History and Precedent in Environmental Design

514 Pages·1990·15.035 MB·English

by  Amos Rapoport (auth.)

History and
Precedent in
Environmental Design
History
and
Precedent in
Environmental Design
Amos Rapoport
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Plenum Press • New York and London
Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data
Rapoport, Amos.
History and precedent in environmental design / Amos Rapoport.
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references (p. ).
Includes indexes.
ISBN-13: 978-0-306-43445-7 e-ISBN-13: 978-1-4613-0571-2
001: 10.1007/978-1-4613-0571-2
1. Environmental engineering - History. 2. City planning - History. 3.
Streets-Design and construction-History. I. Title.
TA170.R37 1990 90-7271
CIP
Drawings and photographs, unless indicated otherwise,
were prepared by the author.
© 1990 Plenum Press, New York
Softcover reprint of the hardcover I st edition 1990
A Division of Plenum Publishing Corporation
233 Spring Street, New York, N.Y. 10013
All rights reserved
No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted
in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, microfilming,
recording, or otherwise, without written permission from the Publisher
"For many anti scientists objectivity is not so much impossible as reprehensible."
-John Passmore, Science and Its Critics,
New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, .1978, p. 91.
"With its deconstructionists in literary criticism, its ordinary language and other
philosophers, and its novelists, our age may one day come to be known in intellectual
history for its role in the advancement of techniques to prove that reality doesn't exist."
-Joseph Epstein, "The sunshine girls,"
Commentary, Vol. 77, No.6, June 1984, p. 67.
Preface
This book is about a new and different way of approaching and studying the history of
the built environment and the use of historical precedents in design. However, although
what I am proposing is new for what is currently called architectural history, both my
approach and even my conclusions are not that new in other fields, as I discovered
when I attempted to find supporting evidence. * In fact, of all the disciplines dealing
with various aspects of the study of the past, architectural history seems to have
changed least in the ways I am advocating.
There is currently a revival of interest in the history of architecture and urban
form; a similar interest applies to theory, vernacular design, and culture-environment
relations. After years of neglect, the study of history and the use of historical precedent
are again becoming important. However, that interest has not led to new approaches to
the subject, nor have its bases been examined. This I try to do. In so doing, I discuss a
more rigorous and, I would argue, a more valid way of looking at historical data and
hence of using such data in a theory of the built environment and as precedent in
environmental design. Underlying this is my view of Environment-Behavior Studies
CEBS) as an emerging theory rather than as data to help design based on current
"theory." Although this will be the subject of another book, a summary statement of this
position may be useful.
Since EBS began as a new discipline, I have tried to see it as a basis for developing a
new theory of design. In so doing I have differed in several important respects from
most of the work in that field. From the beginning I have stressed the need to develop
theory even at the level of EBS itself, and I have thus emphasized synthesis and
scholarship rather than application and "relevance." In the majority view, EBS is seen as
a more or less "scientific" way of helping designers through programming, evaluation,
or providing a data base. My own minority view is that EBS can go conSiderably beyond
that: It can become the basis for the development of a new kind of theory of design
one based on a science rather than an art metaphor (Rapoport 1983b, 1986e). That is, it
can replace traditional approaches. Note that I do not say architectural theory because
·"New" is somewhat of a misnomer even in my own case. I proposed a course on architectural history at
Berkeley in 1964 which is, in outline, essentially the argument of this book.
vii
viii PREFACE
this new theory needs to deal with all designed environments, using the term design
most broadly as any purposeful change to the face of the earth-a matter of great
importance in this book. One consequence is that even "natural" landscapes are now
effectively designed: Nearly all landscapes are cultural landscapes. This is a very differ
ent, and much more fundamental, kind of endeavor in which one tries to apply our
growing knowledge about humans to an understanding of built environments and
ultimately to the design of better environments.
In developing theories, generalization is of great importance. However, I have long
argued that valid generalizations about people and environments can only be made if
based on the broadest possible evidence. I have thus insisted that this evidence must
include the full range of what has been built: preliterate, vernacular, popular, and
spontaneous (squatter) environments as well as the more familiar high-style settings;
one must also include the relationships among these different environments; all
cultures, so that the evidence must be cross-cultural; and the full time span of built
environments so that the evidence must, therefore, be historical. Moreover, I have
pOinted out that the latter means not just the last few centuries in Europe and the
United States, or even the 5,000 years of traditional architectural history, but rather a
period of close to 2 million years all over the globe. Only in these ways can one be
certain of being able to trace patterns and regularities as well as detect Significant
differences and hence make valid generalizations.
In working at this emerging grand synthesis, I have tended not to engage in
empirical work but in the scholarly analysis and synthesis of work already in existence
in a wide variety of disciplines as well as the actual environments themselves-or
descriptions of them. In that respect, the characteristics of my work seem close to those
that are generally accepted as broadly describing the humanities. As I understand it, the
subject of the humanities at its broadest is the product of all human culture wherever or
whenever created. Each new interpreter builds on the work of those who have preceded
him or her, and this enterprise needs to be not only historical but interdisciplinary and
multicultural as well. This is the way EBS should proceed, while taking a more ex
plicitly "scientific" approach. As environment-behavior studies have developed, they
have tended to diverge from what could be termed· mainstream design theory. This
divergence seemingly has become even more marked during the past few years with the
development of so-called postmodemism and its successors. * One of the characteristics
of these is a revived interest in historicism. Yet, paradoxically, it is preCisely this
unlikely, and apparently completely contradictory, development that, I believe, may
provide an opportunity for some relationship between mainstream design "theory" and
EBS-based design theory. This is not only an example of the critical importance in
scholarship of establishing commonalities among apparently unrelated areas. It also
provides a possibility of providing a valid base for addressing some of the very real
criticisms of design raised by postmodernist critics that, however, they have not re
solved successfully.
This potential link is the interest in history shared by architectural "theorists" and
designers and also central to my approach to EBS to be discussed in this book. I believe
·"Fashions" in architecture seem to change as rapidly as in dress; the half-life of current architecture is very
short. Moreover, these changes are rather superficial and "cosmetic."
PREFACE ix
that taking an EBS approach will provide both the rigor and the data that current
interest in history lacks. *
The central question being addressed is clearly the relation among past, present,
and future-in this case the possible lessons of history for environmental design theory
and how these lessons might be learned. Four broad positions are possible on this, as
also in looking at vernacular design or other cultures. Such material can be ignored; it
can be rejected as irrelevant; it can be copied directly; or one can learn from it by
deriving lessons through the application of various models, concepts, and principles to
the material in question. My suggestion is that some of the models, concepts, and
principles that have been developed in EBS will help provide valid lessons when based
on the great body of environmental evidence that we possess.
This is the purpose of this book: to develop more rigorous ways of deriving lessons
from historical precedents for the purpose of generalizing more validly about human
and humane environments, thus leading to a new theory of deSign. It had been my
original intention to write a single book about both because they are so intimately
linked. However, as both projects, particularly the one on theory, grew, this became
impossible. Thus the subject of this new theory will be the topic of another book to
follow this one.
Consequently, the argument about history will have to stand on its own. I hope
that the argument here proposed is sufficiently self-contained to do so. I also hope that
the connection to theory will be clear-at least implicitly.
In addition to general questions, I have also been working over the past few years
on some more specific studies that try to identify the lessons that the past (in the broad
sense described) can have for design theory. These include studies about vernacular
design, about appropriate ways of designing for Third World countries (seen as a
paradigm for design generally), about the origins of buildings and settlements, and
lessons from traditional environments for energy efficiency. There have also been brief
studies on the characteristics of urban open spaces and pedestrian streets. The last of
these is the topic of the specific case study used to illustrate the general argument of
this book.
In order to develop the idea of a new kind of history of the built environment,
three major topics needed to be addressed: the subject matter of such history, the
purpose of studying it, and how it needs to be studied. These comprise Part I (Chapters
1-3) and were written first. The case study in Part III is intended to be a preliminary
example rather than a complete illustration of the approach. I have been concerned
with this topic on and off since my undergraduate days and have written much about it.
Finally, because an important part of my argument (and my work generally) concerns
the need not to start from scratch nor to reinvent the wheel (as architects are want to
do), it became necessary to know what comparable work has been done. This com
prises the supporting argument in Part II (Chapters 4 and 5) and was written last. In
subsequent rewrites, of course, material was partially rearranged.
AMOS RApOPORT
*While doing the final revisions of the manuscript, I came across a literary critic's comment about history as
"a source of imaginative quotation in the sketchy, self-centeredly unserious way it is sometimes invoked in
postmodern architecture" (Iannone 1987, p. 62).
Acknowledgments
Materials of the case study have been collected for over 20 years. Some research funds
from the Royal Institute of British Architects and the University of London, awarded in
1968, helped purchase some city plans and other material. Many people have kindly
sent me such materials or suggested sources; they are listed here. Some summer sup
port from the Department of Architecture, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, helped
provide time to collect much additional material in the library. The rather random
collection was efficiently organized before the theoretical work was begun by a work
study student, Cheryl Holzheimer, funded by the Urban Research Center-UWM. The
specific development of the theoretical framework began during 1982-1983 while I
was a Visiting Fellow at Clare Hall, Cambridge. This was made possible by a fellowship
from the Graham Foundation, a Senior Sabbatical Fellowship from the National Endow
ment for the Arts, and a sabbatical from UWM. The first draft of this theoretical work
was also completed at Clare Hall in the summer of 1985 with the help of a grant from
the Graduate School of UWM.
Some of the data in the case study had their scales changed and were redrawn by a
PhD student, Aniruddha Gupte, who was supported by funds provided both by the
Graduate School-UWM and Dean Carl Patton of the School of Architecture and Urban
Planning at UWM. While he was redrawing these data, I was writing the second, third,
and fourth drafts of this manuscript. Typing was most efficiently and helpfully done by
Donna Opper, supported by funds volunteered by the chairman of the Department of
Architecture, Robert Greenstreet. Paul Olson, of the departmental photo lab, most ably
converted my slides into black and white prints suitable for publication. My wife,
Dorothy, undertook the monumental task of preparing the index.
Finally, a number of people and organizations helped with information, slides,
plans, and references. In no particular order this is to acknowledge the help of S. K.
Chandhoke (New Delhi), Paul English (Austin, Texas), D. E. Goodfriend (New Delhi),
Carol Jopling (Alexandria, Virginia), Nancy]. Schmidt (Cambridge, Massachusetts),
Hans Hartung (Guadalajara, Mexico), E. E. Calnek (Rochester, New York), P. H. Stahl
(Paris), ]. Antoniou (London), Charles Correa (Bombay), S. Greenfield, R. Eidt, D.
Buck, D. Carozza, H. Van Oudenallen (all at UWM),]. Hansen (Copenhagen), P. T. Han
(Taichung, Taiwan), E. Montoulieu, T. Marvel (Puerto Rico), D. Schavelzon (Buenos
Aires), P. P. Polo Verano and]. Salcedo Salcedo (Bogota, Colombia), H. Geertz (Prince-
xi
xii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
ton, New Jersey), D. G. Parab (Bombay), K. Noschijs (Lausanne), D. Kornhauser (Hono
lulu), D. Garbrecht (Zurich), City Planning Department (Zurich), University of Texas,
Center for Middle East Studies (Austin), The Melville]. Herskovits Library of African
Studies, Northwestern University (Evanston, Illinois), Y. Tzamir (Haifa), K. Jain
(Ahmedhabad), L.]. Kamau (Chicago), Y. Ben Aryeh (Jerusalem), M. Turan (Ankara
and Pittsburgh), N. Inceoglu (Istanbul), P. L. Shinnie (Calgary), D. Nemeth (Mt. Pleas
ant, Michigan), S. Raju (Gwalior, India), R. A. Smith (Liverpool), S. I. Hallet (Wash
ington, DC),]. Hardoy (Buenos Aires), R. Ohno (Kobe), and C. Bastidas (Quito).
I am grateful to all the individuals and organizations mentioned as well as those
listed in the case study. Without the time and help they made possible I could not have
completed the task.
Contents
Introduction ....................................................... I
PART I THE ARGUMENT
Chapter I • History of What? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Introduction .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
The Subject Matter of Environmental History ................ 11
Subdividing the Domain. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Methodological Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Chapter 2 • History for What? ....................................... 29
Introduction .......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Approaches to History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Some Examples ......................................... 39
Implications for Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
Chapter 3 • What History? .......................................... 57
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
Being "Scientific" .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
Broad Outline of the Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
Art History and Architectural History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
Changes in the Study of Art: The Case of Rock Art ........... 75
From the Study of Art to the Study of the Built Environment ... 80
The Relation between Past and Present .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
Inference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
Inference in Science and History ........................... 102
Uniformitarian Assumptions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 108
Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 119
xiii