Article 17, The Scale of Things

Viewing is optional  but the music sets a nice tone to the article...

So easing into traditional architectural principles, we get to the scale of things. If you have read my last article, Moving Through Time and Space, then this will be a good tie in since both play a good part in the other. However I may disappoint the layman (and everyone else) as I'm not going to write about scale in the traditional sense; no reason to since that is already very well documented. Nor will I put my own spin on the topic and serve it up to you in a different way-well I'm going to in some way but you wouldn't be here if you did not want an alternative view on the subject. Before I try and go beyond the obvious studies on scale I really should lay down some basic ground work, at least a formal definition would be nice. We all throw the term around "scale" loosely, architects and others, with comments like, "that's not to scale" or "that's out of scale" etc, etc but do we really know the definition of the term? So here it is according to the Encyclopedia Britannica:  Scale- When the proportions of architectural composition are applied to a particular building, the two-termed relationship of the parts to the whole must be harmonized with a third term—the observer. He not only sees the proportions of a door and their relationship to those of a wall (as he would in a drawing of the building), but he measures them against his own dimensions. This three termed relationship is called scale. 

I'm sort of deceiving you (not the first time) by presenting this definition.  It's a good definition but I did not present it to refresh any one's memory, sorry I lied. It would be easy enough for anyone to Google the term and you're not here for that. I really wanted to lay down the ground work for my alternative views and this common definition suited me well believe it or not. So go back and re-read the definition, I'll wait for you.....Did you catch it? No? Then go back again and let me know what caught your attention if anything.
Ah yes you got it, "the third item" which is the observer who measures against his own dimensions. Very interesting indeed because the third item leaves us with an open ended variable in the equation of scale: you or me or whoever the observer is has to subjectively "measure" and compare and decide on how do "I" the observer fit in all of this. What if the "third term" is not the observer but the 4th term instead? What if the 4th term is really designing for a hypothetical third term observer? What the deuce??? What am trying to say? Well read on to find out who this mystery third term guest is and why only recently has this entity, term, made its disappearance in architectural history. Well what did you expect from me? If you leave a door open in these discussions I will walk through it and explore into the far beyond. What the hell you are saying, we have an accepted definition, it's worked in the past and we should stick to it otherwise we get chaos!!! Why not stay simple and compare scale as we have always done relative to the third term and his or her physical size?  Well I choose to compare it to my mental scale as well, (I opened the door, let the mental size jokes fly) which includes my interpretations of scale beyond the immediate object I am comparing. Other architects of the past have done it and I want to as well, so read on!

Our traditional definition of scale does not mention anything "beyond" the observer, but the mind thinks beyond such limited constrains we all know. Now that we live in the era of quantum physics we should be expanding on what architects of the past have developed. They understood that scale does not stop and start in so limited a way as the traditional methods would have us believe. To keep the purist happy we will keep the traditional definition of scale in tact to help design the conventional and functional but we need to introduce new terms like "Grand Scale", "Beyond Scale" and "Infinite Scale" so we can go beyond function and relate scale to things like myth and imagination. If you are like me, then most scale comparisons never did stop with function as in our dictionary term. As we learn and progress and become more aware and develop our skills we know simple comparisons of scale can go beyond to grander scales, it's how architecture transcends into myth, let me explain. Currently in this era of materialism, we believe we are the measure of all things on heaven and earth but maybe we are not the measure of everything as we once thought. Just as we replaced the earth as the center of the universe, maybe it is time to replace man as the center of design, sorry Modular man, (Le Corbusier). The poor modular man has very tight limitations defining every single dimension of a building: it does not consider the imagination and some may say that is not the the job of scale but I disagree. Le Corbusier is a God in the pantheon of architects no doubt and possibly my favorite but some of his brilliant architecture is brutal and follows rigid methods of scale.

The scale of things for some may stop at a door, window, ceiling but scale continues on all the way to infinity in both directions (infinitely small and infinitely large) and can be demonstrated in our architecture. You may not be aware of it but sometimes you observe elements in architecture that give this sense of infinite scale, which seem to be playing by a different set of architectural rules. What you are experiencing is transcendental architecture produced by a clever architect. Ever been to an amphitheater or a stadium or a large train station (I have Grand Central in mind) Do these places not invoke your sense of scale beyond your immediate awareness? A place such as Grand Central is designed to do exactly that, not just by its cavernous size but by incorporating the heavens and the infinite beyond, into its architecture.

The Redstone missile in Grand Central Terminal 1957

The next time you are in a stadium, theater or Grand Central, notice how your experience of the architecture expands in one direction and and how small you may feel decreasing in the other direction. An example of this utilization of scale that worked too well in showing this concept, man decreasing in scale and architecture increasing in scale was employed by the architect Albert Speer of the Third Reich who pulled out all the stops to achieving power through the use of architecture. He showed exactly how mighty the state was and how small man was in comparison very effectively and unfortunately. Speer did this with most of his "Neoclassical" architecture but his "cathedral of lights" for the Nuremberg Rallies using anti-aircraft search lights exemplifies the use of infinite scale. Nevile Henderson, British ambassador who attended this spectacle said, " it was both solemn and beautiful... like being in a cathedral of ice." Speer would later create the plan of rebuilding Berlin called "Germania" using these same principles of  infinite scale, which was never realized.

So as we have seen (OK, as I have seen it) scale can make a statement, display infinite scale and myth but it can also describe something else; Enter the "fourth term" (Which I introduced earlier in this article). Imagine if you and I were architects during medieval times and we were told to build a temple to God, how would you go about it in terms of scale? How big would it be, how tall would the doors and windows be, big enough for a god to walk through or see through?  Would the ceilings soar in such a place? OK you guessed it, it's been done before, I'm describing a cathedral and the fourth term is now the observer making the third term GOD, in this case, or it could be some other entity such as the STATE  (like Speer designed for) and the architect (the fourth term) designing to how THEY, the third term, measures itself against the architecture; I think this is all clear now. What you don't get it, we build for people, we don't build for gods and states you say? Maybe our new third term entities today are Wealth, and Statement, Power, (OK bad joke I placed the and in the wrong spot) - let's add Sports, with stadiums doing a good job of making our athletes gods. Our stadiums come close to building for the "gods" but it's by default and the architects and engineers don't understand the byproduct of their creation, unless they have read an article such as this one (self pat on the back, thank you) Otherwise in our daily work, God is dead (Thank you Friedrich Nietzsche) build for no gods but could we and should we? Imagine a client giving an architect instructions to build a house as if they were a god? Funny, no?

St.Paul's Cathedral,  London, Christopher Wren

Maybe it's time for today's architects to start thinking again in such terms of scale. This would certainly help our suburban architecture where all the rules of scale are seemingly thrown out the window. If architects adopted these methods, our churches, civic centers, post offices and especially our community Fire houses would be designed with awe inspiring worthiness as they once were. These places I mentioned do not have to be Olympic size to achieve infinite or myth creating scale; there are other ways. Architects keeping in mind the lessons learned in this article (wow, I'm such an authority) would never consider matching materials not appropriate to the scale of a building and in no way would a church, no matter what the size be vinyl or stucco sided (no offense to stucco, which I love) for example. Matching the appropriate material and/or engineering to a desired scale is a key component to achieving infinite scale without titanic dimensions. If the observer is not seeing the correct application of all the components that make up scale they will not believe what you are building. Well what about our beautiful New England clapboard sided churches? You're telling me they're wrong because they did not use stone but rather wood siding which does not match the scale? That's a good point but in this particular example most of these New England structures were clever in their construction and they were fully aware of the challenge as it pertained to scale.  Unless you are very clever (Like the builders of New England churches) or Christopher Wren building Saint Paul's, where the inside dome is not the outside dome you see and a structural cone is made to look like a dome which carries the copula, you better understand scale beyond the traditional sense.

One last note before I leave you. To employ these methods of scale described in this article you may want to approach the design of a structure with a two front approach (never a good idea in actual combat) and those two fronts are: The physical and non physical spaces (please read about this in my last article, Moving Through Time and Space) The physical (the functional space) will employ more of the traditional reasoning of scale which can start and hint at the infinite scale but still stay practical for function of the building. The non physical (the space given to the imagination) can be the place where a building transcends into the infinite. Think about it, you may one day... have god as a client! You wouldn't want to disappoint him (her?) now would you?
AD