On concrete materiality in architecture, by Ute Poerschke

Reading aligned with lecture: 

Modern Materials and Technologies: Saarinen, Scarpa, Zumthor and Chipperfield. 11/03/2015


Personal summary of reading: On concrete materiality in architecture, by Ute Poerschke (2013)

Concrete is a material that is used today in architecture, its properties are changeable, and so its constantly being pushed to provide better technical specifications, it is flexible and can be shaped to many forms. Moreover it can be finished in various techniques so aid to sensory emotions within spaces.

This article is highlighting how materials are used in architecture and are tested to perform as other materials; why do theorists speak of materials being as such or being its self? Architects and theorists have been traced back to 1756 to have been testing how materials can perform as others, ‘nothing is more absurd than a material is made to not signify its self, but is supposed to signify another.’

The introduction to this article intrigued me as even Vitruvius was aware of this and was recorded in his fourth book stating that the forms and ornaments of temples buildings were cast in wood before being realised into stone for the final architecture. Why do we push materials to act and perform like other, more so when we know others are more successful at loading stress and strain than others?

The article explains the material and its structural properties, then its surface and its reality, all of which are changeable. Concrete is a versatile material and potentially has no boundaries. Stone and wood are natural sources of materials are have their properties bound to them, where as concrete does not. It knows no boundaries and as much as I like concrete materiality in architecture, I do sometimes feel it’s overused because of its simplicity to change its properties rather than architects pushing boundaries with limits of other materials or even combining them to create an alloy material.