Framework for Tectonic Thinking, a Conceptual Tool of the Architect

This paper is a contribution to the understanding of the term tectonics in the field of architectural design theory. It considers tectonic thinking as a ‘tool of the architect’ to analyse and interpret buildings from the past, to be operative in design practices of the present, and to trigger imaginations for the future.

Contextualisation:
In architectural theory the term tectonics was introduced not until the first half of the 19th century, to more or less disappear from it again with the rise of the modern movement. Only from the 1980ies onwards the term has gained renewed critical attention (Gregotti, 1983; Frascari, 1984; Frampton, 1983,
1990; Vallhonrat, 1988; Kollhoff, 1993; Hartoonian, 1994), most prominently with Kenneth Frampton’s magnum opus Studies in Tectonic Culture (1995). The book serves as a great inspirational source for architects interested in the topic. But by mostly concentrating on the loadbearing structure and its representation, it underexposes other types of tectonics that can be identified both in architectures from the past and in contemporary approaches. This paper will propose a broader understanding of term tectonics.
At the same time there is need for a more precise account of the differences between varying types of tectonics. Conceptual differences between very different types of tectonics are often obscured in professional discussions by referring to all of them with the single term tectonics. Architecture, both as a professional discipline and as a field to which the production of academic knowledge contributes, should consider this problematic. This paper will therefore also propose a differentiation of the term tectonics.

Research question:
How can we arrive at a broadened and differentiated understanding of tectonics in architecture?

Research method:
To answer the research question, this paper will develop an overarching Framework for Tectonic Thinking (FTT) by combining three different categories loadbearing construction, type of construction and constructive expression with the following oppositional poles as distinguishing criteria: loadbearing
construction versus non-loadbearing construction, solid construction versus filigree construction, and tectonic expression versus a-tectonic expression.
With this conceptual framework we will be able to differentiate a wide range of tectonic motifs and design positions. We do neither assume one single, supposedly right, meaning of tectonics, but several different meanings; nor do we attach a value judgement to any of the tectonic positions beforehand.
The FTT will be developed in parallel in writing and in hand-drawn mappings.

Research goal:
The Framework for Tectonic Thinking will suggest a broadened and differentiated terminology of tectonics. It can serve as a tool of analysis for buildings from the past to the present. But more importantly it can be used as an analytical and conceptual tool in the design process for architectures of the future. The FTT should foster the self-conscious employment of tectonic thinking in design practice and in academia.