Integral Building
| Under construction |
The Idea of Integral Building
I developed the idea of Integral Building in order to honor and include several
very different views of building that all seemed vital.
Ever since I first learned of the work of Christopher Alexander, the chief author
of A Pattern Language, I knew his point of view on building had something that
was deeply satisfying. His later work, The Nature of Order, and my own work
with Chris, intensified my appreciation but made me aware that following the
heart was not sufficient in order to build well.
As an engineer I also knew the value of science, in particular, building science in
order to make buildings that are safe, functional, durable and healthy.
Living now we are all aware of the global effect of man’s works upon the planet.
Constructing and operating buildings uses 1/3 of the energy used worldwide
REF? and ??% of the petroleum used in the USA. And mountains are flattened
and rivers polluted by the mining and processing of materials for building.
I was teaching a course on the Soul of Building (my take on Christopher
Alexander’s work) and I was looking again at the work of Ken Wilber and how
he applied the integral view to art. I was trying to fit this in as an example of a
view of architecture that supported giving value and meaning to the soul of
building, when I realized that it was the other way round. The soul of building fit
into an Integral view of Building as one realm or view. And that the other
essential realms of building; building science and sustainability also fit in as the
exterior realms. Finally, led by the logic of the Integral view, I recognized that
buildings are caught up and part of the inner life of the community. A barn
raising is archetypal. Each of us has a sense of Home freighted with all kinds of
associations and many of them are held in common with others.
Each of these areas is a realm, and one’s attention and energy can be used
exclusively in building well by the demands of soul, science, sustainability or
meaning.
But there is the invitation to hold all of this lightly. And to find the Yes! that
satisfies, as best we can, the needs of all realms. This is the invitation of Integral
Building.
To the extent that you are familiar with integral philosophy and the work of Ken
Wilber, the views described will be familiar. They are the four quadrants (fig. 1
below) with the exterior singular (building science as a shorthand marker); the
exterior plural (marked by sustainability) and the interior (with the singular view
being the soul of building and the plural realm marked by Community and
Meaning).
Figure 1
Note that this is a work in progress with the discussion primarily on quadrants,
levels and states. There may be aspects, idiosyncratic to building, that have been
explored by others e.g. types (building styles) or remain to be explored.
I have found the AQUAL (all quadrants, all levels, all lines) model to be
satisfying, fruitful and empowering in understanding and guiding my life work.
I am a licensed engineer by profession. Currently I do structural design and
energy modeling, mostly for residential projects. I practice in California where
there is great interest in all aspects of building. It is an exciting time to be
building but I have felt pulled in many different directions. What is important in
this project? What is not? How to decide? Can the idea of Integral Building
bring clarity to this process? Can Integral Building provide worthy goals to
support creating beauty, goodness and excellence in our buildings?
I developed the idea of Integral Building in order to honor and include several
very different views of building that all seemed vital.
Ever since I first learned of the work of Christopher Alexander, the chief author
of A Pattern Language, I knew his point of view on building had something that
was deeply satisfying. His later work, The Nature of Order, and my own work
with Chris, intensified my appreciation but made me aware that following the
heart was not sufficient in order to build well.
As an engineer I also knew the value of science, in particular, building science in
order to make buildings that are safe, functional, durable and healthy.
Living now we are all aware of the global effect of man’s works upon the planet.
Constructing and operating buildings uses 1/3 of the energy used worldwide
REF? and ??% of the petroleum used in the USA. And mountains are flattened
and rivers polluted by the mining and processing of materials for building.
I was teaching a course on the Soul of Building (my take on Christopher
Alexander’s work) and I was looking again at the work of Ken Wilber and how
he applied the integral view to art. I was trying to fit this in as an example of a
view of architecture that supported giving value and meaning to the soul of
building, when I realized that it was the other way round. The soul of building fit
into an Integral view of Building as one realm or view. And that the other
essential realms of building; building science and sustainability also fit in as the
exterior realms. Finally, led by the logic of the Integral view, I recognized that
buildings are caught up and part of the inner life of the community. A barn
raising is archetypal. Each of us has a sense of Home freighted with all kinds of
associations and many of them are held in common with others.
Each of these areas is a realm, and one’s attention and energy can be used
exclusively in building well by the demands of soul, science, sustainability or
meaning.
But there is the invitation to hold all of this lightly. And to find the Yes! that
satisfies, as best we can, the needs of all realms. This is the invitation of Integral
Building.
To the extent that you are familiar with integral philosophy and the work of Ken
Wilber, the views described will be familiar. They are the four quadrants (fig. 1
below) with the exterior singular (building science as a shorthand marker); the
exterior plural (marked by sustainability) and the interior (with the singular view
being the soul of building and the plural realm marked by Community and
Meaning).
Figure 1
Note that this is a work in progress with the discussion primarily on quadrants,
levels and states. There may be aspects, idiosyncratic to building, that have been
explored by others e.g. types (building styles) or remain to be explored.
I have found the AQUAL (all quadrants, all levels, all lines) model to be
satisfying, fruitful and empowering in understanding and guiding my life work.
I am a licensed engineer by profession. Currently I do structural design and
energy modeling, mostly for residential projects. I practice in California where
there is great interest in all aspects of building. It is an exciting time to be
building but I have felt pulled in many different directions. What is important in
this project? What is not? How to decide? Can the idea of Integral Building
bring clarity to this process? Can Integral Building provide worthy goals to
support creating beauty, goodness and excellence in our buildings?
| Links to you tube Prezis here, origins, 4 realms and evolution, practice |
| Links to Soul of Bldg, Eng and Bld Sci, Sustainability and Community pages |