Pre-reading Discussion. 1. How do you understand the phrase “industrial construction”?

1. How do you understand the phrase “industrial construction”?

2. Are the efforts of engineers and constructors directed towards the same goal?

3. Construction is not the ultimate objective of design, is it?

4. What is the duty of an engineer?

Industrial building embraces a much wider range of functional processes than other forms of construction,

so that it is not easy to define it typologically. Basically, industrial construction involves production buildings

that directly or indirectly serve the mechanical manufacture of goods. This also includes plants for the generation

of energy and heat, stores for materials and finished products, and administration and transport buildings.

Historically, one can identify three main phases of constructional development. At the beginning of the Industrial

Revolution in the middle of the 18th century, when machine manufacture came to replace traditional

craft production, power was supplied by direct mechanical transmission. This led to the erection of compact,

often multi-storey structures of great depth, based on a central source of energy such as a steam engine or a water

wheel. In the middle of the 19th century, industrial building was influenced by reformist ideas. Production

works were located downwind of cities - and downstream, too, if possible - to ensure better hygienic conditions

in respect of emissions. Improved means of conveying energy - as electricity or by hydraulic systems - and decentralized

power generation allowed the various functions to be accommodated in different buildings. The increasing

size and weight of products like locomotives and turbines required broad, single-storey halls. The

American system of Conveyor-belt production also dictated large, top-lighted halls, so that multi-storey structures

gradually declined in importance.

From the middle of the 20th century, heavy industry was complemented and later replaced by production

processes that required less space and caused less pollution. Flexibility and extendibility became increasingly

important, and it was possible to integrate industry in an urban context once more, with work and habitation

located close to each other. The great changes that have taken place in industry call for new built solutions,

which require the application of intelligent systems and sustainable planning strategies. Industrial building culture

also means taking the design of the structure just as seriously as that of the products.

In seeking to draw up a typology of industrial buildings, one can perhaps best analyze those areas where

the greatest differences exist, namely in the functional layout and form.

Structures may be additive or integrative:

– additive (linear) – spine, comb, or with head structure;

– additive (two–dimensional) – grid, ring or agglomerate;

– integrative – within a box-like enclosure.

In additive systems, the various functional components will be more or less independent, in which case, the

access system is likely to provide the structuring element. The advantages of this type lie in its flexibility and

extendibility.

The semiconductor factory by Richard Rogers in Newport, South Wales, is an example of a linear, spine

structure with a symmetrical layout on both sides of the circulation and supply axis. The structure can be extended

on both sides, a classical comb-like form. The teeth of the

comb accommodate the production spaces, which are linked via the central access route with three-storey semicircular

office tracts. Extensions can be made to both the spine and the teeth.

The laser factory has a double-comb structure with three independent

production halls laid out on both sides of an access zone.

As an example of an additive development with a head structure, one might cite the administration and

manufacturing building. The multi-storey head tract

(administration and presentation) and the single-storey production hall are united within a common loadbearing

structure. In furniture factory near London, the head of the building is incorporated in

the overall volume. With its continuous load-bearing structure, this compact development reveals a clear linear

articulation of functions and is an example of industrial architecture at its best.

Central store for Renault is a two-dimensionally additive structure based on a

repetitive modular grid. The factory near Warsaw by architects comprises a series of repetitive grid

bays, but in this case, the internal articulation and side lighting restrict the scope for extension.

An additive ring form was adopted for the Volvo assembly plant, a much-discussed

scheme because of the change from conveyor-belt to team-oriented production. The manufacturing sequence is

organized around an infrastructure core zone, thereby achieving greatly improved working conditions. The hexagonal

geometry also offers broad scope for extension.

The coal-fired power station is an example of an agglomerate

structure developed irregularly over a period of many years.

In a comparable way, the various functional realms of the Louis Vuitton factory for leather goods are distinguished by different building elements with their own individual forms and independent

load-bearing structures.

With integrative systems, the many functions of an industrial undertaking are incorporated in a single

building. One advantage of this is the proximity of the various zones to each other and the minimization of circulation

areas. In the car industry, for example, there is a trend towards integrating the administrative functions

in the manufacturing areas as a means of improving communication. A neutral, unifying building skin allows an

independent layout of the working processes, although often at the expense of flexibility. Extensions can be

made by inserting structures, by taking space away from other uses, or by adding further modules externally.

The filling plant for the brewery is a good example of the way various functions can be accommodated

within a single box-like building, with secondary spaces - offices, social areas, workshops, etc. - inserted

in the form of a structure within a structure.

The research and development centre is a much more

complex box enclosure. It is laid out on two storeys, with the offices and staff rooms accommodated on galleries

above the ground floor production area. Various mixed types also exist, of course. In the logistics centre for

a CD works, an external through-route forms a kind of spine, with high-bay storage

facilities on one side and a hall for packing and distribution on the other. Similarly, the production building

cannot be assigned to any single category. Consisting of two linked parallel halls,

it is formally a box, but has a continuous linear load-bearing structure, while the production process follows a

circular route.

An interesting new development is the division of buildings according to static functions (social areas, administration,

core fabrication) and dynamic functions (prefabrication, suppliers). The static functions are laid

out in the form of a spine, while the zones subject to greater change are attached to it like limbs. In the modular

Skoda plant in the Czech Republic, the production line follows a ringlike

spine route, to which the prefabrication areas are attached on the outside. This type offers a maximum degree

of flexibility.

What these examples show is that, with the increasing complexity of planning processes, it is important for

the architect to act as a structuring, controlling figure while still fulfilling his role as a designer in a team of specialists.

Only then can industrial building become industrial culture again.