66
Innovation and Continuity
Work
I find it interesting how, within a specific
cultural context, the tectonic expression
of a new material finds form; how, as new
technologies develop, there are bursts of
creative invention.
In recent architectural history an interesting example of this was the
development of the steel frame in Chicago between 1880 and the end
of the century. The early use of steel from the 1850’s onwards either
demonstrated the new materials engineering prowess or treated it as a
substitute for another material and handled it in a comparative manner.
What distinguished the work of the architects of the Chicago School
was the manner in which material innovation of the 19th century steel
skeleton was utilised as a means with which to revitalise the architectural
tradition within which it was used.
Innovation
and Continuity
Spans and heights were achieved that were simply not possible with masonry and
timber construction, yet the resultant architecture by Louis Sullivan and others was
notable for it’s sophistication rather than its novelty or macho bravado. Clearly in the
tradition of the Italian Palazzo, these buildings were of previously unimaginable sizes.
Yet they combined this with a sensitivity to detail and composition that reinforced the
human scale and a refinement of architectural language that reasserted their place
within a cultural continuum.
68
Innovation and Continuity
There was a similar period in the early twentieth century
following the development of reinforced concrete.
Though concrete was an ancient material, its use was
transformed when, in 1892, the French engineer and
contractor Francois Hennebique patented his reinforced
concrete construction system. In the following decades
architects and engineers questioned, both through
theories and constructed buildings and structures, what
this new material could do and how it might be used.
In this period, the role of the French architect Auguste Perret, who combined his
architectural practice with the contracting firm he ran with his brothers, A & G Perret,
was of particular interest. His interest lay simultaneously in what distinguished concrete
as a material, and in what ways it related to other materials and their construction
systems, most notably stone and the traditional timber frame. The series of buildings he
constructed over a thirty-year period from the turn of the century onwards represented
a continual process of questioning and refinement to this end.
From the 25 bis rue Franklin apartments in Paris of 1903,
where the concrete frame and infill were distinguished
externally through the use of non-decorative and
decorative ceramic tiling, through his first use of an
exposed concrete frame in the Marboef Garage of 1905,
to the mature works of the 1920’s and 30’s which were
constructed entirely in concrete, with the structure clearly
legible, Perret’s aim was to establish the new material
within a continually developing classical-rationalist
tradition. In these buildings a belief in revealing and
expressing the new material goes hand in hand with an
identification with the tradition of trabeated construction
throughout architectural history.
Work
It seems to me that at the beginning of the 21st century in Europe
we are at an analogous moment in the development of engineered
timber. Whilst crosslam has been in use now for over a decade, the
understanding of what distinguishes this material as new and how it
relates to established tectonic theory feels to still be at a tentative phase.
Its material attributes are perhaps closest to those of precast concrete, being a panelised
material that is produced off-site to high tolerances, yet at times its appearance can
resemble in-situ cast concrete. In common with steel it has a complex relationship
between material expression and fire-proofing. Its tactile quality is perhaps closest to
traditional wood cladding whilst its thermal properties are perhaps without precedent
and its acoustic performance is entirely distinctive.
To me these questions as to what is truly innovative about the material, what qualities
are shared and how it can be used are part of the excitement in constructing with
cross-laminated timber; simultaneously considering how the material can fulfil its
tectonic potential and how its innovative character sits within the culture of architectural
development.
In the house I designed for my own family, crosslam was
used as the primary material, forming both the frame
and the internal walls. It is combined with concrete that
provides a plinth-like base and traditional hardwood
joinery that comprises the elements one regularly
touches. There is a reciprocal relationship with each
and at times the solid timber seems closer to one and
at times the other. When light falls obliquely across the
timber surface, the impression, reinforced by structural
legibility, is of timber shuttered concrete, but when one
sits on the floor and leans against it, the warmth and
subtle give is unmistakably that of timber.
Hugh Strange
Principal at Hugh Strange
Architects, designers of Strange
House and Shatwell Studios