50
GERALD L. YOUNG
dimension quite separate and apart from his artifacts; that the only
contact between the two is [a] narrow channel of vision . . . and that
this contact is unaffected by the environmental circumstances in which
it occurs”. He claims that the facts do not support such a misconception
and suggests changing architectural “modes of thought . . . to correspond”.
Fitch (1965) presents the strongest possible argument for an ecological approach to architecture, declaring that “architecture like man
himself [is] totally submerged in an exterior environment” and can
never be perceived a t anything short of “multi-dimensional totality”.
He asserts that “it is literally impossible” to experience architecture in
any “simpler” way. To strengthen the argument even further, Fitch
claims that “humanness” is a function of adaptation to the environment
via architecture, that “man was compelled to invent architecture in
order to become man”, that architecture is “the most environmental of
man’s activities”, and that only “the world of work, of human thought
and artifice, is truly human”. He goes further by defining the relationship between the architectural “container” and the “man and processes
contained” in terms of symbiosis, using a hospital as an example (see
also Moller, 1968).
Fitch (1965) postulates that most failure in architecture results from
an inability to either understand-or a refusal to come to grips withthe fact that most of the 270 or so distinct building types needed by
American society
embody contradictions which must be resolved at two different levels:
first between the persons and processes contained and then between
their container and the natural environment. Respect for these two
conditions is mandatory if the building is to be operationally successful. . .
His two levels are different from the two mentioned earlier; both
are concerned with the building’s function: to make the contained
comfortable, one must provide a well-designed interior (his first level)
and also an exterior adapted to the conditions of wind, sun, rain, dust
etc.
I n another part of the same paper, Fitch notes the problem, especially
acute in architecture, of environmental conditions that need to be
constantly changing, rather than held a t “some fixed level”. This
emphasis on change, process and flexibility leads him to a declaration
that “architecture must meet two distinctly different sets of environmental criteria”: those of man at some “unnatural” task, and those of
the “unnatural” process itself. By this he means that the world of work
often makes demands (e.g. for environmental extremes of temperature
or other requirements) that are quite antagonistic to natural relation-
GERALD L. YOUNG
dimension quite separate and apart from his artifacts; that the only
contact between the two is [a] narrow channel of vision . . . and that
this contact is unaffected by the environmental circumstances in which
it occurs”. He claims that the facts do not support such a misconception
and suggests changing architectural “modes of thought . . . to correspond”.
Fitch (1965) presents the strongest possible argument for an ecological approach to architecture, declaring that “architecture like man
himself [is] totally submerged in an exterior environment” and can
never be perceived a t anything short of “multi-dimensional totality”.
He asserts that “it is literally impossible” to experience architecture in
any “simpler” way. To strengthen the argument even further, Fitch
claims that “humanness” is a function of adaptation to the environment
via architecture, that “man was compelled to invent architecture in
order to become man”, that architecture is “the most environmental of
man’s activities”, and that only “the world of work, of human thought
and artifice, is truly human”. He goes further by defining the relationship between the architectural “container” and the “man and processes
contained” in terms of symbiosis, using a hospital as an example (see
also Moller, 1968).
Fitch (1965) postulates that most failure in architecture results from
an inability to either understand-or a refusal to come to grips withthe fact that most of the 270 or so distinct building types needed by
American society
embody contradictions which must be resolved at two different levels:
first between the persons and processes contained and then between
their container and the natural environment. Respect for these two
conditions is mandatory if the building is to be operationally successful. . .
His two levels are different from the two mentioned earlier; both
are concerned with the building’s function: to make the contained
comfortable, one must provide a well-designed interior (his first level)
and also an exterior adapted to the conditions of wind, sun, rain, dust
etc.
I n another part of the same paper, Fitch notes the problem, especially
acute in architecture, of environmental conditions that need to be
constantly changing, rather than held a t “some fixed level”. This
emphasis on change, process and flexibility leads him to a declaration
that “architecture must meet two distinctly different sets of environmental criteria”: those of man at some “unnatural” task, and those of
the “unnatural” process itself. By this he means that the world of work
often makes demands (e.g. for environmental extremes of temperature
or other requirements) that are quite antagonistic to natural relation-