In this paper we examine what appear to be the ‘rules’ of geometrical composition underlying the design of plan in eight well-known houses by Peter Eisenman. The effect of these compositional rules, tied to the design process of ‘decomposition’ described by Eisenman, in the generation of spatial layout in these houses is then analysed by using space syntax analysis. In particular, the effects of this design process in structuring the relationships, if any, between everyday living and ‘private’ household functions, that is, bedrooms, and the interface between inhabitants and visitors are examined. This is done in order to understand better the relationship, if any, between Eisenman's stated aims in his own theoretical writings about the design of these houses and the architectural object itself.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Academy Editions, 1993Re-working Eisenman (Academy Editions, London)
2.
BenjaminA, 1997, “Eisenman and the housing of tradition”, in Rethinking Architecture Ed. LeachN (Routledge, London) pp 286–301
EisenmanP, 1977, “House VI”Progressive Architecture June issue, pp 57–59
5.
EisenmanP, 1980, “Sandboxes: House XIa”Architecture and Urbanism January issue, pp 225–247
6.
EisenmanP, 1981House X (Rizzoli, New York)
7.
EisenmanP, 1984, “The futility of objects: Decomposition and the process of difference”Harvard Architectural Review363–79
8.
EisenmanP, 1985, “Fin D'Ou T Hou S”, in Cross Currents of American Architecture Ed. PapadakisA (Architectural Design Profile, New York) pp 48–55
9.
EisenmanP, 1986, “Moving arrows, eros and other errors”Architectural Association Filesissue 12 (Summer), pp 68–78
10.
EisenmanP, 1987House of Cards (Oxford University Press, New York)
11.
El Croquis1997, Peter Eisenman, 1990–97, volume 83, special issue
12.
EvansR, 1997, “Not to be used for wrapping purposes: A Review of the exhibition of Peter Eisenman's Fin d'Ou T Hou S”, in Translations from Drawing to Building and Other Essays Documents 2, Architectural Association, Bedford Square, London, pp 119–152
13.
FrankS, 1994Peter Eisenman's House VI: The Client's Response Whitney Library of Design (Watson-Gupthill, New York)
GandelsonasM, 1981, “From structure to subject: The formation of an architectural language”, in House X (Rizzoli, New York)
16.
GassW, 1977, “House VI”Progressive Architecture June issue, pp 50–65
17.
GutmanR, 1977, “House VI”Progressive Architecture June issue, pp 66–68
18.
HansonJ, 1994, “Deconstructing architects' houses”Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design21675–704
19.
HansonJ, 1998Decoding Houses and Homes (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge)
20.
HillierB, 1996Space is the Machine (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge)
21.
HillierBHansonJ, 1984The Social Logic of Space (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge)
22.
HillierBHansonJGrahamH, 1987, “Ideas are in things: An application of the space syntax method to discovering house genotypes”Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design14363–385
23.
KraussR, 1980, “Death of a hermeneutic phantom: Materialization of the sign in the work of Peter Eisenman”Architecture and Urbanism January issue, pp 189–216
24.
MajorM D, 1993, “Morphocentrism: a study of deep structures in Peter Eisenman's House X”, MSc case study paper, University College London, London
25.
MarchL, 1976, “A Boolean description of built form”, in The Architecture of Form Ed. MarchL (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge) pp 41–73
26.
MarchL, 1998Architectonics of Humanism: Essays on Number in Architecture (Academy Editions, Chichester, Sussex)
27.
MarchLSteadmanP, 1971The Geometry of Environment (Royal Institute of British Architects, London)
28.
RoweC, 1982, “The mathematics of the ideal villa”, in The Mathematics of the Ideal Villa and Other Essays (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA) pp 1–28
29.
SarrisN, 1998a, “Original theories, conventional layouts: a comparative analysis of theory and practice in eight houses by Peter Eisenman using space syntax”, MSc thesis, University College London, London
30.
SarrisN, 1998b, “Five Peter Eisenman houses: a brief analysis of House I, II, III, IV, VI”, MSc case study paper, University College London, London
31.
StewartIGolubitskyM, 1992Fearful Symmetry: Is God a Geometer? (Penguin, London)
32.
StinyG, 1978, “The Palladian grammar”Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design55–18
33.
StinyGMitchellW J, 1978, “Counting Palladian plans”Environment and Planning: Planning and Design B5189–198
