionary Vision (Eyeglasses)

Though origins of the eyeglasses are unknown what is known is that in the early Middle Ages glasses were made and used for scholars in Italy and Germany. Eyeglasses are revolutionary because there is no way to know how many great scholars through time have been stifled in making new discoveries or how many artists we have missed out on knowing because they couldn't see!


Fragment from the alterpiece painted by Conrad von Soest at the Protestant Church for the City of Bad Wildungen demonstrates the use and design of eyeglasses of the 14th century (retrieved from: http://kirche.wildungen.info/287.html )

 The revolutionary design of putting magnifying glasses into frames that fit on the face instead of being held in the hand over the page made it possible for Benjamin Franklin to invent bifocals. In a equally revolutionary time period a much aged Franklin found it tedious to change quickly from reading glasses to glasses for viewing at a distance and so, created glasses that included both forms of magnification in one lens.

The embodiment of the value that glasses can bring to society Benjamin Franklin needed glasses and even improved on their design in 18th century America (retrieved from: http://www-gap.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/PictDisplay/Franklin_Benjamin.html)

 From a tool to create and learn glasses in more modern time have become artistic expressions for their creators and wearers. Eyeglasses as everyday objects are revolutionary and continue to be to this day in the form of sunglasses. Now glasses can be and are worn by everyone even those who don't have visual empairments. With everyone as a potential customer more and more designers are creating their own unique styles. From the everyday to haute couture the eyeglasses and sunglasses adorning faces are also turning heads.

A modern iteration of eyeglasses in the form of high fashion accessory exemplified by Valentino (retrieved from: http://www.specsuperstore.com/pictures/valentino_sun.jpg)

Reading Reflection 9 - Parallel Views of Landscape and Architecture

Reading Reflection 8 - Narcissistic Architecture of the 17th Century

Blog Post 8 - Evolution of the Dome

Domes in the western world are all, in some way, connected to the Pantheon of Rome. A thread that also runs through dome structures is the capacity for these spaces to bring people together. Three examples of how this has taken shape are the Baptistry Campo Dei Miracoli in Pisa, Italy, St. Paul's Cathedral of London, England and the United States Capitol building in Washington, D. C.

The Baptistry serves as a space for church rituals especially baptisms. The exterior includes elements from classical Roman architectural as well as early Gothic on the upper levels.

Built in 1153, the architecture of the Baptistry Campo Dei Miracoli, Pisa, Italy connects classic Roman and emerging Gothic elements.


The columns, arched windows, and overall proportions of the Baptistry are echoed in the dome of St. Paul's Cathedral in London, England. Designed  by Sir Christopher Wren construction on the cathedral started in 1675 (http://www.stpauls.co.uk/Cathedral-History). Though hundreds of years apart from the Baptistry at Pisa the dome at St. Paul's is connected through exterior elements and through the purpose to bring people together through their faith.

St. Paul's Cathedral in London is a 17th century interpretation of classic dome architecture.


From Italy, through England and on to 19th century North America the dome stays true to the Pantheon prototype. Again, we see the colums, the arched windows, and marble facade. Like the two other the U. S. Capitol brings together people in a single place but the nature of the faith that brings them together has changed.

The dome the United States Capitol building illustrates the full evolution of spaces for gathering people.


The lineage of the dome which started with the Pantheon comes full circle through a building that embodies the democratic ideal started in ancient Rome.