REFLECTION RESEARCH METHODS

Joost Joosse

CONTENT

I INTRODUCTION

II DIAGRAMS AS SPATIAL NARRATIVES METHODOLOGY IN THE CONTEXT OF FORDISM

III METHOD REFLECTION ON FORDISM AND FUNCTIONAL DIAGRAMS

IV POSITIONING

BIBLIOGRAPHY

I INTRODUCTION This paper is improved after the P2 design proposal. Although I passed the P2 of the graduation track, there were some comments on the architectural interventions. Too much effort was put in organising the program of the building, instead of the architectural appearance of interventions. A more integrated and combined story of both would have shown a stronger personal awareness of my architectural heritage profession. The same sort of situation was also the problem for the first version of this paper: “The relation of changing production processes, building types, and new spatial practices could have been analysed in more depth.” 1 In order to improve this reflection paper it is important for me to go back to the basis and gain more understanding on the differences between method and methodology. According to the book A Students Guide to Methodology, methods are seen as the circumstances under which the research takes place. It is about separating the researcher and these circumstances to be aware of the findings and results. The methodology gives reasons why one would use a specific combination of methods. Therefore, the choice of a methodology starts with an approach in which one questions for instance: ‘Why interview?’ or ‘Why conduct a survey?’ Respectively, an additional statement is made by the authors: “Decisions such as these are apparently often practical, but they carry very deep (…) implications. They are often based on values and assumptions which influence the study, and as such therefore need to be fully interrogated in order to clarify the research decisions which are made.” 2 This statement reminded me of my previous insufficient version of the reflection paper, whereby I followed my intuition and inspiration for production processes too much. Consequently, the relation towards the graduation project was missing. In short, I was not fully aware of the methodology that was applied, which led to an incoherent whole. This mistake brightened my awareness on the importance of why certain methods are used and combined or why not. Thus the aim of this improved version is to discuss a more in-depth reasoning for the chosen methodology. Moreover, a thorough reflection on the findings from a historical and architectural point of view will be pointed out. The lecture series on Architectural Research Methods made me more aware of what sort of architectural methods and methodologies exist and how to properly use them corresponding to the project. Furthermore, it inspired and guided me to think a step further than the ‘obvious’ heritage historiographical research and its value assessment. Additionally, reading on “Urban Literacy” and the lecture of Havik was for me inspiring in doing a more thorough research in finding relations between buildings and their spatial layout using the methodology of spatial narratives. The graduation

project site is located in the village of Winterswijk, in the Eastern part of our country closely situated to the borders of Germany. The heritage project is focused on the industrial district, containing former weaving factories. Remarkable is that one of these weaving companies is still present nowadays, the Gaudium. This firm uses a building ensemble which is enlarged over a period of approximately 100 years. Over time a chaotic layout of different building typologies and roofscapes is created. This is a result of how extensions interconnected and incorporated the surrounding space (Figure 1). During the analytical phase the conclusion was made that the shift in the production lines as result of technical developments in the textile branch is crucial for the extensions and the present layout of the whole area.3 Nowadays, Gaudium is trying to find a proper way to enlarge their textile activities. The basis for designing from heritage is the research method of the cultural value assessment. Whereby, the historical research of the project site forms the starting point for this assessment.4 In terms of the graduation project, it is important to understand how to adapt these industrial values to today’s different organisation of living and working environments. The production processes within Gaudium will be the guiding line throughout the design research, since this was the major factor

Figure 1 Chronomap Gaudium, 1910-present 3

1 Robert Gorny, E-mail AR3A160 Lecture Series Research Methods. (TU Delft: 28 December 2019)2 Peter Clough and Cathy Nutbrown, A Students Guide to Methodology, 3 ed. (London: SAGE publications, 2012), p24-31.3 Chen Zhu, Juliëtte Zegers, Joost Joosse, P1 analysis, Industry Winterswijk. (TU Delft: 4 November 2019), p10-33.4 Marieke Kuipers & Wessel de Jonge, Designing from Heritage. (Delft: TU Delft, 2017), p99.

1

in the organically growing building ensemble. Nowadays, these production processes and work modalities are captured in organisational diagrams, named the flowchart.5 This arises for me the question what the relation is between these organisational methods and the architectural transformations

5 Wikipedia, Flowchart. 11 January 2020. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flowchart (used 15 January 2020)6 Juhani Pallasmaa, Domicile in Words, The scriptive Approach to Architecture. In Klaske Havik, Urban Literacy p6. (Rotterdam: nai0I0 publishers, 2014).7 Akifumi Kuchiki & Masatsugu Tsuji, The Flowchart Approach to Industrial Cluster Policy. (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2008), p3-18.8 Hyungmin Pai, The Portfolio and the Diagram. (London: The MIT Press, 2002), p162-163. 9 Frederick Kiesler, Psuedo-Functionalism in Modern Architecture (1949). In Hyungmin Pai, The Portfolio and the Diagram p162. (London: The MIT Press 2002), p177.10 Klaske Havik, Urban Literacy (Rotterdam: nai010 publishers, 2016), p107-113.

11 David Gartman, From autos to architecture. (New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 2009), p10.12 Jill Collis & Roger Hussey, Business Research: A Practical Guide for Undergraduate and Postgraduate Students, 4 ed. (Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan, 2014). p44-45.13 Ray Lucas, Research Methods for Architecture. (London: Laurence King Publishing Ltd, 2016), p10-21.

III METHOD REFLECTION ON FORDISM AND FUNCTIONAL DIAGRAMS

The methodology which suits this approach best is spatial narratives, aiming for the transcription method. Spatial narratives consists of methods to analyse and translate space into a written or image-based story. Transcription focuses on the tools social space theories in combination with spatial practices.10 In this case the social space theories can be seen as a historic research on functionalism via Fordism. Fordism was introduced during the last century as the manufacturing industry characterised by large-scale mechanized mass production.11 Furthermore, the findings of this historical research can be compared with the architecture of the graduation project, resulting in a brief typology study. Besides that, the spatial practices can be seen as the tool that focusses on the development of the functional diagram. Striking about this spatial narratives methodology is that two different research philosophies are used: positivism and interpretivism (or phenomenology). The aim of positivism is to discover the ‘truth’ based on quantitative data, referring to the social space theories resulting in the historic research on Fordism combined with the typological study. The belief of interpretivism is that social reality is highly subjective. Therefore, the subjective matter of the expression of architecture in diagrams is seen as the interpretivism philosophy.12 In terms of the disciplinary specificity, the chosen methodology is called an etic kind of methodology. According to R. Lucas’ theory this way of research is suitable when one is outside the activity in question, observing the process. For establishing the primary importance for Gaudium, gaining new insights for the production process, it is allowed for the context to take the lead in the research. The form of the context is the ‘unique’, this contextual study seeks to understand what it is that sets the industrial place apart as different and specific, rather than something you see every day. Because the methodology is about Fordism and the development of how industrial spaces over time are used, the research is seen as an ethnographic study. An ethnographic study is a form of enquiry closely situated with the social sciences.13

The following chapter summarises the historic development of Fordism in relation to architecture of the project site. Besides this study, the birth of the functional diagram is discussed.

Fordism derives from Henry Ford, the producer of the first affordable car in 1908. It was the first prototype which was

throughout history. To get a clearer view on how to research these changes the following methodological question is formed: How can diagrams help render the transformation of industrial building typologies?Thinking of the first site visit, some sketches were made of the project site. J. Pallasmaa states that when one visits an environment for the first time, the things that stay in mind are

very often decisive figures which describe a personal experience of the spirit of the place.6 During these visits different interior perspectives were made of weaving machines that are situated in a large open floorplan. According to Pallasmaa’s theory one could say that back then I was most impressed and aware of the process of weaving and the spatial layout. However, it was not clear at all where this organisational layout of weaving machines derived from. Additionally several questions rose, what is the flow of this production line? What is the relation with the building? What is the end and what is the beginning? Within industrial processes such questions are answered by process or scientific management. Scientific management is the study of recognising, analysing, designing, implementing, communicating and directing production processes. In practice these processes are abstracted to a scheme that suit a specific company. In the industrial branch these personalised schemes are called flowcharts. This method is a diagrammatic outcome which illustrates a workflow or process.7 From an architectural point of view, the use of functional diagrams is often used as a tool to explain abstract ideas or ‘atmospheres’. The origins of these functional diagrams go way beyond process management of industrial activities. According to H. Pai the practical approach derived from the architectural movement of functionalism.8 F. Kiesler describes functionalism in his book Pseudo-Functionalism in Modern Architecture: “Functionalism is determinism and therefore stillborn. Functionalism is the standardization of routine activity. For example: a foot that walks (but does not dance); an eye that sees (but does not envision); a hand that grasps (but does not create).” 9 Even though Kiesler is critical about functionalism, he describes a clear relation between process and architecture. Repetitiveness and standardisation might not be suited for all types of buildings, it suits manufacturing architecture fairly well. The methodological approach will be focussed on this modern architectural movement and the diagrammatic development. This shows how organisational dimensions via praxeological studies became important for a new understanding of built form.

2

II DIAGRAMS AS SPATIAL NARRATIVES METHODOLOGY IN THE CONTEXT OF FORDISM

III.I FORDISM

3

brought to masses of consumers to give the essential freedom of mobility. However, by aiming for the mass production, Ford threatened craftsmanship by replacing it for repetitive work along assembly lines that produced cheap vehicles. This change has its effects on the craft of weaving as well. In Winterswijk this home initiated activity became industrialised. Because of this revolutionary intervention of Ford, Fordism changed the visual order and sensibilities of society. From an architectural point of view, the emerging economy demanded for new spatial layouts which could answer the program of mass production lines. Thus, many of these spaces were themselves mass-produced. For instance, new construction methods were invented to quickly assemble standardized factory-made materials into new spaces of commerce.14 Referring to the project site the sawtooth typology was introduced. This typology expresses in my point of view the architectural thoughts of Fordism, since its use of cast-iron columns in combination with steel trusses providing a functional layout which answered the needs of that time (Figure 2 & 3).15 Mies van der Rohe, the acknowledged leader of modern architecture in Germany once stated: “I am not a reformer. I don’t want to change the world. I want to express it.” 16 By this he means that the social and economic conditions of Fordism are used in his architecture, because of his concern that society could not modify and follow this transition towards mechanisation. After the Great Depression in 1918, the popularity of mass production and standardisation decreased. As a result production firms stagnated and closed and modern architecture that symbolized it lost its allure. This happening gave rise to an aesthetic of romantic modernism which was especially expressed in state buildings. After the retreat of functionalism and standardisation the Fordist system emerged again after the Second World War due to state

14 David Gartman, From autos to architecture. (New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 2009), p25-26.15 M. Tuinstra, Functioneel en manifest, de architectuur van de textielfabrieken in Twente 1850- 1925. (2006) Retrieved from https://cultureelerfgoedenschede.nl/wordpressnew/wp-content/ uploads/2017/05/Scriptie-.pdf. 16 Ludwig Mies van der Rohe, The New Era, In David Gartman, From autos to architecture. (New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 2009), p85.17 Canon van techniek in Twente (n.d.) Tijd, Tempo en toezicht. Retrieved from http://canonvantechniekintwente.nl/tijdtempo-en-toezicht/.

18 David Gartman, From autos to architecture. (New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 2009), p196-197.19 Henry-Russel Hitchcock, Built in USA: Postwar Architecture, In David Gartman, From autos to architecture. (New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 2009), p197.20 Chen Zhu, Juliëtte Zegers, Joost Joosse, P1 analysis, Industry Winterswijk. (TU Delft: 4 November 2019), p71.

Figure 2 Weaving factory 17

Figure 3 Sawtooth typology 17

demand management. This time there was less competition between production companies, since the elimination of most firms during the Great Depression. Hence, rule-governed corporate planning formed the focus during the 1950s. The well organised production lines formed the basis for the industrial architecture of that time. Moreover, a more modern aesthetic, using glass and steel, was implemented for industrial building typologies. The reason for that is the change in the capitalist clients.18 Henry-Russel Hitchcock stated in 1952 in a publication by the Museum of Modern Art: “the old firms are now ready to provide their clients with what are supposed to be ‘modern’ buildings, and the results of their subservience to a successful stylistic revaluation are not as inferior as might be expected.” 19 According to Hitchcock, production firms were interested in more striking architecture in their buildings which had an advertising value. The picture below shows a building typology of the project site which includes this thought of an advertising value. In comparison with the rest of the complex it has a dominant appearance with a more transparent modern exterior. Moreover, the building was added to the composition in the same period, around the 1950s (Figure 4).20 From the 1960’s onwards Fordism and the social aspect of mass production were often criticised. This period is therefore seen as Post-Fordism. Post-Fordism is the counter reaction against Fordism, whereby the industry of manufacturing was replaced by the service economy. Instead of having a complete production line with all the manufacturing facets, companies became more specialised and produced just one aspect of the whole fabric. In terms of architecture this period is known for the upcoming new architects who rejected established modernism and tried to counter react against the aspects of Fordism. A new cultural bourgeoisie of rejecting young professionals grew. Moreover, the industrial working class was decimated by the movement of production

Figure 5 Flow Process Chart for Loading Rifle Grenades by Gilbreth’s 25

Figure 4 Weaving factory, Hazewind 21

21 Photos by Juliëtte Zegers & Joost Joosse (2019) 22 David Gartman, From autos to architecture. (New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 2009), p22-23.23 Nibag, Haalbaarheidsstudie herontwikkeling Bedrijvenpark de Morse, Laan van HIlbelink. (Winterswijk: Nibag, 2015), p26-29.24 Mark Garcia, The Diagrams of Architecture. (Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 2010), p64-7725 Frank Bunker Gilbreth & Lillian Moller Gilbreth, Process Charts. (New York: Publisher not known, 1921) p12-13. 26 Frank Bunker Gilbreth & Lillian Moller Gilbreth, Process Charts. (New York: Publisher not known, 1921) p12-13.

27 Mark Garcia, The Diagrams of Architecture. (Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 2010), p67.

to low-wage countries.22 However, due to proper management Gaudium could still produce textile fabrics. They started to produce fire resistant textile fabrics which were further finished into interior products by external production firms. Thus Gaudium became one step of the whole production process, which was in line with the Post-Fordism thoughts of that time. Besides a few interior changes of the building complex, there were no further additions or typologies added to the composition.23

In the previous paragraph we examined the new promises and demands that emerged during the beginning of the 20th century with the rise of modern movements. Fordism left its traces within society in a larger social, economic and technological history. However, we did not deal yet with what would have been the central mode of representing these changes, the functional diagram. The birth of the functional diagram and its relation towards architecture is analysed by H. Pai and further discussed by M. Garcia in his book The Diagrams of Architecture.

4

III.II FUNCTIONAL DIAGRAM The diagram was first introduced in the sector of scientific management in relation to the evolution of functional planning in Fordism. This sector attracted the very abstract way of presenting since it is one of the clearest manifestations of the separation of subject and object. Whereby, the diagram emerged as the method in order to control the object by the subject.24 In 1921 Frank and Lillian Gilbreth made a first approach for having control in production processes, the ‘flow process chart’ (Figure 5). The diagram placed the employee in boxes, in-between lines which represents a specific flow. Each box symbolised a functional step in a production line. Moreover, no movement of bodies, material or equipment was expressed. The intention was that the scheme should be

predictable using a repetitive set of actions.26

Perhaps this way of maintaining control of a production process was suitable back then. However, nowadays space, time and movement are the means of maintaining functional control, also in case of Gaudium. J. Bentham’s panopticon diagram is more focused on these spatial aspects. (Figure 6) This scheme is meant to be built as prison, a building typology that needs a system of control.27 In my experience the vision of Bentham to correlate the spatial environment to the functionalised body of the guards contradicts with the thoughts of Fordism, since a routing is implemented. The ideal situation of Fordism is to strive for a continuous flow with repetitive actions, whereby no transport takes place. Thus, one could say that Gilbreth’s first diagrams (Figure 5) contributed more to this thought. However, only if the individual worker and standardisation of the body are absolute there can be such diagrams as the ones of Gilbreth’s. The latter point was noticed by them as well. Consequently, they developed a time-motion study. As a result a wide set of routing schemes were made by Gilbreth’s for specific production lines. Though, these results were not implemented in the functional diagrams of companies representing all attributes of a flow. In the 1930s the functional diagram found its way in the expression of architecture. Though, again most of the

5

diagrams did not implement movement and routing of the human being. Assumed is that this was due to the fact that if one would draw routing, there would be too many lines which influenced the abstraction and readability of what the functional diagram stands for. One of the most interesting appearances outside the factory is an architectural diagram by M. Pattison (Figure 7), because it was one of the first relation diagrams. This chart of a country house subdivided rooms into functional groups. These groups are seen as spatial, presenting the accessibility and relation between one another.29 One could say that the functional chart founds its way in architecture since it pictures a notion of functional space without drawing building elements, such as walls, columns et cetera. Furthermore, from this period onwards architects started to ‘decorate’ these functional diagrams towards a

28 Jeremy Bentham, The Works of Jeremy Bentham, vol4 (1843). In Mark Garcia, The Diagrams of Architecture. (Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 2010), p67.29 Mark Garcia, The Diagrams of Architecture. (Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 2010), p72.30 Mark Garcia, The Diagrams of Architecture. (Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 2010), p74.31 Mary Pattison, Principles of Domestic Engineering (1915). In Mark Garcia, The Diagrams of Architecture. (Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 2010), p72.32 Mark Garcia, The Diagrams of Architecture. (Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 2010), p74.33 Paul Nelson, Museum of Science, Architectural Record (1939). In In Mark Garcia, The Diagrams of Architecture. (Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 2010), p73.

34 David Gartman, From autos to architecture. (New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 2009), p16.

floorplan. This phenomenon is shown in P. Nelson’s schemes of a museum (Figure 8).30 In this overview he first described his vision with a functional diagram. Thereafter, he literally translated this vision into an axonometric drawing, the design. The form of the diagram became the form of the design. A specific form in architecture can be described as a typology. Referring to the project site, there might be a major chance that industrial typologies could derive from the literally translation of functional diagrams towards a floorplan and form. As the writer of this book states: “In modern architecture, the diagram has become form, and form has become a diagram.” 32

Figure 6 Example of panopticon by Bentham 28

Figure 7 The Country House Chart by Pattison 31

Figure 8 Museum of Science by Nelson 33

IV. POSITIONING The relation between Fordism, the functional diagram and architecture reflects in my experience the relation between economy and culture. According to D. Gartman, the author of the book From autos to architecture, the economy and culture are not things that automatically influence on another behind the back of society. In fact, they both are dependent on social relations and affect each other through the proceedings of human beings. However, the ones who participate in this complex situation are again limited by the structures of each other’s relation.34 In the previous chapter I tried to bring into picture this influence of economy in terms of Fordism, functional diagrams and on the sphere of architecture. A clear chronological set of changing patterns can be traced from the findings of these social theories and methods used during the modern period. To summarise, the introduction of the functional diagram is a consequence of Fordism. Subsequently, architects started to use the functional diagram as the relation diagram which expressed the functional zoning within a building. In the end this diagram formed the basis for the floorplan layout and thus the morphology of a structure was shaped according to it. To conclude I think these functional and abstract methods are result of Fordism which formed the basis for the industrial typologies and their appearances as we know it nowadays. Reflecting on the P2 design proposal, I was surprised for the fact that this phenomenon also took the lead in my designing process. First of all, I situated every step of the production line of Gaudium in a most efficient way. Resulting in

35 Joost Joosse, “Flowchart production process Gaudium” (2019).36 Joost Joosse, “P2 Proposal, Ground floor Gaudium” (2020).

a functional diagram showing the transportation flow of fabrics towards different departments. In the end this resulted literally into the new proposed floorplan layout (Figure 9). Whereby, some current valuable elements are partly demolished in order to maintain this efficient flow of the weaving process. This is striking me since I noticed this when writing the reflection paper. One could state that the functional diagram, also in my process, maintained the system of authority. Nevertheless, I do think that the basis of my design proposal is rather promising since it is the most efficient way for Gaudium to produce their fabrics. However, there is at this point a lack of architectural challenge to convince my tutors of my heritage and design profession. The findings of this paper inspired me to come up with a new possible intervention by reflecting more thorough on Post-Fordism. By examining the architectural movements within this timeframe, a counter reaction could be formed against the functional dominance of my first proposal. Aiming for this intervention, Gaudium could enhance a future perspective, whereby the building complex not only functions as the production firm but could also mean something more for the inhabitants of Winterswijk.

Figure 9 Functional diagram Gaudium & P2 Proposal, Ground floor 35, 36

6

BIBLIOGRAPHYAkifumi Kuchiki & Masatsugu Tsuji, The Flowchart Approach to Industrial Cluster Policy. (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2008), p3-18.Chen Zhu, Juliëtte Zegers, Joost Joosse, P1 analysis, Industry Winterswijk. (TU Delft: 4 November 2019), p10-33, p71.Canon van techniek in Twente (n.d.) Tijd, Tempo en toezicht. Retrieved from http://canonvantechniekintwente.nl/tijdtempo-en-toezicht/. David Gartman, From autos to architecture. (New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 2009), p10, p16, p22-23, p25-26, p196-197.Frank Bunker Gilbreth & Lillian Moller Gilbreth, Process Charts. (New York: Publisher not known, 1921) p12-13Frederick Kiesler, Psuedo-Functionalism in Modern Architecture (1949). In Hyungmin Pai, The Portfolio and the Diagram. (London: The MIT Press 2002), p177.Hyungmin Pai, The Portfolio and the Diagram. (London: The MIT Press, 2002), p162-163. Henry-Russel Hitchcock, Built in USA: Postwar Architecture, In David Gartman, From autos to architecture. (New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 2009), p197.Jeremy Bentham, The Works of Jeremy Bentham, vol4 (1843). In Mark Garcia, The Diagrams of Architecture. (Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 2010), p67.Jill Collis & Roger Hussey, Business Research: A Practical Guide for Undergraduate and Postgraduate Students, 4 ed. (Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan, 2014). p44-45.Juhani Pallasmaa, Domicile in Words, The scriptive Approach to Architecture. In Klaske Havik, Urban Literacy p6. (Rotterdam: nai0I0 publishers, 2014).Klaske Havik, Urban Literacy (Rotterdam: nai010 publishers, 2016), p107-113.Ludwig Mies van der Rohe, The New Era, In David Gartman, From autos to architecture. (New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 2009), p85.Marieke Kuipers & Wessel de Jonge, Designing from Heritage. (Delft: TU Delft, 2017), p99.Mark Garcia, The Diagrams of Architecture. (Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 2010), p64-77, p67, p72, p74.M. Tuinstra, Functioneel en manifest, de architectuur van de textielfabrieken in Twente 1850-1925. (2006) Retrieved from https ://cultureeler fgoedenschede.nl/wordpressnew/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Scriptie-.pdf. Mary Pattison, Principles of Domestic Engineering (1915). In Mark Garcia, The Diagrams of Architecture. (Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 2010), p72.Nibag, Haalbaarheidsstudie herontwikkeling Bedrijvenpark de Morse, Laan van HIlbelink. (Winterswijk: Nibag, 2015), p26-29.Peter Clough and Cathy Nutbrown, A Students Guide to Methodology, 3 ed. (London: SAGE publications, 2012), p24-31.Paul Nelson, Museum of Science, Architectural Record (1939). In In Mark Garcia, The Diagrams of Architecture. (Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 2010), p73.Ray Lucas, Research Methods for Architecture. (London: Laurence King Publishing Ltd, 2016), p10-21.Robert Gorny, E-mail AR3A160 Lecture Series Research Methods. (TU Delft: 28 December 2019)Wikipedia, Flowchart. 11 January 2020. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flowchart (used 15 January 2020)