What do you think?
Rate this book
Body, Memory, and Architecture
This book is a product of our joint efforts to teach fundamentals of architectural design to first-year professional students at the Yale School of Architecture.
159 pages, Paperback
First published September 10, 1977
9 people are currently reading
310 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews
May 2, 2020
This is definitely a book of its time (published in 1977) and reveals first the ways that architectural theory go in and out of fashion. The authors are squarely from the Modernist school of thought, lapsing over into postmodernism certainly in their architecture and also in their writing. Which is fine. It’s just not a set of theoretical constructs I happen to agree with.
The first half of the book contains the authors’ ideas about bodies in space and the relationship between the human form and architectural containment. Some of the writing is a bit overwrought, but mostly it feels like they are attempting to make more of this part of the book than there really is. I’m not sure they needed seven chapters to explain that we experience space because we have bodies. Though the sketches are very charming.
The second half of the book starts to address architecture more directly. I found this part to be much more accessible and relatable, but still a bit dry. There is a Kevin Lynchian explication of Place, Path, Pattern, and Edge which didn’t reveal anything new about urban design to me. The final chapter highlights six buildings to illustrate the authors’ ideas about humans in architectural space, with two of those examples coming from the authors’ own work. Though I could follow the classical explanations fairly well, the two examples of the authors’ work seemed to actually counter some of their own ideas. The postmodern jumble of Kresge College being touted as a stage set would seem to go against a meaningful experience of the human condition in that place. If we are all playacting in a space whose primary purpose is not putting on stage dramas, doesn’t that call into question the motivations and authenticity of our actions?
It is in the epilogue that the authors’ perspective most highly deviates from current ideas about the use of space and the success or not of certain buildings. The authors dispatch with a series of canonical architectural examples (Pruitt-Igoe, Habitat 67, The Crescent at Bath) in quick succession, claiming their failures as habitable space (and yet you elevate your own bizarre single-family elitist dwelling as a paragon of architectural principle? The photo on page 130 calls much of this judgment into question). In recent years we have unearthed a more holistic picture of these buildings, one that encompasses sociology, demographics, historic discrimination, and public policy. Architecture does not happen in a vacuum. Context and the human condition (on this, perhaps the authors and I agree though from wildly different perspectives) are what give our architectural expressions meaning.
The authors, of course, could not have known any of this in 1977 — it was not in the zeitgeist — and ultimately the book just feels dated to a 2020 audience. There are some seminal works of architecture that (sometimes taken with a grain of salt) stand the test of time. Others are perhaps better left in the past.
The first half of the book contains the authors’ ideas about bodies in space and the relationship between the human form and architectural containment. Some of the writing is a bit overwrought, but mostly it feels like they are attempting to make more of this part of the book than there really is. I’m not sure they needed seven chapters to explain that we experience space because we have bodies. Though the sketches are very charming.
The second half of the book starts to address architecture more directly. I found this part to be much more accessible and relatable, but still a bit dry. There is a Kevin Lynchian explication of Place, Path, Pattern, and Edge which didn’t reveal anything new about urban design to me. The final chapter highlights six buildings to illustrate the authors’ ideas about humans in architectural space, with two of those examples coming from the authors’ own work. Though I could follow the classical explanations fairly well, the two examples of the authors’ work seemed to actually counter some of their own ideas. The postmodern jumble of Kresge College being touted as a stage set would seem to go against a meaningful experience of the human condition in that place. If we are all playacting in a space whose primary purpose is not putting on stage dramas, doesn’t that call into question the motivations and authenticity of our actions?
It is in the epilogue that the authors’ perspective most highly deviates from current ideas about the use of space and the success or not of certain buildings. The authors dispatch with a series of canonical architectural examples (Pruitt-Igoe, Habitat 67, The Crescent at Bath) in quick succession, claiming their failures as habitable space (and yet you elevate your own bizarre single-family elitist dwelling as a paragon of architectural principle? The photo on page 130 calls much of this judgment into question). In recent years we have unearthed a more holistic picture of these buildings, one that encompasses sociology, demographics, historic discrimination, and public policy. Architecture does not happen in a vacuum. Context and the human condition (on this, perhaps the authors and I agree though from wildly different perspectives) are what give our architectural expressions meaning.
The authors, of course, could not have known any of this in 1977 — it was not in the zeitgeist — and ultimately the book just feels dated to a 2020 audience. There are some seminal works of architecture that (sometimes taken with a grain of salt) stand the test of time. Others are perhaps better left in the past.
March 19, 2015
A primer on the haptic experience of space. I am re-reading it because it was mentioned in the book: " The Void, the Grid, &the Sign".
February 14, 2008
looks GOOD...
April 26, 2025
this is probably good to pull from if i ever teach a first year architecture theory course. that's not an insult i'm just noting it to remember lol
May 21, 2019
look good
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews