Week 4 – Factory work.pptx for architecture

architecture factory work architecture history architecture history architecture history architecture history architecture history architecture history architecture history architecture history architecture history architecture history architecture history architecture history architecture history architecture history architecture history architecture history architecture history architecture history architecture history architecture history architecture history architecture history architecture history architecture history architecture history architecture history architecture history architecture history architecture history architecture history architecture history architecture history architecture history architecture history architecture history architecture history architecture history architecture history architecture history architecture history architecture history architecture history architecture history architecture history architecture history architecture history architecture history architecture history architecture history architecture history architecture history architecture history architecture history architecture history architecture history architecture history architecture history architecture history architecture history architecture history architecture history architecture history architecture history architecture history architecture history architecture history architecture history architecture history

1. Week 4 – Factory work Peters, Tom. “The Human Element: Manual Work, Mechanization, Progress, and Technological Thought” in Building the Nineteenth Century , 80-95. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1996. Thomas Markus, “The Factory System” and “Working and Living,” in Buildings and Power: Freedom & Control in the Origin of Modern Building Types (London: Routledge, 1993): 270–286. Vidler, Anthony. “Architecture, Management, Morals.” Lotus International 14 (March 1977), 4-20.

2. The Human Element: Manual Work, Mechanization, Progress, and Technological Thought The paper examines the 19th-century shift toward mechanization in building processes, shaped by societal values, professional experiences, and political contexts. Mechanization wasn’t a simple progression but was influenced by human reactions and decisions. A cultural divide arose between technology advocates, like Samuel Smiles, and critics, like John Ruskin, who feared the erosion of tradition due to industrialization. Social and political challenges also emerged, with laborers resisting mechanization over job loss fears, leading to union movements and events like the Luddite riots. In the U.S., mechanization addressed labor shortages, while Britain, with abundant labor, was slower to adopt it. Terms like "steam shovel" in the U.S. and "steam navvy" in Britain reflected these differing attitudes. The U.S. favored simple, interchangeable parts, while British construction remained labor-intensive until economic pressures prompted change. Innovators like Frank Gilbreth and Frederick Winslow Taylor introduced time-and-motion studies, optimizing labor efficiency. Ultimately, mechanization shifted construction’s focus from building craftsmanship to organizational efficiency.

3. “The Factory System” and “Working and Living” in Buildings and Power: Freedom & Control in the Origin of Modern Building Types The Factory System: -This chapter explores how the rise of the factory system in the 18th and 19th centuries transformed not just work processes, but also the physical spaces where work took place. Factories were designed to maximize efficiency, productivity, and control over workers and the architecture of these spaces reflected emerging capitalist values and the need for surveillance and discipline. -Also discusses the impact of mechanization, which altered social relations within the workspace, and how factory buildings embodied the growing divide between laborers and management. Working and Living : - Focuses on the relationship between working conditions and living spaces during the Industrial Revolution and examines how housing for workers was designed in response to industrialization and factory life. There was a clear division between the spaces where workers labored and where they lived, reflecting broader social hierarchies. - Highlights the poor living conditions of many workers, as well as the paternalistic approaches of some employers who built model villages to improve the moral and physical health of their workers, aligning these spaces with broader social reform movements.

4. "Architecture, Management, Morals" by Anthony Vidler Anthony Vidler’s "Architecture, Management, Morals" explores the relationship between architecture, industrial production, and management before 1900. During the first industrial revolution, architects had minimal involvement in factory communities, with figures like Robert Owen leading efforts to control workers and increase efficiency. Early management relied on force, but gradually adopted social and environmental strategies to improve worker conditions. By the late 18th century, architects like Claude Nicolas Ledoux in France became more involved in industrial planning. Ledoux’s design for the Royal Saltworks of Chaux (1773) emphasized unity, organization, and worker control, positioning architecture as a crucial element in industrial efficiency. Architectural theorists like Jacques-Francois Blondel advocated for factory designs that expressed function, focusing on simplicity and order. Architecture also mirrored moral and social values, with institutions like prisons, schools, and hospitals reinforcing societal norms. Ledoux’s vision integrated worker life with industrial production, creating factory designs that maximized both productivity and control. His saltworks project is noted for its innovative use of space to enhance industrial processes. Vidler’s analysis highlights how architecture, industrial management, and moral philosophy intersected during the industrial revolution, shaping both the built environment and social structures.

5. ` How did architecture reflect on moral and social values in the 18th century and how is this relevant to architecture today?

6. To what extent do you think modern architectural design continues to separate or integrate spaces for living and working, and how might this reflect broader social and economic shifts in society? In the 19th century, workers resisted mechanization through protests and actions like machine smashing, fearing job loss and dehumanization. Given the rise of automation, AI, and other technological advancements today, to what extent do modern concerns about technology echo the fears of 19th-century laborers? Are these fears justified, or do technological advancements offer more opportunities than threats?

7. In the 19th century, workers resisted mechanization through protests and actions like machine smashing, fearing job loss and dehumanization. Given the rise of automation, AI, and other technological advancements today, to what extent do modern concerns about technology echo the fears of 19th-century laborers? Are these fears justified, or do technological advancements offer more opportunities than threats?