Entelechy revisited: On the generative specification of John Portman’s architectural language

Abstract

John Portman’s work attracts significant commentary, although the focus is typically on the commercial and social aspects of his work as opposed to the actual designs and their related architectural implications. The obvious place to start unpacking his contribution is in his widely recognized and published commercial portfolio, yet he maintains that his design principles are found in his personal domestic work. Here, his 1964 residence Entelechy I is analyzed to inform the development of a parametric shape grammar that generates the original design as well as a series of variations. The goal of this research is to engage Portman’s architectural philosophy and constructively assess his claims of its implicit relationship to his work to date. Key rules suggesting his principles and anticipating his ongoing architectural contribution are outlined. The structure provided by shape computation, involving both shape rules and rule schemas, is positioned as the theoretical basis for an ongoing study of transformations within Portman’s language.

Keywords

Shape grammars design methods generative design spatial analysis

Introduction

John Portman is an architect-developer. This hybrid seems logical, as it combines the practice of architecture with development ventures, but it is uncommon, especially for an architect who professes equal concern for the art of buildings and their commercial performance. This combined concern yields a body of work that is challenging to assess because it is as stunning as it is troubling. The troubles arise from the conflicting approach of the architect-as-patron and subsequent outcomes ranging from commercial success to urban failure, and everything in between. Despite this span, one thing is clear: the work is not boring. In fact, Portman’s architecture is quite the opposite; and for all its excitement and curiosity it indeed attracts critical interest (Goldberger et al., 1990; Jameson, 1991; Koolhaas et al., 1998; Sorkin, 1994). This attention is mainly focused on the commercial work, yet Portman identifies his 1964 domestic work, Entelechy I, as the key project embodying his architectural philosophy (Portman and Barnett, 1976). Portman’s design exploration in this project was possible precisely because of his unconventional role as architect-developer in the 1961 Atlanta Merchandise Mart: a success that literally afforded him the opportunity to design and build Entelechy I. This study focuses on this initial domestic project to begin analyzing his design principles and aims to lay a foundation for assessing Portman’s architectural contribution in the United States and beyond.

The concept of Entelechy

The term ‘entelechy’ originates in the Aristotelian έντɛλέχɛια (entelecheia), which describes a process of becoming from an intrinsic potential. John Portman has used the term to name a pair of personal residences: Entelechy I, his primary home in Atlanta, Georgia and Entelechy II, his 1986 beach house on Sea Island, Georgia. For him, the concept relates to his aim to fully realize the essence of an architectural project. The residences, completed two decades apart, both covey a sense of experimentation, investigation and discovery, although the extravagant Entelechy II is by nature more vocal than his first home. Nevertheless, it was in the design and construction of Entelechy I that Portman first asserted his architectural ideas (Figure 1). At that early point in his career, his initial development achievement allowed him to take on the challenge of his own residence with limited constraints. Originally designed for Portman, his wife and their six children, the concept for the house was to realize a lively pavilion inspired by the coincident order and variety of nature. The importance of Entelechy I is reiterated by the fact that it was completed before Portman’s first atrium hotel, the 1967 Hyatt Regency in Atlanta.

Figure 1.

Entelechy I: exterior view. Image by Alexander Georges, The Entelechy I Collection, The Portman Archives, LLC.

The design of Entelechy I: Order and variety

Completed under the auspices of his firm Edwards and Portman, Entelechy I was one of Portman’s early projects published as a design success. At the time Portman was primarily known, as an article in Interiors introduced him, as a “builder and owner of giant commercial structures,” but architectural invention was not the focus of his achievements. The same article continued to track the milestone: “In his home it is clear that he has until now repressed a compelling drive to explore new ideas about space” (Interiors, 1965). Multiple publications, including Architectural Record (1965), Architectural Digest (1970), and Interiors (1965), echoed this sentiment upon completion of the house in the 1960s and again in a set of later articles in Interior Design (1982) and Southern Homes (1989) inspired by 1980s renovations. These features focused on the uniqueness of the design and its flexible spatial expression, aspects that make the house critical to understanding Portman’s work.

The house is designed around a rhythm of circular architectonic elements. These elements, characterized as columns that have been hollowed out or as columns that have been fragmented or exploded, what Portman calls “hollow columns” or “exploded columns” (1976), carry the full load of the structure and are each capped by an individual skylight penetrating the platform roof. Around the perimeter, these curved cypress-clad columns are expressed for the full 17 foot height of the two-storey steel and concrete structure conveying a temple-like continuity. The giant columnar peristyle sets up a grid of interior columns as well, making the house a modern interpretation of the hypostyle hall (Craig, 1989). This relentless stability allows spatial divisions throughout the house to be arranged independently adding layers of complexity to the space. The resulting combination of order and variety creates a pliable spatial structure flexible for the diverse (and changing) needs of a dynamic family life. The actual exterior enclosure is defined by a combination of these grand columns and immaterial glass partitions weaving between them at their centerlines, blurring the distinction between interior and exterior. In fact, it is the canopy roof rather than the exterior wall that convincingly demarcates the boundary of the pavilion. Curved brick walls undulating around the lower level, containing terraces and pools, reinforce this perimeter. Centered over one of these pools, the upper floor entry bridge directs arrival under the canopy of the pavilion, through one pair of the columns exposed to the exterior and on to the front door recessed between the second set of columns.

On the interior, a space defined by four curvilinear exploded columns centered at its corners marks the entry foyer with views overlooking the lower level below (Figure 2). The immediate view opposite to the door reveals a pool of water that continues through the interior on the lower level on axis with the main entry (Figure 3). Here, Portman's primary design concept for the house that he describes as “space within space” is first visible in both its functional and formal implications (Portman and Barnett, 1976). Functionally, this water channel that continues from outside to inside and out again acts as a soft boundary distinguishing two spatial hierarchies in the house and thus articulating degrees of privacy. Formally, it becomes clear on the interior of the house that the unusual columns are actually operating as spatial devices throughout the house to support a variety of functional needs.

Figure 2.

The entry foyer of the house: Interior view of stair connecting the entry foyer to the living room. Image by Unknown Photographer, The Entelechy I Collection, The Portman Archives, LLC.

Figure 3.

Floor Plans: (a) upper floor (main entry level) plan; (b) lower floor plan. Legend: (1) entry foyer, (2) living room, (3) music room, (4) dining room, (5) kitchen, (6) family dining room, (7) family/play room, (8) master bedroom, (9) master bathroom, (10) master study, (11) bedroom, (12) staff bedroom, and (13) laundry/utility area (Drawing by author).

Over a decade after completing Entelechy I, in his 1976 book, The Architect as Developer, Portman emphasized the importance of the house to his own architectural development:

It was in my house that I first began to experiment with the concepts that I had identified as constant elements in the way that people related to their environment. Perhaps I am the only one who can see it, but much of my later work is implicit in that house. It contains the basis for my architectural philosophy: organizing principles that work for a room or a restaurant, a building or a group of buildings.

Four decades later, he still speaks of the house in this way, stressing its ongoing importance. To date, Entelechy I is Portman’s primary residence in Atlanta. With all of his children grown, the house has endured changing needs, but the flexibility of the design has allowed the house to reconfigure with the evolution of the family.

The function of Entelechy I: Privacy and publicity

The blurred boundaries of exterior and interior in the house are echoed by soft functional boundaries between the private family and public entertaining zones. The asymmetrical entry axis reinforced by the pool emphasizes that these two zones are not bilaterally equal, but divided proportional to their use. The larger zone is the family area on the west, vertically maintained on both levels of the house as a space of private domesticity including bedrooms, bathrooms, and living spaces (Figure 3). A second, smaller public zone to the east can be isolated as an area for entertaining guests in its separate living spaces. Three circulation staircases within the house serve these areas, one for private family use, one exclusive to the master suite on the private side of the house, and one connecting guests from the entry foyer directly to the entertaining zone of the house.

This zoning essentially creates the possibility for the house to operate as two separate entities at once: a private home for raising a family and an entertaining showpiece, a distinction critical for a family with active social and professional pursuits. The private home consists of seven family bedrooms and four full bathrooms. Additional family spaces include playrooms, informal living rooms, a family dining room, a study linked to the master bedroom, and the kitchen linking dining rooms for both family and entertaining purposes. On the lower level, the entertaining spaces of the house in the public zone include the double height living rooms and music room as well as the floating dining room beneath the entry foyer. Sliding partitions allow for full separation of the two zones from the centrality of the kitchen.

The form of Entelechy I: Space within space

The form of the house relies on a unique modulation of space organized by the regular repetition of exploded columns within an otherwise open plan. The 24 hollow, exploded columns invent an expansive structural organization on a grid throughout the house. This framework is as rigorous as it is playful. Portman is clear about this dual nature:

The 8-foot hollow columns in my house created a strong structural order, almost classical in nature, yet left me free to place a variety of different functions and experiences in just two basic kinds of space … Each column is made up of eight separate panels. The ones on the four main axes are structural; the other four can be omitted to meet different conditions. A house is one of the very few building types that lends itself to the concepts of major and minor spaces as Louis Kahn defined them. The 8-foot diameter of the columns is a dimension large enough to contain the minor functions of the house and to integrate structure, space, light, and ventilation. (Portman and Barnett, 1976)

What is striking about this assertion is the tension of distinguishing “spaces that serve from those being served” (Kahn, 1957) in Portman’s conception of minor spaces. Portman sets the minor spaces of the house not as isolated poché, but instead as the foregrounded figures of his composition. In this inversion, the figurative spaces are the so-called minor spaces, defined by hollow columns in a unique stylized spatial expression, and the underlying field space emerges perceptually as the major spaces between the hollow columns (Figure 4). Significantly, Portman’s hollow column is defined by an eight-foot clear diameter on its interior, sized precisely to contain a spiral staircase—the most constraining functional requirement among the many performed within these spaces.

Figure 4.

Relationships defined by the hollow column: (a) M: major space; (b) m: minor space.

Even more telling here is the relentless repetition of this emergent module of a major space bounded by minor spaces to create a coordinate unit that characterizes the complete arrangement of the plan of the house. This coordinate unit allows the systematical deployment of all sorts of functional and spatial relations between the public and private spaces of the house and despite its relentless repetition (or perhaps precisely because of it), it allows for the emergence of a flexible living environment that addresses the subtleties and complexities of the domestic scale. In Entelechy I, this domestic coordinate unit relates the areas of two interrelated space types tailored for housing needs at a 1:4 proportion, which works naturally with the functions of a house. A major space, for example a bedroom, is easily supported by a closet or study occupying an adjacent minor space. Minor spaces are used throughout the house to perforate the complete field of major spaces, providing studies, closets, libraries, half bathrooms, staircases, vestibules, light wells, and art galleries (Figure 5). Within these modules, spaces can concatenate to create larger volumes as needed with no impact to the structural framework. Minor spaces group vertically to connect levels, exposing the skylights at the top of each column filtering natural light into the house. Major spaces multiply as well, grouping horizontally as halls to access bedrooms, highlighting the fact that within this spatial system there are no conventional corridors. Vertically, major spaces open up as double-height volumes to reinforce the entertaining areas of the house. In all cases, the four structural panels on the cardinal axes of the hollow columns are maintained, establishing a consistent frame for a variety of nested spatial arrangements.

Figure 5.

Minor spaces utilized in the plan of the house: (a) study; (b) closet; (c) library; (d) half bathroom and coat closet; (e) stair well; (f) light well.

Interpreting the formal system of Entelechy I

The formal system of Entelechy I is organized by fundamental geometries to promote both order and variety. The basic composition is limited to two primary shapes: the circle and the square. The strict organization of these shapes on a regular grid creates a rigid system, yet the figural hollow columns break this to facilitate diverse spatial conditions in the house. Aiming to identify the possibilities of this combination, the composition can be further analyzed not to ascertain Portman’s actual intent, but to interpret its larger implications. This is accomplished in two parts: first by a closer look at the hollow column isolated as an individual element; and second, by exploring the cumulative effect of the columns aggregated across a single level to suggest the interweaving of coordinate units throughout the house.

The hollow column reinterprets the compositional properties of a traditional column. Instead of a column defined by the point transfer of a single line of force, the load is split across four curvilinear elements that extend the column definition to also enclose a minor space. This upgrades the column into a spatial device articulated by an inventive take on the fundamental combination of circle and square. The circle identifies and orders the vertical elements of the hollow column, while the square subdivides them. Although the eight subdivisions of the hollow column relate numerically to the octagon, in Portman’s case, it is a layering of two squares that separate the fixed structural panels from the flexible panels of the column by a 45 degree rotation. To conjecturally explore this element both within Portman’s system and beyond, the full eight-ness will be considered here.

The number of all non-equivalent configurations of the octagonal symmetry structure of the eight-paneled hollow column can be calculated using Pólya’s theorem of counting non-equivalent configurations with respect to a given permutation group (Pólya et al., 1983). A brief introduction to the theorem and its usage in formal analysis along with complete catalogues for all two-color configurations of regular n-polygons for n ≤ 12 is given in Economou and Grasl (2012). The complete number of distinct configurations of eight panels within the hollow column is comprised by 30 possible configurations bounded by the completely enclosed arrangement comprised by eight panels to the entirely open arrangement comprised by no panel at all (Figure 6). While order and variety are achieved within Portman’s system, this catalog suggests structural and spatial variations that are not considered in Entelechy I. In practice, these could be composed of a mixture of structural panels, fixed partitions, and operable panels to expand the performance of the hollow column in varied contexts.

Figure 6.

Catalog of the 30 non-equivalent configurations of an eight panel hollow column (n = 8).

Reducing the flexible panels of the hollow column from eight to four by adding Portman’s structural restrictions produces symmetries captured by the symmetry group of the square (n = 4) and reduces the total number of non-equivalent configurations from thirty to six (Figure 7). And still, even though these six configurations are possible in Portman’s system, only four are used in Entelechy I. Most notably, strict diagonal connections through the columns like those shown in the last configuration of Figure 7, row 3 are avoided in his design. Diagonal connections through the columns are only used in Entelechy I when they open up to a third or fourth crossing as shown in rows 4 and 5 of Figure 7. Also, a column is never entirely closed in the design with all eight panels as shown in row 1 of Figure 7. Once these two configurations are eliminated (as denoted in Figure 7 by dashed borders), the four hollow column types Portman uses in Entelechy I remain.

Figure 7.

Catalog of the six possible variations of a hollow column with four fixed structural columns that are possible within Entelechy I’s configuration. The two configurations with the dashed border are not present in the house.

The larger context of the hollow columns rhythmically arranged within each floor plate provides a second layer of spatial relations to evaluate. The grid is the organizing system par excellence of architecture, regulating space efficiently and usefully. Grids are less strictly applied in domestic architecture than in commercial work, especially in single-family homes where the desire for a variety of room sizes eliminates the practicality of a regular structural grid. Yet, Portman’s composition of a square grid combined with the hollow column resolves the regularity of a grid module to work for the various functions of a house and establishes the spatial relations of his domestic coordinate unit. Figure 8 illustrates tartan grids highlighting alternate rhythms embedded in the composition as coordinate units multiply into the larger pattern of the house. These emergent thresholds suggest diverse visual readings and physical connections across the spaces. Without corridors per se, the perforations created by the hollow columns create a pliable circulation system for people, air, and light that is generous and dynamic.

Figure 8.

Plan diagrams illustrating the grids and thresholds implied by the aggregation and arrangement of hollow columns in Entelechy I: (a) upper floor (main entry level) plan; (b) lower floor plan.

This ordered diversity is reiterated in the conditional relationships between the hollow column configurations themselves as arranged in the field of each floor plate. These relationships can be nicely captured by the isovist fields that denote the volume of space that is visible from a given point in space (Benedikt, 1979). The isovist diagrams of Figure 9 isolate these connections across the grid by radiating lines from the 24 center points of the hollow columns to imply their greater volumetric influence. These abstractions include the actual configurations from the plans of Entelechy I and clarify the subtleties of their functional and formal composition. Here, the patterning of the perimeter columns is clear, with distinct configurations at the exterior corners and a visible difference in the treatment of the front of the house versus the back and sides. On the interior, the column configurations reinforce the central halls as connective spaces on the main axes. Similarly, the private family and public entertaining sides of the house can be distinguished by the variations illustrated in these diagrams and suggest the combined functional and formal clarity of the house.

Figure 9.

Isovist plan diagrams illustrating the visual and volumetric relationships of the hollow columns as aggregated and arranged in Entelechy I: (a) upper floor (main entry level) plan; (b) lower floor plan.

The generation of Entelechy I

Formal descriptions, such as the analysis and explorations outlined here, parse designs within a specific lens and simultaneously set up a framework to create new compositions from identified principles. Here, the spatial arrangement of Entelechy I is recast as a parametric shape grammar (Stiny, 2006; Stiny and Mitchell, 1978, 1980; Knight, 1994). The appeal of a grammar, such as the one outlined here for a single work, is that it establishes a generative structure that can then be critically tested in the making of the original design as well as in variations that likewise privilege the organizational principles at hand. But more ambitiously, the goal is to open up the discussion on how the design principles extracted from this formal analysis can inform a reading of Portman’s overall contributions in formal composition as well as his role in late twentieth century architecture and urban discourse. More precisely, the aim is to critically examine Portman’s statement that he identifies the house with the genesis of his architectural principles and start evaluating the claims that have pervaded the criticism of his architecture ever since.

Two early versions of the grammar exploring aspects of the composition of the project have been given elsewhere (Ligler and Economou, 2015a, 2015b). The grammar here generalizes this work and provides a coherent three-dimensional framework to discuss the complete generative modeling of the project along with a language of playful interpretations.

The grammar is defined in the direct product algebras U₁₃ × U₂₃ × V₀₃ (Stiny, 2006) to allow calculations with three-dimensional parametric shapes consisting of lines, planes, and labeled points. The complete set of all the rules in the grammar is given in an identical axonometric projection and included for the interested reader in the Supplementary Information. Still for reasons of custom and clarity, the very same rules are given here in the body of the paper in a simple orthographic plan projection along with a set of conventions to capture information about the three-dimensional properties of the design.

Two conventions are used here to facilitate the cognitive mappings between the three-dimensional space of the rules of the grammar and their two-dimensional planar instances below. The first convention shows the three-dimensional relation and parameterization of the labeled shape rules (Figure 10(a)): Shapes are defined in different construction planes on the z-axis as a series of overlapping layers denoting a clean definition of floor-to-floor heights. When a height is not specified for an element within a shape rule, it is always defined by the limits of the next layer. In terms of production, this convention denotes the number of plans that will be generated in the process and distinguishes between the ground level (L₁), roof level (L_R), and any intermediate level (L_n+1) as separate layers. These plan levels are treated as layers in the shape rules. The rules are layered because the grammar necessarily produces a minimum of two plans: the ground level (L₁) and roof level (L_R). Therefore, layered rules apply to coordinate spatial relationships between them. Three additional layer types denote these construction planes and are used as specified in the shape rules: L_n is any occupiable level (any level but the roof level); L_n+1 is any intermediate level (any level but the roof or ground levels); and L₊ is all levels defined for a production. The layer grammar allows shape rules to function as overlays, while their output in production distinguishes the specificity of each layer as an individual plan level. This is analogous to the difference between the overall views within a three-dimensional CAAD modeling space and the clean output of a coordinated design in paper space that relies on cuts of the model defined by separate conventions. Similarly, this representation allows for lines to be assigned an inherent layer label as another feature within the layer grammar. This is controlled within a particular stage, permitting the production of the grid layer as the primary organizational basis of the grammar. The grid layer sets up all the parameters of the production to maintain a dimensional and compositional reference throughout the grammar and as such can be used to isolate parts of a shape as necessary. Additionally, it can be turned off at the end of the production to produce a clean drawing. The second convention utilizes a compositional axis to distinguish the physical orientation of a production as well as the functional zoning specifying private family or public entertaining (Figure 10(b)). It should be noted that shape rules are often prescribed to the conditions of these zonings by way of the axis as a labeling device.

Figure 10.

Representational conventions of the Entelechy I grammar: (a) layered levels on the grid layer setup and (b) compositional axes to define functional zoning. Both conventions are illustrated in both three-dimensional (left) and two-dimensional (right) shape rules. The F and E labels on the compositional axis designate functional zones as private family (F) or public entertaining (E).

With these conventions in place, the shape rules of the grammar are organized in four stages that incrementally work through the design from basic concepts to developed articulation in a manner analogous to processes in architectural design. The four stages postulated to capture the compositional logic of Entelechy I are Stage 1: Framework; Stage 2: Configuration; Stage 3: Style; and Stage 4: Termination. The first stage starts the process by generating the grid as a labeled framework that sets the scope for the design. The second stage works through the main spatial features within and across layers to define and label basic architectural elements bounded by the grid generated in Stage 1, resulting in a configuration that conveys the primary organization of a design. The third stage details the features of shape to develop parts of a design that fully articulate the style. Finally, the fourth stage cleans up any remaining labels and terminates the process to complete a design. A visual description of all the stages and the rules in each stage is given below.

Stage 1: Framework

The dominant feature of Portman’s house is its consistent rhythm of hollow modules creating a porous whole. The house is thus constructed in terms of a set of stacked labeled grids that precisely arrange these coordinate units. This framework is generated using the rules specified in Figure 11. In each framework, the compositional center begins from the labeled axis of the initial shape defined in rule 1. This compositional center characterized by the initial shape defines the eventual entry axis of the house relating public and private zones. No growth is required from the initial shape allowing for the production of a single module as a simple pavilion, however extending the grid on any side of the initial shape will affect the proportional relation of the public and private zones and should be considered as needed to satisfy a design program. An initial grid is constructed from this center in rules 2–5; then rules 6 and 7 add a secondary grid of minor spaces. As the framework grows, the overall dimensions are incrementally determined by parameters defined by the initial shape. In order to ensure consistency throughout the design and fix the proportional relationship of the coordinate unit simultaneously, it is necessary to associate parameters and parametric expressions with the grid generation rules and with the rules specified in the following stages. For Entelechy I, a major space is defined by a width of 16 feet, a length of 16 feet, and an associated floor-to-floor height of 9 feet; while a minor space maintains a diameter of 8 feet to satisfy the constraints of a staircase. Constraints on these dimensions are a factor of the structural limitations of a design and are not considered here. The parameterization of rules in this first stage is the most critical. Once a framework has been generated, it constrains all subsequent applications of rules in such a way that their associated variables assume the correct values. As far as overall parameters, Entelechy I is based on a 3 × 5 grid and in this study designs for a single-family dwelling utilizing the same dimensions are constrained by a 4 × 6 grid in order to meet minimum structural and circulation needs. Additionally, the layer levels finalized in this stage set up construction planes for generating corresponding two-dimensional floor plans that are utilized throughout the grammar and for the final output. The final three rules of this stage change the labels on the initial axis to orient the framework to a specific context. Rule 8 allows for the specification of the entry side of the house. Rule 9 labels the two major functional zones of the grammar: private family and public entertaining. Finally, rule 10 copies the compositional axis to all layer levels defined at this stage in the grammar to coordinate the related planar output.

Figure 11.

Rules 1–10 for Stage 1: Framework. Rule 1 instantiates the initial shape and compositional center of a design.

The simplest production using the rules in Stage 1 consists of two construction planes, one for the ground level and one for the roof level. The layout of Entelechy I requires three construction planes and three associated planar compositions: one for the ground floor, one for the second floor added in rule 2, and one for the roof. The production of the framework for Entelechy I is shown in Figure 12. From left to right, the first set of plans shows the three construction planes. The second set shows the incremental growth of the framework to define overall parameters. The third set illustrates the completion of the overall field for the three construction planes to define the 3 × 5 grid for each level. The fourth set illustrates the insertion of labeled minor spaces and the orientation of the compositional axis to complete the derivation of the framework.

Figure 12.

Derivation of the framework for Entelechy I.

Stage 2: Configuration

Stage 2 works within the framework finalized in Stage 1 to add spatial variety and develop the basic configuration of a design. This is achieved by adding and manipulating architectural elements ordered by the grid label and associated layer levels. The configuration is generated using the rules specified in Figure 13. First, labeled structural floor slabs are defined at each major space in rule 11. The labels are defined by the spatial relation of a major space to the compositional axis ordering the primary functional zones as private family (F) and public entertaining (E). Rules 12–16 focus on minor spaces, labeling conditions related to their use and position: rule 12 creates a structural slab for all minor spaces on the ground level; rule 13 labels minor spaces on the entry side of the house that will drive the elevation; rule 14 adds a structural slab to minor spaces on the perimeter of the family zone; rule 15 labels minor spaces on the perimeter of the entertaining zone; and rule 16 adds a structural slab to a minor space on the interior at the entry foyer. To complete the structural elements rule 17 adds the roof slab with its extended overhangs and rule 18 inserts hollow columns for the full height from the ground (L₁) to the roof level (L_R).

Figure 13.

Rules 11–24 of Stage 2: Configuration.

Once the basic structural elements are generated, they can be calibrated to create double height volumes, connected with stairwells between levels, and opened up as skylights to illuminate spaces. Rule 19 produces double-height spaces in the public entertaining (E) zone of the house. The next step is to connect levels by providing access vertically. Rules 20–22 add staircases within the minor spaces to facilitate this circulation. These rules are also applied based on zoning, so that rule 20 adds the public entertaining (E) stair; rule 21 adds a private family (F) stair at an interior minor space; and rule 22 provides an additional stair at a perimeter minor space on the private family (F) side. These three rules all operate on a pair of levels (L_n + L_n+1) so that two floors are connected at a time, therefore any design in the grammar with more than one level is required to include the public entertaining stair of rule 20. Additional stairs are determined based on the growth of the family side of the house, necessitating at least one private stair from rule 21 or 22 and allowing an additional one if the rule still applies. To complete this stage, rule 23 extends the minor spaces through the structural slab at the roof level to create porous oculi. Applied recursively to the ordered framework of Stage 1, the rules of Stage 2 add variety illustrating the spatial flexibility of Portman’s domestic architecture. In summary, to achieve a basic configuration: first, spaces must be structured by slabs and the hollow columns that simultaneously contain the minor spaces; second, the major spaces concatenate vertically within the public entertaining zone (E); third, access must be provided vertically by staircases also ordered based on zoning; and lastly, light wells define porosity in the minor spaces on both the interior and the exterior. A configuration therefore achieves spatial variety that is characterized by structured minor spaces complemented by articulated voids that also provide natural light.

The production of the basic configuration for Entelechy I is shown in Figure 14. As before, the illustration includes the production of all three levels of the project. Select intervals of the complete production are shown to illustrate the process. From left to right, the first set of plans shows the basic functional assignment of the open plan field-spaces and the assignments of vertical circulation and natural lighting on the minor spaces. The second set in the middle shows the emergence of voids within the three-dimensional framework of the house and in the insertion of the four structural components of the hollow columns. The third set disambiguates the labels with the insertion of architectural elements corresponding to their designations.

Figure 14.

Derivation of the configuration for Entelechy I.

Stage 3: Style

The third stage of the grammar resolves exterior and interior details to fully develop the architectonic style (language) of the design. Here, the language of the grammar is clarified and confirmed by the particularities expressed: (a) on the exterior envelope (including the skylights that penetrate the roof as a fifth façade); (b) in the creation of a continuous water garden that seamlessly connects the interior and exterior; (c) in the relations of specific functional space allocations; and (d) in the completion of the perimeter walls detailing the site at the ground level. The rules for this stage are specified in Figure 15. First, rules 25–30 complete the exterior envelope within the configuration established in Stage 2. Rules 31–33 add the water channel to the main entry axis of the house to reinforce the boundary between the public entertaining (E) and private family (F) zones of the house. Rule 34 begins adding interior partitions on the private family side of the house. Rules 35–40 add bathroom zones (ba), a master suite (M, mb), bedrooms (B), and a half-bathroom for visitors. Rules 41–46 specify interior details and functional spaces including the kitchen (K) and dining room (D) on the private family (F) side of the house. Functions are not specified on the entertaining side (E), where flexibility is key for fluid living, dining, and music areas. With the critical private living functions in place, rule 47 adds a fireplace; rule 48 details a master study (M) with a library and balcony; rules 49 and 50 resolve interior railings where necessary. Lastly, rules 51–54 return to the exterior perimeter to add an entry bridge and finalize site details at the ground level.

Figure 15.

Rules 25–54 of Stage 3: Style.

The production of the stylistic development for Entelechy I is shown in Figure 16. From left to right, the first set of plans shows the insertion of exterior glass partitions at the perimeter to define the enclosure at each level. In the middle, the second set of plans shows the development of the interior with partitioning and more specific functional assignments to spaces as well as the insertion of the water channel at the ground floor. The final set of plans includes additional architectonic elements including bridges, balconies, and site details at the ground floor that complete the design.

Figure 16.

Derivation of the style for Entelechy I.

Stage 4: Termination

The fourth and final stage of the grammar finishes the process with termination rules to remove labels and turn off layers that facilitated much of the production process. The termination process follows the rules specified in Figure 17. Rule 55 removes the series of labels on the minor and major spaces that are no longer necessary, only leaving labels that communicate the particular functional assignments of bedrooms (B), bathrooms (ba), the master suite (M, mb), kitchen (K), and dining room (D). Rule 56 erases the compositional axis that oriented these spatial zones. Rule 57 turns off the grid layer produced in Stage 1 as a reference to control parameters throughout the generation.

Figure 17.

Rules 55–57 of Stage 4: Termination.

Entelechy S M (L) XL

The grammar as described so far focuses on producing the original design of Entelechy I, but clearly this formalism is capable of generating multiple designs based on the principles captured in the grammar. These speculative constructs suggest the possibilities within this recasting of Portman's system. To illustrate this potential, three designs generated from the grammar are shown as imaginative alternatives. The constructs are distinguished by their names: Entelechy S, M, and XL, with the assumption that Entelechy I is equivalent to the Entelechy L from which the others are scaled. As shown in Figure 18, these generations range from a simple pavilion (Entelechy S), to a modest house (Entelechy M), and finally, to a villa exceeding the original house (Entelechy XL). These variations demonstrate the versatility of Portman's perforative system to accommodate multiple domestic programmatic briefs, while also serving as proof-of-concept for the grammar as outlined here. These examples, and many more, correlate to the setup of Entelechy I with the same parameters for the grid framework, a similar programmatic basis for single-family tenants, as well as identical considerations of an expansive flat site manipulated to the house entry configuration, yet offer new interpretations for their application.

Figure 18.

Productions of the grammar, from left to right: Entelechy S; Entelechy M; Entelechy XL.

And clearly this is just the beginning for a whole new series of designs and grammars that can start to critically engage the findings of the initial analysis. A first attempt to illustrate the possibilities for variation in the grammar is given here in a study of configurations for Entelechy L. This simple exercise aims to reinforce the potential of shape rules and grammars to map to the realities of design activity and lend practical illustration to Stiny’s adage that “You’re always free to try another rule” (2011). New rules are added here to show actual changes the architect implemented in the 1980s while modifying the initial design. These new rules include modifying two bedrooms in the house for new uses and illustrate transformations of replacement and reflection: on the ground floor, a bedroom was transformed in order to expand the master bathroom and on the upper floor, a bedroom was transformed into a family entertainment room and lounge. The new rules to facilitate these renovations are shown in Figure 19.

Figure 19.

The 1981 transformation rules.

The effect of the transformed grammar is immediately appreciated. Figure 20 captures three variations of Entelechy L. All three are based on the same configuration at the end of Stage 2 of the original grammar. Proceeding from left to right, the first set of plans shows the original 1964 design, the second set illustrates the house after its 1980–81 interior renovations, created using the transformation rules, and the third set captures an alternative design for Entelechy L produced by the original grammar.

Figure 20.

Variations, from left to right: Entelechy I (1964); Entelechy I (1981); and Entelechy L (2016).

Discussion

An architect’s description of their own work has a mythological quality, and in fact the narratives they tell lend insight to our own interpretations. Portman’s statement that Entelechy I is implicitly related to his ongoing work is intriguing in itself, highlighting why almost 50 years later it is worth a closer look. In further reflections, Portman has gone on to interpret his design actions initiated in the house to assess more precisely how this single construct fueled varied reinterpretations:

In the early sixties I first started exploring the idea of expressing our atomic era with its hovering consciousness of existence in an age of “controlled explosion.” This led philosophically to focus on separation—fragmentation—splitting—floating and outward movement, both physically and socially. This thought process played a major role in the evolution of the exploded column in the design of Entelechy I, our first house in Atlanta, and the Hyatt Regency Atlanta, the first major atrium hotel, both of which were then in the design stage … In both, the exploded column and the atrium, space within space was created while moving structure to the exterior skin of the circumference—integrating functional space, structure and circulation—while creating and exposing a unique spatial element—breaking the mold of compressed architecture. (Portman, 1997)

The interest in these relationships foregrounded here is how shape computation provides a constructive playground for precisely exploring these design mythologies (and creating new ones). As such, the generative grammar revisiting Entelechy I aims to establish a formal definition of the organizing principles embedded in the house and go on to inform subsequent readings and research engaging Portman’s work.

The grammar is defined by shape rules that interpret these principles visually as simplified relationships that build on each other in stages to structure procedures (algorithms) that generate a design. However, clearly, some of these relations and sequences emerge as more crucial to the language than others, and in all, three key themes emerge: (a) rules that reflect the larger architectural context Portman operates within; (b) rules that capture his “space within space” concept; and (c) rules that more ambiguously refer to a general description and assessment of his language.

The first group of rules that relate to Portman’s participation and contribution within the larger architectural context of the 1960s are found in Stages 1 and 2. In Stage 1, the framework is established as a modular grid generator in rules 1–7 underlying all subsequent development. This architectonic systemization is emblematic of the modernist paradigm, yet rules 6 and 7 alter this by adding a secondary figural grid articulating a nested spatial module. This move is of course directly tied to rule 18 of Stage 2 where the structural columns are instantiated as exploded, hollow elements tied to this framework. The new grid module and related structural-spatial architectonic element represent Portman’s postmodern reinterpretations while also clarifying an application of his coordinate unit at the domestic scale.

A second group of rules builds on the first to develop the conceptual idea of nested spatial entities and contains rules from Stages 1, 2, and 3. In Stage 1, rule 9 adds the compositional zoning that distinguishes the public entertaining zone alongside a larger entity of a private family dwelling to express the social dimension of space within space. In Stage 2, these spatial boundaries are expressed architecturally with the opening up of double height entertaining volumes in rule 19. Finally, the rules of Stage 3 are key in their detailing of space within space. Rules 31–33 create the continuous water channel that delineates an exterior spatial environment within an interior space. Lastly, rules 37 and 39 partition off major spaces as bedrooms, the most private sub spaces nested within the domestic space of the family side of the house.

Finally, the broadest group of rules key to Portman’s ongoing work includes both previous groupings and additional rules found in Stages 2 and 3. In Stage 2, rule 17 establishes an oculus to provide natural light from above, a relation Portman continually relies on in his work to establish a vertical axis to the sky. Rules 20–22 clarify circulation for three distinct uses ranging from openly public to semi-private to private, foreshadowing Portman’s ongoing interest in crafting sequences of arrival for various entities in his works of far greater complexity. Rule 23 extends a skylight through additional levels of the house as a continuous light well, creating physical and visual connectivity across a multi-level volume, which clearly relates to Portman’s use of the atrium as a spatial device. In Stage 3, rule 43 establishes the kitchen and floating dining room as the heart of the house, a significant weighting that can be seen later in the hotels, where animated dining rooms are scaled up as rotating restaurants and key central features of a hotel’s amenities.

The shape rules for Entelechy I lend active interpretation to Portman’s claims, illustrating how shape computation can inform our understanding of design performance. That these rules can be further developed as broader rule schemas to offer an abstract summary of the conceptual actions represented in a shape rule suggests how this work can go on (Stiny, 2006). Where shape rules empower geometry and visual worlds, rule schemas foreground symbolism and logic; and together they can seamlessly intertwine to produce a rich computational foundation for design whereas any parametric shape rule may be used to illustrate an abstract rule schema and widely diverse rule schemas can be inferred by a specific parametric shape rule (Economou and Kotsopoulos, 2014). In this way, an extended list of parametric rules and diverse predicates can relate design activity over multiple contexts (shapes) in a varied corpus of works.

To conceptually explore the potential of a broader schema against Portman’s own reflections on the influence of Entelechy I, the insertion of hollow space can be distinguished as a design action applied at an altogether different scale and context in the 1967 Hyatt Regency in Atlanta, Portman’s first atrium hotel. In both cases, new environments defined by inserting hollow space are created as nested figures or controlled explosions. This consideration not only asserts Koolhaas’s claim (Koolhaas et al., 1998) that Portman did “(re)invent the atrium,” but also suggests this action as an abstract logical schema iterated in a variety of circumstances. The insertion of hollow space is instantiated in diverse ways at multiple scales, including: (a) within physical elements, for example a column, to produce a hollow, habitable, exploded column as in Entelechy I; (b) within social spaces, for example a hotel, to produce a hollow, habitable, and porous hotel as in the 1967 Hyatt Regency; (c) within urban spaces, to produce a hollow, habitable, and porous environment as in the 1974 Embarcadero Center in San Francisco; and (d) within symbolic spaces, for example an artwork, to produce a hollow, porous spatial expression as in Portman’s 1986 sculpture Dooley’s Dance. This action of inserting a space-within-space defines new worlds, physical, social, urban, and symbolic, characterized by volumetric figuration that clarifies new environments. These new environments are defined by the interrelation of nested space, called here the domestic coordinate unit. Portman first theorized his idea of a “coordinate unit” at an urban scale to define a total environment organized by cellular modules that multiply and combine creating larger patterns of growth and development (Portman and Barnett, 1976). This approach can be captured formally in a series of rule schemas that can be used to embed shapes within shapes, shapes within environments, and environments within environments.

To illustrate this action in the context of twentieth century architectural discourse and conclude this discussion of Portman’s architecture as manifested in Entelechy I, we can postulate how this space-within-space schema can relate to comparable housing systems. Perhaps there is no more iconic example than Le Corbusier’s Maison Dom-ino, a project that laid the groundwork for his “Five Points Toward a New Architecture” of 1926 that were fully embodied in the Villa Savoye. The Corbusian housing system promotes combinatorial variety by establishing a structural uniformity that is separate from the interior layouts and the facade, allowing for tremendous compositional freedom. The name, Dom-Ino, comes from the clever combination of an idea that the system was structured like a game of dominoes, allowing the modules to be lined up in multiple configurations, as well as the hyphenation of abbreviations of the Latin domus as “dom” and innovation as “ino”. The Dom-ino system is here suggested as an unexplored companion project to the housing system identified in Entelechy I. Portman’s system is recast here as Maison Atr-ino, a transformation of the Maison Dom-ino renamed from the Latin atrium, foregrounding Portman’s innovative language of hollow space (Figure 21). This juxtaposition aims to get to the heart of Portman’s formal language by mapping it against the familiarity of Le Corbusier’s model to “re-cognize” (Goodman, 1978) the character or style embodied in Entelechy I and emblematic of postmodern reinvention. The perforation of Portman’s unique space-within-space schema is simplified here to foster discussion on this overlooked domestic project and highlight one of many schemas constructed from Entelechy I that can be discovered in a variety of forms across Portman’s work. Future work will aim to develop these schemas in detail to more precisely map Portman’s own mythologies as well as to explore how those schemas can be derived and expanded to inform an interpretation of the development of an architectural language, its instances, and influences.

Figure 21.

Housing systems of Le Corbusier and Portman: (a) Maison Dom-ino; (b) Maison Atr-ino.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Heather Ligler is an architect, design researcher, and PhD student at Georgia Institute of Technology. Her research interest is in how generative and parametric design both provide a new computational basis for architecture. Alongside her studies, Heather is a research assistant in the Shape Computation Lab and a teaching assistant in the Art and Architecture in Greece and Italy Study Abroad Program at Georgia Tech. She holds a BArch and BInteriorArch from Auburn University and an MSArch in Digital Design and Fabrication from Georgia Institute of Technology.

Athanassios Economou is Professor in the College of Design at Georgia Institute of Technology. Dr Economou's teaching and research are in the areas of shape grammars, computational design, computer-aided design and design theory. He is the Director of the Shape Computation Lab, a research group that explores how the visual nature of shape can be formally implemented with new software technologies to assist seeing and doing in design in new ways. Dr Economou holds a Diploma in Architecture from NTUA, Athens, Greece, an MArch from USC, and a PhD in Architecture from UCLA.

References

Architectural Digest (1970) Architect’s home is unique expression of space and form: Architecture and interiors by John C. Portman. Architectural Digest, Winter 1970, 86–97.

Benedikt

(1979) To take hold of space: Isovists and isovist fields. Environment and Planning B 6(1): 47–65.

Craig R (1989) Mythic proportions: The Portman home. Southern Homes Jan/Feb, 90–99.

Economou

Grasl

(2012) Spatial sieves. In: Kanach

(ed.) Xenakis Matters: Contexts, Processes, Applications. Xenakis Series IV, Hillsdale, NY: Pendragon Press, pp. 287–313.

Economou

Kotsopoulos

(2014) From shape rules to rule schemata and back. In: Gero

Hanna

(eds) Design Computing and Cognition DCC’14, 23–25 June 2014, London, UK: University College London, Springer, pp. 419–438.

Exploded columns enclose space within space. Architectural Record: Record Houses of 1965, Mid-May 1965, 126–129.

Goodman

(1978) Ways of Worldmaking, Cambridge: Hackett.

Goldberger

Portman

Riani

(1990) John Portman, Milan: l’Arca.

Interiors (1965) 24 Hollow columns and the space between them. Interiors, April 1965, 89–99.

10.

Interior Design (1982) At home with John Portman—Circles in the square. Interior Design, March 1982, 160–167.

11.

Jameson

(1991) Postmodernism or, the Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism, Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

12.

Kahn

(1957) Order in architecture. Perspecta Vol. 4, Cambridge: MIT Press, pp. 58–63.

13.

Knight

(1994) Transformations in Design: A Formal Approach to Stylistic Change and Innovation in the Visual Arts, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

14.

Koolhaas

Mau

Werlemann

(1998) S,M,L,XL, New York, NY: Monacelli.

15.

Le Corbusier (1926) Five points toward a new architecture. In: Programs and Manifestos in Twentieth Century Architecture, 1970. Cambridge: MIT Press.

16.

Ligler H and Economou A (2015a) Entelechy I: Towards a formal specification of John Portman's domestic architecture. In: Proceedings of the 33rd eCAADe conference (eds B Martens, G Wurzer, T Grasl, et al.), Vienna, Austria, 16–18 September 2015, Vol. 1, pp. 445–452. Vienna: Vienna University of Technology.

17.

Ligler

Economou

(2015b) Lost in translation: Towards an automated description of John Portman’s domestic architecture. Blucher Design Proceedings 2(3): 657–661.

18.

Pólya

Tarjan

Woods

(1983) Notes on Introductory Combinatorics, Boston, MA: Birkhauser.

19.

Portman

Barnett

(1976) The Architect as Developer, New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

20.

Portman

(1997) An Island on an Island, Milan: l’Arca.

21.

Sorkin

(1994) Exquisite Corpse: Writings on Buildings, New York, NY: Verso.

22.

Stiny

Mitchell

(1978) The Palladian grammar. Environment and Planning B 5(1): 5–18.

23.

Stiny

Mitchell

(1980) The grammar of paradise: On the generation of Mughul gardens. Environment and Planning B 7(2): 209–226.

24.

Stiny

(2006) Shape: Talking and Seeing and Doing, Cambridge: MIT Press.

25.

Stiny

(2011) What rule (s) should I use? Nexus Network Journal 13(1): 15–47.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.30 MB