1

Between the Intangible and the Tangible

Brian Fireman

Thesis submitted to the faculty of Virginia Polytech-nic and State University in partial fulfillment of therequirements for the degree of Master of Architec-ture.

Mario Cortes, chairJim JonesJohn Bryant

May 10, 2001Blacksburg, VA

i

2

Abstract

Between the Tangible and the Tangible

Brian Fireman

Between the intangible and tangible is the realm inwhich this thesis investigation takes place. Thematerial presented here in a roughly chronologicalprogression represents an exploration over the courseof a year. This organization of thoughts and imageswill illustrate the processes and discoveries whichoccurred during this exploration.

In architecture, the realm of the intangible representsideas. Ideas are catalysts for further study and ulti-mate action. It was the aim of this thesis to notsimply let an idea exist without further action, but toexplore the evolution of an idea to the point where itmay ultimately manifest in built form.

The realm of the tangible, in this case the physicalobject, is also not the emphasis of this thesis. It issimply part of the whole, not to be confused withsome sort of final end result. The built object, whenstudied, helps inform the original idea.

The emphasis of this thesis is on the area between theintangible and the tangible. This is where explorationstake place, discoveries are made, and where transfor-mations occur. In essence, this is where the multitudeacts of design transform ideas into the realm ofarchitecture.

ii

3

Table of Contents

Acknowledgments 5Signature Page 7Forward 9Precedent 10 Modus Operandi 11

Wood 12Workmanship 13

Theme 14Exploration 1Process

Origins of an Idea 18Grain Direction 22Cantilever 24Joinery 25The Sensual 28

DiscoveryEssence of Tectonic 32Intentions and Discovery 36

Exploration 2Process

Resistance 44Discovery

Tool Marks 46Relationships 48

TranslationChange of Scale 54Program and Site 55Process

A Tower is Born 58Grain Direction 64Cantilever 68Joinery 70Relationships 80

Conclusion 82Reflection 84Photographic Credits 87Selected Bibliography 89Vita 91

4

5

Acknowledgments

This book is dedicated to my beautiful andsexy wife, Bonnie. Without her loving sup-port during these past years none of this

would have been possible or enjoyable.

To my parents, Jo-Anna and Richard, and mybrother Geoff, who have always been there forme with encouragement and support. I love yal.

Thank you to my thesis committee, Bob Schubert,other professors, and friends in studio whom haveshared their thoughts and provided guidance andfriendship during this time in Blacksburg.

Extra special thanks to John Bryant, withoutwhose help in the woodshop none of this workwould have been possible.

6

7

Between the Tangible and Intangible

Thesis submitted to the faculty of Virginia Poly-technic and State University in partial fulfillmentof the requirements for the degree of Master ofArchitecture.

Approved by Thesis Committee:

Mario Cortes, Chairman

Jim Jones

John Bryant

May 11, 2001Blacksburg, VA

8

9

Forward

Between the intangible and tangible is the realm inwhich this thesis investigation takes place. Thematerial presented here in a roughly chronologicalprogression represents an exploration over thecourse of a year. This organization of thoughtsand images will illustrate the processes anddiscoveries which occurred during this explora-tion.

In architecture, the realm of the intangible repre-sents ideas. Ideas are catalysts for further studyand ultimate action. It was the aim of this thesisto not simply let an idea exist without furtheraction, but to explore the evolution of an idea tothe point where it may ultimately manifest in builtform.

The realm of the tangible, in this case the physicalobject, is also not the emphasis of this thesis. It issimply part of the whole, not to be confused withsome sort of final end result. The built object,when studied, helps inform the original idea.

The emphasis of this thesis is on the area betweenthe intangible and the tangible. This is whereexplorations take place, discoveries are made, andwhere transformations occur. In essence, this iswhere the multitude acts of design transformideas into the realm of architecture.

10

Precedent

Design must have a beginning. For this thesis itbegan as an inquiry into the relationship betweenforce, structure, and form.

Forces generate structure. Structure is how thingsare arranged and put together in a larger whole.When this structure is manifest in the form of anobject, its inner workings are revealed and can beperceived. Thus, form becomes a reflection ofstructure and forces.

Structure revealed through form can manifest inan infinite variety of ways. This diversity can befound in many places; formal geometry, joiningof parts, the relation and interaction of parts tothe whole, material properties, construction in thebuilt world, or growth in the natural world.

�Structure, then, is an abstractquality. It needs presence inthe real world to be fullyapprehended - what thestructure is made of isimportant, as is where it is,what it is doing, and who isapprehending it.�- Bill Addis

1

2

11

Modus Operandi

In architecture, the notion of giving perceivableform to structure through construction is termed�tectonics�. An idea emerged to investigate thenature of tectonics as it relates to the expressiverelationships of form to force in architecture andthe built environment. Eduard Seklar, in an essayon this topic, wrote, �...structure, the intangibleconcept, is realized through construction andgiven expression through tectonics.� Thus,structure and construction imply two differentthings, although their meanings are frequentlyblurred. From this was born the desire to under-stand the relation and interaction between thetwo.

In order to investigate this distinction, it wasdecided to experiment with the relationshipbetween a specific material and the process ofconstruction. Using the Cowgill woodshop as alaboratory for exploration, work began with theaim as not to produce an �object� as an end initself, but to document the process involved inmaking the object. This was an attempt to gainnew insights into both the nature of the objectand the process by which it was created. Embed-ded within this method are two key consider-ations.

First, the choice of material.Second, the act of making.

�Architecture arrives whenour thoughts about it acquirethe real condition that onlymaterials can provide. Byaccepting and bargaining withlimitations and restrictions,with the act of construction,architecture becomes what itreally is�- Rafael Moneo

Wood was chosen as the primary material. It is anatural and beautiful substance which possessesinherent qualities such as color, texture, and graindirection which add individuality to a madeobject. It is relatively easy to manipulate, whichis necessary for the act of making to be athorough and enriching hands-on experience.Thus, working with wood provided almostimmediate results and allowed for much to belearned over short durations.

3

4

12

Wood

In his essay on tectonics, Eduard Seklar statesthat tectonics has long been recognized as the�particular manifestation of empathy in the fieldof architecture.� Thus, a notion of tectonicsimplies material expression, which wood greatlylends itself to in an investigation such as this.The growth of every tree is unique, yet there arecertain characteristics inherent to its structure.Most prominent are the color of the wood, itshardness, its texture, and its grain direction. Eachpiece of wood will vary in these properties,lending individuality to this material. The experi-ence of wood, how these properties are used indesign, became a prime concern in this investiga-tion.

�I learned that wood has twolives: the first as trees; thesecond as tables and chairs,beds and cupboards, floorsand brooms, bowls and ladles,houses and sheds, cribs andcoffins.�- Jose Zanine Caldas

How can inherent physical properties ofwood, such as color, texture, or graindirection be used to enhance one�s experi-ence of not only the built object, but alsothe processes by which it was created?

5

6

13

Workmanship

An essential aspect of this method is the notionof workmanship. As stated by David Pye in hisbook, The Nature and Art of Workmanship,�Design is what, for practical purposes, can beconveyed in words and by drawing: workmanshipis what, for practical purposes, can not.�

This distinction is important, for the act ofconstruction is inherently tied to the notion oftectonics. This is not to say that drawing is not anaspect of �building�, or �constructing�. Itcertainly can be, although there is a differencebetween how a drawing may inform an ideaversus how the process of making informs anidea.

In what ways is design affected if thedesigner and the maker are the sameperson?

The photograph below is of a sculptor namedMartin Puryear. In his case, a particular expertisein workmanship serves to inform and guide hisideas and sculptures. Without first having had athorough training in the particularities of woodconstruction, he could never have made the pieceshown below. His work is a great example ofhow making might inform design.

7

14

Theme

Freedom to explore this tectonic idea was pro-vided through flexible boundaries defined by aspecific theme, allowing the exploration betweenmaterial and the process of construction to takeplace. This theme includes three main principles.

In the realm of wood furniture, the works ofAmerican craftsmen Sam Maloof and GeorgeNakashima, as well as Danish architect anddesigner Hans Wegner specifically aspire to thistectonic theme and are used here to illustrate itspoints. The adjacent figure located top-right is anexample by Hans Wegner demonstrating the firstprinciple. This is a well designed detail of thejoining of two members, where there is absoluteminimum amount of material necessary toperform the required task. The middle figure isan example by George Nakashima. Here, thesecond principle is beautifully exemplified, wherethe main point is to express in a given material theinherent qualities of that material. The figure inthe lower-right corner is an example by SamMaloof, a clear demonstration of the third prin-ciple, where the expression of joinery explicitlyshows how the piece is made.

First, take away material where there is nouse for it.Second, show the logic in construction.Third, show how the piece is made.

15

�The art of structure is howand where to place holes.�- Robert Ricolais

�More than anything else, agood construction can tell astory about the idea embod-ied in a design. Telling a storythrough a constructionincludes making clear whatone wants to emphasize, whatthe point of the constructionis.�- Hans Wegner

�To use a material to itsfullest extent is to honor it: itis a way of forcibly extractingall its specific qualities to theirbursting point.�- from Gaudi - Furniture andObjects

8

9

10

16

Exploration 1

17

18

Process:

Origins of an Idea

From the onset, the work of architect and engi-neer Santiago Calatrava provided much inspira-tion. In particular, his various tower, bridge, andsculpture projects struck a chord as beautiful andwell-designed constructions with obvious tectonicimplications. Much time was spent viewingimages of his various tower and bridge projects,contemplating their formal characteristics andtrying to understand exactly how the variousforces involved in these constructions resolvedthemselves. Upon further reading, it was discov-ered that this is an essential vision of his work.Calatrava�s notion of form is that the designer caninterest the user in the struggle to resolve theforces at work in a given construction, in effectforcing the viewer to reflect and contemplate theresolution of these forces. In essence, his workdirectly engages the mind in wonder.

From this idea was generated a clear intention.Guided by the established modus operandi andtheme, it was hoped that some kind of designlanguage could be discovered which would notmerely expose the intangible concept of structure,but celebrate it through construction. If such adesign language were discovered, then it could beused to help solve design problems on variousscales, from that of a piece of furniture to that ofa building.

19

11

20

With this idea in mind, the investigation began inthe woodshop. Working from a basis of explor-atory sketches, it was decided to construct acanted vertical member rising from a tripod basewith a cantilevered top surface. Many questionssurfaced...

How might the forces inherently involvedin a cantilever be expressed?What form should it take?What kind of joints should be used?How might the shaping of the individualparts relate to the forces flowing throughthe piece.What would be the most stable configura-tion?How might the parts be joined?How might they be shaped together?How does the object meet the ground?How will the nature of the material affectthe overall design?How, where, and when do certain linesappear, disappear, and reappear in thepiece?What is the nature and relationship of thebase to the top?How do the rear legs join the vertical?How might formal decisions affect howone might respond to the piece?. In otherwords, how might the difference betweena hard edge or soft edge affect where onemight want to touch the piece?

With the first tool stroke across wood grain, thefirst step was taken beyond the realm of theintangible into the realm of the tangible. Throughthe examination of a few key issues encounteredduring the process of making this first object, it ispossible to see how the idea, method, and themepreviously established helped drive and informdecisions in each of these areas.

21

22

Grain Direction

To begin, prototypes were made of a few condi-tions to be found in the final piece. Through thisprocess, it was found that grain direction is a veryimportant design consideration. Without at-tempting to first build the design in this prototypestage, this discovery would never have occurred.

At the junction between the rear legs and thevertical piece, the first attempt at shaping the jointbetween these two members occurred with thecurve taking place within the back leg of thepiece. Very quickly, in attempting to shape thispiece of wood, short grain was encounteredwhich quickly chipped away. In the soft pine ofthis initial prototype, the shaping continued untilthe tenon was visible through the sides of itsmortise. Thus, the design changed to incorporatethe transition curve within the vertical member sothat the long grain would give strength to thisjoint. This was not an aesthetic decision, but avery functional one based purely on grain direc-tion.

23

This discovery of grain direction affecting wherea curve was to be made also led to a decision as tohow the top cantilever would join the verticalpiece.

As a result of the previous lesson, it was learnedthat the curve between these two pieces had totake place within the horizontal long grain of thetop piece, but this piece did not possess adequatethickness to create the desired curve. Thus, it wasdecided to introduce a secondary piece of woodbetween the top and vertical member. Thissecondary piece would be oriented with the grainrunning horizontally, making possible the creationof the desired curve.

�One of the most characteris-tic qualities of wood is that ithas a direction. It makes abig difference whether you goalong the grain or perpen-dicular to it.�- Hans Wegner

24

Cantilever

The selection of a single board, cut from thecrotch of a walnut tree, was a significant instigatorfor many formal decisions concerning how thepiece would look. The very prominent grainpattern, converging towards one end, perfectlysuited the notion of �cantilever�. Containedwithin this board, the cantilever was visionedtapering in both plan as well as section, with theouter edges following the lines of the grain. Thisdecision was rooted in the initial theme, to takeaway material where it is not needed. Fartheraway from the rear support, the cantilever isunder less stress and thus needs less thickness inmaterial, both in plan and section.

In the bottom figure, there can be seen a knot onone side of the board which causes the grain toswirl around this spot. Initially, the thought wasto construct a purely symmetrical top, yet thisswirl ultimately led to a decision to follow thegrain and allow the top to be asymmetrical.

The process of making allows decisions like thisto be made at the time of discovery. This is justone example. During the act of making, there is aconstant exchange of information between thehand, eye, and mind. This process constantlyinforms and re-informs decisions during the actof making.

25

Joinery

To begin, templates were cut for each separatepiece. Taken directly from initial sketches andblown up to a larger scale, these templates allowedfor approximate initial cuts as well as locatingexact joint locations between the individual pieces.

A mortise and tenon joint was decided upon forthe connection between the two rear legs andvertical member. Although not visible, this is avery strong joint. Because the mortise wouldoccur in the vertical member, there was plenty ofwood around the joint to shape these two piecestogether.

26

Decisions regarding the making of this joint wereinformed by all three ideas from the originaltheme. In shaping the curve between these twopieces and angling the shoulder line of the con-nection, material was taken away where it was notneeded while at the same time alluding to the flowof forces through the piece. Additionally, theshaping of the curve in this manner was onlypossible because of the nature of the material,walnut. If this is difficult to see, simply envision asimilar connection between three membersconstructed in concrete, steel, or plastic. Thespecific material qualities of walnut, in this case,directly informed the decisions leading to theultimate form of the joint.

27

Much trial and error went into the constructionof the joint between the top and vertical mem-bers. The final joint, a dovetailed mortise andtenon open to one side, was decided upon forthree main reasons.

First, the inherent shape of the dovetail providesmechanical strength. Thus, when pressure isexerted in a downward direction at the end of thecantilevered top, the joint itself will help resistthis force.

Second, the rear of the joint would be left visiblein order to help the viewer interpret how thispiece was made and put together, hopefullyencouraging them to contemplate the act ofconstruction.

Third, the front of the joint would be hiddeninside the mortise. If it was left visible as athrough tenon to both ends, then a problemencountering short grain would occur whenattempting to shape the curve between these topthree pieces.

28

The Sensual

As the individual pieces were joined and shapingof the piece progressed, it was possible to addressquestions pertaining to the sensual realm ofhuman experience and interaction with thecreated object.

What is the nature of the �right line�, andhow is this decided?What various factors determine the finalform the piece will take?When is a hard edge appropriate andwhen is a soft edge appropriate?How should the piece be finished?

To understand how these questions were an-swered, let us examine a particular part of thispiece, the top cantilever.

First, the form resulting in the rear of the cantile-ver, where it joins the vertical member, was largelydetermined by how the hand controlled the tool, arasp, over the woods� surface. Gradually, changingthe angle of the tool within each passing stroke,the final form began to emerge.

Second, grain direction also informed formaldecisions in this area. In this case, grain directionwas used in a different way than previouslydiscussed. Shaping the top piece was a pureformal consideration and had nothing to do withstrength of the wood or strength of a joint. Thegrain flowed in particular pattern around thelocation of the crotch of the tree. Observing thispattern led to the decision to join the vertical tothe cantilevered top in a location such that therear of the piece would slightly protrude in theopposite direction as that of the main cantilever.It was thought that this would lend a particular�feeling� to the piece, helping to visually counter-balance the prominent cantilever in the otherdirection.

29

30

Third, a soft edge is much more inviting to thehand than a hard edge. With this in mind, arounded lip was formed around the outer edge ofthe cantilevered top. This was done with thehopes of inviting the hand to touch and experi-ence the tapering of the top cantilever.

Fourth, lines of force through the piece helpedinform formal decisions. As stated earlier, it isobvious to see how the tapered cantilever alludesto the forces acting through it. Maybe slightly lessobvious is how the notion of forces informed theshaping of the vertical member.

The two rear legs converge on the vertical piece atan angle. Thus, the back side of the verticalmember needed to be wide to accommodate thisjoint. On the other side, it was possible to taperthe vertical member to a point. Translating thispoint of convergence up and down the thismember, a hard line was established, alluding tothe force which flows from the tip of the cantile-ver down to the ground below. In this samemanner, each rear leg was shaped in a way largelydetermined by how forces flowed through it.

Finally, finishing of the piece was a direct attemptto bring the experience of the wood itself to amore sensual level of experience. The final formwas sanded to remove all scratches left visible bythe construction process. Next, the piece wasoiled to bring out the prominent grain patterns aswell as help protect the wood itself. In this way,the piece invites the hand to touch the wood in acompletely different way than if left in a raw state,with rough edges and tool marks covering itssurface.

31

32

Discovery:Essence of Tectonic

An unexpected discovery occurred only afterhaving completed the piece. The connectingpiece joining the vertical support and cantileveredtop produced a distinct pattern in how the con-verging grain patterns met one another. It bore astriking resemblance to a specific geologicalphenomena, called an �angular unconformity�, aphenomena produced through geologic tectonicactivity.

In the field of geology, tectonic activity refers tothe movement of tectonic plates. One could say,�Tectonic activity produces mountain chains andocean basins.� Tectonic processes refer to thoseprocesses resulting from tectonic activity. Tec-tonic forces imply the stresses and strains whichgive rise to various tectonic processes, etc. Sowhat does all this mean?

What is the relationship between the term�tectonic� used here and in architecture?To look at it another way, why did geologyadapt a centuries old term and use it todescribe a newly discovered phenomena?

To help answer this question, it is important toquickly look at what an angular unconformity trulyrepresents. In short, an angular unconformityrequires four major events:

One, an initial period of sedimentationduring which older strata are deposited ina near horizontal position.Two, a subsequent period of deformationduring which the first sedimentarysequence is somehow displaced.Three, development of an erosionalsurface on the folded sequence of rock.Four, a period of renewed sedimentationand development of a younger sequenceof sedimentary rocks on top of the oldererosional surface.

12

33

Thus, the very physical presence of an angularunconformity alludes to a very unphysical thing,time. More specifically, it alludes to missing timerevealed through the rock record itself, or theintangible made tangible. This is where thenotion of tectonics enters the picture.

The word tectonic is derived from the Greekword �tekton�, which refers to carpenter orbuilder. Over time, the meaning of tectonics inarchitecture evolved to mean more than simply�building�. Fundamentally, tectonics implies therevealing, the making visible of something whichinherently is not. Structure is an intangibleconcept. Through construction, it is revealed andmade visible. This making visible of the invisibleis what gives rise to varying degrees of tectonicexpression, and a particular notion of empathyimplicit in the term.

34

Buildings are constructed through physical effortover the course of time. Tectonics refers to thespecific act of making visible some aspect of thiscondition. In speaking to this condition, EduardSeklar states that the architect is �the undisputedmaster of tectonic expression.� Thus, it is aconscious choice of the architect to reveal or notreveal some aspect of how the structural forcesresolve themselves in built form.

In Geology, there is no conscious �maker� otherthan the earth itself. The cooling of the earthgives rise to a multitude of processes over time,which when revealed we call �tectonic�. In thisway, the invisible, internal structure of how theearth came to be, or �was made�, is revealed. Inessence, although tectonics refer to differentthings in the respective fields of geology andarchitecture, its meaning is the same.

13

14

35

It is interesting to note that geology is not theonly field which has adopted the term �tectonic�and applied it to its own end. The field of biol-ogy has done the same, adapting the term todescribe the process of plant evolution anddifferentiation in much the same way that geologyhas adapted the term to describe various earthprocesses. In describing the photographs of KarlBlossfeldt, two of which are shown at left, authorHans Christian Adam states, �It was a question ofilluminating the construction, statics, and tecton-ics of plants so as to show possibilities of com-parison and provide ideas from the world ofnature to that of art or, rather, architecture.�

After this angular unconformity discovery, it wasinteresting to notice how awareness of thiscondition was enhanced while viewing the worksof other architects, most notably Antonio Gaudi.It is obvious that Mr. Gaudi was very particular inthe design of this column and vault shown in thebottom image. Note the joint where the columnmeets the vault. This image brings me great joy!

15

16

17

36

Intentions and Discovery

In attempting to understand this first piece andthe processes by which it was created, a veryimportant lesson was learned regarding thenotion of intentions. Up to this point, the namegiven to this piece was �model stand�. Theprimary intention was to express through form,material, and construction some notion of theforces flowing from the end of the cantilever tothe ground. After the piece was a physical reality,it was difficult to perceive it in any way other thanstemming from this original idea.

One afternoon, while discussing the piece with aprofessor, it was realized that the intention of thispiece and its reality as an object were two differ-ent things. I was referring to this piece as a�model stand� while the professor referred to itonly as a �form�. What did he mean?

It took a while to truly understand the difference.Judgments were made based on what this piecewas intended to represent, not based on what thepiece was, a form. Only upon this realization wasit possible to begin looking at this piece in adifferent way.

In her book, Philosophy in a New Key, SusanneK. Langer states, �the treatment of a problembegins with its expression as a question. The waya question is asked limits and disposes the ways inwhich any answer to it, right or wrong, may begiven.� Here was the problem, this piece couldnot be seen as a �form� because the very natureof the initial questions limited its perception inthis manner.

37

38

Thus began a process of reexamining and re-questioning some of the original formal decisions.The piece was turned upside-down, on its side,and other various angles in an attempt to see it ina new way.

It can now be seen that the act of making may beused as a tool, for if one is aware and consciousthrough this process, it is possible to perceive thetransformation of initial intentions giving rise tonew discoveries. Robert Le Ricolais stated thisperfectly when he said, �My own conviction isthat we can only appreciate and fully possess whatwe ourselves discover. A fascinating aspect ofthis is to see that what you find along the way isoften more intriguing than what you first set outto do.� If one is not open to this aspect of work,then why work at all? One becomes merely aslave to the task. True joy lies in the discoveryand recognition of the unforeseen.

This realization is a very important aspect of thisthesis because for any of these discoveries tooccur, the process of making must first take place.If at first the initial ideas regarding structure andconstruction had not been built, then the oppor-tunity would not have arisen to ask the next seriesof questions, which in turn gave rise to the nextcreated object of this investigation.

What different ways might a cantilever beexpressed?What different ways might three memberscome together and join?What might be their transitions; smooth,abrupt, angled?How do the legs spring from the ground?Is the form animallike or plantlike?What is the notion of the �right line�, andhow is this decided?

39

40

Exploration 2

41

42

Remaining within the flexible boundaries pro-vided by the original theme and modus operandi,work began on a second piece. Here, the mainquestion driving the design dealt more with theprocess of making than an idea of �force�. Here,the key questions were...

How might a design evolve through theprocess of making if the majority ofdesign decisions were made during theprocess of making itself ?

How might both the method and processof construction be made more visible inthe final object?

What could be done to a piece of wood tobring to the forefront more of its latentqualities and characteristics, such as graindirection, color, and texture?

In what ways could lessons learned fromthe first piece inform the making of thesecond piece?

What unforeseen discoveries might await?

An attempt was made to remain more flexiblewith the original question and approach the workin a more liberal way. There were not as manypreconceived notions as to the final form thepiece would take.

Process:

43

44

Resistance

When making, one is confronted with a physicalmaterial which gives rise to pure constructionalproblems, very tangible issues. A certain amountof resistance is encountered, both physical andpsychological. Physical resistance in the sensethat work must take place. It takes effort totransform a piece of wood from its raw state to amore refined form. Psychological resistance inthe sense that one is forced to slow down patternsof thoughts and actions in order to sense what istruly happening and not ruin the object itself.

Beginning with rough sewn cherry in the dimen-sions of 10�x4�x10�, work began in slowly remov-ing material. Not being able to entirely visualizethe form within, this work was done with a greatamount of both psychological and physicalresistance. It was difficult to remove materialwithout well-defined guidelines in place, such asin the previous piece. How to remove material,where to remove material, and how much materialto remove were all questions which continuallysurfaced. Proceeding at a slow pace, it waspossible to fully experience the relationshipbetween eye, hand, and mind. Thus, it waspossible to literally �make� this piece in themoment, allowing the process itself to helpinform the design. It was discovered that designhappened actively, with each passing tool stroke,and passively, in contemplation of the next.

45

46

Working in this way, unforseen discoveries werenoticed more quickly during the process of making,as opposed to during the period of reflection afterthe piece was finished. For example, the initialintention was to make a form with a uniform finishedsurface throughout, yet this thought quickly trans-formed into another idea after noticing the tool marksleft during the process of wood removal.

These tool marks were beautiful traces of the processof making. The deep gouges produced a beautifulpattern and introduced an unexpected level of depthand texture. Leaving them visible as part of thefinished object, they could be viewed in contrast withthe refined finish on the remainder of the piece. Itwas felt that the contrast between two differentsurfaces on the same piece of wood, one finelyfinished and the other with visible tool marks, wouldshow more explicitly the inherent qualities of thewood. This decision stemmed directly from theoriginal theme. Leaving the tool marks visible wouldgive clues as to how the piece was made. This was adesign decision, unforseen from the start, which tookplace during the process of making.

Discovery:Tool Marks

47

48

After the cherry was carved, sculpted, sanded, andfinished, the question regarding how it would bedisplayed arose. In building a stand to display thecherry carving, it was decided to contrast the piece inas many ways as possible, thus setting up a dialoguebetween stand and carving. The relationship betweenthe two was used to help enhance and make morevisible some of the intrinsic qualities of the carving.Where the carving was a solid piece, the stand wouldhave obvious joints. Where the carving was curved,the stand would be straight-edged and orthagonal.Additionally, the deep red color of cherry was con-trasted with the dark brown walnut used for thestand.

The most difficult design decisions arose aroundquestions regarding how the stand would touch thecarving. It was decided that the stand should touchthe carving as minimally as possible. To accomplishthis, the stand touches the carving in only threeplaces, literally �reaching out� with supports to grabits edges. Each of these supports was shaped differ-ently to reflect the form encountered at differentlocations along the cherry carving. Only at thesethree places, where the stand touches the carving, didthe straight lines of the stand change to reflect thecurves of the carving, thus alluding to a specificrelationship between the two.

Relationships

49

50

This notion of relationships between individual partsand these parts to the overall whole was an unex-pected discovery, unforeseen from the start. After thestand was built, it was possible to further reflect onthe relationship between the two.

Alone, both the stand and carving can be viewed asindependent objects with qualities inherent to them-selves. Together, however, the various relationshipsbetween the two become much more apparent. Forexample, the straight edge of the stand contrasted tothe sweeping curve of the carving really drawsattention to this curve.

The three points where the stand touches the carvingare particularly interesting. Here, material is removedto mimic the form of the carving. Viewed alone, thisis the only part of the stand which is non orthogonaland might give clues as to its function, a stand.

How would the relationship between standand carving change if the orthogonal designlanguage of the stand was carried throughout,including these places of �touch�.

It is not a question of right or wrong, but possibly thedesign would be better if the above were the case. Ifthis were so, each independent part, the carving andstand, would correspond to their unique designvocabularies. Only when brought together would therelationships between the two be made clear. Here,one plus one equals more than two, and differentlevels of relationships become apparent.

51

After becoming aware of these various levels ofrelationships, it was possible to notice similar circum-stances occurring elsewhere. One beautiful examplecan be found in the formal nature of the �forcole�,shown in the photos on this page. Without knowingthe function of these beautiful wood carvings, onewould be inclined to see them only for their sculpturalqualities, and nothing else. However, these objectsserve a specific purpose, having evolved over centu-ries of trial and error to manifest today in theirvarious forms. A forcole is the device used by gondo-liers in the canals of venice to brace their oars against.The form an individual forcole will take is determinedby a variety of factors, including but not limited to thegondoliers themselves, the length of the gondola, thewidth of the gondola, whether the gondolier will useone or two oars, and whether the gondola will besteered from the front or rear. The form of theforcole, and the relationship between it, the oar, and thegondolier can now be seen in a different way.

18

19

52

Translation

53

54

Change of Scale

Upon the completion of the previous two projects,the focus of this thesis investigation shifted focus.Thus far, work had been done on a certain scale, withthe hand and eye being able to directly and physicallycontrol any desired formal result. In the realm ofarchitecture, however, this is seldom the case. Inpresent day architectural practice, the architect is farremoved from the act of construction. Design,translated through drawings into construction docu-ments is for the most part physically executed by amultitude of specialized building trades. This separa-tion, in conjunction with the sheer scale of buildings,forces the architect to precisely describe his intentionsin order that they be realized in the tangible sense.David Pye speaks to this fact when he says, �Inpractice the designer hopes the workmanship will begood, but the workman decides whether it shall begood or not. On the workman�s decision depends agreat part of the quality of our environment.�

Through the making of these first two objects, theoriginal idea and theme were explored. These investi-gations gave rise to the discovery of a certain designvocabulary. This design vocabulary provided amethod for transforming intangible design ideas intotangible built objects. In making the next piece, thedriving force shifted from that of discovery to that oftranslation. To begin, the primary questions whichevolved were;

How might lessons and discoveries from theprevious two projects be taken and translatedto design on the scale of a building?

How might formal questions be resolved andexplicitly described when the act of makingshifts scales, with the hand no longer in directcontrol of formal decisions?

Remaining within the realm of wood con-struction, what construction method couldbest accommodate the execution of the givendesign?

55

Program and Site

Initially, the chosen theme defined limits for the scopeof this investigation. To begin the third piece, addi-tional limits were established to help drive the design;a site and a program. The chosen site is located highin the mountains of western North Carolina. Uponthis site, it was decided to design the structure for ahouse of approximately 2000 square feet. Theintention was not to design all elements and aspectsof a house, but to focus on resolving structuralquestions on a scale more appropriate to architecture.Here, formal questions could no longer be decided�in the moment� or determined by moving a raspover a piece of material.

The site consists of an open meadow which lies alonga ridge, sloping up a few hundred feet to the northand sweeping down towards the south. Looking duesouth, approximately two miles away, is anothermeadow atop a mountain, named �Max Patch�. TheAppalachian trail, straddling the border betweenNorth Carolina and Tennessee, bisects this clearing.Beyond Max Patch, stretching a bit east, west, andfarther south, unfolds the majestic expanse of theblue ridge and smoky mountains. On a clear day, theview is spectacular, except for one small problem.Blocking this beautiful view from much of the chosensite is a row of trees rising to a height of approxi-mately fifty feet. This fact, along with the spectacularviews, led to the decision to design a house in theform of a tower. This way, the living surface could belocated at a level higher than the tree tops, thus takingadvantage of the spectacular views afforded by thisunique site. On the following page are two photo-graphs taken from the chosen site. In the top photo-graph are the trees which obstruct most of the view.Max Patch can be seen in the distance to the left sideof this photograph. In the bottom photograph canbe glimpsed just a section of the view, towards thesouthwest, which would be experienced from theproposed house. These two photographs were takenin late September, just as the autumn leaves werebeginning to change color.

56

57

�Did you ever see the beauty of the hills of Carolina, or the sweetness of the grass in Tennessee?�- Lynyrd Skynyrd

58

Process:A Tower is Born

To begin, design ideas were explored through a seriesof sketches and study models. During this prelimi-nary stage, formal decisions were made through thefreedom that sketches and study models provide. Avariety of structural solutions were explored. Usingthe original theme and design vocabulary discoveredthrough the making of the first two objects, it waspossible to arrive at an acceptable structural solutionfitting the additional limitations defined by programand site. The primary structural concept for theproposed tower is as follows. Rising from the groundare three primary groupings, each consisting of fourvertical structural supports. From each tripod base,two of these supports rise in the same plane, diverg-ing from one another at approximately one third ofthe total height and reconnecting via a roof beam. Inthe language of timber frames, this independent,stable arrangement of structural members is referredto as a �bent�.

At the top of the tower, each of these three bents areconnected through the addition of a top element,itself consisting of three parts. Discussed in moredetail later, the connection between these members isprovided through two factors. First is the design ofthe joints themselves. Second is the combination ofcompressive and tensile forces provided by highstrength steel cables connecting this intermediateelement to the ground.

The other two vertical supports rise from the base inopposite directions defined by a plane set perpendicu-lar to its corresponding bent. These vertical membersjoin with a support rising from an adjacent bent, andare then connected via a roof beam to the intermedi-ate element described above. An analogy to thisstructural concept is three people standing in atriangular configuration, all leaning towards the centerof the triangle with heads touching. Their arms areoutstretched and hands clasped, providing both lateraland vertical support for each other.

59

60

After the main design was established, these roughforms were �reconstructed� on the computer. Handdrawn sketches were redrawn as a series of intercon-necting circular sections. In this way, it would berealistically possible to build these forms on a varietyof different scales, within reason. Geometry wasused as a tool to help describe form. The final modelwas constructed using templates generated from thiscomputer model. In this way, the �right line�, initiallyexplored in the first piece, could be described andconstructed on the scale of a ninety foot high towerusing a system of form-work built up of these geo-metrical circular segments.

Through a reexamination of a few key issues, it ispossible to see how discoveries made during thecreation of the previous two projects were applied inthe structural design for this tower.

61

62

63

64

Grain Direction

Staying within the realm of wood construction, it wasdecided to use structural glued laminated timbers, orglulams, as primary structural supports. Theseglulams could be prefabricated in a shop facility andinstalled on site, with the number of individualstructural members being kept to a minimum.Glulams are constructed through the gluing togetherof numerous smaller wood members. The graindirection of each individual wood member is utilizedfor its greatest strength, so that when built up theiraccumulation provide an efficient and strong struc-tural support. For example, at different locationswithin the supports themselves, varying amounts oftensile and compressive forces exist. When buildingup these elements, stronger wood can be used wherenecessary, while weaker wood can be used at locationsof minimal stress. Also, it is possible to alternate thegrain direction of each individual wood member,analogous to plywood construction, so more strengthcan be derived with less material.

Furthermore, through the process of constructionitself it is possible to curve the glulams, giving addi-tional flexibility to the formal possibilities of thestructure. Much like the tool marks left on the cherrycarving, the visible glue lines between various woodmembers are visible traces of this constructionprocess. These lines help direct the eye to see andcomprehend the flow of forces from the top of thetower down to the ground. This is a true form oftectonic expression, where structure and constructionare intrinsically linked.

65

66

Extra strength was needed where the primary verticalsupports meet the roof beams. This strength wasprovided through the accumulation of material atthese locations. Using the design vocabulary estab-lished with the first piece, the connection betweenindividual structural members were shaped togetherthrough a curved line. This curve is formed withinthe horizontal roof beam as opposed to the verticalsupport, thus using the �grain direction� of thelaminations themselves to provide strength in thesame manner that grain direction was used in the firstpiece. In the making of the final model, these curveswere made using machine and hand. In practice, anidentical curve could be constructed on a larger scaleusing similar methods in a shop facility.

67

68

Cantilever

The idea of a cantilever was introduced into thetower design at the level of the floor surface, locatedsixty feet above the ground. The primary beamswhich support this surface are themselves cantile-vered. The ends of these beams are tapered towardsthe end, taking away material where it is not necessarywhile elegantly expressing the cantilevered construc-tion. The double-curve of this taper mimics thedouble-curve of other structural members. Thistheme is repeated in other parts of the tower as well,such as the ends of the roof beams and ends of thesecondary floor joists.

69

70

Joinery

Being able to take apart the final model and store it asan assemblage of individual parts was a driving forcein deciding upon which types of joints to use andwhere they would be located. In a ninety foot tower,as opposed to the final model, the actual joints wouldbe slightly different. Their method of construction,however, would very closely resemble how the modeljoints were made.

In designing the joints for this tower, discoveriesfrom the previous projects were directly applied. Attimes, the joints were kept hidden, as in each tripodbase where four members converge on a single point.Here, it was felt that the idea of forces converging ona point were more clearly expressed by clean lines,not a visible joint. Other times, the joints were leftvisible, such as at the top of the tower where theprimary vertical supports converge and connectthrough the introduction of an additional element.Here, the expression of the joint helps tell the storyof how the structure works. Let us examine each ofthese conditions in order to see how the previousprojects informed their design.

71

72

At each of the three bases, four structural membersconverge. In order for these members to be as-sembled and disassembled without glue, a hidden andinterlocking joint was designed. Two of these mem-bers, here referred to as vertical 1 (V1) and vertical 2(V2), are connected via a simple mortise and tenonjoint. The tenon, cut from V2, has additional mor-tises cut from its side faces. In this way, tenons cutfrom two adjacent vertical members, V3, lock V2 inplace when assembled. This interlocking joint istotally concealed within the mortise cut from V1.Sections cut through this joint can be seen on thebottom right of the adjacent page. To lock V1 andV3 together, brass pins are inserted through V1,passing through the tenon of V3. These exposedbrass pins are the only visible traces and clues as tohow this joint works.

At this bottom location, forces from above arecollected at a single location. It was believed that byhiding this connection, the joint would appear less�busy�, and the resolution of forces at this singlelocation would be made more clear. This idea issimilar to the hidden mortise and tenon joint betweenthe vertical and rear legs of the first piece.

73

V1 V2

V3

V3

74

At the top of the tower, an additional element wasdesigned to facilitate the joining of all three primarystructural members. This is similar to where in thefirst object an additional element was added toconnect the top cantilever with the vertical support.Much sketching, modeling, and trial and error wentinto the design of this connection. This location, atthe top of the structure, represents an importantpoint where forces converge and are redistributed tothe ground through high strength steel tension cables.The secondary element introduced here functions as a�keystone� for the entire structure. Concealing thisconnection did not feel like the correct thing to do.Inspired by the original theme, it was felt moreappropriate to make visible this convergence offorces through the design of this joint. This wasaccomplished by designing a stopped and opendovetail between the tops of the vertical membersand the top connecting member. By contemplatingthis joint, discovering how it works should becomeapparent.

The top connecting member itself consists of threeseparate segments. In the side of each segment werecut half of the stopped dovetailed mortise. Thus,when all parts were assembled and this top piece waslocked together through the addition of spline con-nections, all three vertical members were securelylocked in place through induced tension being appliedthrough the steel cables to the ground. The ideabehind this connection was that the steel cables,attached to the bottom of the spline connections,would draw each of the three top segments togetherand provide a strong lock on the top of the verticalmembers. In the actual making of this model, how-ever, there was not enough tolerance to cut thesesplines in a manner to accomplish this. Thus, wherethe splines join the top member is the only placewhere glue was used.

Another important aspect of this top connection wasthe design decision to leave an open space where allforces collect at a single point. By leaving this loca-tion open, the eye is inherently drawn to this pointand its importance in the structure is more clearlyexpressed.

75

76

77

78

There are a few locations in particular where, uponreflection, the joinery design could be improved.

First, where the roof connects to the primary verticalsupport, there needs to be additional material to makea stronger joint. The sides of the open mortise heredo not possess adequate strength, and the intendeddovetail joint could not be made because of tighttolerances. If this connection took place within theentire thickness of the vertical support, neither ofthese problems would have arisen.

Second, where the cantilevered floor beams meet thevertical supports, there should have been additionalmaterial added underneath this beam to make stron-ger its support. In this way, material need not havebeen removed from the vertical support itself.

Third, the connection between the secondary roofbeams and vertical supports, V3, proved to be adifficult connection involving compound angled cutsand tight tolerances. Although this was a difficultjoint to make, I do believe it would work at full scale.The alternative here would be to design an intermedi-ate member, much like the top piece, which would aidin connecting all three converging members.

79

80

Relationships

Through the second project was learned the impor-tance of paying attention to the nature of relation-ships between individual elements and their relationto the whole. Thus, this idea was applied to aspectsof the tower design. In establishing the hierarchy ofthe structural system, it was decided to more clearlyexpress the different role of each individual member.Although each beam is curved in elevation, the toweritself is derived from the specific geometry of anequilateral triangle. The base for this model wasconstructed to reflect this geometry. Each of thethree tripod bases is located along a line extendedfrom an apex through the midpoint of its oppositeside. Of the four vertical structural members risingfrom this point, two stay within the plane defined bythis midpoint while two diverge at ninety degrees andfollow a path towards the apex of the triangle. At thisapex these columns converge and join with a roofbeam.

In designing the tower, this roof beam was intention-ally located at a level below that of the roof beamconnecting the previously described vertical structuralmembers. By locating these beams at differentelevations, their role both visually and structurally wasmore clearly expressed. Also, the relationship be-tween these two sets of roof beams to each other andto the structure as a whole becomes more apparent.If located at the same level, their diverse roles in thetower would be more difficult to perceive.

81

82

Conclusion

Through applying lessons and discoveries from theprevious two objects while remaining within theboundaries defined by the original tectonic theme, aparticular elegance became apparent in the tower.This elegance was not something intentionally de-signed, but a logical result of the above process itself.Thus, the elegance and sensual nature of the tower isa direct result of tectonic expression, where thestructural concept is realized through a particularconstruction. This combination has an effect on usbecause some aspect of the intangible structuralconcept is tangibly revealed through construction.The resulting expressive form of the tower is a directproduct of this tectonic relationship.

The choice of a glulam structural system concen-trated supports into a minimum number of elements.In turn, the joinery used to connect these elementsused a minimum amount of material, with the naturalforce of gravity assisting where possible. Addition-ally, the curve of the glulams themselves lend acertain grace to the structure. These lines are them-selves repeated many times within the beam itself,defined by the many individual lines of lamination.The eye is naturally drawn to these lines and followsthem to their connections, where they converge andend in a variety of ways depending on joint type andlocation within the tower.

83

84

Reflection

This thesis investigation encompasses work done overthe course of a year, yet in no way is it a finite thing.As stated at the beginning of the book, the aim wasnot to produce a desired object or project as an endresult, but to explore the realm between these objectsand the ideas from which they evolved. On apersonal level, this investigation is just a beginning. Itis my hope that the lessons, discoveries, and ideasexplored here will continue to evolve and enrich myunderstanding of architecture.

I am grateful for the time spent in Blacksburg, themany friends I have made, and the uniqueopportunity to explore these ideas under the�constrained freedom� that this graduate program hasoffered. In leaving, I make no attempt to definearchitecture or describe a position in architecture. Inno way am I willing or able to be so bold. I dobelieve architecture to be immensely powerful, havingthe ability to transform the ways in which we live inand relate to the world. Architecture, done well, isnothing short of magic.

85

20

86

87

Photographic Credits1. �Sports Palace, Rome, Pier Luigi Nervi�, Developments in Structural Form,

Roland Mainstone.

2. �Water Towers, Saudi Arabia�, Towers, Erwin Heinle and Fritz Leonhardt.

3. �Primitive dome�, Light Structures, Structures of Light, Horst Berger.

4. �Brunelleschi�s Dome, Florence, Italy� , Developments in Structural Form, RolandMainstone.

5. �Slab of wood and chairs�, The Soul of a Tree, George Nakashima.

6. �Small chapel�, Zanine - Feeling and Doing, Suely Ferreira da Silva.

7. �Sculpture�, Martin Puryear, Neal Benezra.

8. �Detail of chair�, Hans J Wegner, Jens Bernsen.

9. �Bench�, The Soul of a Tree, George Nakashima.

10. �Detail of chair�, Sam Maloof - Woodworker, Sam Maloof.

11. �Alamillo Bridge�, Bridges - Santiago Calatrava, Kenneth Frampton.

12. �Cross-section through the Grand Canyon, AZ�, Earth�s Dynamic Systems,Kenneth Hamblin.

13. �Bridge by Jurg Conzett�, Detail, December 1999.

14. �Building designed by Nicholas Grimshaw under construction�, Structure, Space,and Skin, Rowan Moore.

15. �Photograph of plant detail�, Karl Blossfeldt 1865-1932, Hans Christian Adam.

16. �Photograph of plant detail�, Karl Blossfeldt 1865-1932, Hans Christian Adam.

17. �Brick arch�, Antoni Gaudi, James Johnson Sweeney and Josep Lluis Sert.

18. �Forcole�, Forcole, Remi e Voga alla Veneta, Gilberto Penzo.

19. �Forcole�, Forcole, Remi e Voga alla Veneta, Gilberto Penzo.

20. �Sketch of Sagrada Familia�, Gaudi - The Visionary, Robert Descharnes andClovis Prevost.

* (all other photographs by author)

88

89

Selected Bibliography

Bernsen, Jen, Hans J Wegner, Danish Design Center, Finland, 1996.

Brino, Giovanni, Carlo Mollino - Architecture as Autobiography, Rizzoli, New York,1987.

Bryan, James, and Sauer, Rolf, Structures Implicit and Explicit, Graduate School of FineArts, University of Pennsylvania.

Frampton, Kenneth, Bridges - Santiago Calatrava, Birkhauser, Boston, 1996.

Frampton, Kenneth, Studies in Tectonic Culture, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1996.

Graubner, Wolfram, Encyclopedia of Wood Joints, The Taunton Press, Newtown, CT,1998.

Hoadley, Bruce R., Understanding Wood, The Taunton Press, Newtown, CT, 2000.

Mainstone, Rowland, Developments in Structural Form, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.,1975.

Maloof, Sam, Sam Maloof - Woodworker, Kodansha International, New York, NY, 1983.

Nakashima, George, The Soul of a Tree, Kodansha International, New York, NY, 1981.

Pye, David, The Nature and Art of Workmanship, Cambridge University Press, London,1968.

Seike, Kiyosi, The Art of Japanese Joinery, Weatherhill and Tankosha, New York, 1977.

Silva, Suely Ferreira da Silva, Zanine - Feeling and Doing, Agir, Brazil, 1995.

Sweeney, James Johnson, Gaudi, New York, Praeger, 1970.

Torroja Miret, Eduardo, Philosophy of Structures, translated to English by Polivka, J.J.,and Polivka, Milos, University of California Press, Berkeley, 1958.

90

91

Vita

Brian FiremanDecember 30, 1969New York, NY

Masters Degree in ArchitectureVirginia Polytechnic and State UniversityBlacksburg, VAMay 10, 2001

Married Bonnie FiremanAugust 1999

Bachelor of Arts - GeologyThe Colorado CollegeColorado Springs, COSpring 1992

92