Repetition in Architecture

Do we really want to live in a world where the notion of creating good architecture takes precedence over creating original architecture? Where architecture becomes refined down to a single style or set of criteria that restrains its limits, boundaries, possibilities and inhibits new thought or exploration? We acknowledge that all architecture, no matter how separate and unique it is, or how much it separates itself from a movement or style, can always be derived down to a set of typologies. We can recognise that within the design process and the creative method of designing ‘good’ architecture, the most renowned and famous architects have utilized the process of pulling parts, concepts and formal ideas from previous precedent studies to create something that is likely to succeed based upon the success of its elements. We appreciate that within this process of cutting and pasting, and that even though elementally they are copied, the design as a whole is original. But what we say to this is simple, at some stage in this process the combinations or these ingredients will only ever produce meals that have a similar flavor, each meal only tasting a little different from the next. We can liken this to a set of songs within a genre of music, their arrangement and composition different but only ever producing a certain sound. So if we are to place more value and importance on the need of originality in design what we begin to see is this same natural process of amalgamation, but one that evolves and encourages a more enriched and extensive palate of work.

On this side of the house, for the reasons I have addressed in the rebuttal, believe that in a world where architects strive for exploration of new ideas, is an architectural field whose capacity exceeds one that pertains to previous exploration. Simply put, good architecture is defined by its time and context. Good architecture is deemed good because of various variables such as aesthetics, structure and functionality. If we as designers choose to continue to reproduce ‘good’ architecture when societies needs exceed the capacity of its design, the architecture will no longer be good, or its success will be limited. Imagine a society during post industrial revolution where architecture didn't adapt to provide for its growth? For example, French architects during the renaissance, ‘realised that conditions change with the change of customs and the introduction of new materials and methods of construction.’ This understanding prompting the belief that the aim of architect should, “…be to take the conditions as he finds them and create architecture to fit them; not to distort and cramp them to fit the architecture of another day” (Repetition In Architecture 1914).

What we have seen in history is that when original ideas are explored, this experimentation ensures that even if the architecture is bad original, in that it isn’t immediately successful, it still allows us as designers to understand why, and allows for further testing, and exploration. Experimentation into new ideas leads to innovation. This allows architecture to provide new backdrops for new times and changing contexts. A prime example of this happening in history is seen in Le Corbusier’s Villa Savoye. In response to the current context of society at the time and to his own admiration of mechanized design, Le Corbusier came up with five points of architecture. Famous for stating “the house is a machine for living” he strove for innovation as the building began to respond to its context of a society rapidly changing before his eyes. Inspired by his love of steamships and with the innovation they brought, Le Corbusier’s design of the Villa Savoye, began to redefine what a house was and its potential as something different (Benton 1987).

It began to redefine new ways of living, new ways of building, new ways of thinking and using space. It allowed architecture, both in technological innovation and in its design philosophy to grow; it created a platform on which it could