Reframing ‘Primitive Huts’ from Structural to Environmental Techniques and Their New Interrelationship in the Machine Age

Abstract

This study examines ‘Primitive Huts’ in relation to the structural and environmental techniques refined by savants (e.g., architects and scholars) during the Machine Age through three types of interrelationships: separation, moderation, and integration. The first aim is to reframe the theories of ‘Primitive Huts’, shifting the focus from structural to environmental techniques across two eras—the primitive and the Machine Age. Returning to the concept of ‘Primitive Huts’ in the context of the Machine Age aims to rebuild originality. In particular, this investigation looks into how the ‘Primitive Hut’ has sought ways to address environmental challenges. The second explores how the Machine Age initially provoked the separation of ‘Primitive Huts’—structural and environmental techniques—and integration (i.e., new interrelationship) through moderation. As a result, the contributions of savants are analysed to highlight the enhanced precision, discipline, and efficiency that have evolved since the Industrial Revolution.

1. ‘Primitive Hut’ vs. ‘Environment-Bubble’: The Beginning and the End of Architecture

This study presents research on ‘Primitive Huts’, their theoretical shift from structural to environmental techniques, and the interrelationships between these two types of techniques during the primitive era (i.e., pre-industrial) and the Second Machine Age. By questioning why “environmental techniques” became integrated with “structural techniques” during the Second Machine Age, it is possible to demonstrate the advanced techniques developed within the genealogy of ‘Primitive Huts’. Naturally, the appeal of the ‘Primitive Hut’ has varied across different contexts, but the hut “retains its validity as a reminder of the original and therefore essential meaning of all building for people: that is, of architecture” [1] (p. 192). Within the history of architecture, during the 18th century, the ‘Primitive Hut’ was a structure seen as essential, permanent, and monumental, as well as during the Industrial Revolution; during both periods, ‘Primitive Huts’ were at the centre of attention. However, the following question arises: why is the Second Machine Age important? The two World Wars destroyed many people’s homes. Architects had to start from scratch during the 1960s and establish a standardized type or model to be perfected in the post-war era. Revisiting ‘Primitive Huts’ as the origin of the art of building, this study shows how two separate techniques, structural and environmental, were integrated during the Machine Age. The works of British architectural theorist Reyner Banham are crucial to an understanding of the Machine Age. His book Theory and Design in the First Machine Age (1960) [2] was substantially based on his doctoral work, and The Architecture of the Well-Tempered Environment (1969) [3] emphasised how technical developments introduced novel ways of building and living while transforming culture. Banham’s review extended beyond primitive architecture of the ‘camp-fire’ and proposed the concept of the ‘Environment-Bubble’ as a protected and controlled environmental technique, a power-operated solution within which a person could live, as a house representative of that time.

To analyse the technical shift of the Machine Age, this study distinguishes between the First and “Second Machine Age” [3]. In this context, the hypothesis is that the Machine Age initially provoked a separation between the structural and environmental techniques of the ‘Primitive Hut,’ but later integrated them through moderation. In the same way that the human body integrates the spine and the nervous system and is protected by skin, structural and environmental techniques are closely interwoven and extend to all aspects of a building. This study also examines how primitive techniques were refined and made more sophisticated by learned individuals and professionals, such as architects (i.e., savants). Rebuilding originality sheds light on the principles of formation in the Second Machine Age and their relevance today. The analysis begins by comparing two shelters—the ‘Primitive Hut’ and the ‘Environment-Bubble’—through the lens of structural and environmental techniques to investigate their origins in the primitive era and how they have been made more sophisticated in the Machine Age. The case of Marc-Antoine Laugier’s ‘Primitive Hut’ was often criticized for “reduc(ing) architecture to almost nothing” [4] (p. 8); however, it should be recognised that savants had, in fact, taken away everything that was unnecessary or superfluous, leaving “only the natural in all its simplicity” [5] (p. 19). While both the ‘Primitive Hut’ and the ‘Environment-Bubble’ reduce architecture to a diagrammatic structure or house, this study aims to collect examples of simple techniques, especially from the primitive era and the First and Second Machine Ages. The primary objective is to improve the “precision and discipline” [5] (p. 19) of these techniques by returning to the ‘Primitive Hut’ as a symbol of originality and to enhance its efficiency by reviewing its evolution in the Machine Age.

Two Criteria: Art of Structure vs. Art of Environment

Establishing a genealogy that focuses solely on a single point of origin—the primitive ‘hut or fire’—requires extensive research but is not problematic. Typological research is used as the primary methodology in this study. While an archetype is abstract, it corresponds to several concrete models and its origins, thus ensuring the type’s precision. The objective of this study is to create types instead of making distinctions. By examining “the origin of the building art, how it was fostered and how it made progress, step by step, until it reached its present perfection” [6] (p. 41), this investigation of the ‘Primitive Hut’ seeks to develop methods for addressing environmental challenges. A sufficiently large number of specimens must be catalogued to explain their principles of formation. Significant cases that challenged the ‘Primitive Hut’ or the invariable structure in its environmental capabilities during the Machine Age are selected and analysed in this study. The aim is to contribute to the understanding of the validity of structural and environmental techniques and their ‘new interrelationship’ (i.e., integration) in the Second Machine Age.

The selected cases demonstrate why the ‘environmental technique’ was integrated with the ‘structural technique’. To understand the unique technique of integration, it is also important to examine the concept of separation. Le Corbusier’s standard structure, the ‘Dom-ino’, and a ‘radiator’ are key references in this context, but the point of separation is to maintain interrelationships (i.e., a reciprocal relationship). Moreover, moderation (i.e., an intermediary phase) is, likewise, important for demonstrating the need for integration in the Second Machine Age. The ‘Dymaxion House’, the ‘Serpentine Gallery Pavilion’, and the ‘Environment-Bubble’ have been selected as examples of adaptive phases leading to integration. In this study, integration refers to the synthesis of environmental techniques with structural techniques (e.g., underfloor heating and floor coils) developed in the Machine Age, to the extent that it is difficult to distinguish what is structure, mechanical equipment, and envelope (e.g., the ‘apparatus-armature’, space suits, the Pompidou Centre). This study aims to develop the building techniques precisely and emphasise a sense of faith in simplicity and dignity by implementing a reciprocal relationship between structural and environmental techniques to retain their validity and integration (i.e., new interrelationship) and make them vital.

2. The First Machine Age: Separation

To understand the unique solutions of the Second Machine Age, it is necessary to compare them with cases from the First Machine Age. Examining First Machine Age separation enables a discussion of the reciprocal relationship between the structural and environmental techniques that developed separately over a significant period, especially since the Industrial Revolution. Savants’ contributions helped define how we understand these techniques in their most generic sense. The choices made were based on fundamental techniques, and because they were produced in multiple copies, each specimen presented only minimal variations during this period. However, this did not prevent some prospects from breaking with typical layouts in search of other qualities.

2.1. Two Criteria in Le Corbusier’s Case

The hypothesis was that the Machine Age initially provoked a separation of structural and environmental techniques. In this context, Le Corbusier [7] (p. 23) “Dom-ino” (1914) (Figure 1) and “radiators” [7] (p. 128) deserve special mention as the First Machine Age models. First, the ‘Dom-ino’ is a framework “that complements the functions of the house plan” [7] (p. 23). Importantly, this structure is “made up of standard elements that can be combined with each other, allowing a wide variety of house groupings” [7] (p. 23). The implication is that “the arrival of steel and concrete as building systems should revolutionize architecture” [8] (p. 23). With these new materials and techniques, a new model was needed for the Machine Age, and two important standard elements were consequently created. Le Corbusier’s ‘Dom-ino’ framing became a root of progress in architecture, frequently referenced and referred to by savants such as the architect Fujimoto, structural engineer Cecil Balmond, and others. It has also become the standard model for structural techniques, and it is fair to say that it is the heir to Laugier’s ‘Primitive Hut’. Later, it also influenced the structure of Ludwig Mies van der Rohe’s Farnsworth House (1951). However, in terms of the interrelationship, it was not sufficient to resolve environmental problems.

2.2. Standard Structure in the Criterion of Environment

First and foremost, this study explores the single criterion that the influential 18th-century scholar of architecture Marc-Antoine Laugier suggested was necessary to gain a complete understanding of the advantages of the two criteria: whether a technique was structural or environmental. In terms of structural technique, the ‘standard structure’, like Laugier’s approach, reduced the origins of architecture to a “single principle” [5] (p. 19): structure. However, a critical issue is raised in pursuing Laugier’s ‘Primitive Hut’ in this context, namely, Laugier’s disregard for the central problem of classical aesthetics: how to explain the evolution of the art of the environment when it is rooted in a single origin. It is fair to point out that Laugier’s ’Primitive Hut’ is problematic because “architecture could not be reduced to a single origin; it was and would remain a ‘mixed’ art, an ‘art of necessity’” [9] (p. 20). Le Corbusier’s ‘Dom-ino’ serves as a reminder of the problems of Laugier’s isolated hut, as both eliminate the “social roots of dwelling, preferring architectural criteria derived from the internal logic of architecture to the external influences of customs or mores” [5] (p. 20). The ‘standard structure’ remained “in a state of savage isolation throughout the building of the hut” [10] (p. 22). In other words, it was isolated from its environment, and the descendants of Laugier have continued this tradition.

Figure 1

Le Corbusier, L’ossature Dom-ino, 1914. The standard structure [11] (p. 119).

[Figure omitted. See PDF]

2.3. Environmental Challenges of the Isolated Hut

This study defines environmental techniques as methods to address and engage with environmental challenges. This approach addresses the fundamental question of the techniques of ‘Primitive Huts’ and the efforts made in the primitive era that enabled architecture to overcome environmental challenges. ‘Primitive Hut’ theories have long concentrated on the ‘single principle’ of structural logic, and Laugier’s view of structural techniques has made a significant contribution to the history of architecture. However, its interrelationship with environmental techniques has not been thoroughly addressed. Furthermore, relatively little research has been conducted on how environmental techniques (e.g., heating apparatus, envelope) were applied in ‘Primitive Huts’. Whilst Viollet-le-Duc, one of the advocates of structural unity, identified and exposed the primitive environmental challenges of ‘violent winds, constant rain, damp humidity, long grasses, wild animal attacks, and darkness at night’, methodological studies of environmental techniques remained limited. The isolated hut suffered from dampness, harsh winds, foul air, and cold and the horrors of the dark night. These environmental problems, such as darkness, rain, and wind, had to be addressed. Primitive humans living in an animal state had to address the shortcomings of the primitive hut and engage with environmental techniques, which were as critical as structural techniques, even though the methods of utilising the two types of techniques might be different.

In this context, the exploration of primitive techniques remained important for addressing the environmental challenges of the First Machine Age. In fact, Le Corbusier proposed ‘a ceremonial tent’ in the First Machine Age, which carried a different meaning from Banham’s ‘tent and campfire’ in the 1960s. However, no environmental considerations were involved despite the structure’s emphasis on scale, dimensions, construction, and proportions. Le Corbusier’s ‘ceremonial tent’ was fundamentally dedicated to structural or formal techniques. As Le Corbusier explained, “Each architecture is tied to a single structure method” [12] (p. 7). He also highlighted that the origin of architecture lay within the savage’s hut or the nomad’s tent, that architecture has inherited pure systems from one era to another, and that structural unity could be found in a savage hut or a tent. The standard structure, ‘Dom-ino’—the ‘ceremonial tent’ or savage hut of the Machine Age—is promising, but it remains limited by its reliance on a singular technique.

2.4. Discrete Radiator

Considering unanswered questions arising from the previous section, Le Corbusier effectively utilized radiators through two environmental methods. The first involved installing a discrete ‘radiator’ (Figure 2) in the centre of the house, while the second involved central heating, which transformed the flat, homogeneous roof, which was also a structural technique. Structural techniques (e.g., roofs) developed independently but were adapted to accommodate environmental techniques (e.g., central heating systems and ‘radiators’) during this period. Placing central heating in the hollow recessed roof, with water draining inside the house, made it clear that individual heating appliances, such as radiators, were effective insulators. The introduction of central heating systems meant that structural techniques had to change to accommodate them. The principle of a central heating system is that a central boiler and pump supply heat to radiators distributed throughout the house. The radiator is positioned at the centre of the space like a freestanding fireplace, drawing attention from all sides. Radiators were well suited as an environmental technique to replace traditional hearths, stoves, fireplaces, and campfires. However, central heating systems or radiators exemplify environmental techniques that either transform structural techniques or maintain a reciprocal relationship with them.

Moving beyond Le Corbusier’s techniques of the ‘Dom-ino’ and radiators, exploring Mies van der Rohe’s structural and environmental techniques provides a useful synthesis of the characteristics of each technique at the time. The structural frame of Mies van der Rohe’s Farnsworth House is often considered a descendant of Laugier’s ‘Primitive Hut’. For Mies van der Rohe, structure was equivalent to architecture. Although in other building types, the structure is hidden behind fireproofing and cladding, Mies van der Rohe, like Laugier, did not hesitate to fully reveal it. Mies van der Rohe reduced the structural details in Farnsworth House to the minimum. Alongside the “free standing core” [14] (pp. 8–9) containing bathrooms and mechanical functions, there is a piece of furniture maintaining a sense of continuous space. Analyses of Mies van der Rohe’s building techniques focus on Farnsworth House’s space and structure. While Mies van der Rohe sought to express a sense of transparency with the ‘steel framed glass’, the furnished core installed at the centre of the house and the ‘floor coils’ are essential design elements and construction methods, allowing the house to respond to a variety of internal and external environmental challenges. The emphasis should not only be on the transparency of the structure but also on the harmonious integration of the inner core and underfloor heating. While the structural truth of Mies van der Rohe has been the focus of research in architecture, the ‘free standing core’—comprising two bathrooms, a mechanical room, a fireplace, and built-in cabinets above the kitchen counter—reveals his use of critical environmental techniques.

3. Intermediary Phase of Integration

Before analysing the Second Machine Age in terms of the integration technique developed by Archigram, a 1960s’ group of avant-garde British architects, this section explores the work of influential savants: Buckminster Fuller and Banham. This study demonstrates why environmental techniques were integrated with structural techniques in the Second Machine Age. From this perspective, the work of Fuller and Banham represents an intermediary phase (i.e., moderation) before integration. Nevertheless, the two houses, namely, Fuller’s ‘yurt-Dymaxion house’ and Banham’s ‘tent-Environment-Bubble’, were important contributions to Machine Age sophistication rooted in primitive techniques. The objective is “on the one hand, to be forward-looking and, on the other, to take account of local conditions: only a tiny fraction of architectural activity is concerned with anything other than the future environment as it is to be developed on particular sites” [15] (p. 64). The point here is the accelerated mechanisation and standardisation of fundamental structural and environmental techniques. The Nomads in extreme climates relied on primitive yurts or tents, but the methodologies in the Machine Age needed to evolve to address environmental challenges.

3.1. Mastering Environment with Two Criteria

To extrapolate from a unique case to a set of methodological questions applicable to the Machine Age, it is essential to acknowledge the environmental challenges and methodologies identified by ‘noble savages’ and in the Machine Age. In this context, Banham juxtaposed a campfire against the hut. The essence of architecture has not been structural technique alone but the heated environment inside. Structural and environmental techniques are complementary means to protect and maintain a warmed environment. In the 19th century, German culture opposed the French-centred theory of the structure-centred hut and began to establish another theory: the Caribbean Hut. This tradition emphasized the hearth as the primary element of the ‘Primitive Hut’ and the ‘technical skills’ involved in creating an envelope that encloses the warm space. Banham, like Semper, did not posit the ‘Primitive Hut’ as the single origin of architecture; rather, he argued that other types existed and had to be accounted for.

In this context, the point is to recognise the reciprocal relationship between the primitive techniques used before the sophistication of the Machine Age. By considering the case of a noble savage arriving at a site where they would camp for the night with a substantial quantity of wood at their disposal, Banham distinguished between two methods and considered the fundamental question of primitive architecture. The ideal tribe would use its timber resources wisely; each technique—structural or environmental—should support an equal portion of the load, and all parts ought to be closely bonded. Unlike a hut, which is a specific space, a ceremonial space created around a campfire possesses qualities that architecture cannot achieve: mobility and variety. Banham outlined two approaches: (1) circumventing the problem and sheltering under a rock, tent, or roof as a structural solution; (2) reacting to the local climate and weather conditions, typically by means of a campfire. Banham’s methodologies for using timber to build a tent or campfire provided the environmental foundation of the ‘Primitive Hut’ in the Machine Age. This study aims to reveal the resonance between primitive techniques and the Machine Age methodologies within this genealogy.

3.2. Invariant vs. Variant Structure

Acquiring primitive methods is certainly helpful in understanding the characteristics of the structural and environmental techniques that make integration possible. In this context, the yurt, like Banham’s tent, is an important case to examine. The inherent strength of the yurt is that it provides a portable framework (Figure 3), which supports the tent cover. Yurts were used by nomadic peoples living in extreme climates, and local materials were key to their construction. Most importantly, the structure is not massive, as it is built from the same materials that they used for clothing. The most common materials were animal skins, fur, wool, and plant-based products such as reeds or straw, but these had short lifespans. Therefore, the main elements of the yurt were the lattice wall, poles, the crown, and a central stove. As efficiency became important, those overcoming environmental challenges with these techniques had to adapt. Rather than being craftspeople working with their hands or simple tools, humans became machine operators subject to factory discipline and modern tools. The development of these tools radically transformed the way people lived during the Machine Age.

What is more, the yurt, like Fuller’s Dymaxion house and the “Serpentine Gallery Pavilion” (2006) [17], remains a valid architectural model, as does the tent. Not only does Fuller’s Dymaxion house resemble the shape of a yurt but it also addresses a central problem. In the Machine Age, Fuller, who favoured innovative techniques, explored a ‘non-mechanical’ yurt-like machine, as shown in Figure 4, and investigated air and heat distribution. Unlike the isolated hut, this exploration focuses on external reflections and internal circulation, proving that, regardless of the era or scale, addressing environmental challenges remains essential in architecture. Structure, envelope, and apparatus all contribute to a coherent understanding of the challenges such problems pose.

The ‘Serpentine Gallery Pavilion’ (Figure 5) is made of pipes and an envelope: it is designed to be dismantled and built on the premise of simplicity: light, deformable and replaceable. In contrast, the ‘Serpentine Gallery Pavilion’ is considered a more permanent structure with a more massive and rigid form and character. Compared to this contemporary gallery, the ‘Serpentine Gallery Pavilion’ (Figure 5) adopts a softer approach of ‘absorbency’ that seeks to adapt to its environment. “Absorbency” [17] (p. 31) is an important notion here. Rem Koolhaas, as an architect, and Cecil Balmond, as a structural engineer, were concerned with the idea that some aspects of architecture are given and will never change (i.e., “invariant” [17] (p. 54)) and, therefore, needed to think about the qualities within the building that were “changeable” [17] (p. 54). They sought to create an architecture that could absorb and adapt to environmental influences. The distinction between skeletal structure and architectural form is becoming increasingly blurred, making it difficult to separate or “compartmentalise” [17] (p. 31). As such, it is now important to examine the “inner fibres and their structures” [17] (p. 31). This fibrous structure represents a more advanced technique that has been evolving since the yurt. However, as the ‘Serpentine Gallery Pavilion’ was designed with dismantling as a consideration, the sustainability of its environmental techniques was not addressed, but it is an important contemporary example of the transition from a monumental to a variable structure.

3.3. Maximising Environmental Technique

Such research is beneficial for deepening our understanding of maximising the environmental performance of a house and minimising the structural techniques during the Machine Age. Banham imagined that the ‘Environment-Bubble’ would consist of a Standard of Living Package of equipment in the era of miniaturisation (with maximised function), when people would likely select and take the equipment most suited to them and attach it to their mobile caravans or homes. What appealed to savants during this time was that with the development of functional elements, the same equipment could be equally applicable to both a house and a car. Architecture had developed within two different disciplines, as Banham explained: one was the structural technique, which he called the ‘Environment-Bubble’, and the other was the environmental technique of mechanical equipment, the Standard of Living Package, an idea initially defended by Fuller (Figure 6). Nonetheless, both techniques are valid. This pursuit only began only after the Industrial Revolution when techniques were developed that separated structural from environmental techniques (e.g., mechanical equipment), even though they had originally been inseparable in architecture. If any division can be made in human consideration of architecture, it might be between those parts of a structure that combine with certain mechanical equipment to provide the basic life support that makes a viable environment and those parts of a structure that combine with other mechanical services to facilitate circulation and communication of persons, information, and objects. It was fair to abandon the idea of an immobile house and instead focus on “the essentials of living” [19] (p. 10). The weight of a house progressively decreased until it disappeared, except for “a compact mobile package of equipment encased in the lightest possible transparent bubble” [20] (p. 57). It became possible to define a “‘home’ without reference to hearth or roof, but simply as the integration of a complex of intrapersonal relationships and mains-services” [21] (p. 94). A notable technical advance in this context is the “interchangeability of function” [22] (p. 34) inherent in the package. The impact of this was to bring the Machine Age closer to integration.

3.4. Utter Inefficiency to Magical Efficiency

Its miniaturisation was applied to a truly autonomous and self-generating domestic utility unit that could be towed behind a caravan or hooked up to it, producing a utility unit that could be either secured or picked up from depots across the country. The interconnected networks of mechanical equipment were among the most innovative and sophisticated architectural elements, support buildings, improving circulation and creating specific spaces. This represents a new image of the primitive shelter (Figure 7)—the fundamental and original condition of architecture, now reimagined in its most technologically advanced form. The effort to overcome environmental challenges by creating the package was certainly instrumental, but the problem with this single technique lies entirely in its reliance on environmental solutions (e.g., mechanical equipment). As with Laugier’s hut, this approach overlooks the interrelationship between structural and environmental techniques.

Ultimately, efficiency is important. Fuller contrasted the “utter inefficiency” [24] (p. 52) of traditional houses with its “magical efficiency” [24] (p. 52), proposing that a suitable structure should encompass environmental performance, such as a “functional structure” [25] (p. 722). While the centrally placed package acts as a mechanical ‘camp-fire’, Fuller and Banham’s packages are independent and do not integrate into an envelope, nor do they extend to the elements of the envelope. The ‘Environment-Bubble’, like Laugier’s ‘Primitive Hut’, has been minimised; all unnecessary elements have been removed, leaving only the mechanical equipment and the envelope. However, the ‘magical efficiency’ is the integration of these two techniques. As such, cases of ‘hybrid’ envelopes have become indispensable.

4. Integration of the Two Criteria

Investigating Frank Lloyd Wright’s use of ‘floor-heating’ in the Jacobs House, built in 1937 in the USA, provides useful insight into the convergence of structural and environmental techniques. Wright notably explored floor heating as a structural element, describing it as “having an affair of climate” [26] (p. 495) (environmental technique). Wright did not hesitate to use environmental techniques on floors. In this precise sense, as Hyon-Sob Kim pointed out, Wright’s underfloor heating was an adaption of Korean ondol (literally ”warm stone”) [27] (p. 350), calling the ondol method valuable because it was “creating climate—healthful, dustless, serene” [26] (p. 495). As with the Korean ondol, before Wright’s first residential adaptation of underfloor heating was preceded by the “hypocaust” [28] (Figure 8), with continuous development of these environmental techniques. Wright further coined the term “gravity heat” [26] (p. 496) and adapted heating pipes into housing, making it “the first American building that realised the floor heating method inspired by the Korean ondol” [27] (p. 357) (Figure 9). This innovation marked the first case of underfloor heating (Figure 10) in a residential setting in the United States.

In addition, the Mies van der Rohe Farnsworth House case discussed earlier also made attempts at integration. In fact, the core of the Farnsworth House was designed to overcome the climatic challenges of the external environment and strike a harmonious balance between continuity and spatial separation, incorporating ‘floor coils’ (Figure 11). While the core complemented structural integrity in earlier phases, the ‘floor coil’ should also be investigated for its contribution to environmental techniques. This is evident in the underfloor system, which is “supplied with heat by a separate oil-fired boiler, also located in the mechanical room inside the service core” [14] (p. 9) (Figure 11). By examining the heating methods in the Farnsworth House, including the two oil-fired furnaces in the mechanical room and floor coils, this case study delineated the significant importance of integrated environmental techniques. However, these attempts to resolve environmental problems are heavy, difficult to reshape, immobile, and limited in the number of elements that can be integrated.

4.1. Since the Second Machine Age

The research on integrating simple and advanced aspects is referred to as the Second Machine Age. For Archigram, a group of British architects founded in the 1960s, exploring opportunities for integration was crucial. Archigram’s name derived from archi(tecture)-gram based on “the notion of a more urgent and simple item than a journal, like a telegram or aerogramme” [1] (p. 8). This exploration of simple yet urgent techniques led to the idea of ‘apparatus-armature’. During this era, structural and environmental techniques began to be (inter)changeable, expendable, and repeatable rather than monumental. The hypothesis of this study is that, among the many components of architecture, it is the “apparatus” [30] (p. 64) or “armature” [30] (p. 64) that extends across the whole. Regarding the hemimetamorphosis of the “Cushicle (Cushion + Vehicle)” [30] (p. 64) in different phases, the integrated ‘apparatus-armature’ was “designed to be deformable into a clothing skin” [30] (p. 55). According to Archigram, the process by which the ‘apparatus-armature’ is built is as follows: “The basic clothing skin that can be inflated to make a chaise-longue or further inflated to make a room” [30] (p. 55). The concept of the ‘hybrid’ was significant in both the First and the Second Machine Age. There are several examples of attempts to integrate the two techniques—such as in floors, wall, or columns. However, these are categorized as intermediary cases, as they have yet to achieve complete integration of the envelope.

In the Second Machine Age, the overriding question was that of the ‘hybrid’. To fully comprehend the ‘new interrelationship’ of integration during this period, it is essential to examine the Cushicle. As Cook noted, it was “a hybrid that is sometimes machine, sometimes architecture, sometimes animal-like growth, sometimes electrical circuitry, sometimes part of a mathematical progression and sometimes completely random” [30] (p. 51). The hemimetabolism of the Cushicle “enables a man to carry a complete environment on his back” [30] (p. 64) with its ‘apparatus-armature’ supplying “food, water, radio, miniature projection television and heating apparatus” [30] (p. 64). It was “a piece of moving surface small enough to be intertwined with existing urban system” [31] (p. 119), and this potential for synthesis inspired technical faith in integration. Furthermore, the hybrid ‘apparatus-armature’ combined with environmental techniques could provide varying degrees of protection against heat, cold, and moisture, with cushions for comfort delicately placed on top of the moulded ‘apparatus-armature’. For Archigram, who embraced the advances of the Machine Age, the ‘apparatus-armature’ was an experiment in transportable, efficient, flexible, automotive-scale architecture. Not only had the ‘apparatus-armature’ demonstrated the potential of integration in architecture but it also embodied “a return to a biblical gesture, with the idea that one can take up one’s bed and walk” [31] (p. 117). Compared to conventional techniques, where structure and equipment were separate, the ‘apparatus-armature’ blurred the lines between mechanical equipment and structural form, making it increasingly difficult to distinguish the two.

4.2. Dismantled Tent and Deformable ‘Apparatus-Armature’

This case is as simple as it is primitive, overcoming environmental challenges. To fully understand the originality and essentiality of ‘apparatus-armature’, it is worthwhile to examine Archigram’s concept of the ‘Cushicle’ in relation to the ‘dismantled tent and camel’ (Figure 12). The driving force behind research into integrated envelopes was primarily the need for more space. Moreover, this technique became necessary because “many so-called primitive people deplore[d] [the] habit of moving (with all their belongings) from one house, or apartment, to another” [32] (p. 139). Thus, the goal was to create maximum space with minimal construction. As such, in the Second Machine Age, Archigram sought to maximise environmental techniques and minimise structural techniques, resulting in transportable and multifunctional objects such as the Cushicle (Figure 13). “The suit and cushicle would be the tent and camel equivalent” [30] (p. 52). The idea was to construct a nomadic unit of architecture that could adapt to specific environmental conditions.

4.3. Inuit Overcoat and Intelligent Envelope

In this context, the Suitaloon, by Michael Webb|Archigram, another theoretical approach and a prototype built in 1967, redefined our understanding of the intelligent envelope in the Second Machine Age. It is important to note that it was modelled after the Cushicle’s armature emphasising living equipment and lightweight, integral organic systems, houses worn like one-size-fits-all body suits. It could be thought of as an extension of the Cushicle and Webb’s study on “clothing for living in” [30] (p. 80), embodying multifunctionality, portability, and minimalism. The traditional or singular techniques such as the ‘Inuit overcoat’ (Figure 14) had to be sophisticated, intelligent, and integral to become a space suit. In principle, an overcoat could become a house or a car when life-support equipment is plugged in, much like a space suit (Figure 15). It was a suit that covered all the necessities for living. The idea and practice of the suit and Cushicle began centring on Webb’s project, as well as a ‘cushion’ (comfort), a ‘vehicle’ (mobility), and a ‘suit’ (envelope); a more multifunctional envelope was indispensable.

This was why space suits appealed to architects. Inspired by the technical advancements of the Apollo missions and the impact of the World Wars, in the 1960s, Banham, like Archigram, investigated intelligent envelopes, such as a space suit. The space suits, equipped with air-containers, and igloos were used as models for addressing the integration of the envelope and environmental systems. The parallels between architecture and of clothing were the inspiration and the “architecture became as responsive as clothing” [33] (p. 103). Fundamental techniques could be sophisticated and show intelligence. It is not necessarily through the creation of highly technological or intensive capital investment but through clever and intelligent use of “available equipment and resources with cunning and intelligence. This highlights the “environmental ingenuity and geometrical sophistication” [3] (pp. 302–303). From the Inuit overcoat to space suits, industrial advancements were a major step forward for environmental techniques in architecture. It thereby extended the reach of primitive techniques and enabled them to adapt to the forces of globalisation, prefabrication, automation, and mechanisation in the Second Machine Age.

Figure 14

Inuit Overcoat. A heavy winter overcoat was worn over an inner and outer parka during severely cold weather [34] (p. 19).

[Figure omitted. See PDF]

Figure 15

Reyner Banham, Space suits, 1965. Astronauts with air-containers for use on ground in The Architecture of the Well-tempered Environment [3] (p. 303).

[Figure omitted. See PDF]

4.4. ‘Apparatus-Armature’ Turned into an Envelope

The idea is that the ‘apparatus-armature’ becomes the surface/envelope itself and, therefore, performs all the work. In this context, the Centre Pompidou can be seen as an adaptive envelope, like a space suit for the building. The envelope is the structure, and it not only supports the building but also integrates the apparatus, referred to in this study as the ‘multifunctional envelope’. To elaborate on the central question of integration, the deformable ‘apparatus-armature’ was implemented in the envelope. The Centre Pompidou is undoubtedly “a monoecious apparatus” [35] (p. 88) (Figure 16), as proposed by the architects and engineers. The key idea is that the building’s parts perform “opposing static functions, under compression or under tension” [35] (p. 88). The structure is designed to absorb a range of tensions, particularly through the “statics of the structures and the visibility of the volume of technical apparatus” [35] (p. 48). Finally, an important concept Richard Rogers put forward is “indeterminacy” [36] (p. 48), which means that certain parts of a building are interchangeable; that is, they can be added or removed without destroying the balance of the whole.

4.5. Omni-Competence of Capsule and Megastructure

The “capsule” [30] (p. 44) could replace the earlier concept of the ‘Primitive Hut’ in the Second Machine Age. Archigram expanded on this concept with the idea of “environment-as-a-suit” [31] (p. 117), under the theme of nomad. The group defined nomad as “the related notions of the satellite and the complete operation not necessarily tied to a locative system” [31] (p. 74). The 1960s is best known for facilitating the first moon landing and safely returning the astronauts to Earth. NASA’s Apollo resulted in developing and making American astronauts’ spaceships, food, equipment, system and technology as well. During that period, Archigram was clearly influenced and inspired by the Apollo missions, biological engineering, and manufacturing. “‘In suiting’ man to an environment defined by its hostility to him” [31] (p. 24), a more effective suit or envelope became necessary for life in the Second Machine Age.

In this context, the ‘suit and Cushicle’ represented the “omni-competence of a space-capsule’s life support system” [3] (p. 302) that was indeed necessary for maintaining the standards of living in the Second Machine Age. The ‘Cushicle’ and ‘capsule’ eventually had a clear mutual influence on the ‘plug-in city’ and Banham’s ‘megastructure’ scheme. However, it is important to note that rather than aiming for massive structures, Archigram approached architecture from a biological point of view, much like the Japanese Metabolism during that time, viewing it as a continuous, growing organism. Furthermore, the word ‘tree’ used as a metaphor in Megastructure theory and practice has a similar meaning to ‘armature or frame’, while ‘leaf’ has a similar meaning to ‘capsule’. However, the ‘apparatus-armature’ of the ‘Cushicle’ is unique in that deformation starts from a part of the ‘armature’, and the envelope becomes the apparatus from which all other parts hang. On a larger scale, Archigram declared, “the house is an appliance for carrying with you, the city is a machine for plugging into” [3] (p. 52). Archigram’s idea of ‘capsule’ thereby became a central theme of ‘plug-in city’ or ‘megastructure’ in the Second Machine Age. For Archigram, architecture is what is created in response to the movement and vitality of city life reflecting rise and fall, coming and going, and change, and it begins with the everyday. Although most Archigram projects were at the limits of possibility and remained unbuilt, the architects of that time pushed conventional boundaries and redefined structural and environmental techniques in architecture.

Archigram explored the idea of the envelope becoming so effective that it eliminated the need for a mechanical core while carrying all the weight itself. The Second Machine Age, therefore, led to the integration of fundamental ‘apparatus’ or objects into architecture, where the envelope was no longer a bubble but a robust mechanical structure with pipes and tubes running through it. Consequently, Archigram pushed conventional techniques beyond Banham’s “Environment-Bubble,” investing integral, multifunctional techniques under the theme of nomad architecture.

5. ‘New Interrelationship’ of the Two Criteria

In conclusion, the examination of the techniques—structural and environmental—followed the theoretical shifts in perspectives and aesthetics used in “Primitive Huts”.

Overall, this study analysed ‘Primitive Huts’ and the art of structure and environment during the primitive era as well as the First and Second Machine Ages. Architecture has undergone a period of separation, necessitating research to bring these relationships back together during the First and Second Machine Ages. The former maintained the following fundamental qualities: simplicity and a reciprocal relationship between structural and environmental techniques. During the Second Machine Age, savants investigated the sophistication of ‘Primitive Huts’ and determined that interchangeability and multifunctionality were necessary; in other words, integration became a focal point.

To develop the ‘new interrelationship’ (i.e., integration) more precisely, the characteristics of separation and the moderation phase were analysed in detail. The limitations of the two techniques that have been developed separately (i.e., the development of singular techniques) should be abandoned, with the objective being the development of the two techniques in an interrelated relationship.

Throughout, this work has endeavoured to demonstrate reasonable methods of building in both the primitive and the Machine Age. Interpreting the ‘Primitive Hut’ or ‘tent and campfire’ provided one possible path to understanding and providing historical, socio-cultural, and aesthetic building techniques. The Machine Age was a technologically adaptable society built upon these primitive techniques. The fundamental problems (e.g., environmental challenges) and unique solutions of traditional and Machine Age techniques are essentially equivalent and should be addressed simultaneously. This investigation into integration sought to counterbalance the over-emphasis on the tools used today. Rebuilding originality allows for an explanation of the principles of formation in the Second Machine Age to the present day.

Of particular importance, in the first section of this study, was the evaluation of the ‘Primitive Hut’ theories in the context of the environment. Unlike Laugier and Viollet-le-Duc, Semper and Banham demonstrated that environmental solutions did not primarily involve structure but instead focused on the discovery of fire. Thus, developing the technique of fire control and the complementary technique of the envelope was critical.

In addressing unanswered questions arising from previous research, the basic history and theories of the ‘Primitive Hut’ have often been limited to structural techniques or art of structure without considering the art of the environment. In particular, the aim was to analyse important cases where invariant structures were transformed in light of environmental techniques. The focus was on cases that highlighted the interrelationship of these two criteria in the Machine Age and the Primitive Age (i.e., pre-industrial).

In this context, architects from the First Machine Age, such as Le Corbusier, who examined the ‘Dom-ino’ and a radiator, attempted to improve the roof (i.e., structural technique) through the implementation of a central heating system and a discrete radiator (i.e., environmental techniques). Doing so not only provided individual heating but also resolved structural problems. However, these efforts were primarily intended to advance structural techniques. Nevertheless, the structural and environmental techniques are not alternatives; they have coexisted in architectural theory and practice and share a reciprocal relationship.

Additionally, the integration of ‘structural and environmental techniques’ became increasingly sophisticated due to the work of savants in the Machine Age who experimented with techniques such as Mies van der Rohe’s ‘floor coils’ and Wright’s ‘floor heating’. In this context, Fuller and Banham were also key figures and led the advancement of fundamental techniques through the maximisation of environmental techniques as an extension of the ‘Primitive Hut’. The yurt, Fuller’s ‘Dymaxion House’ and Koolhaas’ Serpentine Gallery Pavilion (2006) are also important examples that reveal similar patterns under new conditions. With Banham’s renewed emphasis on the ‘tent and campfire’, the ‘Environment-Bubble’ evolved, and engineers laid the mechanical core (e.g., the Standard of Living Package) as the foundation. As a result, a house or any building type was technologically revolutionised by a new set of techniques and tools. In this context, interpreting the Standard of Living Package provides one possible way to understand the maximisation of environmental techniques. However, in terms of the two techniques, the ‘Package’ and the ‘Environment-Bubble’ are physically separate and have evolved independently. As the ‘Primitive Huts’ theories demonstrated, a singular technique could not retain validity and had to resolve its uncertainty. Neither the ‘Package’ nor the ‘Environment-Bubble’ is an isolated object: both must be combined with the various mechanisms of a house or other building that are both mechanical and artistic in conception. Through the following intermediary phase, the ‘multifunctional’ or ‘intelligent envelope’ became the focus for completing the inversion of the house from a permanent fixed envelope invaded by external pipes to internal pipes supporting a dynamic, evolving, and mobile envelope.

However, considering the Environment-Bubble’s limitations, the integrated envelope represented one of the major shifts in the Second Machine Age, particularly due to Archigram’s dedication. In this context, the ‘apparatus-armature’ (e.g., Cushicle) was another key element in understanding that a hybrid technique had to be developed, replacing inefficient elements by identifying the necessary qualities of integration. Under these circumstances, Archigram tried to combine many techniques into one, providing significant insight into advancing aesthetics and techniques. To extrapolate from a unique case to a set of methodological questions applicable to other architectural fields, it is important to acknowledge the indispensable qualities of integration in the Second Machine Age. Precise improvements were necessary to make the hybrid envelope strong, durable, movable, and interchangeable.

Overall, the goal was to provide a complete nomadic unit that favoured efficiency (i.e., integration). In particular, it has become difficult to distinguish between structural and environmental techniques in the Second Machine Age. Given the sophistication of primitive architecture by savants, which is the focus of this research, the ‘art of environment’ and techniques to improve its unity remain influential in contemporary techniques (e.g., Pompidou Centre). This suggests that the rules of formation required greater precision, discipline, and efficiency. As defined, this is referred to as the Second Machine Age. Archigram’s idea of the capsule in the 1960s offered advantages in terms of its omni-competence and multifunctionality.

Synergetic Integration

A broader conception of ‘integration’ needs not be confined to traditional techniques. The overriding research question in this study is the sophistication of integration within the genealogy of ‘Primitive Huts’ up to the contemporary period. In this context, though the analysis of techniques ranging from the yurt to the multifunctional envelope devised by Khovalyg et al. [38] (2023), this research is devoted to improving hybrid techniques with a focus on providing durable and sustainable environments. The integration of structural and thermal performance was the main focus of the research. By integrating water channels into the structural technique (i.e., the slab), the aim was to achieve a synergistic relationship between the two techniques, which also serve as environmental techniques (e.g., heating, cooling, and fire protection) rather than one dedicated structure or envelope. This research sought to address the limitations of a separate load-bearing structure while maintaining the lightweight, strong, and durable characteristics. In addition, the development of systems such as building-integrated photovoltaics (BIPVs), advanced by industrial techniques, has evolved alongside multifunctional envelopes, maximising environmental techniques. While significant research still needs to be conducted before these findings can be generalised, the goal is to demonstrate that structural techniques, previously thought to remain unchanged indefinitely, are becoming increasingly adaptable. This study sought to establish the theoretical foundations for integrating techniques developed by relevant industries into architecture and to demonstrate that a synergistic relationship can be formed by integrating environmental techniques within structural techniques.

Although integral techniques have advanced to the extent that structural techniques can no longer be distinguished from environmental techniques, analysing intelligent envelopes has provoked a discourse on the intertwined realms of the art of environment that continues today. As such, engineers and architects remain committed to advancing the intelligent envelope as a building technique. Moreover, achieving technical sophistication is as important as pursuing artistic solutions. The techniques that the industry has already invented, mass-produced, and generalised are central to this research. It is necessary to recognise mobility, precision, discipline, and efficiency as key traits. Given these characteristics, the ‘new interrelationship’ between structural and environmental techniques is referred to as ‘integration’, which adapts to various inevitable environments. While augmenting the integral element that has become valid for distributing function to all parts of a building, this study also considers acquiring the primitive techniques and experiences (i.e., sense of space) of tribes or civilizations as another crucial factor.

Author Contributions

Methodology S.-T.N. and E.-J.C.; Validation, S.-T.N. and D.K.; Formal analysis, S.-T.N. and E.-J.C.; Investigation, S.-T.N. and E.-J.C.; Resources, E.-J.C.; Writing—original draft, E.-J.C.; Writing—review & editing, S.-T.N., D.K. and E.-J.C.; Visualization, E.-J.C.; Supervision, S.-T.N. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Footnotes

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Figures

Figure 2. Le Corbusier, «Où en est l’architecture?» Where architecture stands today, in L’architecture vivante, 1927. Sketch explaining the current state of architecture [13] (p. 15).

Figure 3. Armature of the tent, 1968 (the first two (above)) and plan of Mongol Yurt, 1964 (bottom) [16] (p. 37).

Figure 4. Buckminster Fuller, Dymaxion House, 1945. Study for non-mechanical circulation of air (above) and heat (below): Section [18] (p. 76).

Figure 5. Rem Koolhaas and Cecil Balmond, Serpentine Gallery Pavilion, 2006. Shape Investigations between Arup and OMA: A–C Section from different angles [17] (p. 18).

Figure 6. Buckminster Fuller, Dymaxion House and Standard of Living Package, 1945. Floor plan (detail) [18] (p. 77).

Figure 7. Reyner Banham, The Environment-Bubble, 1965. Transparent plastic bubble dome inflated by air-conditioning: Diagram [23] (p. 77).

Figure 8. Hypocaust under the floor. Jean-Pierre Adam, «La Construction romaine: matériaux et techniques» Roman construction: materials and techniques, 1984 [28] (p. 293).

Figure 9. Structure of the Korean ondol from Nam-Ung Kim, 1994 [27] (p. 357).

Figure 10. Frank Lloyd Wright, Jacobs House, Madison, 1937. Wright testing heating pipes for under floor heating [29].

Figure 11. Ludwig Mies van der Rohe, Farnsworth House, 1945–1951. Layout of Floor Coils. As the under side of the floor is exposed to outside air temperatures, a radiant floor heating system was installed to keep the marble floor foot-warm during the winter [14] (pp. 62–63).

Figure 12. Transport de la tente démontée (Érythrée). Tent and camel for primitive people [16] (p. 40).

Figure 13. Mike Webb, Cushicle (Cushion + Vehicle), 1966–1967. (a) Suit and Chassis combining. (b) Combined suit, chassis opening out. (c) Total Cushicle fully opened out and in use [30] (p. 65).

Figure 16. Piano + Rogers, Pompidou Centre, 1977. A monoecious apparatus, statics of the structures and the visibility of the volume of technical apparatus [37].

References

1. Rykwert, J. On Adam’s House in Paradise: The Idea of the Primitive Hut in Architectural History; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1981; 192.

2. Banham, R. Theory and Design in the First Machine Age; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1960.

3. Banham, R. The Architecture of the Well-Tempered Environment; Architectural Press: London, UK, 1969.

4. Laugier, M.-A. Essai sur L’Architecture (General Principles on Architecture); Herrmann, W.; Herrmann, A. Hennessey & Ingalls: Santa Monica, CA, USA, 2009.

5. Vidler, A. The Writing of the Walls, Architectural Theory in the Late Enlightenment; Princeton Architectural Press: New York, NY, USA, 1987.

6. Vitruvius. The Origin of the Dwelling House. The Ten Books on Architecture; Morgan, M.H. Dover Publications: New York, NY, USA, 1960.

7. Corbusier, L.; Jeanneret, P. Œuvre Complète 1910–1929; Les Editions d’Architecture: Zurich, Switzerland, 1929.

8. Benton, T. Modernist Ideas. The Modernist Home; Victoria and Albert Museum Publications: London, UK, 2006.

9. Batteux, C. Les Beaux-Arts Réduits à un Même Principe; 2nd ed. Laurent Durand: Paris, France, 1747.

10. Rousseau, J.-J. Discours sur les sciences et les arts. Œuvres Complètes—Volume 3 (1755); Bibliothèque de la Pléiade: Paris, France, 1966.

11. Lucan, J. Le Corbusier, une Encyclopédie; Centre Georges Pompidou: Paris, France, 1987.

12. Corbusier, L. Calendrier d’architecture. Almanach D’architecture Moderne; À chaque architecture est attaché un mode de structure G. Crès et Cie: Paris, France, 1926; 7.

13. Corbusier, L. Où en est l’architecture?. L’Architecture Vivante, Automne & Hiver; Albert Morancé: Paris, France, 1927.

14. Lohan, D. Mies van der Rohe, Farnsworth House. Global Detail (GA Detail 1), Plano, Illinois, 1945–50; A.D.A. Edita: Tokyo, Japan, 1976.

15. Choay, F. L’effet Wampanoag’ en architecture. Le Sens de la Ville; D’une part, être tournée vers l’avenir, et de l’autre, tenir compte des conditions locales: Une infime partie seulement de l’activité architecturale s’occupant d’autre chose que de l’environnement future tel qu’il doit être aménagé sur des terrains déterminés Éditions du Seuil: Paris, France, 1972.

16. Guidoni, E. Primitive Architecture; Electa: Milano, Italy, 1979.

17. Koolhaas, R.; Balmond, C. Serpentine Gallery Pavilion 2006; Rem Koolhaas and Cecil Balmond with Arup. Serpentine Gallery: London, UK, 2006.

18. Chan, C.; Wagstaffe, M. Emerging Ecologies: Architecture and the Rise of Environmentalism; Museum of Modern Art: New York, NY, USA, 2023.

19. Rockwell, K. Fuller Describes Unusual Ideas of Future Home. The Ann Arbor News; 5 April 1949.

20. Wigley, M. Buckminster Fuller Inc. Architecture in the Age of Radio; Lars Müller: Baden, Austria, 2015.

21. Banham, R. Stocktaking. Archit. Rev.; 1960; 127, pp. 93-100.

22. Fuller, B. Perspecta; The MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1952; Volume 1.

23. Banham, R. A Home is not a House. Art Am.; 1965; 53, pp. 70-79.

24. Wigley, M. Pipeless Dream. Archis; 2013; 37, pp. 3-160.

25. Giedion, S. Mechanization Takes Command; Oxford University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1948.

26. Wright, F.L. Frank Lloyd Wright: An Autobiography; Pomegranate: San Francisco, CA, USA, 1943.

27. Kim, H.-S. The appearance of Korean architecture in the modern West. Archit. Res. Q.; 2010; 14, pp. 349-361. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1359135511000145]

28. Adam, J.-P. La Construction romaine: Matériaux et techniques. Roman Construction: Materials and Techniques; 1st ed. Routledge: London, UK, 1995.

29. Jacobs Residence. Frank Lloyd Wright, Art Institute of Chicago. Frank Lloyd Wright Building Conservancy. 1937; Available online: https://savewright.org/radiant-heating-101/ (accessed on 17 October 2024).

30. Cook, P. Archigram; Princeton Architectural Press: New York, NY, USA, 1999.

31. Cook, P. Experimental Architecture; Universe Books: New York, NY, USA, 1970.

32. Rudofsky, B. Architecture Without Architects; Doubleday and Company: New York, NY, USA, 1964.

33. Jencks, C. Architecture 2000; Praeger Publishers: New York, NY, USA, 1971.

34. Oakes, J. Copper and Caribou Inuit Skin Clothing Production; Canadian Museum of Civilization: Gatineau, QC, Canada, 1992.

35. Dal Co, F. Centre Pompidou: Renzo Piano, Richard Rogers, and the Making of a Modern Monument; Yale University Press: New Haven, CT, USA, London, UK, 2016.

36. Rogers, R. Architecture: A Modern View; Thames & Hudson: London, UK, 2013.

37. Rogers, R.; Piano, R. Paris, Centre Pompidou. Design. 1971–1977. Available online: https://rshp.com/projects/culture-and-leisure/centre-pompidou/ (accessed on 20 November 2024).

38. Khovalyg, D.; Mudry, A.; Keller, T. Prefabricated thermally-activated fiber-polymer composite building slab P-TACS: Toward the multifunctional and pre-fabricated structural elements in buildings. Build. Phys.; 2023; 46, pp. 686-707. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/17442591221150257]