INTRODUCING ARCHITECTURAL THEORY DEBATING A DISCIPLINE pot

INTRODUCING ARCHITECTURAL
THEORY
This is the most accessible architectural theory book that exists. Korydon Smith presents
each common architectural subject—such as tectonics, use, and site—as though it were
a conversation across history between theorists by providing you with the original text, a
reflective text, and a philosophical text. He also introduces each chapter by highlighting
key ideas and asking you a set of reflective questions so that you can hone your own
theory, which is essential to both your success in the studio and your adaptability in
the profession. These primary source texts, which are central to your understanding of the
discipline, were written by such architects as Le Corbusier, Robert Venturi, and Adrian Forty.
The appendices also have guides to aid your reading comprehension; to help you write
descriptively, analytically, and disputationally; and to show you citation styles and how
to do library-based research. More than any other architectural theory book about the
great thinkers,
Introducing Architectural Theory
teaches you to think as well.
Korydon Smith is an architecture professor in the U.S. who teaches courses in architectural
theory, methods, and design at all year levels.
Introducing Arch Theory-01-c 22/12/11 15:18 Page i
Introducing Arch Theory-01-c 7/12/11 13:23 Page ii
INTRODUCING
ARCHITECTURAL
THEORY
DEBATING A DISCIPLINE
EDITED BY KORYDON SMITH
Introducing Arch Theory-01-c 7/12/11 13:23 Page iii
First published 2012
by Routledge
711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017
Simultaneously published in the UK

by Routledge
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business
© 2012 Taylor & Francis
The right of Korydon Smith to be identified as the author of the editorial
material, and of the authors for their individual chapters, has been asserted
in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and
Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced
or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means,
now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording,
or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in
writing from the publishers.
Trademark notice
: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or
registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation
without intent to infringe.
Disclaimer
: Every effort has been made to identify the owners of copyrights
and to obtain permission to reproduce copyrighted material.
Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data
Smith, Korydon H., 1977-
Introducing architectural theory : debating a discipline / Korydon Smith.
p. cm.
Includes index.
1. Architecture—Philosophy. I. Title. II. Title: Debating a discipline.
NA2500.S555 2012
720.1—dc23 2011032850
ISBN: 978-0-415-88837-0 (hbk)
ISBN: 978-0-415-88838-7 (pbk)

Typeset in FS Albert and Amasis
by Keystroke, Station Road, Codsall, Wolverhampton
Printed and bound in the United States of America on acid-free paper by
Edwards Brothers, Inc.
Introducing Arch Theory-01-c 7/12/11 13:23 Page iv
T
T
a
a
b
b
l
l
e
e
o
o
f
f
C
C
o
o
n
n
t
t
e
e
n

n
t
t
s
s
Preface: To Educators: The Impetus for this Book
xi
Acknowledgments
xv
List of Sources
xvii
PART 1: DEBATE IN ARCHITECTURE 1
INTRODUCTION: TO STUDENTS: WHY ARCHITECTURAL THEORY
IS VITAL 3
Theory in Architectural Education 3
Defining Architectural Theory 4
The Structure of This Book 6
The Future of Architectural Theory 7
DEBATING A DISCIPLINE: ARCHITECTURE, ARGUMENT, AND
THE CONCEPT OF THE DIALECTIC 8
The Aspirations of Architects 8
The Concept of the Dialectic 9
Dialectics: A Few Examples 9
Dialectics in Architecture 10
The Chapters Ahead 11
v
Introducing Arch Theory-01-c 7/12/11 13:23 Page v
PART 2: DIALECTICAL READINGS IN ARCHITECTURE 13
TECTONICS 13
CHAPTER 1: SIMPLICITY AND COMPLEXITY 15

Introductory Discussion 16
Introduction 17
Original Text: Marcel Breuer, “Where Do We Stand?” First Published in 1935 19
Reflective Text: Robert Venturi, Excerpts from
Complexity and Contradiction
in Architecture
. First Published in 1966 27
Philosophical Text: Vittorio Gregotti, “On Simplicity.” First Published in 1996 32
Writing and Discussion Questions 35
Other Readings on Simplicity and Complexity 37
CHAPTER 2: ORNAMENT AND AUSTERITY 38
Introductory Discussion 39
Introduction 40
Original Text: Adolf Loos, “Ornament and Crime.” First Published in 1908 42
Reflective Text: Reyner Banham, “Ornament and Crime: The Decisive Contribution
of Adolf Loos.” First Published in 1957 48
Philosophical Text: Joseph Rykwert, “Ornament Is No Crime.” First Published
in 1975 54
Writing and Discussion Questions 65
Other Readings on Ornament and Austerity 67
CHAPTER 3: HONESTY AND DECEPTION 69
Introductory Discussion 70
Introduction 71
Original Text: John Ruskin, “The Lamp of Truth.” First Published in 1849 74
Reflective Text: Eugène-Emmanuel Viollet-le-Duc, Excerpts from
Discourses on
Architecture
. First Published in 1863 84
Philosophical Text: Fil Hearn, “Truth to the Medium: Using Materials.” First
Published in 1996 95

Writing and Discussion Questions 102
Other Readings on Honesty and Deception 104
CHAPTER 4: MATERIAL AND IMMATERIAL 105
Introductory Discussion 106
Introduction 107
CONTENTS
vi
Introducing Arch Theory-01-c 7/12/11 13:23 Page vi
Original Text: Leon Battista Alberti, Excerpts from
The Art of Building in Ten
Books
. First Published in 1486 109
Reflective Text: Juhani Pallasmaa, Excerpts from
The Eyes of the Skin.
First
Published in 1996 125
Philosophical Text: Jonathan Hill, Excerpts from
Immaterial Architecture.
First Published in 2006 132
Writing and Discussion Questions 138
Other Readings on Material and Immaterial 140
USE 141
CHAPTER 5: FUNCTION AND FORM 143
Introductory Discussion 144
Introduction 145
Original Text: Louis Sullivan, “The Tall Office Building Artistically Considered.”
First Published in 1896 147
Reflective Text: Bernard Tschumi, Excerpts from
Architecture and Disjunction
.

First Published in 1983 154
Philosophical Text: Adrian Forty, “Function.” First Published in 2000 164
Writing and Discussion Questions 177
Other Readings on Function and Form 179
CHAPTER 6: FUNCTION AND FORM (PART 2) 180
Introductory Discussion 181
Introduction 182
Original Text: Frank L. Wright, Excerpts from
An American Architecture
.
First Published in 1955 184
Reflective Text: Peter Eisenman, “Post-Functionalism.” First Published in 1976 189
Philosophical Text: Richard Hill, “Purpose, Function, Use.” First Published in 1999 194
Writing and Discussion Questions 208
Other Readings on Function and Form 210
CHAPTER 7: BODY AND BUILDING 211
Introductory Discussion 212
Introduction 213
Original Text: Marcus Vitruvius, Excerpts from
The Ten Books on Architecture
.
First Published ca. 25 B.C.E. 215
Reflective Text: Le Corbusier, Excerpts from
Le Modulor
. First Published in 1948 219
CONTENTS
vii
Introducing Arch Theory-01-c 7/12/11 13:23 Page vii
Philosophical Text: Lance Hosey, “Hidden Lines: Gender, Race, and the Body.”
First Published in 2001 224

Writing and Discussion Questions 237
Other Readings on Body and Building 239
CHAPTER 8: PROPORTION AND ORGANIZATION 240
Introductory Discussion 241
Introduction 242
Original Text: Andrea Palladio, Excerpts from
The Four Books on Architecture
.
First Published in 1570 244
Reflective Text: Le Corbusier, “The Plan of the Modern House.” First Published
in 1930 249
Philosophical Text: Colin Rowe, “The Mathematics of the Ideal Villa.” First
Published in 1947 256
Writing and Discussion Questions 268
Other Readings on Proportion and Organization 270
SITE 271
CHAPTER 9: CONTEXT AND BUILDING 273
Introductory Discussion 274
Introduction 275
Original Text: Le Corbusier, Excerpts from
The Radiant City
. First Published in
1935 278
Reflective Text: Jane Jacobs, Excerpts from
The Death and Life of Great
American Cities
. First Published in 1961 287
Philosophical Text: Tom Schumacher, “Contextualism: Urban Ideals and
Deformations.”First Published in 1971 298
Writing and Discussion Questions 306

Other Readings on Context and Building 308
CHAPTER 10: CONTEXT AND BUILDING (PART 2) 309
Introductory Discussion 310
Introduction 311
Original Text: Marcus Vitruvius, Excerpts from
The Ten Books on Architecture.
First Published ca. 25 B.C.E. 313
Reflective Text: Robert Venturi, Denise Scott Brown, and Steven Izenour,
Excerpts from
Learning from Las Vegas.
First Published in 1972 319
CONTENTS
viii
Introducing Arch Theory-01-c 7/12/11 13:23 Page viii
Philosophical Text: Adrian Forty, “Context.” First Published in 2000 323
Writing and Discussion Questions 328
Other Readings on Context and Building 330
CHAPTER 11: NATURAL AND CONSTRUCTED 331
Introductory Discussion 332
Introduction 333
Original Text: Marc-Antoine Laugier, Excerpts from
An Essay on Architecture.
First Published 1753 335
Reflective Text: Vittorio Gregotti, “Territory and Architecture.” First Published in
1985 341
Philosophical Text: Carol Burns, “On Site: Architectural Preoccupations.” First
Published in 1991 345
Writing and Discussion Questions 357
Other Readings on Natural and Constructed 359
CHAPTER 12: NATURAL AND CONSTRUCTED (PART 2) 360

Introductory Discussion 361
Introduction 362
Original Text: Christian Norburg-Shulz, Excerpts from
Genius Loci: Towards a
Phenomenology of Architecture.
First Published 1979 364
Reflective Text: E. Relph, Excerpts from
Place and Placelessness.
First Published
in 1976 373
Philosophical Text: Kathryn Moore, “Genius Loci: Hidden Truth or Hidden Agenda?”
First Published in 2003 387
Writing and Discussion Questions 393
Other Readings on Natural and Constructed 397
APPENDICES (FOR STUDENTS)
APPENDIX 1: GUIDE TO READING COMPREHENSION 398
Right Time 398
Right Place 399
Right Way 399
Tips for Reading this Book 400
Useful Resources 400
CONTENTS
ix
Introducing Arch Theory-01-c 7/12/11 13:23 Page ix
APPENDIX 2: GUIDE TO DESCRIPTIVE, ANALYTICAL, AND
DISPUTATIONAL WRITING 401
Descriptive Writing 401
Criticism and Analytical Writing 402
Persuasion and Disputation 403
Conclusion 404

Useful Resources 404
APPENDIX 3: GUIDE TO CITATION STYLES 405
Why Citations are Necessary 405
Citation Styles: The Main Three 406
Dealing with the Tedium, Efficiently 408
Useful Resources 408
APPENDIX 4: GUIDE TO LIBRARY-BASED RESEARCH 409
A Cyclic Process 409
Finding Sources 409
Index
411
CONTENTS
x
Introducing Arch Theory-01-c 7/12/11 13:23 Page x
P
P
r
r
e
e
f
f
a
a
c
c
e
e
TO EDUCATORS: THE IMPETUS FOR THIS BOOK
The formal study of architectural theory remains absent from many architectural design

programs, or, if present, the structure of many academies and curricula place architectural
theory as an autonomous, peripheral course. This is especially the case in undergraduate
curricula. Undergraduate architectural education is often composed of a triad—
architectural history, architectural technologies, and architectural design. Coupled
together, these areas promote a comprehensive understanding of the discipline. Though
theory is often paired with history, i.e., “history/theory,” the impetus for this book stems
from the premise that architectural theory underpins all facets of the discipline—history,
technologies, and design. Architectural theory is the discipline.
If architectural theory is both broad in scope and synonymous with the
discipline, then why has it become merely a side-show at so many institutions? As
architectural educators, we might impugn accrediting agencies for ever-expanding
requirements; or we might blame the emergence and rise of a variety of iconic issues of
our time, e.g., sustainability or digital design media; or we might admonish ourselves for
atomizing architectural education into autonomous, specialized knowledge domains. In
any case, if the importance and vitality of architectural theory is to be regained in the
minds of students—amidst a crowded, evolving, and competing set of courses—creative
pedagogies are much needed. What might these pedagogies be? No doubt, design
educators throughout the world ha
ve been discussing this question for years. As such,
this book results from the development and implementation of a pedagogical alternative
to architectural theory.
Introducing Architectural Theory: Debating a Discipline
stems from curricular and
pedagogical conversations I have had with colleagues near and distant. Several colleagues,
especially those t
eaching design or studio courses, v
oiced several interrelated concerns
about students’ conceptual and critical thinking abilities. There was frustration about
the tendency of students to “compartmentalize” knowledge, a kind of amnesia regarding
concepts or principles learned in previous architectural history, technology, or studio

xi
Introducing Arch Theory-01-c 7/12/11 13:23 Page xi
courses. There was also anxiety that students lacked skills in both vertical thinking
(
“intellectual discipline”) and lateral thinking (“intellectual agility”). There was concern that
students tended, too quickly, to embrace fashionable trends or dogmatic positions, and,
commensurately, dismiss historically-based or more subtle architectural theories or
propositions. Presumably, these same concerns have been voiced for decades in faculty
meetings around the world.
With these discussions, there was speculation regarding the sources of these
perceived deficiencies: Were these propensities cultural or generational? Were the problems
developmental? Was the curriculum to blame? Was it some combination of these? Or was
it simply undue expectations or misperceptions on the part of the faculty? With little control
over cultural factors and greater authority over curricular matters, the faculty at a public
university in the United States where I was teaching, brainstormed a variety of pedagogical
changes. Among them was an architectural theory course, which Dr. Darell W. Fields
and I developed. We contended, as does this book, that architectural theory is vital to
undergraduate and beginning graduate design education, and that the absence or
marginalization of architectural theory exacerbated the problems stated above. The faculty
concurred, but vacillated on how to best integrate architectural theory into the curriculum.
We confronted a number of practical issues. The course had to fit within the larger
curricular structure, and it had to be developmentally appropriate for undergraduate
students. Likewise, we were interested in creating a course that would affect students’
long-term thinking about architecture. Though tremendously overused in higher education
today (and at risk of oversimplification here), we wanted the course, foremost, to provide
students with strategies for critical thinking. Architectural theory would simply be the
medium. We aspired for students to not only understand the origins and trajectories of
various architectural theories but also to verbalize and re-conceptualize their own
predilections of architecture.
As the course took shape, we articulated four major goals and 13 learning objectives.

It was in the spirit of these objectives that this book was formed:
1. Advance each student’s ability to understand the various trajectories of architec-
tural thinking today and across history, including the ability to:
a. discern the similarities and differences of various theoretical texts, be they
contemporaneous or separated by vast amounts of time
b. understand the relationship between disparate positions in architectural
theory
c.
understand the difference between
architectural
theory and other f
orms of
theory, e.g., philosophy, art, etc.
2. Advance each student’s ability to be more self-aware about one’s architectural
predilections and be able to cont
extualize them relative to other architectural
theories, including the ability to:
P
REFACE
xii
Introducing Arch Theory-01-c 7/12/11 13:23 Page xii
a. understand the relationship between one’s positions in architectural theory/
ideology and other similar and disparate views
b. better understand the implications of one’s ideas and work
c. incorporate new architectural ideas/theories into one’s thinking/work
d. adapt one’s own architectural thinking and predilections.
3. Advance each student’s critical thinking skills, including the ability to:
a. more critically engage the content of studio courses
b. more critically question the work of one’s colleagues and the profession.
4. Advance each student’s reading and writing skills, including the ability to:

a. clearly identify the meanings and value of various architectural texts
b. more effectively seek out and identify texts that help to strengthen one’s
future studio (and future professional) work
c. clearly articulate the ideas of others in written form
d. more clearly articulate one’s own ideas in written form.
With these goals and objectives arose three assertions regarding the structure
and pedagogy of the course. First, the course would not be comprehensive; it would not
be a “survey” of architectural theory, but a narrowly selected set of texts. Second, the
course would not be chronologically organized nor would historical context be a primary
factor in the course (we had the luxury of three well-taught architectural history courses
leading up to our proposed course), rather, the course would put forth a set of architectural
issues that cut across architectural history and remain relevant in contemporary practice.
Third, the course would not delve into texts by philosophers, social theorists, and literary
critics; it would focus predominantly on the writings of architects, from Vitruvius to Venturi,
Palladio to Pallasmaa.
All three assertions signalled a paradigmatic shift in architectural education, and
a risky one at that. With these premises we were seriously diminishing the number of texts
we would cover. We were also forfeiting a deep understanding of the cultural, economic,
and technological contexts in which a particular architectural idea arose. We were also
sacrificing writings from other disciplines—literary criticism, philosophy, biology, etc.—
that have gained momentum in the discipline of architecture over the past five decades.
1
The supreme gain, however, was a highly thematic and episodic course, a course organized
around major themes in architecture that have multiple viewpoints and that are highly
relevant to the discipline today. This enabled two significant pedagogical shifts to be
implemented: (1) using the “dialectic” as the organizing structure for the course and (2)
using in-class debates and in-class writings as the modus operandi.
In its colloquial form, the dialectic is a dialogue.
2
It arises as a dichotomy, a debate

between two opposing positions, ideas, or theories. But, through the desire to reconcile
PREFACE
xiii
1. In recent years, architectural
theory has been criticized for
borrowing too heavily from
peripherally related disciplines
(e.g., semiotics), thereby
drawing focus away from the
historical centers of the
discipline. Similarly, popular
media (and architects
themselves) often rely on
metaphorical or analogical
language when discussing
various architectural works. The
reliance on cursory allegories is
problematic for undergraduate
design education, because it
obfuscates the essential,
complex, and interwoven
components of the discipline:
context, space, use, tectonic
expression, etc. The
architectural theory course
discussed here, therefore,
focused primarily on texts
written by architects, regarding
tectonics, etc., rather than on
texts written by philosophers or

theorists who discuss
architecture analogically. These
latter texts—e.g., Deleuze’s
“Postscript on the Societies of
Control”—are highly influential
to the discipline of architecture,
but are more appropriate at
the graduate level. Likewise,
although texts were the
primary medium for the course,
it was made clear to the
students that architectural
theory is evidenced not only in
texts but also (and maybe to a
greater extent) in constructed
works. For example, even
without Le Corbusier’s
Towards a New Architecture
,
Le Corbusier’s theories are
evident in his constructed
works.
2. The dialectic is a Socratic
concept, but saw advancement
from a number of philosophers,
including Johann Fichte in the
18th and 19th centuries. The
Introducing Arch Theory-01-c 7/12/11 13:23 Page xiii
the debate, the dialectic transcends the dichotomy. Through negation, aggregation,
compromise, or transformation of one or both sides of the debate, a third proposition

emerges. The dialectic, as such, possesses three parts: thesis, antithesis, and synthesis.
This triumvirate became the structure for the course. Reading assignments, in-class
discussions, and writing assignments would all be organized this way. Making decisions
about what would be included in (and what would be excluded from) the course readings
then became the greatest challenge. Not only was delimiting the texts a significant task
in designing the course but it was also a major hurdle in organizing this book.
Despite the relative smallness of the discipline of architecture, there is a large amount
of architectural theory, including an array of anthologies and compendia. There are a variety
of ways in which architectural theory compilations have been organized. Some books are
organized chronologically, some are organized geographically, and some are organized
thematically.
3
There are benefits and drawbacks to each organizational strategy.
The organization of the present work is closest to the thematic strategy, but, more
precisely, it is organized dialectically. Each chapter contains readings from three different
authors, representing three different viewpoints. I have provided a brief introduction for
each dialectical set of readings. It needs to be noted, however, that, for pedagogical
reasons, introductions to each chapter are kept brief. Introductions outline the thesis,
antithesis, and synthesis of each chapter topic. Rather than providing a deep, interpretive
history of the topic, the images and questions that precede each chapter are intended
to initiate a dialogue within and among students. Educators using this book may wish to
have students complete self-reflective writings or group discussions about these questions
prior to completing each set of readings. The introduction to each chapter then serves as
a transition between students’ initial thoughts and the deeper, more critical discussion
that arises while reading the dialectical set of texts. Each chapter concludes with a series
of analytical, synthetic, self-reflective, and prospective questions.
Having now taught and revised the aforementioned architectural theory course
over several years, it is clear to me that the dialectic strategy is useful for two major reasons.
First, its structure is readily accessible to students. Students do not need a full under-
standing of Socrates’, Fichte’s, Hegel’s or other philosophical works to understand it. The

structure of the dialectic possesses both a binary construct—
thesis
and
antithesis
—which
is developmentally and culturally consistent with a majority of beginning architecture
students, and a means by which to transcend the binary—
synthesis
. The structure provides
both a normative foundation and an investigative springboard for critical inquiry. Second,
the dialectical structure provides a means to analyze architectural theories outside of a
historical continuum. This frees the curriculum and pedagogy of the course from the
chronological system in which history and theory are often delivered. It allows for a
thematic approach, contemporary and prospective in its trajectory, which better resonates
with student cognition. Thus,
Introducing Architectural Theory: Debating a Discipline
is
an attempt to bring architectural theory back to the center of the architectural education
experience.
PREFACE
xiv
dialectic is more fully explained
in Part 1 of this book.
3. For example, both K. Michael
Hays, ed.,
Architecture Theory
since 1968
(Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press, 1998) and Joan
Ockman, ed.,

Architecture
Culture 1943–1968: A
Documentary Anthology
(New
York: Rizzoli, 1993) are
organized chronologically.
Architectural Theory from the
Renaissance to the Present
(Los Angeles: Taschen, 2002) is
organized geographically.
Hanno-Walter Kruft,
A History
of Architectural Theory from
Vitruvius to the Present
(New
York: Princeton Architectural
Press, 1994) is a combination
of both of these strategies,
as is the case for Harry Francis
Mallgrave, ed.,
Architectural
Theory: Volume I: An
Anthology from Vitruvius to
1870
(Malden, MA: Blackwell
Publishing, 2006) and Harry
Francis Mallgrave and Christina
Contandriopoulos, eds.,
Architectural Theory: Volume II:
An Anthology from 1871–2005

(Malden, MA: Blackwell
Publishing, 2008). Kate Nesbitt,
ed.,
Theorizing a New Agenda
for Architecture: An Anthology
of Architectural Theory,
1965–1995
(New York:
Princeton Architectural Press,
1996) and Jay M. Stein and
Kent F. Spreckelmeyer, eds.,
Classic Readings in Architecture
(New York: McGraw-Hill, 1999)
are thematically organized.
Introducing Arch Theory-01-c 7/12/11 13:23 Page xiv
A
A
c
c
k
k
n
n
o
o
w
w
l
l
e

e
d
d
g
g
m
m
e
e
n
n
t
t
s
s
I want to thank Jeff Shannon, Dean, Fay Jones School of Architecture, and Marlon
Blackwell, Head, Department of Architecture, at the University of Arkansas for their support
of this project. Thanks also go to Lanny and Becki McIntosh for providing the McIntosh
Faculty Research Award, which assisted with obtaining copyright permissions for this book.
Much appreciation goes to Wendy Fuller, Editor, Architecture, Routledge—Taylor
& Francis. Her critical feedback and assistance was invaluable from the very beginning of
this project. Likewise, Laura Williamson, Editorial Assistant, Architecture, Routledge—Taylor
& Francis, was a tremendous asset to the development and production of this work.
Immense gratitude goes to Andrew Arkell and Ginger Traywick, architecture stu-
dents at the University of Arkansas, for their help in editing and proofing texts, identifying
images, and providing a critical and insightful student perspective.
I also want to thank the reviewers of this book for their insights and commentary
on how to improve the quality of this book. Additional thanks go to Frederick Courtright
of The Permissions Company, Inc. for assistance in securing copyright permissions.
Finally, special thanks go to my two sons, Eston and Khale, for all I learn from

them, and to my wife Julie, whose emotional sustenance, friendship, and love is inspi-
rational.
xv
Introducing Arch Theory-01-c 7/12/11 13:23 Page xv
Introducing Arch Theory-01-c 7/12/11 13:23 Page xvi
L
L
i
i
s
s
t
t
o
o
f
f
S
S
o
o
u
u
r
r
c
c
e
e
s

s
The author and publishers gratefully acknowledge the following permissions to reproduce
material in this book. Every effort has been made to identify the owners of copyrights
and to obtain permission to reproduce copyrighted material. If any proper acknowl-
edgement has not been made, or permission not received, we invite the copyright holders
to inform us of the oversight, and any omissions will be rectified in future editions.
Alberti, Leon Battista. Excerpts from “Book III: Construction,” in
The Art of Building in Ten Books.
Joseph Rykwert, Neil Leach, and Robert Tavernor, trans. (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1988), 61–91,
first published in 1486. Used with permission from MIT Press.
Banham, P. Reyner. “Ornament and Crime: The Decisive Contribution of Adolf Loos,”
Architectural
Review
121 (1957): 85–88. Used with permission from Emap Ltd.
Breuer, Marcel. “Where Do We Stand?,”
Architectural Review
77, April, (1935): 133–136. Used with
permission from Emap Ltd.
Burns, Carol. “On Site: Architectural Preoccupations,” in
Drawing, Building, Text: Essays in Architectural
Theory
, ed. Andrea Kahn (New York: Princeton Architectural, 1991), 147–167. Used with
permission from Andrea Kahn.
Eisenman, Peter. “Post-Functionalism,”
Oppositions
6, fall, (1976): unpaginated. Used with permission
from Peter Eisenman.
Forty, Adrian. “Context” and “Function,” in
Words and Buildings: A Vocabulary of Modern Architecture
(London: Thames & Hudson, 2000), 132–135, 174–195. Used with permission from Thames

& Hudson.
Gregotti, Vittorio. “On Simplicity,” in
Inside Architecture.
P
eter Wong and Francesca Zaccheo, trans.
(Cambridge: MIT Press, 1996), 83–87. Used with permission from MIT Press.
Gregotti, Vittorio. “Territory and Architecture,”
Architectural Design
55, no. 5/6 (1985): 28–34. Used
with permission f
rom Vittorio Gregotti.
Hearn, M. Fil. “Truth to the Medium: Using Materials,” in
Ideas that Shaped Buildings
(Cambridge:
MIT, 2003), 255–269. Used with permission from MIT Press.
Hill, Jonathan. Excerpts f
rom
Immaterial Architecture
(New Y
ork: R
outledge, 2006), 2–3, 72–77. Used
with permission from Routledge—Taylor & Francis.
xvii
Introducing Arch Theory-01-c 7/12/11 13:23 Page xvii
Hill, Richard. “Purpose, Function, Use,” in
Designs and Their Consequences: Architecture and Aesthetics
(New Haven: Yale, 1999), 175–210. Used with permission from Yale University Press.
Hosey, Lance. “Hidden Lines: Gender, Race, and the Body,”
Journal of Architectural Education
, v.55,

n.2 (2001): 101–112. Used with permission from Blackwell Publishing.
Jacobs, Jane. “Introduction,” in
The Death and Life of Great American Cities
(New York: Random
House, 1961), 3–25. Used with permission from Random House.
Laugier, Marc-Antoine. “General Principles of Architecture,” in
An Essay on Architecture.
Wolfgang
Herrmann and Anni Hermann, trans. (Los Angeles: Hennessey & Ingalls, 1977), 11–22, first
published in 1753. Used with permission from Hennessey & Ingalls.
Le Corbusier. Excerpts from
Le Modulor.
Peter de Francia and Anna Bostock, trans. (Cambridge: Harvard
University Press, 1954), 34–35, 37, 45, 50, 55–58, 60–61, 63, first published in 1948. Used
with permission from the Foundation Le Corbusier.
Le Corbusier. Excerpts from
The Radiant City: Elements of a Doctrine of Urbanism to Be Used as the
Basis of Our Machine-age Civilization.
Pamela Knight, Eleanor Levieux, and Derek Coltman,
trans. (New York: Orion, 1967), 90–97, 112–126, first published in 1935. Used with permission
from Penguin Group.
Le Corbusier, “The Plan of the Modern House,” in
Precisions.
Edith Schreiber Aujame, trans. (Cambridge:
MIT Press, 1991), 123–139, first published in 1930. Used with permission from MIT Press.
Loos, Adolf. “Ornament and Crime,” in
Ornament and Crime: Selected Essays.
Michael Mitchell,
trans. (Riverside, CA: Ariadne, 1998), 167–176, first published in 1908. Used with permission
from Ariadne Press.

Moore, Kathryn. “Genius Loci: Hidden Truth or Hidden Agenda?”
Landscape Design
321, June (2003),
44–52. Used with permission from the Institute of Landscape Architects.
Norburg-Shulz, Christian. Excerpts from
Genius Loci: Towards a Phenomenology of Architecture
(New
York: Rizzoli, 1979), 6–23, first published in 1979. Used with permission from Rizzoli.
Palladio, Andrea. Excerpts from
The Four Books on Architecture.
Robert Tavernor and Richard Schofield,
trans. (Cambridge, MA: MIT, 2002), 56–58, 60–61, 77–78, 94, first published in 1570. Used
with permission from MIT Press.
Pallasmaa, Juhani. Excerpts from
The Eyes of the Skin: Architecture and the Senses
(Chichester:
John Wiley & Sons, 2005), 26–37, first published in 1996. Used with permission from John
Wiley & Sons.
Relph, E. Excerpts from
Place and Placelessness
. (London: Pion, 1976). Used with permission from
Pion Ltd.
Rowe, Colin. “The Mathematics of the Ideal Villa,” in
The Mathematics of the Ideal Villa and Other
Essays
(Cambridge: MIT, 1982), 1–28, f
irst published in 1976. Used with permission from
MIT Press.
Ruskin, John. “The Lamp of Truth,” in
The Seven Lamps of Architecture

(New York: Dover Publications,
1980), 29–69, first published in 1849. Public domain.
Rykwert, Joseph. “Ornament Is No Crime,” in
The Necessity of Artifice
(New York: Rizzoli, 1982), 92–101,
first published in 1975. Used with permission from Rizzoli International Publications, Inc.
Schumacher, T
om. “C
ont
extualism: Urban Ideals and Def
ormations,”
Casabella
35, no. 359/360
(1971): 78–86. Used with permission from Mondadori.
Sulliv
an, L
ouis. “The T
all Off
ice Building Artistic
ally C
onsidered,” in
Kindergarten Chats and Other
Writings
(New Y
ork: Dov
er, 1979), 202–213, first published in 1896. Public domain.
Tschumi, Bernard. “Violence of Architecture” and “Spaces and Events,” in
Architecture and Disjunction
L
IST OF SOURCES

xviii
Introducing Arch Theory-01-c 7/12/11 13:23 Page xviii
(Cambridge: MIT, 1996), 121–134, 141–149, first published in 1983. Used with permission
from MIT Press.
Venturi, Robert. “Nonstraightforward Architecture: A Gentle Manifesto” and “Complexity and
Contradiction vs. Simplification or Picturesqueness,” in
Complexity and Contradiction in
Architecture
(New York: Museum of Modern Art, 1966), 16–19. Used with permission from
the Museum of Modern Art.
Venturi, Robert, Scott Brown, Denise, and Izenour, Steven. Excerpts from
Learning from Las Vegas
(Cambridge: MIT Press, 1972), 18–20, 34. Used with permission from MIT Press.
Viollet-le-Duc, Eugène-Emmanuel. Excerpts from
Discourses on Architecture
. Benjamin Bucknall, trans.
(New York: Grove Press, 1959), first published ca. 1863. Used with permission from Grove/
Atlantic, Inc.
Vitruvius, Marcus. Excerpts from
The Ten Books on Architecture.
Morris H. Morgan, trans. (New York:
Cambridge, 1999), 17–32, 72–75, 84–86, first published ca. 25 B.C.E. Public domain.
Wright, Frank L. “Continuity” and “Interior Space Comes Through,” in
An American Architecture
(New York: Horizon, 1955), 205–219. Used with permission from Horizon Press.
ILLUSTRATION CREDITS
Figure 1.1 Photo courtesy of C. Murray Smart
Figure 1.2 Photo courtesy of Joe Mabel, Wikimedia Commons
Figure 2.1 Photo © 2008, Korydon Smith
Figure 2.2 Photo © 2004, Korydon Smith

Figure 3.1 Photo © 2004, Korydon Smith
Figure 3.2 Photo 2007, courtesy of David Liff, Wikimedia Commons
Figure 4.1 Photo © 2004, Korydon Smith
Figure 4.2 Photo courtesy of Charvex, Wikimedia Commons
Figure 5.1 Photo © 2005, Korydon Smith
Figure 5.2 Photo © 2004, Korydon Smith
Figure 6.1 Photo © 2004, Korydon Smith
Figure 6.2 Photo © 2004, Korydon Smith
Figure 7.1 Photo © 2003, Korydon Smith
Figure 7.2 Photo © 2003, Korydon Smith
Figure 7.3 Illustration courtesy of the Foundation Le Corbusier
Figure 8.1 Drawing from Palladio’s
Four Books on Architecture
Figure 8.2 Drawing from Borromini’s
Opus Architectonicum
Figure 9.1 Photo courtesy of Steve Luoni
Figure 9.2 Photo courtesy of Tim de Noble.
Figure 10.1 Photo © 2004, Korydon Smith
Figure 10.2 Photo courtesy of Daniel Schwen, Wikimedia Commons
Figure 11.1 Photo courtesy of Sturmvogel 66, Wikimedia Commons
Figure 11.2 Photo courtesy of Marlon Blackwell
Figure 12.1 Photo © 2004, Korydon Smith
Figure 12.2 Photo© 2003, Korydon Smith
LIST OF SOURCES
xix
Introducing Arch Theory-01-c 7/12/11 13:23 Page xix
Introducing Arch Theory-01-c 7/12/11 13:23 Page xx
Part 1
DEBATE in
ARCHITECTURE

Introducing Arch Theory-01-c 7/12/11 13:24 Page 1
Introducing Arch Theory-01-c 7/12/11 13:24 Page 2
I
I
n
n
t
t
r
r
o
o
d
d
u
u
c
c
t
t
i
i
o
o
n
n
TO STUDENTS: WHY ARCHITECTURAL THEORY IS VITAL
THEORY IN ARCHITECTURAL EDUCATION
As a student, architecture reviews and critiques can be both invigorating and stressful.
You share the work you have done over the past weeks, months, or year. You present your

goals, process, and results. You present various drawings and models, as well as some
written text or verbal commentary. Likely, the final review is a requirement given by your
professor or program, and, maybe for some of you, you would prefer not to go through
with it. Some might truly look forward to this opportunity, to candidly present what you
believe are the strengths and weaknesses of your work, and to gain insights from an
esteemed group of critics. Maybe some of you are hopeful to receive praise for your hard
work and commendations for your successes. Some students simply do not want to miss
all the potential drama.
In any case, the excitement and stress of final reviews stems from the unpre-
dictability of it all. As reviews begin, it is a mystery as to what will and won’t be said, what
students will receive accolades and what students will be derided, and how the flow
of the conversation will evolve. Part of the unpredictability is surely caused by the
critics, but what appears to be random and unmanageable might well be within the
student’s control.
1
Many students are unaware of how they can direct their own reviews,
rather than standing by as passive observers. This book,
Introducing Architectural Theory:
Debating a Discipline
, provides a foundation for gaining authority of your work and your
reviews.
When students stand in front of a panel of critics and embark on a discussion of
the goals, methods, and outcomes of their work, knowingly or unknowingly, they are
launching a theoretical position. This position—and all the aesthetic and pragmatic value
judgments it contains—becomes more and more tangible as critics shift uncomfortably
in their chairs, lean forward with enthusiasm, or slump with boredom. Named or unnamed,
it is then from a similar or distant theoretical stance that the subsequent critique
3
1. Final reviews—or “juries”—in
architectural education have

come under criticism. See:
Kathryn Anthony,
Design
Juries on Trial: The Renaissance
of the Design Studio
(New York:
Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1991);
Helena Webster, “The Analytics
of Power: Re-presenting the
Design Jury,”
Journal of
Architectural Education, 60
(2007): 21–27.
Introducing Arch Theory-01-c 7/12/11 13:24 Page 3
materializes. As such, theory is central to architectural education. Understanding
architectural theory is essential.
On the first day of the semester, in the architectural theory course I teach, I always
ask students several questions: What is “theory?” How is it useful? What excites you about
theory? What scares you about it? Many students are excited about theory and what
it connotes—ruminating on the significance of this or that architect or architectural
work. To many other students, “theory” is seen as a set of enigmatic texts produced by
obscure authors—boring, heady, and impractical. Many students feel alienated by this.
Contributing to this feeling, architectural theory is often marginal to the educational
experience, often reserved for elective courses, graduate study, or as a supplement to
undergraduate history, technology, or design courses. As such, it is difficult to see how
theory is useful, much less seeing why studying architectural theory is necessary.
Defined another way, architectural theory is neither formal nor textual, neither
cryptic nor pretentious. Theory is the most vital component of the architecture curriculum.
Explicit or implicit, architectural theory is the means by which architects and architectural
scholars situate themselves in the world. This positioning is not merely based on embracing

fashionable discourses, but is part of clarifying one’s architectural line of thinking. It is
how the discipline of architecture began and has evolved. Theory is what underpins all
aspects of architecture—technological, cultural, economic, and aesthetic. Theory is
embedded in the everyday aspects of architecture: daily conversations between students
and instructors, editorials in popular architectural media, etc. Built forms, themselves, are
a manifestation of theory. In essence, architectural theories provide the foundation from
which any student or practitioner asserts a particular stance or value structure of archi-
tecture. It is through theories that architects align with or dispute other architects or
architectural works. This book is about this ongoing debate,
architectural theory
.
DEFINING ARCHITECTURAL THEORY
Humans make theories to explain the world around them. “Theory building develops out
of our need to make sense out of life.”
2
Philosophy and religion are two examples of this
human desire to explore and explain the meaning of life. As such, “theory” and “philosophy”
are often synonymous.
3
In fact, many library databases use the term “architecture
philosophy” rather than “architecture theory.”
4
The term “philosophy,” however, may be
misleading, as it suggests something ephemeral, hypothetical, or non-concrete. In
actuality, architectural theory serves a practical role. Though “practice” is often seen as
the complement to “theory,” architectural theory fulfills a rational, pragmatic, and concrete
purpose.
Architectural theory began with Marcus Vitruvius’
Ten Books on Architecture
,

written in the first century B.C.E.
5
The book was a practical guide to the design and
construction of towns, infrastructure, and public buildings, and private residences. The
book also included discussions of material properties and usage, proportion and geometry,
and site orientation, all of which are issues still relevant to architecture today. Published
DEBATE IN ARCHITECTURE
4
2. Quotation from W. B. Walsh,
Theories of Person-
Environment Interaction:
Implications for the College
Student
(Iowa City: American
College Testing Program, 1973),
5. For further definitions and
purposes of “theory,” see:
Robert Dubin,
Theory Building,
Revised Edition
(New York: The
Free Press, 1978); Thomas S.
Kuhn,
The Structure of Scientific
Revolutions
(Chicago:
University of Chicago Press,
1962); Paul D. Reynolds,
A Primer in Theory Construction
(New York: The Bobbs-Merrill

Company, 1971); and Walsh,
Theories of Person-
Environment Interaction
.
3. Theory stems from three Greek
terms:
theoros
(spectator),
theorein
(to look at), and
theoria
(contemplation). For a
discussion on the Greek origins
of theory, see: Andrea W.
Nightingale,
Spectacles of
Truth in Classical Greek
Philosophy: Theoria in
its Cultural Context
(Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2004). For
other definitions of theory, see:
Robert Dubin,
Theory Building,
Revised Edition
(New York: The
Free Press, 1978); Thomas S.
Kuhn,
The Structure of Scientific
Revolutions

(Chicago:
University of Chicago Press,
1962); Paul D. Reynolds,
A Primer in Theory Construction
(New York: The Bobbs-Merrill
Company, 1971); and Walsh,
Theories of Person-
Environment Interaction
. The
prefix “theo,” common to the
aforementioned Greek terms, is
also worth noting, because it is
common to the term
“theology,” the study or
philosophy of religion. In early
Eastern Christian theology,
theoria
was the enlightenment
Introducing Arch Theory-01-c 7/12/11 13:24 Page 4