when it's used in architecture, it means "the art of assembling the materials used in construction" (Webster's).
i think it's used a lot as jargon in place the word 'structure'.

is that an art? i thought it was "construction" itself...
construction ~ assembling materials -- ? --

in recent architectural theory, the consideration of loads and stresses. From the Greek "tektonikos" of a builder

sorry but i don't get it. what do you consider to say a building is "tectonic"? do you mean that you stop by and calculate its loads and stresses and then, when you get the result you say... ok, it is tectonic.

when would you guys say a building is "tectonic" or an archie is "tectonic"?

just replace the word 'tectonic' with the word 'structural.'
it does not make sense to refer to a building as 'tectonic,' but you could talk about the 'tectonics' (ie, the structural aspects) of the building.

do you think it makes sense to say "tectonic architecture"?
tectonic arch = structural architecture?
is not all arch structural? or at leas needs a structure to be architecture?
is all arch tectonic then?

i've read here "tectonic architecture" ...

If I may:

tec·ton·ic (tĕk-tŏn'ĭk)
adj.
Geology. Relating to, causing, or resulting from structural deformation of the earth's crust.

Relating to construction or building.
Architectural.
[Late Latin tectonicus, from Greek tektonikos, from tektōn, builder.]

tec·ton'i·cal·ly adv.

hey tectonic, nice nickname, you are the person i was looking for :)

i understand the meaning of the term, thank you guys, but i don't know how to apply it to architecture, i don't have the needed parameters in mind to be able to say sthg is tectonic, (i am able to talk about tectonics, as catnip said, as a name, not as an adj.), maybe you can make me see the light...

I believe that "tectonic" is an adjective, or at least more widely used as an adjective within the architecture profession. In other words just as we may use the word "monolithic" or "articulated" we may use the word "tectonic". I'm not referring to this comparison as a synonym but rather I'm trying to demonstrate it's use as an adjective within an architectural context. When I use the word "tectonic" I'm referring to architecture's aesthetic value in portraying structure by displaying it's intrensic reaction to gravity. Here is a very vegue but simple comparison: a balloon does not have a tectonic appearance but the letter "T" does. I hope this helps.

I think that searching for definitions of architecture terms is like looking at any american word for more than 5 minutes at a time and wondering...I wonder why you spell it that way...Hmmm...

We are a profession known for its nonsensicle terminology, and we love it. All I have to say is

POCHE

thanks tectonic, your ideas are very useful.

blulite-
you spell it that way because it's your own language, at least you could learn how to spell them all, unless you want the rest of the world think that you didn't attend high school. and yes, you are right... maybe we love it, but the rest of the world doesn't, and we'd better communicate our thought to others out of the profession as clear as possible. this is related to the discussion we had several days ago: why architects don't know how to work the media?

In this sense, I always took it to mean the details in the connections of materials within a design. How one material joins to another. Also how one system of the design interfaces or joins another system.

who's on first?

Each prof i've had at school has had a different understanding of "Tectonic".

I'd say it's the most miss-understood, and poorly used word in architecture. I find a lot of idiots use to sound smarter than they really are.

this said, i like Tectonic's definition.

carlo scarpa

yes, i think it is also used frequently in discussion of details. I wasn't aware of the structural nature of the term, but that makes sense, and it's good to know.

tekton=build

who's on second?

teutonic and tectonic architecture

its one of those rather ambiguous 'archi-sophical' terms..rather than simply referring to the structure or construction per se ('structure', though, can be elevated to have parallel meaning ). Bluntly, the deliberate articulation of architectural form/s (from the micro-details- to the macro) in response to functionality/typology/design intention... Hence the ambiguity, since pretty much anything has a tectonic...one might argue the intelligence embodied in one instant of tectonic over another.
Delving deeper, it bears the trace of the greek techne in relating the empirically specific (craft) to the universal (reason/logos). So the term denotes the echo of reason within the articulation of form and vice versa...in the same way that a sculptor's knowledge and tools dictate the emergence of form within stone and the inherent properties of stone dictate the sculptor's etc etc.

i agree it´s ambiguous and very very general... like saying it all and saying nothing specific.

Probably you may wanna read Santiago Calatrava`s AIA Gold Medal Acceptance Speech

it´s great, chameleon, thanks!

I like Calatrava's reasoning (the first greek part mostly).. in fact it reflects the philosophy of the spanish version of the german's magazine Detail, which is called, precisely, "Tectónica"..



it basically takes 3 or 4 projects per issue and dismantles the structural logic and the construction details that makes a good project a work of art... it's the best spanish arch magazine together with El Croquis, Arquitectura Viva and Quaderns (I highly recommend it if you can read spanish, some are translated to english): www.tectonica.es/

have you been in spain, medit? you seem to be an expert on spanish magazines. i´d say top three are El Croquis, AV and Tectónica.

I always relate it to how the structural language has been crafted /designed, concrete, wood, steel or the combination of and the story you tell with those materials.

it's an album by adam freeland.

polipop,
I'm catalan, born in Barcelona, live in BCN's metro area (though I'm not there right now)... I studied arch here too, so I spent quite some time reading all kinds of magazines (catalan, spanish and foreign) in the school library... but I'm far from being an expert, I've just got a general view on what's out there..

your 3 choices are my fave too.. in fact, I'm subscribed to AV and Tectónica (also to Pasajes de Arquitectura, basically because its very cheap)..

medit-

bueno, entonces también me entiendes en español... al catalán aún no llego, aunque barcelona me encanta. tuve profesores catalanes en la escuela de arquitectura de madrid.

I'm also subscribed to AV.

There have been a big discussion about "tectonic architecture" in my school, especially in terms of "being honest" to the construction, which means really to show how the forces are brought to the ground by making the load carrying structure visible in the same time as you always seek the minimal construction.

But i have to say that i disagree in this definition, basicly becourse it often ends up with dull and very "logical" solutions without any room for the imagination of the users.

To exemplify how i think a new definition of Check out the villa Bordeaux by Koolhaas to see a good example:

http://lava.ds.arch.tue.nl/gallery/bordeaux/koolhaas/house.jpg

And here is the structural system:

http://lava.ds.arch.tue.nl/gallery/bordeaux/koolhaas/structure.jpg

As you may have guessed im quite a big fan of the book:
"Informal" by Cecil Balmond.
This book is a must if you seek modern definitions of tectonics.

WISOF put it best in few words, it is the structuring of the parts.

read the kenneth extensively on it, love it

...as opposed to stereotomic.

I think mauOne hit it squarely: "the structuring of the parts."

I've always understood "tectonics" to be a noun, meaning the manupulation of, or relationship between, physical form(s) or components thereof. If this is the case, then an adjective "tectonic" to describe a building is as meaningless as calling it "structural." All buildings are structural, unless they failed and are in a pile of rubble. All buildings are tectonic, unless one is an insecure critic short of lofty rhetoric to wow students.

Structuring???? okay not to drag it on but I am not sure what "Structuring" means. I think its as bad as tectonics.

a dictionary / encyclopedia will be more helpfull than a forum in some cases

let us consult the oracle:




tectonic (a)

1. Of or pertaining to building, or construction in general; constructional, constructive: used esp. in reference to architecture and kindred arts.

2. Geol. Belonging to the actual structure of the earth's crust, or to general changes affecting it. Also with reference to other planets. Cf. also plate-tectonic adj. s.v. PLATE n. 21.

Hence tectonical a., in sense 2; tectonically adv., as regards tectonism; by tectonic processes.




thus spake the oed. anything else is neologising and you would have to ask the individual responsible for what they mean.

tectonics = the expression of structure

no. it is not the _expression_ of structure.

the oed has spoken.
kneel before its magnificent volumes.

I think Oracle is a bit too general.

When I've heard/read the word (in a modern context) it usually eludes to a poetic expression in the detailing of structure, cladding, texture, etc..

To say some thing is "tectonic" means nothing in and of itself. But usually some wise ass invokes the word when they are suggesting that there is something about the tectonics that make it meaningful.

Every piece of furniture, building, object has a tectonic relationship (ie. structural ordering, material connections, or whatever). It is the "what about it" that is important.

my 2 bits anyway.

sorry, harvey. the oracle cannot be doubted. that's heresy. but otherwise, you're quite right.

if you mean 'poetically expressed tectonics' then you have to say that, not just use 'tectonics' to mean it.