56,99 €
Mehr erfahren.
- Herausgeber: John Wiley & Sons
- Kategorie: Wissenschaft und neue Technologien
- Sprache: Englisch
Detailed, research-based review of the intersection of building processes and tectonics, with case studies and theoretical reflections
Tectonics as a Process in Architecture explores the dynamic nature of building processes and their impact on architectural tectonics. Detailed case studies and theoretical reflections are included to help readers see how recognizing tectonics as a process can be beneficial.
The book is based on research that was conducted to document all changes during the building processes of a house through close engagement between the researcher and the building; the researcher was also the building’s owner, a neighbor to it, its architect, and a construction control. This close connection enabled the capture of numerous changes, some resulting in tectonic affects, while others reflected innovative approaches. These changes were introduced by various actors in the process including contractors, builders, and foremen.
In Tectonics as a Process in Architecture, readers will find:
- Invaluable insights on why tectonics is not merely as an outcome but an inclusive, collaborative process that enhances architectural quality
- Two process maps, one for tectonic affects and one for innovative approaches
- Evolving changes during construction and their potential to foster innovation
- A theory on procedural and inclusive tectonics, primarily focused on details
Due to its multifaceted nature, Tectonics as a Process in Architecture will appeal to academics, students, and professionals interested in the intersection of architectural, engineering, construction and tectonic principles.
Sie lesen das E-Book in den Legimi-Apps auf:
Seitenzahl: 565
Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2025
Ähnliche
Table of Contents
Cover
Table of Contents
Title Page
Copyright
Dedication
Preface
Acknowledgments
1 Introduction
Literature Review
Research Problem
Aim and Claim of this Book
Methodology
Description of Data
Process of Data Analysis
Drawing Process Maps for Tectonic Affects
The Ways of Avoiding Bias
Contributions of this Book
Readership
Notes
Part I: Context of the Building, Its Project, and Tectonic Characteristics
2 Context of the Project and Building and the Early Story of the House
About the Political Economy of Property Ownership in a Conflict Zone
Context of Building Design and Construction
Quality of Construction in North Cyprus
Horror Stories about Building a House
Disasters, Climate, and Building Culture in North Cyprus
Physical and Social Environment of the Building
About the Site
Conclusion
Notes
3 Preliminary Design of the House and Tectonic Affects due to Changes in the Application Project and the Tendering Process
Preliminary Design Ideas and Main Tectonic Decisions
Tectonic Characteristics of the Completed Building
Tectonic Affects and Innovative Attitudes due to Changes During the Application Project
Tectonic Affects and Innovative Attitudes due to Changes During the Tendering Process
Conclusion
Notes
Part II: Changes in the Construction Process of the Building and Tectonic Affects/Innovative Attitudes
4 Tectonic Affects and Innovative Attitudes due to Changes During Construction of the Foundations, Frame System, Walls, and Roof
Foundations – Changes, Tectonic Affects, and Innovative Attitudes
Frame System – Changes, Tectonic Affects, and Innovative Attitudes
Walls, Heat Insulation, Openings, Changes, Tectonic Affects, and Innovative Attitudes
Roof, Heat Insulation on the Ceilings and Pergolas – Changes, Tectonic Affects, and Innovative Attitudes
Conclusion
Notes
5 Tectonic Affects and Innovative Attitudes due to Changes Relating to Plastering, the Electrical, and Mechanical Systems, the Ceramics, and Water Isolation
Plastering, Painting – Changes, Tectonic Affects, and Innovative Attitudes
Electrical System – Changes, Tectonic Affects, and Innovative Attitudes
Mechanical Systems – Changes, Tectonic Affects, and Innovative Attitudes
Ceramics – Changes, Tectonic Affects, and Innovative Attitudes
Water Isolation – Changes, Tectonic Affects, and Innovative Attitudes
Conclusion
Notes
6 Tectonic Affects and Innovative Attitudes due to Construction Changes Relating to Windows, Doors, Wardrobes and Cupboards, the Fireplace and Chimney
Windows, Shutters, the Front Door – Changes, Tectonic Affects, and Innovative Attitudes
Interior Doors – Changes, Tectonic Affects, and Innovative Attitudes
Cupboards and Wardrobes – Changes, Tectonic Affects, and Innovative Attitudes
The Fireplace and Chimney – Changes, Tectonic Affects, and Innovative Attitudes
Conclusion
Notes
7 Tectonic Affects and Innovative Attitudes due to Changes During the Construction Work in the Garden
Garden Walls – Changes, Tectonic Affects, and Innovative Attitudes
Drainage – Changes, Tectonic Affects, and Innovative Attitudes
The Garage and Concrete Work in the Garden – Changes, Tectonic Affects, and Innovative Attitudes
Fences, Dog Kennels, Garden Gates – Changes, Tectonic Affects, and Innovative Attitudes
Pathways and Roads – Changes, Tectonic Affects, and Innovative Attitudes
Timber Work in the Garden – Changes, Tectonic Affects, and Innovative Attitudes
Conclusion
Notes
Part III: Changes, Tectonic Affects, and Innovative Attitudes within the Building Process
8 Process Maps for Tectonic Affects and Innovative Attitudes within the Building Process
The Map of Changes with Tectonic Affects for the Monarga House
Impact of Changes on the Initial Design Ideas
Changes with Innovative Attitudes
Actors of Changes with Tectonic Affects During the Building Process
Theoretical Reflections for the Changes, their Tectonic Affects, and Related Innovative Attitudes
The Results of the Seven Interviews
Conclusion
Note
9 Conclusion
Objective Results of this Research
Potential Biases in This Research and How to Avoid Them
Alternative Theory Fragments About Procedural Tectonics
On a Procedural Theory of Tectonics
A Deeper Inquiry into the Procedural Approach to Theory of Tectonics
Notes
End User License Agreement
List of Tables
Chapter 1
Table 1.1 Symbols for the types of changes causing tectonic affects.
Chapter 2
Table 2.1 Remaining works after separation from the contractor.
Chapter 3
Table 3.1 Holistic investigation of tectonics in the Monarga House – an outl...
Table 3.2 Investigation of tectonic characteristics of the Monarga House acc...
Table 3.3 Tectonic affects caused by the Monarga House – an outline of the r...
Table 3.4 Tectonic affects due to changes during the application project.
Table 3.5 Tectonic affects due to the changes during the tendering process....
Table 3.6 The changes during the application project and tendering process o...
Chapter 4
Table 4.1 Tectonic affects due to changes during the construction of the fou...
Table 4.2 Tectonic affects due to changes during the construction of the rei...
Table 4.3 Tectonic affects due to changes during the construction of walls, ...
Table 4.4 Tectonic affects due to changes during the construction of the roo...
Table 4.5 The changes during the Phase A of the Monarga House.
Table 4.6 The actors initiating changes with tectonic affects in Phase A.
Chapter 5
Table 5.1 Tectonic affects due to changes during the application of plasteri...
Table 5.2 Tectonic affects due to changes during the installation of the ele...
Table 5.3 Tectonic affects due to changes during the installation of mechani...
Table 5.4 Tectonic affects due to changes during the placement of ceramics....
Table 5.5 The changes which cause tectonic affects and innovative attitudes ...
Table 5.6 The actors initiating changes with tectonic affects in Phase B.
Chapter 6
Table 6.1 Tectonic affects due to changes during the placement of the window...
Table 6.2 Tectonic affects due to changes during the montage of the interior...
Table 6.3 Tectonic affects due to changes during the placement of wardrobes ...
Table 6.4 Tectonic affects due to changes during the placement of the firepl...
Table 6.5 The changes during the Phase C of the Monarga House.
Table 6.6 The actors initiating changes with tectonic affects in Phase C.
Chapter 7
Table 7.1 Tectonic affects due to changes during the construction of garden ...
Table 7.2 Tectonic affects due to changes during the application of drainage...
Table 7.3 Tectonic affects due to changes during the construction of the gar...
Table 7.4 Tectonic affects due to changes during the construction and placem...
Table 7.5 Tectonic affects due to changes during the construction of roads a...
Table 7.6 Tectonic affects due to changes during the construction of timber ...
Table 7.7 The changes during the Phase D of the Monarga House.
Table 7.8 The actors initiating changes with tectonic affects in Phase D.
Chapter 8
Table 8.1 Changes causing tectonic affects at different phases of the Monarg...
Table 8.2 Changes with innovative attitudes in different phases of the Monar...
Table 8.3 Actors who initiated the changes causing tectonic affects in the c...
Table 8.4 Origin of theoretical reflections with respect to different phases...
Table 8.5 Results of interviews with OAC, ONACC, and OCCC.
Table 8.6 Results of interviews with a contractor, a controller, and the hea...
List of Illustrations
Chapter 1
Figure 1.1 A photo of the Monarga House in 2024.
Figure 1.2 Process of tectonics covering the whole building process.
Figure 1.3 The process map without changes. Application project (AP, 1a) and...
Chapter 3
Figure 3.1 (a) The site plan, site section, plan, roof plan, sections, and e...
Figure 3.2 (a) Looking towards the west terrace from the living area. (b) Lo...
Figure 3.3 (a) The fireplace in the living area. (b) A footpath in the garde...
Figure 3.4 (a) The small house in Monarga which inspired the project. (b) Th...
Figure 3.5 Some drawings from the application project.
Figure 3.6 The map of tectonic process for the application project (AP) and ...
Chapter 4
Figure 4.1 (a) and (b) Excavation. (c) Addition of the waterproof membrane a...
Figure 4.2 (a) Reinforcement of columns. (b) Formwork of columns. (c) Remova...
Figure 4.3 (a) Water isolation under the brick wall. (b) Interlocking two ty...
Figure 4.4 (a) Construction of the timber roof structure. (b) Construction o...
Figure 4.5 The map for the tectonic process for Phase A - Application projec...
Chapter 5
Figure 5.1 (a) First layer of interior plaster. (b) First layer of exterior ...
Figure 5.2 (a) Electricity pipes placed in the ceiling formwork. (b) Electri...
Figure 5.3 (a–c) Development of the electricity system. (d) Digging for the ...
Figure 5.4 (a) Water pipes placed among the electricity pipes. (b) Installat...
Figure 5.5 (a) Installation of some of shower and toilet fixtures. (b) The s...
Figure 5.6 (a) Leveling concrete placed in the interior spaces. (b) Ceramics...
Figure 5.7 (a) Water isolation on the bathroom floor. (b) Water isolation on...
Figure 5.8 The map of tectonic process for Phase B - Application project (AP...
Chapter 6
Figure 6.1 (a) Windowsills in place. (b) Positioning of Window mullions. (c)...
Figure 6.2 (a) Timber interior door frames in place. (b) The doors installed...
Figure 6.3 (a) Parts of wardrobes and cupboards. (b) The completed wardrobe ...
Figure 6.4 (a) Montage of the two‐sided modern fireplace. (b): The fireplace...
Figure 6.5 The map of the tectonic process for Phase C - Application project...
Chapter 7
Figure 7.1 (a) The front garden wall. (b) Stone wall and steps inside the ga...
Figure 7.2 (a) The RONAC's sketch regarding decisions related to drainage. (...
Figure 7.3 (a) Steel injection used to build a plinth protection around the ...
Figure 7.4 (a) The formwork in place for the stepped tie‐beams for the metal...
Figure 7.5 (a) One of the stabilized earth vehicle entrances. (b). Stone pie...
Figure 7.6 (a) The timber screen around the water tank. (b). Timber screen o...
Figure 7.7 The map of the tectonic process for Phase D - Application project...
Chapter 8
Figure 8.1 The map of the tectonic process of Monarga House with an emphasis...
Figure 8.2 Tectonic process map showing only the eliminated changes. Applica...
Figure 8.3 Tectonic process map showing only the singular changes. Applicati...
Figure 8.4 (a) The east façade of the building in the preliminary project. (...
Figure 8.5 Innovative attitudes map drawn on the tectonic affects map. Appli...
Guide
Cover
Table of Contents
Title Page
Copyright
Dedication
Preface
Acknowledgments
Begin Reading
End User License Agreement
Pages
iii
iv
v
xv
xvi
xvii
xix
xx
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
37
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
255
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
Tectonics as a Process in Architecture
Yonca HurolCyprus International University
Copyright © 2025 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All rights reserved, including rights for text and data mining and training of artificial technologies or similar technologies.
Published by John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, New Jersey.Published simultaneously in Canada.
No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning, or otherwise, except as permitted under Section 107 or 108 of the 1976 United States Copyright Act, without either the prior written permission of the Publisher, or authorization through payment of the appropriate per‐copy fee to the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc., 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, (978) 750‐8400, fax (978) 750‐4470, or on the web at www.copyright.com. Requests to the Publisher for permission should be addressed to the Permissions Department, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030, (201) 748‐6011, fax (201) 748‐6008, or online at http://www.wiley.com/go/permission.
The manufacturer's authorized representative according to the EU General Product Safety Regulation is Wiley‐VCH GmbH, Boschstr. 12, 69469 Weinheim, Germany, e‐mail: [email protected].
Trademarks: Wiley and the Wiley logo are trademarks or registered trademarks of John Wiley & Sons, Inc. and/or its affiliates in the United States and other countries and may not be used without written permission. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. is not associated with any product or vendor mentioned in this book.
Limit of Liability/Disclaimer of Warranty: While the publisher and author have used their best efforts in preparing this book, they make no representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy or completeness of the contents of this book and specifically disclaim any implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. No warranty may be created or extended by sales representatives or written sales materials. The advice and strategies contained herein may not be suitable for your situation. You should consult with a professional where appropriate. Further, readers should be aware that websites listed in this work may have changed or disappeared between when this work was written and when it is read. Neither the publisher nor authors shall be liable for any loss of profit or any other commercial damages, including but not limited to special, incidental, consequential, or other damages.
For general information on our other products and services or for technical support, please contact our Customer Care Department within the United States at (800) 762‐2974, outside the United States at (317) 572‐3993 or fax (317) 572‐4002.
Wiley also publishes its books in a variety of electronic formats. Some content that appears in print may not be available in electronic formats. For more information about Wiley products, visit our web site at www.wiley.com.
Library of Congress Cataloging‐in‐Publication Data applied for:
Paperback ISBN: 9781394329229
Cover Design: WileyCover Image: Courtesy of Yonca Hurol
To my brother
Preface
The research presented in this book has been, and continues to be, an important part of my private life. Because of this, it extended beyond my dedication to academia. I had the opportunity to live approximately nine years of my life in such a way that my desire to design and build a house (the Monarga House) for myself aligned perfectly with my academic research interest in tectonics in architecture.
At the beginning, taking notes on everything and photographing every little step felt like a game to me. At the end of each working day, I would spend half an hour writing down what I remembered and classifying and recording the photos taken that day. I enjoyed these activities. My initial intention was simply to have a diary of the house. However, recording everything also began to help me manage the complex process, which involved many people and products.
It didn't take long for me to realize that the content of my writings and photos overlapped with my 35 years of research. At that point, I began to consider writing a book on tectonics in architecture, as I was aware that the role of technical issues had almost been diminished in contemporary tectonics theories. I thought it would be worthwhile to write a theoretical book on tectonics, in which aesthetics/meaning and building technology would not overshadow one another. However, I also doubted whether this research, centered around a small house, could make a significant contribution. Nevertheless, I continued to record the process in detail.
During my 40‐year academic career, I also worked on academic research methods in architecture, ethics in academic research, and architectural ethics, in addition to tectonics in architecture. This enabled me to conceptualize the data collection methodology which corresponded with my activity recording. I knew that there were qualitative research methodologies that could be based on such data. I was also interested in the ethical dimensions for all roles involved in this activity, such as contractor, architect, controller, builder and others.
Since we had signed a contract with the contractor, I initially believed that changes should be minimized. This made me sensitive to changes within the process, so I began collecting detailed information about every change that occurred. It did not take long for me to realize that changes are unavoidable and can sometimes have a positive or a negative impact on the building's tectonics. I soon recognized the considerable influence of the contractor's team, including builders, subcontractors, and workers, on the building. Therefore, I continued to record activities in detail.
Since the appreciation of all professional contributions to architecture of buildings, such as the contributions of architects working in architectural offices, has become an ethical issue in the field for more than 20 years, I was curious about the contributions of all actors to the tectonics and design of my house. I was well aware that the contractor's team had a considerable impact on my house. Changes in all activities caught my attention, particularly due to my interest in Open Building theory, which supports later changes in architecture. I am still one of the editors of Open House International, a journal founded in 1976 to publicize academic research on the Open Building approach.
Although I was legally separated from the initial contractor of the house, I realized that the builders/workers who completed my house also contributed significantly. Writing facilitated this awareness, as I initially tended to overlook their contributions. When I began analyzing the written data (observation notes or the house diary) about the changes that occurred throughout the process, I was shocked by the number of changes and the extent of the contributions of the contractor's and builders' teams. This was not a simple task. It required the analysis and classification of all changes, distinguishing those with tectonic affects, identifying innovative attitudes, and pinpointing their respective actors.
Many of the contractors' contributions were positive, though there were also some notably negative changes. At that moment, I realized that my close monitoring of the process allowed me to perceive something that would have otherwise gone unnoticed. It was then that I decided to write this book, intending to demonstrate that tectonics is a process.
While writing the diary, I realized that I had multiple roles in the process of building my house. I was the researcher, the owner, the neighbor (as I was living very close to the construction site), the architect, and the controller. To emphasize how closely I inspected the process and to highlight the plurality of my roles, I refer to myself as RONAC (which stands for Researcher, Owner, Neighbor, Architect, Controller) in this book.
Completing the first layer of analysis revealed that the tectonics of my house was procedural. After that, I decided to dig deeper to uncover more details about the innovative attitudes and the actors behind the changes. These findings led me to believe that the contributions of the contractor's team and also the builders/foremen/technicians/carpenters to tectonics and architecture deserve recognition in theories of tectonics and architecture. This is because, in these theories, architecture is often presented as a complete and frozen object.
I conducted three interviews with professionals who had the opportunity to closely observe a building's construction. This research reinforced the findings of my study. Additionally, I conducted four more interviews with experienced contractors, controllers, and the head of Chamber of Architects in North Cyprus. I discovered that they prefer all changes on construction sites to be approved by qualified professionals. Nevertheless, I sought a way to acknowledge the contributions of contractors, as well as builders/foremen/technicians/carpenters. I proposed a collaborative approach that takes into account the concerns of professionals advocating for professional decision‐making on every issue. However, I believe my primary contribution to the recognition of contributions of builders/foremen/technicians/carpenters lies in establishing a foundation for a theory of tectonics that emphasizes architectural details.
I can say that this book concludes with a theory of tectonic details in architecture, but it also highlights many problems within building processes, such as not fully utilizing the potential of the actors involved and the risk of instrumentalization.
Acknowledgments
Collecting data for this research took more than two years, and writing the book took another four years. As will be evident from the content, there are many actors involved in both the building process and the research process. Numerous individuals provided help during these stages.
Some of these individuals are represented by their professional roles, such as the architect of the application project, civil engineers, a mechanical engineer, an electrical engineer, contractors, builders, foremen, technicians, carpenters, workers, and the project controller. The architect of the application project was supported by several employees who also contributed to the Monarga House project. Foremen, technicians, and carpenters were also involved in the construction process.
Other contributors are identified by code names, such as RONAC (Researcher, Owner, Neighbor, Architect, Controller), OAC (Owner, Architect, Controller), ONACC (Owner, Neighbor, Architect, Controller, Contractor), OCCC (Owner, Civil Engineer, Controller, Contractor). These individuals had the opportunity to closely observe a building's entire process. Sharing their memories of their experiences provided significant support to the book's central claims. Family members such as my son provided help too.
Two contractors are mentioned in the book. One was responsible for constructing three‐quarters of the Monarga House, while the other participated as an interviewee, offering valuable insights and perspectives for the book. Additionally, two controllers are highlighted: the main controller of the Monarga House, who is also an interviewee identified as OCCC, made significant contributions to both the house and the research. The second controller, an architect, also participated as an interviewee. The head of the Chamber of Architects of North Cyprus also contributed to this research as an interviewee.
The book also references neighbors, as well as animals, trees, and plants around the house. On a larger scale, macro‐level actors such as immigrant workers in North Cyprus, and the others involved in various construction activities, are also discussed.
To express my gratitude to everyone who played a positive role in the building process of the Monarga House and in the creation of this book, I have chosen to acknowledge them collectively. I am deeply thankful to all of them.
1Introduction
Although architecture has been conceptualized as frozen music,1 change exists constantly in all architectural processes. This includes the preparation of preliminary and application projects, the construction process and the phases of use.2 The book claims that changes in the application project, tendering process, and construction process can significantly impact the tectonics of buildings, the tectonic affects they induce and even their architecture.
This is a serious problem in the building sector, as an architectural project can diverge greatly from the completed building. Changes may occur in the plan, details, and even in the selected materials and technology due to availability issues, problems in the project, ambiguity in the application project's handling of certain issues and errors in the project. Depending on the political‐economic context of the building, these changes can also become drastic. A friend of the author shared “People get shocked when they see their completed houses” because the outcome differs significantly from the original project. The same friend, who is having a house built, also mentioned, “The contractor misunderstood the site plan and changed the position of our house on the site. This changed the whole site plan.”3
Caricatures even depict this issue, where a building undergoes substantial changes after the architect meets with the owner and client.4 According to one caricature, the building changes again after the working drawings of the application project are prepared and ultimately undergoes further changes during construction. The final building might have little resemblance to the initial design and the impact of this situation on the building's owner depends on various factors. Change management literature suggests that the most likely source of change within these processes is the client.5
Rework, which is a reactive type of change, usually causes negative results, delays, and increased costs but it is a specific category of change.6 However, change can also be proactive and changes within the building process can lead to positive outcomes for clients and contractors. Some changes may enhance tectonics of a building. Various factors influence whether these changes have a positive or negative tectonic impact. This book advocates for viewing tectonics as a process to encourage beneficial changes.
The scientific literature on rework and changes during the construction process of buildings does not cover the tectonic and aesthetic dimensions of such changes. An example of this kind of literature is about change management in construction. This literature mainly focuses on the technical and economic dimensions of the change orders, the reasons for change, and how to manage changes.7 However, the presence of this literature demonstrates that changes are occurring within building processes worldwide.
The dynamic capabilities approach to office management takes change in the environment seriously and it also emphasizes that an architectural or construction firm cannot complete a project without considering change.8 This approach is also suggested to be used in conjunction with Building Information Management (BIM) and its emerging technologies, which represent the future of architectural and construction activities.9 However, these approaches and methods do not typically address tectonics. There is a need for change to serve various purposes, including improving tectonic qualities and fostering innovation. Since existing tectonics theories fail to address the procedural aspects, there is a need for a new approach to tectonic theory.
Current approaches to office and project management do not acknowledge changes made by the building team on site (by the contractor, sub‐contractor, builder, foremen, and worker) and instead expect the process to be managed solely by professionals. However, majority of tectonics (or architectonics)10 theories also ignore changes that happen during the building process, including the preparation of the application project, the tendering process, and the construction process. The author of this book believes that this is because the creators of tectonics theories do not advocate for such significant changes, whether these changes result in negative outcomes or lead to positive outcomes.
Although most of the theories of architecture and tectonics see architecture as “frozen” as it was the case within Ancient Greek aesthetics, there are a few sources on “tectonic process”11 and “tectonic transformation”12 that address the issues of change. Many sources highlight the problem of building production processes, as architects and engineers have to choose building components off‐the‐shelf and this stops them from working with the building industry, builders and craftsmen. This divide between the design team and the building industry eliminates most potential changes, which should have been welcomed because it is expected to be more economical and faster. This approach also minimizes innovations and improvements in the building's tectonics.13 However, being open to change and innovations is wiser14 from an anthropological point of view if all parties in the building process agree. The most appropriate discipline to study tectonic affects due to changes, which can cause negative or positive changes in the building process, as well as innovations, is architecture and the most appropriate area for this research is tectonics in architecture.
The objective of this book is to provide an in‐depth examination of the changes that occurred during the process of a single building: the Monarga House, which is shown in Figure 1.1. The study demonstrates that numerous changes took place during this process, many of which affected the building's tectonic character. Some of these changes involved innovative approaches and various actors, including contractors, builders, foremen, technicians, carpenters, and workers, as well as the owner and the controller, initiating these changes. This unique, in‐depth examination of the processes of the Monarga House was possible because the roles of the researcher, owner, neighbor, architect, and controller (RONAC) were combined in one person, allowing for a comprehensive view of all changes, even those that were revised multiple times during the building process. The collection of such detailed data provided a fresh perspective on tectonics as a process. What makes the Monarga House a valuable case study is not the characteristics of the house itself, but the ability to observe and record every detail of its process.
Figure 1.1 A photo of the Monarga House in 2024.
Literature Review
This subject necessitates a comprehensive review of the literature on tectonics, including the holistic concept of tectonics, major tectonics theories, and theories on affects and tectonic affects, as well as changes in building processes and innovative attitudes. It is also important to include theories on architecture that emphasize the use of building technologies, along with relevant theories on construction.
On Tectonics and Tectonics Theories
Tectonics (or architectonics) is the artistic or aesthetic utilization of building technology and all other physical aspects of the environment in architecture. Building technology encompasses materials, structural systems, mechanical systems, electrical systems, information technology, and construction details. These issues can manifest unique tectonic characteristics in specific buildings. For example, Alvar Aalto used timber in a tectonic manner in Villa Mairea, incorporating timber columns and suspending the staircase with timber elements. Santiago Calatrava's buildings often have tectonic structural systems. The Pompidou Center in Paris exhibits tectonic mechanical and electrical systems, as these systems were intentionally designed as colorful façade elements. New York's Times Square is defined by building façades covered with screens, which contribute to the square's tectonic quality, especially at night. Tadao Ando designed unique window details without visible mullions, particularly in the Church of Light. In contrast, the more ambiguous concept of “all other physical aspects of the environment” includes elements such as light, topography, climate, and culture. Buildings can be designed in ways that allow light, topography, and climate to influence the tectonics of the building. Tadao Ando again exemplifies the use of light as a tectonic element in the design of the cross‐shaped and hidden windows of the Church of Light. Frank Lloyd Wright's Falling Water is perhaps the best example of the tectonic use of topography, as it carefully integrates the building with the waterfall and surrounding rocks.
Many examples of traditional architecture worldwide approach climatic issues in a tectonic manner, designing building forms to achieve climatic comfort (for example, preventing sun light from entering during summer while allowing it in during winter). Renzo Piano's Jean‐Marie Tjibau Cultural Center reinterprets the form and surface characteristics of traditional huts of the local people in a tectonic way, creating a mixture of cultural and tectonic qualities by using traditional and modern materials and forms together. It can also be argued that historical, traditional, and vernacular buildings from various cultures and at different locations possess distinct tectonic features. Even within a single country, traditional and vernacular buildings can exhibit very different tectonic characteristics. For example, the stone vernacular architecture of Mardin, the timber framed masonry houses of Safranbolu, and the adobe Harran houses are all distinctly different examples from Türkiye. These differences arise from the use of locally available materials, varying climates, and differing functional and social needs. Regardless of the focus of tectonics, there is always an aesthetic dimension involved in the application of these technical and physical aspects of architecture and these aesthetic qualities are typically harmonious with nature. This implies that the concept of tectonics encompasses a broad spectrum within architecture, emphasizing physical, practical, and poetic and aesthetic aspects simultaneously. Tectonics approaches architecture in a holistic and ontological manner.15 It should also be noted that many examples of architecture employ multiple physical elements to achieve tectonic characteristics.
There are five major tectonic theories that develop concepts to evaluate and understand the tectonic qualities of buildings and architecture. These concepts and the theoreticians who developed these theories are as follows:
Architect Karl Botticher in the nineteenth century introduced the concepts of
kernform
and
kunstrform
.
16
Architect Gottfried Semper, also in the nineteenth century, used the concepts of
dressing
,
knot
,
tectonic,
and
stereotomic
.
17
In the twentieth century, the architect Eduard Sekler employed the concepts of
tectonic
and
atectonic
.
18
Architect Kenneth Frampton, during the late twentieth century, introduced the concepts of
tectonic form
,
authenticity
,
legibility
and “being
ontological
or
scenographic
.”
19
During the late twentieth century, Gevork Hartoonian provided explanations about the
ontological approach to time
and
montage
.
20
Botticher examined Gothic cathedrals and Ancient Greek temples as a foundation for his theory of tectonics. His theories aimed to understand the relationship between structure, form, and ornamentation. His concept of kernform represents a visible structure. He exemplified this type of structure with Gothic cathedrals. The concept of kunstform expresses the aesthetic qualities of this visible structure. He argued that the structural and ornamental elements should be integrated, advocating that while structure is essential, ornament is not. He emphasized reason and logic in architecture, suggesting that the relationship between structure and form should be transparent and legible. It can be said that Botticher defined a building with a visible and aesthetically valuable structure. He influenced many later theorists with his ideas on the relationship between structure, form, and ornament.
Semper is one of the most influential theorists in the field of tectonics, known for his understanding which was both complex and open to the realities of architecture, yet simultaneously respectful and sound. According to him, tectonics is the expression of cultural identity, historical continuity, and aesthetic values through the careful and meaningful use of materials and techniques. Gottfried Semper identified four fundamental elements of architecture: the mound (earthwork, including excavation, foundations, and platform), the hearth (fireplace and gathering area), the roof and framework (light framed tectonic structures) and the enclosure (woven wall – the infill between frame elements).21 This perspective shows that Semper considered the industries and crafts in relation to architecture. He illustrated these four elements with a detailed drawing of a simple Caribbean hut, strongly indicating that forms and techniques are deeply rooted in nature, climate, and the traditions and practices of the societies that create them.
For Semper, craftsmanship is crucial to tectonic expression. His concept of dressing involves building forms determined by surface treatment, which often carries cultural and symbolic meanings beyond the structure of buildings. He argued that dressing is integral to architectural expression and should naturally arise from the construction process and materials. Semper also advocated for a polychromatic approach, as seen in Ancient Greek architecture. He emphasized the importance of tents, soft surfaces in buildings, and the knots (joints) within these soft surfaces, suggesting that humans can develop soft, harmonious relationships with soft surfaces.22 Semper's tectonic and stereotomic concepts express the differentiation between light and heavy structures and buildings. A light structure can be achieved using timber, iron, or steel, while a heavy structure might be stone, brick, adobe masonry, or reinforced concrete. Semper proposed tectonic architecture, characterized by light and elemental structures, through his drawing of the Caribbean House, considering human emotions and the relationship between nature, culture, and architecture. While he supported advancements in building technology, he also critiqued the challenges that new architecture posed to nature and cultural traditions.
Sekler was influenced by both Botticher and Semper. According to him, tectonics is about expression through the structural system, construction, methods and materials. He believed that the structural system and construction methods should be visible, meaningful, aesthetic and clearly understandable to the observer. Making the logic of structural and construction legible and integral to aesthetic expression was particularly important to him. He argued that technical honesty, cultural expression, and architectural meaning should be combined.
Sekler developed the concept of atectonic to describe the illusory use of building technology, where structure and materials are concealed, surface appearance and decorative elements are prioritized, materials are used contrary to their qualities, form is disconnected from structural reality and/or construction elements are masked. If architectural form negates the expression of construction logic, it is also considered atectonic. Any disconnection between how a building looks and how it is built is undesirable. For this reason, if a building appeared structurally unbalanced, Sekler referred to it as atectonic. He opposed concealing the realities of technology and advocated for a tectonic use of building technology, where the components of technology are visible and understandable.
Kenneth Frampton criticizes decontextualized, industrialized, and commercialized aspects of modern architecture. His theories on tectonics parallel his broader architectural theory, which emphasizes an existential approach that values the environment, culture, and history. An ontological approach to architecture seeks to explore the fundamental nature of architecture by achieving existential qualities such as materiality, connection to the earth, and a significant role in human experience. The way buildings are grounded in their context is crucial, requiring openness to the deeper existential realities of human life. Tectonics is integral to this ontological approach. Frampton defines tectonics as the art of construction, as well as the poetics of construction. He emphasizes that tectonic form emerges from structural and material logic, where the structural framework should be legible and understandable. The way a building is construed should be apparent, with structure and construction serving as sources of architectural meaning. Authenticity, which involves a deep concern for materiality, is the genuine expression of materials, construction methods, and their relationship with context. The construction process should inform a building's form and aesthetics, clearly exhibiting the logic of its construction. An ontological structure possesses autonomy and adheres to tectonic form. In contrast, scenographic architecture aims to create visual impact, often producing striking spectacles (even through illusions) at the expense of structural integrity and material authenticity. This approach prioritizes representation and conceals the logic of construction.
Hartoonian also adopts an ontological approach to architecture, with his tectonic theories primarily influenced by Semper. He argues that a more existential approach is necessary to address the factors shaping contemporary architecture, such as political issues, economic concerns, and the influences of global capital. According to Hartoonian, architecture is not merely a visual object, it must be considered in its entirety. Tectonics derives its strength from the poetic potential of construction, encompassing not only technical and aesthetic issues but also the historical reflection of cultural values and the ideological underpinnings of a particular period. It is not just about structural expression but also about creating spaces that resonate with human experience on multiple levels, including sensory, emotional, and cultural. Tectonics represents the intersection of material reality and cultural imagination in architecture, requiring the articulation of structure and materials to convey cultural and historical meanings. A dialogue between form and structure is essential, allowing form to emerge from structural logic while considering cultural and historical context. The relationship between form and structure should be transparent and expressive, making the construction process legible and meaningful. The visible expression of construction elements connects the physical act of building with cultural narratives grounded in truthfulness. Ornament can contribute to tectonics by mediating between structure, construction logic, cultural meaning, and context, provided it is rooted in tectonic logic.
Hartoonian's concept of ontological approach to time does not reject the influence of historical architecture on new buildings. Instead, he advocates for the reinterpretation of historical issues in architecture, addressing aspects such as mass organization, the architectural role of structural elements, the redevelopment of historical building techniques, the reinterpretation of historical building components and the use of building technology to fulfill the values behind different functions. He neither suggests turning back to history nor solely focusing on the future. Hartoonian extends Semper's concepts of joint‐disjoint and montage, applying them to various architectural cases, giving equal importance to both to technical and technological and artistic and aesthetic dimensions.23 An example for montage (joint‐disjoint) is Adolf Loos' Looshouse, where the upper floors, designed to resemble masonry with fewer windows for privacy, contrast with the lower floors, which openly display the frame system to enhance the visibility of the commercial facilities inside. This juxtaposition of characteristics in the Looshouse exemplifies the logic of montage. Hartoonian distinguishes himself from other theoreticians of tectonics by embracing the coexistence of contradictory characteristics in architecture and by not prioritizing either the technological or the artistic dimensions over the other.
When examining these theoreticians, it becomes clear that the theories of tectonics encompass two main dimensions. The first is the ontological and existential dimension, which views tectonics within a broader context of architecture. The second is the ethical dimension, which emphasizes the understandability, visibility, and honest use of building technology, also including its relationship with ornamentation.
There are also some new theories of tectonics emerging in the field. Chad Schward's work on tectonics primarily examines the construction of specific buildings through a phenomenological approach, highlighting the role of tectonics in architecture.24 Similarly, Alexis Gregory's work considers construction as a key tectonic issue that contributes to the overall architectural experience.25 The primary contribution of these new theoreticians lies in their focus on the meaning and aesthetics of construction.
On Tectonics and Tectonic Theories
Most of the tectonic theories discussed above were significantly shaped by architectural developments arising from the Arts and Crafts Movement, Constructivism, the Bauhaus Movement, and High‐Tech architecture. These architectural movements critically examined the relationship between technical issues and the practice of architecture. Therefore, it is essential to consider these movements as well to fully understand the evolution and impact of tectonic theories.
The influence of the nineteenth‐century Arts and Crafts Movement on most theories of tectonics is evident. The main principles of the Arts and Crafts Movement included an emphasis on craftsmanship, simplicity with an avoidance of unnecessary ornamentation, the use of natural materials, the integration of arts and crafts, and meticulous attention to detail, coupled with a rejection of industrialization. The movement also embraced social ideals and an ontological approach to context, advocating for a return to traditional building practices where design and construction are more closely integrated.26 Additionally, the Arts and Crafts Movement emphasized the dignity of labor and the importance of meaningful work for society.
Early twentieth‐century Russian Constructivism advocated for a collaborative approach from the initial design phase through the completion of construction. The movement defended collective creativity and integrated industrial building techniques, standardization, and prefabrication into their projects. They opposed ornamentation and many of their projects were highly experimental. The goal was to reflect the emerging social order in their country through their building activities.27 Russian Constructivism significantly influenced the Bauhaus Movement in Germany.
The Bauhaus Movement of the twentieth century was influenced by both the Arts and Crafts Movement and Constructivism. The Bauhaus advocated for the unity of art, craft, and technology, emphasizing collaboration and collective work. They viewed the designer as a craftsman and promoted standardization and prefabrication, simplicity in design, and an emphasis on material honesty.28
High‐tech architecture is a twentieth‐century approach that emphasizes the structural system and construction elements as primary considerations for creating performative tectonics in building design. High‐tech buildings typically feature unique and specialized structural systems, with meticulously designed details. Many of these buildings incorporate innovations that set them apart from ordinary constructions. For example, the process behind the Pompidou Center in Paris was unique, as Peter Rice of Ove Arup and Partners played a crucial role in designing its innovative structural system, significantly contributing to the architecture of Renzo Piano and Richard Rogers. The gerberettes, which connect the columns to the 2D trusses, were designed by Peter Rice, cast in factory and installed by specialized worker teams who had to employ innovative construction techniques.
On Tectonic Affects
The concept of affect plays a central role in the aesthetics of Deleuze and Guattari.29 It can be simply defined as the feelings created by physical things or objects, often without conscious awareness. Affects originate from matter and practice. The philosopher Baruch Spinoza categorized affects into the feelings of pleasure and pain, which encompass all feelings. Deleuze and Guattari categorized affects into three: pleasure, pain, and desire. Spinoza believed that desire is a kind of pleasure. This book follows Spinoza's categorization.30
Affects are practical psycho‐physiological constructs, setting them apart from other physical effects. Tectonic affects are those caused by the tectonic characteristics of architecture. The concept of affect can be studied as a part of aesthetics, alongside composition principles, poetics, symbolism, representation, and so on. However, the concept of affect differs from these concepts because affects are individual emotions that are inherent to life, objects, things, matter, and experiences. In contrast, symbolism, and representation possess a transcendental and social character. Affects also differ from abstract composition principles.31
Affects can cause arousal or motivation which can sometimes be so strong that it prompts immediate action by a person. For example, if someone feels that they are in danger due to certain affects, they would leave that place as soon as possible.32 Affects typically induce unconscious emotions due to inherent inclinations in human psychology, such as the inclination to freedom, sex, power, and so on.33 Emotions originating from tectonic affects can be felt by anyone, but architects are generally more aware of tectonic affects and their influence on architectural design. The degree of consciousness among architects regarding tectonic affects largely depends on their intellectual engagement with tectonics theories.
The importance of affects, which provide a body‐mind continuum, lies in shaping the opinions (or beliefs) of people that develop through the influence of affects. In the age of images, numerous small likes and dislikes (feelings resulting from affects) accumulate to form opinions in people's minds. These opinions are not thoughts or philosophical ideas because they are not based on reason. However, they have become more powerful than reason in the contemporary postmodern world. Architecture also plays a role in shaping opinions, alongside the influence of media and social media.34
Yonca Hurol has a theory of tectonic affects in architecture.35 Since affects are grounded in practical and material issues that lead to psychological outcomes, she analyzed tectonic affects in architecture as poetic affects, affects related to change and time, and affects related to domination. These categories emphasize the role of affects in the subjective and ideological dimension of opinions. She classifies tectonic affects into the following categories:
Poetic tectonic affects
Through materials and systems (lightness and heaviness, hapticity, tectonic details)
Through details about functionality (human scale, corners and places, hiding places in system details)
Through continuity within the context (considerations of natural, historical, urban contexts and the affect of “house and universe”)
Tectonic affects of change (technical improvements, innovations, affirmative approaches, new or familiar, practicality)
Tectonic affects of time (timeliness, ontological approach to time, rejection of history, conservatism, futurism)
Tectonic affects of domination
At the urban scale (expression of power, territorialization, aestheticization of politics, culture industry, sensational image‐making through tectonics)
At the building scale (domination of form, thing (close to people or object) (distant to people), precision or imprecision)
Hurol also argues that the preference for these tectonic affects during architectural design depends on the function and context of the building, as well as the subjective preferences of the owner, architect, and/or construction firm. She advocates a moody approach to tectonics and tectonic affects in architecture depending on the context.
Chapter 3 of this book applies the above theories and concepts of tectonics and architecture to the Monarga House. This analysis is necessary to understand how changes during the building process influenced its tectonic characteristics with respect to initial definitions in the preliminary architectural project.
On Innovation in Architecture
Innovations in building activities can be defined as contributing to knowledge about buildings (technology, design, management) by developing new items and knowledge about them. There are some sources in which innovations are categorized as innovations in building materials, building systems (e.g., façade systems), the use of IT systems in architecture and building process management.36 However, there can be small innovations as well as some famous innovations in architecture. It is useful to categorize innovations in a more detailed way to make people feel that there can be many different types of innovations. The number of the examples in the following list can be increased:
Innovations in structural materials – such as the innovation of Ultra High‐Performance Fiber Reinforced Concrete (UHPFRC), carbon fiber, titanium
Innovations in other building materials – such as the innovation of ETFE (Ethylene Tetrafluoroethylene), PTFE (Polytetrafluoroethlene)
Innovations in building form – such as the innovative formlessness of Frank Gehry's Guggenheim Museum, parametric forms of designs of Zaha Hadid Architects
Innovations in the activities of structural engineers – such as the innovations made by Peter Rice to complete the structural analysis of the Sydney Opera House, to contribute to design of high‐tech examples such as Pompidou Center, and so on
Innovation of new structural systems – such as the innovation of tubular structures in 1960s by structural engineer Fazlur Khan and SOM (Skidmore, Owings, & Merrill), and suspended glass systems in 1990s again by Peter Rice
Innovative reconsideration of a certain structural system – such as the special design of the space frame structure of the Beijing Water Cube by using structural units in the form of soap bubbles
Innovation of a supplementary structural system – such as the use of belt trusses and outrigger trusses in high‐rise building structures to increase their height
Innovation of a special structural element – such as the innovation of mega columns and exoskeleton columns …
Re‐innovation of a forgotten building technique – such as architect Hassan Fathy's re‐innovation of an old adobe dome building technique through reading old Egyptian papyrus documents
Innovation of structural details – such as Peter Rice's design of the details of suspended glass systems as well as the damping details in high‐rise building structures
Innovation of building components – such as sustainable façade systems, kinetic façade systems
Innovation of building techniques – such as innovation of the climbing formwork systems
Innovation of mechanical systems – such as new heating cooling systems
Innovation of new electrical systems
Innovation of new IT systems
Innovation of new fire safety systems
Innovation of new acoustic systems
Innovation of new foundation systems
Innovations about green architecture
Innovations about building furniture … etc.
These innovations occur at various stages of the building process. For example, the innovation of ETFE material was essential to enable the Beijing Water Cube while considering fire safety measures. ETFE material melts in the event of a fire but does not burn. This innovation was realized during the application project of the building, which was prepared by a specialized firm known for solving building problems through innovations. Innovations in projects by Zaha Hadid Architects take place at various levels. Some innovations are realized by computer engineers, enabling architects to explore new forms, while others involve mechanical engineering innovations that allow for 3D printing of building parts and so on. Peter Rice developed structural analysis through physical modeling as an innovation during the structural engineering phase of the Sydney Opera House. He also innovated suspended glass systems in response to architect Bernard Tschumi's demand for minimal structural elements in the transparent façades of the Paris Science Museum. Structural engineer Fazlur Khan innovated tubular structures to economically achieve taller skyscrapers. These are some of the very famous innovations. However, there are many less prominent innovations in various buildings that contribute to the diversity of the built environment. Contractors, builders, or workers can exhibit innovative attitudes to solve problems during construction and their solutions can be accepted by all parties in the process. Controllers might also develop innovative attitudes towards problems during construction, which can be recognized by others. Architects can exhibit innovative attitudes during the preliminary design, application project, and throughout the construction of the building. The concept of “innovative attitude” is particularly relevant to the subject of this book, which explores the processes of a simple house. An innovative attitude can be defined as being open to change, where change may involve using different materials that are not necessarily new, suggesting different systems, proposing alternative details, and solving problems in unique ways.
Many of these innovations and the buildings in which they were applied, are outcomes of procedural approaches. The tectonic qualities of these buildings are also the result of such approaches. For instance, the Beijing Water Cube is a product of a procedural approach, where its structural system and façade material were specifically innovated for this building, with the construction site serving as a space for trial and error. Similarly, structural engineer Peter Rice's contributions to the design of Sydney Opera House and innovation of suspended glass systems required close collaboration with contractors, builders, and foremen. In projects by Zaha Hadid Architects, 3D printing of building parts is an outcome of collaborative efforts between computer specialists, architects, and engineers on site, where computer specialists work alongside builders, workers, and designers. Hassan Fathy's re‐innovation of old shallow adobe domes was based on very simple principles, with workers actively contributing to both in the design and construction processes.
These cases are often viewed as special and radically different from ordinary buildings. However, the production of ordinary buildings also has a procedural character, which similarly affects their tectonics. However, this influence is often unacknowledged. Some architectural approaches, such as Edwards Ford's ontological approach to construction, present details as integral parts of both the project and the completed buildings. While detailed drawings reveal what is inside a detail, they cannot convey the procedural character of construction, particularly in terms of changes in materials, applications, and other variables.37 Additionally, there are no architectural or tectonics theories that sufficiently support or address the procedural approach to tectonics.
Research Problem
This book claims that tectonics is influenced by the entire building process, as this approach was introduced by Anne Beim and Anne Marie Due Schmidt.38 Gottfried Semper, Kenneth Frampton, and Gevork Hartoonian have written about the role of building processes in tectonics, but they have not explored how this occurs in detail. Current architectural and tectonic theories do not support a procedural approach to tectonics. However, all aspects of building processes (including their application projects, tendering, construction processes such as the construction of foundations, structural systems, walls, roof systems, and finishing details) can significantly impact the tectonics of buildings. Figure 1.2 illustrates the initial east façade of the Monarga House, together with various impacts caused by building processes (impact of application project, construction of foundations finishes, closures, mechanical and electrical systems, landscaping, interior design, etc.), which are represented as forces. These impacts are mainly caused by ambiguities within the project.
Figure 1.2 Process of tectonics covering the whole building process.
Since the claim of this book is about the procedural nature of tectonics in architecture, it suggests that contractors, builders, foremen, technicians, and carpenters also make significant contributions to tectonics. Therefore, the research problem should be framed in relation to the issues that highlight the procedural character of tectonics.
Semper emphasized that consideration of the inherent qualities of materials and craftsmanship is crucial for achieving tectonic expression. He primarily referred to craftsmen who dress huts by weaving coverings for their surfaces.39 Frampton focused on existential qualities, such as the role of buildings in human experience, their grounding in context, and their relationship to deeper existential aspects of human life, which he considers to be the base of ontological issues of tectonics. He defines tectonics as the expressive potential of materials, construction methods, and craftsmanship in conveying architectural meaning connected to culture and history.40 Hartoonian argued that tectonics is not merely about structural expression but also about creating spaces that resonate with human experience on multiple levels, including the experience of builders, foremen, and workers. All three (Semper, Frampton, and Hartoonian) emphasize the role of craftsmanship, particularly in relation to the cultural and historical aspects of tectonics. Hartoonian specifically uses the term metier to refer to the interpretation of historical details and techniques in construction.41
These theoreticians presented the role of a craftsman as one who collaborates with professionals and contributes to the design process in architecture. However, they do not specifically address the roles of contractors, builders, foremen, technicians, and carpenters. While some of these theories touch on aspects of the building process (such as the contributions of craftsmen and the use of techniques like concealing elements or creating illusions in building) they primarily focus on architecture as a finished product or outcome. As a result, there is insufficient consideration of the procedural character of tectonics in architecture. This book argues that recognizing the procedural nature of tectonics could improve the tectonic qualities of buildings, foster innovation, and decrease instrumentalized approaches to building activities.
The Arts and Crafts Movement was more focused on the contributions of craftsmen than on the theories of tectonics, as it advocated a return to traditional building practices where design and construction were more integrated and craftsmanship was highly appreciated.42 Architects were encouraged to work directly with craftsmen, who were seen as skilled artists. The Arts and Crafts Movement also emphasized the dignity
