In Search of Architectural form creation in Nature and Culture

Prof. Robert Rukwaro

School of Built Environment, Department of Architecture and Building ScienceEmail: rrukwaro@yahoo.com.

AbstractAuthentic form in contemporary architecture is not rooted in appropriation of local culture and nature in the design of urban built forms in Nairobi City, Kenya. This has led to inappropriate aesthetics and supplanted symbolism in the urban built forms. This paper explores the process of how to abstract from nature and how to symbolize the cultural values of people in an effort to create an appropriate architectural form in urban buildings in Nairobi City.

Key words: Nature, Culture, Creation, Architectural form, Nairobi City, Kenya.

Contemporary Architecture: Class lecturer

Today what I want us to start with is discussing contemporary architecture and as we said

last time we had quite a thorough discussion of evolution of modern architecture and we

saw the parameters that are more less guiding its movements. So today what I want us to

start with is just to say that when we were defining architecture in the first lectures that we

had, I remember we said it has a component of art and has a component of science and

from that point what we are saying is that for us to have innovative architecture, very

innovative architecture which can now be contemporary architecture then we require to be

solving problems. We are solving problems to a certain extent of science and to a certain

extent the problems of art in architecture and with that, then we are also saying that this

contemporary architecture, for us to have a clear direction, we must approach it in a very

scientific method; we must use scientific method to create evolution of new architecture.

We cannot be trying solutions that we do not have a clear base of what is it that we are

struggling to achieve. And probably just to mention one or two things to do with science,

what we know about science is that in science, if you did similar work than other people, it

is not recognized in science. If you came and took my thesis and reproduced it for an

examination, you will not pass, meaning, if we are talking about new works in architecture

it must be modeled within the framework of scientific inquiry, whereby we are saying that

in scientific inquiry, when we require to come up with which are the problems of

architecture that you want to solve.

Currently as you are all aware, there are quite a lot of problems that are looking for

solutions. We have problems of housing, problems sustainable environment, we have

problems of renewable materials, we have problems of population pressure, occupation of

land, we have problems of indiscriminate exploitation of natural resources; stone, forests

that is timber, we have problems in those areas and we have urban planning problems.

These are the problems that are within the domain of architecture and these are the

problems that we are looking for solutions and we are saying, for you to come up with

new architecture, these are the problems you are solving using very clear scientific

methods, so that we go through the rigour of how do we use scientific method to arrive to

a solution that now becomes a piece of architecture that responds to the needs of the

people and that the solution of the architecture we are getting can either be seen as solving

the problems of slums, is either solving the problems of materials, it is either solving the

problems of technology, it is either solving the problems of how do you house this

population that is there.

So that is where we start the genesis of new contemporary architecture. Don’t go round to

looking for new contemporary architecture in books, contemporary architecture is in the

problems that we are solving of the people and I think that one should be very clear so

that we don’t mix ourselves in looking for solutions outside there. For example, look at

the increase of population, especially in urban areas. If you look at the increase of

population in urban areas, how can you give it form, how can you contain this population,

like creating shelter for them, how can you give this population form? So here there are a

million people. This is the piece of land that is available. How can you create form in

architectural interpretation for these people .These are the challenges. Do you put up a

multi-storied building of 20 floors? Do you create underground settlement? How do you

go about it? Those are the issues that should be confronting us in architecture. There are

also issues of transport. There are also major issues in transportation systems. How do

you come up with a solution? If you don’t come up with a solution, then you loose it all.

We have to look for solutions. In other words we are saying, for architecture of today, it

is embedded in response to the societal problems that might not necessarily be spatial to a

certain extent, so that what is determining the architecture of today is not what

determined the architecture of yesterday. Today’s architecture is being confronted by

issues how people are living is what we are responding to and it is the solutions that you

get that becomes contemporary, because that solution is for specific societal life, society

existence so I think that is very important for us to be aware of.

Then the other thing that I might mention is that, in trying to seek solutions, for this type of

architecture, we must master the workings of human activity. We must understand the

human activity so that it is that human activity that we are trying to embrace in a physical

form and that physical form must capture that spirit of human activity. So that human

activity becomes a driving force to see how best, do we give him a physical form. So that

it is that activity that we are trying to capture. We are trying to struggle to capture that

activity so that if we are talking about slums. We are going there to study what is the

activity of the slum life and how do we capture spirit embedded in the buildings in that

enclosure that you are deciding solution for them, so that our responsibility is first of all

interpret the human activity and see how we can give that human activity a meaning in

buildings so that building can only be buildings that have meaning if you can argue that

this wall, this column, this roof is this way because the human way of life in this building

is being interpreted by that. So that when I look at a project that you have given a solution,

for a human activity, I should be able to see that project has ingredient of human behavior

in it and I can see this is the way. You don’t need tell me this is, responses I should be able

to see actually this is the solution. What are we saying, we are saying that solution, that

solution that you will get or that activity, it is not in the material, it is in another dimension

that you cannot interpret by words but you look at it and say this is the solution, but don’t

look far in the solution. So, when we talk about spirits in buildings, sourcing buildings

interpretation of symbolism in buildings of people’s way of life we are saying there is that

interpretation, you cannot explain, but all of us know this is a solution and you have seen

student’s project and you have seen this is the solution for the problem but you cannot

explain it, you cannot explain it. So what we are saying here is that it is at that time that

you capture that type of form when you capture that form, people will tell you this is the

solution but nobody, not even yourself can explain that solution. That is the dilemma of

architecture. That is where architecture becomes a dilemma.

Because if I ask you, why did you come with that form. What created in you that

transpiration, that expression; what is it that made you have that expression. What is it?

But people will tell you we have it, people will tell you I have never seen this one but this

is a solution. What excites you in architects work? You can see this is a solution, how did

he get it? But we are saying, for crowding, we need to approach it in a scientific way so

that at least we try to rationalize the solution. That we know that solution, if we actually

got into the basic of it, we might not be able to explain it. But we want to rationalize

through science, which this is the process, this is the way I went through and I got there.

So that the process is more important than the solution. So that by the time you say that

this form responds, you are actually trying to say probably the sun movement, the sun path

made me orient to this way, probably the wind direction made me do it this way, probably

the slope of the land made me do it this way, but ultimately, if it was mathematics all we

would have the same answer. But why do we have different answers for the same brief.

And why do we say that this work needs to be worked again? Where is architecture in

this?

I think it is very important for us to be able to see this, then the other thing that is important

is for us to know is that when we are thinking about architecture, and arriving to the

correct form, the correct form will not be caught through assumptions, it will not be

caught through calculations, it will not be caught through theories. The correct form will

not be caught through those phenomena, but there are components of how we reached

there. Those physical imaginations that get to science of numbers gives you a partial

solution for example, the height of room, the size of ventilation, the size of doors, and so

on is not ultimately the form that we are looking for but it is very important for us to have

those as cut off solutions; otherwise the correct form will be arrived at through the process

of feelings and imaginations. The process of understanding the human needs; these are the

things that you get the form. It is you who will feel/imagine, this is the way to approach it.

It is that feeling that ultimately gives you the form, so that the measure of a solution in

architecture is really you perceiving these expressions, it is your perception, feeling that

this expression ultimately serves the purpose and serves the humanity. All the problems

you are solving of man. At the end of it, you are actually looking at the architecture you

are getting, not from the point of mechanistic solutions, but you are looking at it from the

other angle, that it is the feelings, it is the imaginations, it is existence of living, it is the

leaving that am calculating this design for. In other words, put it this way, at what point in

your life do you enjoy life? When do you feel this life is with you? Is when you can’t

explain it, it is that form of architecture that you feel this is the solution. You hear with

people and people will tell you, you got it. Actually people will tell you go it and then you

feel that you have got it and everybody will feel that this is a solution. So that it is that

imagination, it is that habit that we are looking for in contemporary architecture. It is

feeling of our life today that this is a living architecture, this is what we are looking for

that actually opposes what is now looked at as new dimensional architecture. The other

thing that we are saying about this type of architecture is that contemporary architecture

exemplifies itself in a series of unified conceptions each gathering a wide survey of quite

comprehensive survey of contemporary events into a work of architecture with enduring

elements. So what am I saying? That contemporary architecture is a creation exemplifying

itself in a series of conceptions each gathering a wide survey of contemporary events in to

a work of arts with enduring elements that captures it. That captures it.

So that here we are saying, it is those conceptions, those unifying conceptions; it is

comprehensive survey of contemporary events that gathering of those events, that is able

to translate into art that will ensure that contemporary architecture. So you can see, us

trying to understand contemporary architecture, what you are more concerned with is what

are the circumstantial events that are revealing themselves today that you are responding

to and creating conceptions of what architecture should be. That is what we are looking

for so that it should be very clear that the contemporary architecture0 should be really that

architecture that is living then that you are looking around seeing the events that are

happening and trying to conceptualizing those events and conceptualizing the form. It is a

major component of art and then you transform that into what form should be. If you are

able to conceptualize those events, then you are not dealing with contemporary

architecture, then you cannot be viewing the architecture of now. The architecture that

captures the spirit, the architecture that it is in the spirit of its time. The architecture that

portrays the height of its time. You can’t do that. So it means that you must be able really

to capture the spirit. What is it that we are solving the solutions for? It is when you are

able to do that, that you can actually say that you have been able to capture the deep

feelings that are embedded in the contemporary spirit. Since we said this spirit is what

captures the form, it is not the numbers, then in means we should be able to see this deep

feelings that we want to respond are embedded in so you must be able to see the

contemporary spirit, the contemporary events, the contemporary work and be able to

conceptualize that building, or that enclosure or that form that we call contemporary

buildings. if you can’t do that then you can’t get it because we are designing for man, if

you cannot understand the man, that you are designing for, then what are you struggling to

do. If you cannot understand the events around him that is creating that type of a building,

and some of these events are the driving force to the type of architecture you are going to

create, then what are you talking about. This type of architecture. Can you be talking

about contemporary architecture? You can’t, because what will you be talking about. If

you can’t capture the contemporary spirit of the events of man, what contemporary

architecture are you capturing? If you are given a project and you cannot understand the

spirit of that, what is that you are trying to transform? What is it that you are giving people

then? If you are not translating those contemporary issues that man is living in, his

existence, that existence of that type. In other words, we are saying for you to be able to

translate the contemporary events into conceptions that now embrace that achievement,

you must be an architect. If you can’t do it then you are not an architect. Few of the

architect who have lived, who have captured that, they have became famous, but they are

very few. Who have been able to capture the spirit of time of man and translate it to the

correct form in architecture. There are very few architects who have done that. Lecobusier

did it, by him trying to see how he sees in urban settting, he had done it in one of the cities

in India and other cities in France, you look at the type of buildings that tended to house

high population. Because of population pressure, he could capture that spirit and we

picked from there and started mixing urban development and the rest and many others

have been able to capture it. You have to really come up with practical solution in

architecture that you are doing for the people that are living in that time. If there was that

solution, we would not have slums, if a certain architect was able to capture the

contemporary architecture of slum people, he could come up with a conception of how to

interpret this into a more decent built environment for low income people. We would have

been able, but we have not been able to. And many other events that you can see around

that we have not been able to capture it. It is that time that we can be able to capture that

and give a solution that it practical and not a solution that is pilot for one project and

nobody would talk about it. It is a solution that influences the whole world, that this is a

solution for this type of a problem. Just like M-pesa, the transaction of M-pesa became a

solution to the whole world not just in Kenya. It is a solution that is contemporary in

architecture that has been picked up and everybody in the world in using it and it made

banks null and void. Unless now banks change, they have no business being there. It is

those type of solutions that we are looking for. It is not solutions that seeks to improve the

columns and the rest, the solution are not in the materials, they are embedded in the

humanity, in the people and that is why the solutions are derived in that contemporary

architecture

So what we are saying is that there are a lot of things that are materialistic when we are

dealing with architecture. The materials, technology, the labour and so on, but we are

saying, these things must be infused into the spirit of survival of man. These elements

must be infused into the spirit survival of man so that it is the column, the lighting, the

many things that we do, must be seen and fused into the spirit of survival of man so that

we can create the form we are looking for. So that we have to look at the solutions that we

are giving, not so much at mechanistic solution level, we have to look at it as, are we able

to infuse, exemplify these materials, as part of the form of the solution. So that the

solution that we give, we have to look at it as part of our living. Not that when something

is part of your living, you leave it, so you as the living and ..of the living….it is you in

existence who is enjoying it. So we are saying the materials that we are going to put up,

the walls, the windows, the we must infuse it into the feeling and lives of people. So that

at the center of every design that we do, if you are unable to infuse the physical to the

spiritual, then you will have two distinction of work. I can’t see man in it. So you must try

in your training to look at all the elements of architecture and see how these elements as I

look at them and move through there, words of architecture, that I am able to create the

feeling, that this is a prison. Am able to see. It is a recollection center. Am I able to see

that recollecting in a prison. Am I able to see it? Or am I just seeing books? am I able to

see it. If I am not able to see it, then you have not responded to the question. Here we are

talking about a murderer, a thief, a rapist, they are there. You take them to prison, you

don’t take them to prison not to punish them, but to correct them and integrate them into

correct simple life and then they came back. But if I went to the prison and I find it so

cruel, what am I creating there? What am I creating. Can you see the spirit. Really we

have to understand what is it that you are struggling to do. We are struggling to respond

within clear dimension of human activity and human activity and human existence. If your

architecture cannot respond to that, another case, if you did a kindergarten school, you did

a one room, ten rooms, there is nothing and the child is between three or four years and

then you are creating rooms like classrooms, then do you understand the spirit of a child?

do you understand the feeling of a child? do you understand how to interpret those

feelings in physical form? Do you understand? In any case, if I brought a child here and

told the child this is your class room, if I don’t know it, the child will make it a classroom

the way he wants. But you as an architect, how would not be able to interpret what the

child wants? Leave the correct environment for me to learn. These are dimensions of

architecture that we are looking for. Those are the dimensions in architecture that create

contemporary architecture if you are solving contemporary problems today. That is what

you should know. And that we are not talking about buildings here. Are we talking about

buildings here? because you make the prison the buildings but it is not a rehabilitation

center. You either tell the child to go to the classroom, but it is not the classroom for the

child. You are not responding anything to the child. Is that architecture that you are giving

the child? It is not! So it is that that we are struggling. It is that we are struggling to see

now in the behavior of man, that we interpret to create a contemporary living that has a

contemporary spirit of manhood. That is what we are look for. If you are unable to do that,

then you wait for architects to do it. You have not yet made an architect. That is what we

are saying.

So we have really to strive to understand man and how to conceptualize his life and how to

transform it. If we are able to transform it to his behavioral life. His behavior and we are

able to see being interpreted in actual form in terms of dimensions and in terms of correct

location of building elements. It is what we are saying. If you are unable to do that, then

what are you doing? There is nothing we are doing. And this is now what is contemporary

and what you as an individual comes up with as a unique solution. You are able to come

up with as a unique solution because they way we think, it is just like a researcher, it that I

give you a problem and I tell you go and solve it. For you to see that you are doing a

research that adds value there must not exist other factors of a research. Because if it

exists, and then what you are doing is wasting time, because there are solutions. Already

there are solutions, why waste time. You rather copy those solutions and say, there is no

solutions, there is solution to that. There is no research. But what we are involved here in

architecture is that there is same way we are able to diagnose. This is correct interpretation

in architecture and come up with that building that actually gives the correct solution and

that building gives necessarily architect ends because you are solving the problem because

you are giving a unique solution. So it is very important for us in giving to see that and

a….what we are saying here and I can still recall it, is that the aim of life is its

continuation and that we continue were we find form for life that allows it to exercise

function harmoniously. The aim of life is its continuation and that we continue were we

find a form of life that allows it to exercise its function harmoniously. That is the aim of

our lives. There is no other aim. And our aim is to live our descendants better off than us.

So our aim is to really to strive to look for this form of life that things can be harmonious

in our life. We are looking for that continuation of life. Our architecture should not be

seen as obstructing life. Our architecture should never obstruct life. Our architecture

should bring in the continuity of life, so that when i say that this design is integrative with

environment, this design is in harmony with environment, this design is this and that.

What am saying that this is a continuity of life. We are capturing life and that there is

continuity of life and our struggle is that that is perpetuated is for posterity as we can. Ok.

And that we are doing it for ourselves. This struggle is for us as people who are living

today. I think that is very important so that we do not loose sight on the issues that might

be crucial

The other think that is very important to note that during your study here, you will study

sociology, you will study materials, technology, structures and so on, but of paramount

importance is for us to see all those inputs in architecture being part of how we

conceptualize architecture. It helps us conceptualize architecture. All these are important

ingredient in architecture and should help use conceptualize architecture better. So that it

is how I am able to see these components and interpret it in what I want to see. Interpret

the feeling, the imagination, to the form of the building. That is more important. So that

these are important components that comes to fill in the gaps of imagination. All these

helps us to imagine better conception of architecture and I think it is important for us to be

able to go deeper into the issues of what can help us to see more responses on

contemporary architecture and we are saying it is until we have clear understanding of

these other forces that come into play in architecture that we can conceptualize the correct

architecture that creates the spirit and it is of the time. It is the architecture that helps

people respond to their needs. It is very important and we have to make an effort to create

that fulfillment in our achievement and what we are saying it also that you as an architect,

as you train in the procedure, process of achieving architecture, I think it is very important

that we create certain level of identifiable targets. What is identifiable target that creates

issues that you want to achieve in a building. It is very important that you are able to

create those identifiable targets. If you started designing without knowing where have I

reached within a time frame? If I you are not been able to see were you are reaching. It

becomes very difficult for you to know whether you are getting a solution. If you are

going home, you will know that you have gone home when you reach to that house. So we

are saying, when you get home in this solution of architecture, is when you have

identifiable targets. So that these imagination must be seen at a level where you see what

are the level of achievements that I want to have in this design. Am I able to able to

conceptualize that is why we are talking about conceptualization. If you are unable to

conceptualize ultimately what you are able to get, which is this is what is identifiable

target, then what are you doing in architecture? When can you know, tell me. If you

cannot conceptualize an idea, then give it a frame and say these are the things and this is

when I get this, I know this I have achieved. Then I go to sleep. I know I can present the

work the following day. Or is it a struggle that is continuous and you don’t know when it

is ending. So when are you getting contemporary architecture when you do not have

identifiable targets? With clear conceptions of architecture if you cannot create rational of

the process ,if we cannot create the rationale of the process, then when can you know that

you are dealing with correct architecture? That within time frame, these are the results.

When can you know? It means you must act as an architect. You must learn to know the

whole process of understanding this man that I am designing for and I know what

conceptualization issues I have raised that I have to act this to man and see as an architect ,

what I need to do and do I have a level of conceptualization that is enough to convince

yourself first, that this is the solution, regardless of what they are saying. Is your mission

very clear? Is your mission identified through this idealistic solution that you are able to

say this is what I am supposed to do and I have achieved. Are you able to do that? If you

look at Greek architects work, you look at what they did, they started with a concept. Like

ombuga and others, and you can see they ended up with the concept. And you can see

when the concept, which is a conceptualization of man, you can see that he got a building

that seems to capture exact that. And you can see several designs for those who have

sketches, you can clearly see and could not be diverged. Could not loose the direction, so

that immediately the conception is very clear, and there is the solution, to hold together at

materialistic level it is very easy. To create the structure at locham chapel was not an

issues. You can remember how it started, it is not an issue, I mean the structure you can

mould, you can do anything with it to achieve what you want. You can do anything in

circulation to achieve what you want. You can do anything to a door, anything to a roof, to

achieve what you want. The challenge is, do you have the correct conceptualization,

correct target, correct frame of mind, when we are starting this process. Otherwise, you

might be wasting time, trying to put thick columns, here 4 columns, there 6 windows, 10

post you are wasting time, because you are not responding to anything. You are designing

in abstraction. You are designing in abstraction. That is why you want to be abstract. You

look at it, it is so dry. I can’t can see anything at it. The man you are designing for; maybe

it is a prisoner, a child, somebody who is somewhere in a mortuary or a class like this one.

I think these are the things that are very important. I think these things can be captured if

you wanted to capture it. If you look at the churches that were done during … you see the

explanations that were done. You see the elements in that building and their shift so that

you can see whatever inspired them to do what they did you got it. We are even saying

ourselves; we are at a level where we could do that we should be in a level to achieve that.

If you can’t achieve that, ask yourself, what is it that I have not been able to do to enable

me to do this? If you are unable to do this, to conceptualize an idea and get results, ask

yourself, what is that I have not been taught that you should ask yourself immediately.

What is it that I should have learnt, so that in our seeking our contemporary architecture,

understanding. We are really seeking the man’s understanding that spirit that we are really

and such a man of that type, what we are looking for. And immediately we capture that,

we conceptualize within the results there, it would tell you good. This is the answer for

housing, this is the answer for transportation, and this is answer for planning that you have

got it through architecture. This is the answer for population explosion. People will tell

you this is the answer, but if you are unable to do that, and the problem with

conceptualization is that your mind must be at status of meditation. It cannot be the

normal way of thinking. You cannot be thinking normally here and come up with a very

unique solution. It is impossible. You have to infuse yourself in all the aspects of this

person that you are going to design for. This solution that you want to get, you must

infuse a lot of things, so that when you give it out, people can actually see, you have

fulfilled the requirement, of the human existence. You have been inspired. This is the time

you can say, this guy has been inspired, because the solution he is giving, is so correct that

normal thinking person cannot get it. And you would wish that all you were inspired

people who can get solutions for your designs. I think these are the things we need to

familiarize ourselves and try to see what is it that I am suppose to offer that is unique from

a quack, from somebody who has not gone to school that is claiming he can design. And

until you give that solution that is through what we are saying you will just be like a

quack, somebody who is a merchant of architecture. A merchant of buildings and like you

remember, we said in the beginning, when we started this structures, at the definitions, a

building is a construct of the end result of architecture so a building is a result of this

struggle that we are going through. Where you copy somebody’s work. Architecture is

what we are saying is a whole process of conceptualization and being able to infuse

correct of those ideas, those imagination, with the building elements that we are creating.

So that the building elements that we will see, if they are not reasons from the point of

fulfillment to the point of man, then we are doing nothing. If we cannot relate the studio

with the people that use the studio, then studio is a failure. This studio room is a failure, if

it cannot serve us as a working station, with computers, security, with proper lighting then

it is a failure. It is what you students come up as a catalogue of your feelings for a working

station for an architectural student that an architect must translate to that. If it is lacking,

then this place is not a studio. Studio for what? And you want to go there comfortable, you

come already there is internet there, computer working station that is secure; you have a

free mind, so that life continues. You see, anything we continue, we want to create

harmony. So that you don’t feel barriers. Not that you want to carry yourself with

anything, we want as a human being, as a person, as a free persons, I don’t want to carry

computers chairs, bags, everywhere I go, I want to be a free a persons, I come I work, I

am tired, I walk rest, I take tea, I refresh myself. There is even a place for resting, go and

rest after you rest you feel like taking one somewhere, you go take one, you come back,

you find things are still in order, but not a life of intimidation, threats and life that you feel

it is archaic, you exploit and you actualize it. You actualize that life, at every time, from a

childhood until your time of death. You should actualize that life. That is the life we are

looking for. A life that if you want to go to school, you go, if you want to rest you rest, if

you want to do this, you do it, so that you can be creative. Immediately you create barriers,

in your life like, that because of economy this cannot happen, because of security, this

can’t happen, because of this…then you are not living. Because life is like, you can see a

child, what the child does, he is very innocent. A child is living and that is the life we are

saying in a design, you should be able to offer a user of a building. That is the life we are

saying if somebody is a secretary offer a space of secretary. So understand what a

secretary is. If you are leaving a space for vendor in town, then give that. Understand a

vendor is a living person who understands what a comfortable living working space, what

does he want. What comfortable space does he require? to deal with customers, to deal

with privacy, to deal with storage, to deal with so many things, so the issue is not the

building if you are an architect. The issue is reasoning behind the building. Why is it like

this, why is this way? can you argue it at every point. If you are able to argue it, then you

are able to see that you are creating that architecture that is required by weather you are

designing it and create that you are trying to respond to whoever has given you. That is

what we are looking for. And what we are looking for is not about contemporary

architecture that captures the contemporary issues and be able to do as much as possible.

So that at the end of the day, it is how far you are able to extract from the person, from the

environment, from the science, make sure you are in a position to be able to see and create

that one building that is a result. So that when you look at the buildings from this manual,

these are just samples of buildings from incompetent architects, but you see, some look

nice, some capture your spirit and you wish you had the capability to design like those

people, others are very dull, even if it is an office block. You see, no building should be

dull, it does not matter what. It should capture the spirit. It does not matter if it is dull, nice

the issue is; that is what we said about the analysis of building that , do you understand

who the client was, who the user was initially; those are the issue within the design. Do

you understand that, if you can’t understand that, then trying to evaluate the building from

looking at it, you are failing? You can’t be giving us the correct architecture of the

building. So we really need to catapult ourselves to a point that we evaluate as an

architect, this is the process of designing. Am I able to have its process guide me in any

design? If am unable to conceptualize even to understand the contemporary events around

the environment, why am I not able. If it is the issue that came into conception, why am I

not able to do that. And then translating conceptions into the form, why am I not able to

do that, these are the issues. So that if it requires you read more, then you go and read

more. So that you find that these are the issues that were never your call, you go where

you call is. That is why you can’t see what this guy is talking about. You can’t see.

Because he is talking about things which are neither here nor there but for sure, one thing

is clear, architecture serves humanity. So the issue is, for architecture to serve humanity,

what is the process to reach there, so that it serves humanity. That one are sure of. And if

the call of architecture is humanity and continuation of life, it comes without saying

architecture is architecture you feel you belong. It fulfills the requirements of the user.

That is what architecture is. The issues of symbolism, the correct aesthetics are on your

table, those are the issues you must know. If don’t respond to symbolism, if you don’t

respond to aesthetics, then we should now tie up all these things we are talking about

contemporary architecture because is you don’t respond to those, then you know that I am

doing architecture, but you are just doing buildings. actually you can say you are copying

people’s buildings. you are just copying peoples building. You are not taking proactive

tasks to put yourself to task, to come up with inquiry to look for solutions. You are not

doing that. You must put your mind in task and it is not easy, but that is the struggle. You

must put yourself in task so that you….that I am going to put together to get…proper

conception of the architecture am looking for. What is the base point for your

architecture? Where is it derived? Were is it informed? Where do you crowd it. When do

you know that these are the targets that I am working on? And that is why we have to look

at history of architecture as I told you last time as part of your studios. Immediately you

remove it as I was talking about Greek architecture, Greek, am talking about Romanistic

architecture, what is it for? We need to know the process. What is the process that they

went through to be innovative the way they were. That is what you need to know. Because

you as living today, you also have to come up with something that is contemporary,

something that explores the need so we need to know, what is it that this guy during Greek

time these guys that were during roman time, how are they able to frame architecture to

create meaning the way we see it. How are they able to view it. So we are more concerned

with the making of architecture, what were the processes that these people went through.

Were they buildings things and demolishing them, how did they go about it. So that you as

a living architect today, what is it that I can learn from my predecessors? Not that you

cannot learn anything in buildings. as I said that is a result. If I gave you my thesis, I don’t

think it is important , for my PhD, for my masters, or for my undergraduate. It is not very

important. But if you can come and we have a dialogue of how I went around it together

what you are seeing in that book, you learn more. In other words I am saying, as I have

said to you before, the autobiographies of any architect is very important for you. Because

you want to see his life. How was he going to dealing with crime, how was he dealing

with design process?how was he dealing with construction management. And since the

guys was a practitioner of architecture, we want to see, we are going to make a case in

court, what would judges rely on to justify their case?reference of what, past cases.

Whether the case was done in past 16th Century, or it was done during that time. It does

not matter. It would still be good…who lived before Christ was born.why have they relied

on that history in treating a case as a practitioner? Why have they relied on that. Creating a

case as practitioners. Why have they relied on that? Why don’t we anchor ourselves the

same way, we understand in and out and we know we are departing from the identifiable

targets. That raise identifiable conceptions. By these identifiable results of architecture. So

that history must be seen, not just as work that is in archives, it must be seen as part of

progression of new law articulated in practice of architecture and in teaching of

architecture. So that we don’t see contemporary as just contemporary. We don’t see

Roman architecture as just roman architecture, industrial architecture as industrial

architecture, we are very keen on seeing were we are fitting ourselves. Where is our

linage? So I think with that, I have told you more than you wanted to know

So we can have a discussion. Yes u**maya

Discussions……

Students questions not clear****

You see the way they say about contemporary is very clear initially, we said contemporary

is somebody strikes the solution for human needs of typology of a building for example,

religious building, housing buildings and so on. People seem to see this is the best solution

for our age and this solution seems to be replicated by others who talk about errors of

architecture so that even the contemporary type, you ca recall we had said that there is

massive contribution of new architecture. There is abundance. Certain individuals produce

certain architecture that people will find this is the best solution for housing for example.

And that is now applicable over the world, that not only housing but even the other areas

that this is how people define a certain perception of a society that is leaving today and

interpret that any architecture that is coming up must meet a,b,c and that in its

interpretation, the principle of organizing moreless play the same way. And then people

tend to feel this is the way architecture should move.

There is a time Romans designed and this is the point they accepted that always due to the

movement from one era to another, so in the new era, and that transition between the eras

that can be centuries, people come up with certain type of architecture that they feel this is

the best for us that is living today. But it is not easy to achieve that but it is idea that sells

out. let’s say during Romans time, or biblical time. You did not have the columns then you

are not designing architecture. During those times, they had various types of columns.

type of room and so on and use of concrete and so on, the ashes, the domes, and so on.

That were the type of architecture. When you going into the modern you can see that they

stripped all the types of architecture, they simplified any expression of structure and so on.

So that those are listed in this book about the modern architecture, which are about 20 or

40, that characterizes the modern architecture. But now you are in the struggle to look for

real architecture, it would take time to say this is the architecture of our age. It might be

called information whatever or like the people say that the world is a village architecture,

so that at the end of it now, we have not come up with architecture that is not

contemporary that sooner or later, you will come up with it. Like the modern architecture ,

it was captured well when Johnson had an exhibition in America when they went all over

the world, picked what all modern architects were doing and then (it was around 1920s)

then did an exhibition then they came up with the style age but you know since then, we

have had so many other things happening. But that is the time, modern architecture

captured the spirit of doing things.

Lecture two

I think we can start today we will be winding up lecture for this unit of contemporary

architecture and theories of contemporary architecture and the first thing that I want to talk

about is, when we are talking about contemporary architecture especially now what we are

looking for is how do we create new vocabulary, how can we as architects of today create

new contemporaries of in architecture, create new identity. The issue is about the search of

identity and new vocabulary in architecture and what which we have noted is actually

when you go through what the pioneers of contemporary architecture, you see that it is

very dynamic and very complex and the direction they are a giving us might be quite a

challenge for us to be able to capture what is this spirit that the new contemporary

architects are trying to follow. Before we go to the details of actually the issues of how to

search and create identity in new architecture, I thought it is important for us to recap

issues to do with space, form, structure, function, and sources of design concepts for

contemporary architecture. I think it is important just capture that we know that we are

working within which context when we are looking for new contemporary architecture, I

think the issue of space is very clear to you and it is something you understand that

buildings occupy space and that this is the space that we are very critical on out there is

space, but the building the way we define them, we define spaces in the interiors and for

us to understand fully how to derive our architecture, we need to understand space for

different functions, so that we are able to see the overlaps and multiple spaces that come

into play. So we need to see and understand the space and then after understanding a

space, then we see how does the overlap, because we would have different types of

spaces, we need to really explore that so the issues of spatial zoning within the design is

very clearly expressed. And when we are talking about spaces, what we need to ask

ourselves is, the spaces that we have presented, how are they organized. How can people

move around the spaces, we need to know. Will they be free to roam in these spaces? How

do you want people to move around these spaces, so we really need to understand the way

we define these spaces.

The other thing we need to understand on spaces is, will they be guided by paths to certain

destination within these buildings so that all your spaces are organized within clear

destinations and starting point and ending point. Then the other aspect about space is, if

you want to create good space, then you have to shop for the best media for presenting

space during the design process and we are advocating that you go for axonometric type of

communication media so that as you design, you are able to see in axonometric drawing

how are the spaces, because how you are drawing, then you are creating a space. If you

are talking about the Kitchen are you able to see in axonometric, are you able to see how

the Kitchen works, were the preparations areas are, were the washing areas are, were the

door steps are and if you are able to capture these spaces, then you can easily find out

where you are then space were you want to begin within other words, we are saying you

cannot design without a plan, you have to actually look at the design of spaces, you have

look at 3 dimensional presentation that combines presentation techniques so that you are

able to produce spaces that are actually are cohesive at a very early stage of your design.

Then the other thing that is very important about spaces is that, with this current digital

models of how you do computations of your modeling of your spaces, it makes it this

versatile to maximize that capacity that is already existing, so that you are able to see the

forms and the spaces simultaneously, so that any change is modified in other part of your

design and the volume, the lines, the planes, are effected immediately and I think it is very

important we start seeing, how can we maximize that model computation that we are using

now in architecture.

Then the other thing that is also important to capture is the issues of form . as I said, for us

to understand contemporary architecture, let us see these contextual issues in architecture.

One is space, the other one is form. So the form relate to both the internal structure and the

external outline and the principle that gives unit of the whole. So the form is more less the

internal part of the structure and the external outline of the structure and that normally

would give the whole of your design and when we are thinking about that, we are really

talking about, are you able to create physically those idea, those concepts into a whole that

creates an entity of a type of a building. If it is a parliament, if it is an office block and so

on. So we need to capture that relationship of an internal structure and the outline and that

now will help us into seeing the form and when you talk about the form, what is crucial is

to understand the form its genesis is the shapes. We have to understand the shapes before

we can actually create a form because it is the composition of shapes that really comes

with the form that we normally see. So the issue of the shapes is very critical to

understand it and to comprehend any form, you have to understanding by understanding

the shapes that you are designing for. And then other thing that is important is the

properties of the form that you should always try to see that you have responded to when

you are thinking about the form. One of them is the shape that is very important property

of the form, the other one is the size and proportion of what you are designing. The other

one is the proportion, the colour that you are choosing for appearance, the texture that you

are creating in different parts of your designs, the position of different elements of your

designs and the orientation. Those are properties of form that seems now to capture what

is a form. So that a form is not just a shape or a volume. It has to respond to a function, it

has to respond to certain authentic relevant issues of your design. So we have to see the

form as really a complete delivery of your project. So that the form actually reflects the

internal and the external as you have see, so that it is like the overall, because ultimately

what produces to a certain level the architecture that we see.

Then we know that there are varied types of forms, that you can generate in your designs;

you can have centralized form, and in centralized form, that is where a number of

secondary forms clusters about a dominant, so that we have around secondary forms, a

dominant. So we have a centralized type of a form. We can also have a linear form,

whereby this case is a series of forms arranged sequentially in a row. So that we have, the

way we know it like in the streets we have forms in the streets that define the streets. We

can also have radials forms. It is a composition of linear forms extended outward from a

central form in a radial manner. That is another form that you can create as an approach in

a design. You can also have a clustered form, this is a collection of forms put together by

proximity or sharing of common visual treats. So these are forms that cluster together in

proximity, like they way we talk about traditional homestead, the way they cluster and that

delivers a form. So we have that as an important factor to consider when we are

considering contemporary architecture.

The other important aspect is the function, of the space. The function of a space is

mechanistic solution of certain requirements. Functional solutions to problems often leads

to a design of a building but they don’t lead to architecture, so that by arranging spaces in

a plan, you are not responding actually to the architecture that we are calling for; so that

we are saying that if you want to respond to architecture, then you have also to put in the

artistic aspects in whatever you are designing. Otherwise resolving a kitchen, or a dining,

or a house on its own does not give you architecture. Architecture must go into another

level whereby you are now resolving the issues of symbolism, the aesthetics and so on that

are required for those type of a designs.

The other important aspect to also note is the issue of form and function as it has been

compounded by people like Frank Lloyd Wrights and others. He (Frank Lloyed Wright)

actually said, form follows function, so contemporary architecture is that evidence, do we

evidence that or is it the function that really generating the form. The argument today is

that when you think about contemporary architecture, it is the function that generates the

form, so we look at the form, and we say the function is like it, so that the function now

becomes more predominant in trying to resolve the issues of the contemporary

architecture. It is important that we notice that people currently trying to capture what

derives the contemporary architecture and not vice versa, but that is something that people

can argue as we complete this lecture.

The other thing that is important is the issue of the structure. You have seen many

contemporary buildings, the structure is given prominence as part of architecture. So what

we need to understand is, in actual function of the structure, it is for load bearing, it is for

support system of a building. That is the role of the structure. As we think as architects,

we have to move further to make it have another layer of aesthetics that relates with the

function of the building. And that is were the challenge is so that we don’t have the just

columns to support the buildings, columns have certain level of ordering spaces, certain

level of giving feelings to the spaces and we can see the structure becomes another

important component when we think about contemporary architecture, so that is also goes

beyond the structural expression of its function of just load bearing. So what we are saying

is that as designers, how structure might assist us to add aesthetics and functional value to

the design work. As designers, we should actually ask ourselves how a structure might

assist us to add aesthetics and functional value to our design work. I think that is very

important so that we do kind of expolation of architectural implication in structure. So that

the structure in this case is as we see it beyond the support system as what is delivering,

what is ordering spaces, and that it actually assist even in other aspects of architecture that

you want to achieve.

The other aspect that we need to look at apart from the structure is something to do with

design concepts. These are brief presentation, so that even as we think about

contemporary architecture, these are issues we need to deepen their understanding, so that

the contemporary architecture you present can be analysed from the context of all these

issues, that all of them are addressed properly. The other thing, I wanted to mention is

sources of design concepts and what you find currently is that design concepts is you

search for inspiration in nature. You extract features of nature and that enhances

architecture that you present to date. When you look at nature, nothing exists in nature

exist without principles, everything in nature must have style. Nature as it exists presents

certain principles that capture certain styles. If you look at trees, some are tall and are

classified in different categories and some will create umbrella, some are branched. Study

a tree, how does it branch. If you are studying structure, how does a tree support its

system? Even if you are looking at the function of these trees, some are for producing

different types of project. How does it relate to its call? Nature can give us a lot of ideas

that can assist us in contemporary architecture. When you see what people are producing

in contemporary architecture, it has got to do with capturing a certain metaphor in nature,

like a nest, like that Olympic stadium in China. South Africans used a pot, and then we

will look at the buildings that we are going to use here. You will see some are using snails

shells, how the snails shell, others are using the oceanic animals, how they are moulding

themselves, how those animals, and they are moulding the building around that, they are

looking at the systems, how does this one work, others are moulding their buildings out of

anthills, so that you can see we are trying to borrow a lot of principles from nature, for us

to be able to create an architecture that now seems to capture probably even a functional

requirement or inspiration in the type of buildings that you want. But, the question is

whether that direction correct is something that will be tested over time, so the issue is that

when we begin with dealing with natural forms as they are, what we are trying to capture

is the principles they are using, the structure the way they are being structured and so on

and that now ploughs back into trying to synthesis contemporary architecture that we want

to present. As we do that, we have to note that the design processes relate to human

experiences and needs and we have really to see, these human experiences and needs ,

they are more internalized in ourselves and this means that the design that we are doing,

becomes very crucial that it can be able to manifest this experience that we feel, and is

now able to be captured in this naturalness that we are trying to create; so that material

qualities is very important, spatial qualities that we present, correct metaphor of what…

you have to carry the correct metaphor of nature so that it is in harmony with human

experiences, so that if you use a horn from a rhino, a bull, how is that capturing those

experiences of a person or experiences of man; so that we have to tie up the metaphor that

we carry from nature into the architecture that we present, we have to reason, because it

must be very clear that there is a certain function that led us to derive that metaphor, so we

have to see them concurrently, so that if we go for a shell, we actually see the human

experience in it so that we say this is present the best human experience, if we are talking

about a shell or any other type of natural form, we are saying that there is something in it

that we are trying to relate with human experience. That explanation as you will see what

these authors have done, we are trying to relate nature and that metaphor that now is

carried into the architecture, so we should be able to see those attributes of form that really

captures the human experience and that the metaphor is in harmony with whatever you are

presenting.

When you look at the Egyptians, when they were doing their columns, how were they

trying to present their columns? Their columns and decorations, they tried so much to

capture what was in the nature, the rates, the palm trees, so you can see, by us going back

to that, it is not that we are losing out, all what we are saying is that probably the usable of

our architecture in trying to come up with more integrative architecture is to go back to

nature and try to see how nature influences us or became a source of inspiration for

architectural designs and its forms. Through out the history of architecture, we observe

that form making theories have explicitly borrowed several properties from the way

natural forms are generated. In other words, how natural forms are generated. For

example, if you wanted to know how does the bean generate its hole, its structure, you see,

you just plant a bean as a bean and every morning you go and study it, as it grows and

probably that is the process we are looking at when we thinking about architecture, that

process of growing a bean and at the end you know it has reached a climax of its life.

When you look at that process, it is the process that you want to understand, you look at a

tree how it starts from grafting, from a seed until I becomes a whole, at what point does it

divide itself to half trunks. Does it divide itself at the root, or does it divide itself at a

higher level? Then at higher level, how does the structure continue until you get a leaf of

that plan. When you look at the plant, it is until you can study the structure and we are

saying since you can see it grow, you can even understand it better, that you are seeing it

grow. Does it produce it simultaneously, does all branches come to…simultaneously, are

they have the same strength, how are they branching, how do we create the expression of

that type of a tree, ask yourself, if you look a tree like fir which just moves straight, there

are others which create an umbrella, there are others which move and branch out, there are

others like mugumo trees that grows strong, very massive throughout, if you understand

that in terms of the structure, in terms of the process of getting there, don’t you think you

can enrich your design process, because you are saying you are the creator of something

that will be whole like that plant, then by understanding that process, it becomes very

important for us to be able to see how form making, how form finding, process can be,

how form creating process can be, because now you can see, something in nature creating

a form. So you as an architect who creates form for design and you know in contemporart

architecture, form becomes so important that it is the world’s is capturing that period is

what is capturing this period of architecture. So that that form creation and that we are

saying the concepts are formed from nature, meaning that we have really to understand

how does nature creates a child to become just like you. Look at that process; how you go

about creating a form, and that process, you need to do a lot of study to capture it that

would really make us. And for us to understand that, it means that architects must

understand the inner working of nature, internalize ourselves with how nature creates, by

actually observing what nature is creating and to see it from inception to maturity and

since the period from inception to maturity is so short, and you are living, you can actually

study it. You can actually study the bean growing, it is only three months. That leads you

to start seeing if I am doing a master plan for a university, how do I want it to grow? If I

am doing even the normal buildings, how do I want these buildings to grow? And

probably what can help us is trying to see how like in forests, these nature has left room

for everything, nothing complains, the animals, the vegetation, the trees, they all in

harmony. You are dealing with a small area, creating a building, it means that you should

do it to a perfection because you are not concerned with what happens so much on

probably on the neighbourhood. We really need to understand the inner working of nature

so it is important to understand the natural form in their systematic order as a unifying self

contained structure, so that when you do a design, it should be complete; I should see that

it is unifying and self contained. It is a whole in expression, it is a unit of composition, it

expresses what ought to be as you have understood the function and this leads us to say

that the function, determines the structure both form and functions are fixed. Immediately

you do your design, it is fixed. And you actually can patent it. It just unfortunate we don’t

patent our work.

We are saying therefore that function determines the structure both form and function are

fixed. This means that any modification of the functions entails modification of that

architecture, that form created any modification of the functions entail modification of the

form. Why it is important is because that hole was derived from interdependently

combined parts and these parts are functions, so immediately we change those functions,

then how can that form be correct in the whole, how can it read the same, so that this issue

of change of use of building, you can actually question it. If his is add building, creating

office in this building, they will fail, they will not fit, because it means, by modifying this

form, and we said the form it everything, internal external, external all those things, as we

started, if you change anything here as it was initially conceptualized by the architect, if

you change those experiences of the user of those buildings now, it means that you have

changed the form and it means that the form cannot remain, unless you want to create a

misleading form, so that the argument here is, architecture carries reason for its own

expression, within itself, the materials and aesthetics composition and that is what we are

saying modifying anything means that the form does not have any reason any more for its

existence. Because its existence was there because of those materials you used created the

form. The reasons for existence of that architecture was very clear so the form that you

created is very clear, is for specific human creation, human existence. Immediately, you

change that function, then it means the reasoning of that form will not be correct anymore

hence idea of architecture unfolding from within, so what it means is that architecture

unfolds from within, Just like plant who unfold from within, so that is why when buildings

exists, one would not preach for change use, change of use means you are misdirecting,

you are creating misconceptions of architecture so that what you create is based on

rational reasoning and that it is from within that what you have created that you present

what is architecture. So you cannot change things from within and still tell people that you

are dealing with the architecture, so that when you talk about making of form, it should be

very clear to us that the kind of form we are thinking about is embedded in the structure,

in the materials , in the aesthetics that you have presented, in what you have defined to be

the size, the proportions, all these things is what is creating messages in the architecture

that you have created. That is quite expressive of what are calling upon in architectural

terms about what are the sources of contemporary architecture, that you have to go to

nature, and that nature is self expressing, self unfolding, and that is what we are looking

for our architecture.

After that, we present the proponents of contemporary architecture who have become

scholarlistic in that area. The author has tried to pick a few buildings that have captured

that:

Eric Owen Moss: his works: 3505 hidden gateway, Konchetive point creator complex

Frank O’ Gerry: He has done National Nedaraden, it is an office building

Creaker Leeny Works: H2 house that looks like shells,

Norman poster: London city hall, it responds to a lot of environmental issues and so on.,

billboard metro entrance…he did an entrance to a metro station

Peter Hester man…did a house which has those natural forms

Lehm Kuhers; Shuttle public library

For each of these people, the metaphor is very clear from the beginning. What they wanted

to express was very clear, and was capturing human experiences, so that when he went to

any type of a form, it was very clear to them how he wanted to express. It is not something

you go looking for, it is something you make a decision very early and now that we have

the computer aided designs

There is saha adith, it is a very contemporary building, it gives an idea how you can

recreate, twin towers in ford hill.

Look at the theories what are being presented and what you should dialogue within your

mind is whether this is comprehensible. Can we comprehend what these contemporary

architects are doing and is it something that we can internalize. Though some of you have

presented in their projects, but you will still see that you are still conservative in modern

architecture very few are tending towards the contemporary architecture that is being

presented today which borrows a lot from nature. Evaluate that architecture and see

whether it is possible for you to fit in its discourse, until you understand the contemporary

If it is nature, how are we recreating nature in architecture, don’t try to venture in it if you

don’t know how these architects have come up with a solution. Form making in this

process is very complicated, because it is either you are saying, you are using a snail,

millipede , all these type of naturalness in nature to create architecture, so it needs to be

crystallized. If you look at the millipede, and you wanted to do a hotel like that, then come

with a millipede here and try to see. Don’t kill it first, you first of all disturb it and it might

come up with the form that you want and then you photograph that. You have to

understand the inner working of nature means that you have to understand what you are

going to recreate with. If you are going to use a shell, you have to understand it. You have

to pick a shell and understand it.

If you are going to use a tree that has an umbrella, then you have to really understand. So

we have to really come in terms with the inner working of nature. If you are going for

contemporary architect, there is no way out. If the architects who have pioneered how to

look at the architecture, then it means we have to really understand how they got that

physical form. The issue of form making and creation, unfolding of form from within, so

you must start seeing the scaling of your building, the movement of your building, the

shaping of your forms is being generated by the functions that are in it and that metaphor

is actually the correct way to reflect and to express whatever you are saying are the human

experience that you are trying to capture in a building. You should also capture the human

as the center of a design as also part of what drives the form, because it is the function, it

is what you want the space to fill and immediately you go to the level of filling the spaces,

you can actually start saying that natural forms capture this best because we are not saying

that we should have cut feeling, that we should have horizontal walls or vertical walls. If

you look at the yourself in a mirror, nothing is straight and you are more variable in your

existence as the building, nothing is straight. So we have to go organic but at the same

time, we play in the same structure, that we are able to have spaces which are functional,

we are able to have experience we are looking for being expressed, but we are going

organic in a way. This does not mean that shapes are circular as we see from proponents

of contemporary architecture, some of their shapes are linear, but it is the way they have

organized the forms that create the organic expressions, they way they respond to different

organizational form.

- Interviewed other architects

- Do we understand what we are designing

- What you should have learnt is what you are doing in architecture