Presentation to UT School of Architecture

Francis Mah — October 5, 1981

This talk was given to students at the University of Tennessee School of Architecture in October 1981. Four years after his presentation to the Memphis AIA, Mah returned to the same themes — the underlying order of buildings, the relationship between program and service, and the responsibility of the architect — but with a new emphasis on energy and climate, and with a sharper critique of the architecture culture around him.

Although talking is still one of the few acceptable and legitimate modes of communication, I find talking ineffective. This may be a personal problem of mine, but the current state of the world seems to vindicate my position.

It is disturbing to me, for many clients, mostly the government, confuse a talker with a doer. It is disturbing to me that in this age of hype, so many architects, like Stern, Tigerman and others can stir young innocent minds with talks of a quick fix, their triumphs only to be quickly eclipsed by others still, talking of greater triumphs.

My own life has not been shaped by great events but by those little moments that accumulate and take us where we are going. It is that experience that gives us purpose and responsibility to develop a practice that in time, to gain us respect from our community and our peers.

As I get older, there are more questions than answers, but perhaps my talk tonight will be helpful to you students to share those little moments for truths no larger than life.

We do a variety of projects — schools, hospitals, banks, etc. — mostly within the region but as far west as Phoenix or north as in Boston.

The underlying thrust of all of our projects is to meet both programmatic and budgetary needs. Only if we can transcend the functional problems and only then can we then realize some design distinction.

Clients' expectations within the region are low which might reflect the public perception of architects in general; therefore, the quality of the project lies with the architect's skill and commitment.

Our projects are concerned with three basic ideas:

Space Heating
Direct gain system. South facing glass. Heat generating spaces to north.

Space Cooling
Un-air conditioned spaces for service and maintenance. Double roof — outer skin, 8" cavity, inner skin. Summer intake at eaves, exhaust at hood. Winter intake at eaves, hood closed return to floor with fan, stored in mass. Dark skin — increase radiant gain, increase velocity, no net gain, increase performance in winter. Thermal mass / acoustical mass. Thermal lag / shave loads.

Internal Loads
Primary energy user is lighting. Use daylighting reduces 50% of cost, use only 1/3, reduce demand by 2/3.

There is no available data. Make our own standards.

Model. Light meter. Changing size of aperture / location / orientation. Applied this data to a number of office buildings: buffer west sun. Stepped east side. Building self-shading. Symmetry is gone. Double axis grid — not arbitrary aesthetic but alignment with the solstice. New. Wonderful. Powerful idea.

Relate to a cosmic order. Window to the universe. Recalls past of pyramid, Aztec calendar. "Chariot of the Gods."

Still playing around with interest rates.

Threshold

One, there must be an underlying order for buildings. It is that order which deals with the life support systems of a building. It is similar to the simplest chemical compound in which the bond between the elements has only one specific arrangement to form that compound. A bond that also has the capacity to reject any superfluous or redundant parts.

Therefore, a design concept is appropriate only if it serves both program and service needs optimally. There is only one specific arrangement of services that serves that program need best. The proper interface of all building subsystems gives the building form and structure. This duality between program and service exists at any scale. Its expression is honest, delights in the unexpected and is void of any premeditated images. And if we do this, we can begin to perceive of buildings in a new way that will enlarge our vision of architecture.

Secondly, with the end of cheap energy, our design must be an architectural statement about energy. Its form must be strongly related to the site, climate, materials and the sun. It must be a link to the past when architecture responded to seasonal and solar variations to celebrate rituals, to provide light and comfort. It must be clear that architectural and energy components are inseparable, that walls and floors are also collectors and thermal storage mass. The design must recognize these components in their larger roles.

Lastly, we must develop a new vernacular in design. We must find alternatives to the blight, squalor and ugliness of our cities — all the junk we are conditioned not to see.

New architectural forms have been rejected by the public because they lack those evocative qualities, like richness or diversity, privacy and community. All those qualities found in the New England village, in Indian pueblos, in Italian hill towns.

The Greek islands, Mykonos, Hydra, Santorini and Serifos are also a part of this evocative landscape. These slides will convey this idea better than I can.

I think we can do this too and if we do it correctly, we must rid ourselves of those residual Renaissance tendencies of me, self-aggrandizement, ego, pomp. Future generations will remember us as kindly as we now do with these unforgettable images of their own cities.