Architecture proportionate to man. The role of architecture in the development of society Your ideas do not matter
When considering such a highly complex phenomenon in the life of society as architecture, in conditions where sometimes unfounded, harsh criticism is heard, its essential analysis, an accurate consideration of the problems facing it, is more necessary than ever. One gets the impression that architecture is to blame for the mistakes of construction concepts, for the administrative or financial pressure that it often resisted. Of course, it should be recognized that architecture sometimes “lowered the bar” of its social significance, which is unacceptable. A traditional but logical consideration of the essence of architecture is carried out on the basis of consideration of the social need for it and the specifics of its activities. The emergence of a need for architecture can hardly be considered a one-time, quickly manifested act. It was as if society and people at one fine moment suddenly clearly realized that they were clearly missing something. And they clearly understood that this is the need for architecture. It should be assumed that the process of its formation took a long time and was correlated with the process of human development, his sensory and intellectual abilities, with his creativity, activity, and ability to learn, which was inseparable from the process of development of society.
There is no doubt that this need was initially dissolved in many other needs: to preserve life, to ensure one’s health and the health of one’s loved ones, to maintain warmth, so necessary in a harsh climate. All these needs were necessarily satisfied using one or another maximum or minimum of funds, which we now classify as construction and architecture resources. The same applied to the limitations and diversity of forms used at one time or another, and which, to one degree or another, we can attribute to construction and architectural forms. It is not for nothing that we combine construction and architecture in defining this need, since we quite reasonably assume that it was originally in the nature of the need to do, build, build something, create. But at the same time, the need cannot simply be characterized as a need for activity. The modern, activity-based approach often confuses the concepts of the need for activity, activity and its consideration as a means of satisfying a particular need.
The concept of “activity” refers to the ultimate, abstract philosophical categories, the content of which contains all the results of research and implementation of human activity and practice. The way to study any problem, starting with the use of the ultimate concept, which is the concept of “activity”, we must move from the study of the specifics of this or that activity, this or that doing, considered in the process of their change and development, to the definition of the essence expressed in this or that a different concept. If this possibility of expression is not available explicitly, then a demonstration of the path of the analysis being carried out will make it possible to recreate the essential connections of the object under study. This proposal does not at all mean a refusal to put forward fruitful hypotheses regarding the definition of basic approaches to considering the essence of architecture as an important socially significant phenomenon. The essence of things is determined by the needs of people. It is not a real, not a nominal, but a teleological entity. Teleology appears where a degree of freedom appears that exceeds the degree of connection, where choice appears. It is not clear how things happen where there is no choice mechanism. But still, the goal is the ability to choose based on a comparison of explicit and implicit existing knowledge.
In the theory of architecture, its essence was considered on the basis of various approaches. The specificity of the historical approach within the framework of the history of architecture considers it from the point of view of identifying patterns of change and development, identifying the main factors influencing them. This approach has managed to accumulate significant empirical material that analyzes in detail certain features of the work of outstanding architects, identifying some patterns of architecture, without giving a complete explanation of the peculiarities of the need for it, the specifics of its formation, and its significance in human life and society.
Based on the culturological approach, architecture is considered from the position of cultural conditioning of its origin and development, and the forms of architecture are considered as cultural forms of expression of the ideal wealth of society. Architecture is considered here as an organic inclusion in the system of national cultures, as well as in the system of universal human culture.
The specificity of the aesthetic approach allows us to consider architecture from the perspective of identifying its artistic and aesthetic significance. Form formation in it is analyzed from the point of view of identifying the perfect form, the laws of beauty. Architecture is considered as a type of art, sometimes characterized quite aphoristically (“architecture is frozen music”). The comparative architectural approach allows you to analyze architecture, identifying the general and special in its stylistic changes, contrasting features and combining the features of creativity.
The semiotic approach examines architecture from the perspective of its sign-linguistic specificity. Architecture is analyzed as a certain sign system.
The information approach, using the fruitful developments of classical and non-classical information theories, attempts to analyze architecture as an information system.
It is very important to distinguish the fruitfulness of various approaches in considering architecture (and here there are simply no restrictions: psychological, aesthetic, semiotic, informational, model, constructive, etc.) from a fundamental clarification: how it appears, what need or What needs does it satisfy and will it satisfy? That is, the main problem is the description of the phenomenon of architecture, which in itself is interesting for research, as well as knowledge of its essence.
In determining the essence of architecture, one should go from its analysis to concepts (terms, words, beautiful expressions, borrowings, etc.), and not vice versa. Only when the object of research is precisely defined, its differences from similar objects, when the relationship between the elements of a given object is found, analyzed and recorded and the process of its formation, functioning, structure, change and development of these relationships is determined, only then can it receive an identifier, definition and concept .
The most important problem is the definition of an architectural object in its difference from a construction object. We believe that the main difference lies in the difference between the need for architecture and the need for construction activities. These differences arise from the internal unity of these two types of activity, which is emphasized by Vitruvius' formula. The difference between these needs can be briefly formulated as a difference in architectural and construction objects.
In this case, by object we understand that to which the subject’s activity is directed. At the same time, it is an object of both architectural and construction design. Although we will immediately make a reservation that we use the term “architectural object” with a certain degree of convention. The traditional division of these objects along the lines of “material-ideal”, “subjective-objective”, “definite-indefinite”, “explicit-implicit”, “utilitarian-supra-utilitarian”, “formal-informal”, etc. will give us the characteristics of the manifestations of these opposites in the specifics of the construction site. Thus, the specificity of this object is manifested in the dominance of one of the opposites, subordinating the other: “ideal - material”, “unstable - stable”, “aesthetic - utilitarian”, etc. It would be wrong, in turn, to consider the appearance of these objects without the participation of architect. Although very often this is also subordinate to financial or administrative influences. Architectural objects are important as conditions of our life, our survival, a statement of our existence, its consolidation. At the same time, they are necessary as indicators of the connectedness of everything with everything: past and present, local and many, limited and infinite. Moreover, a change in an architectural object, both in relation to others and in relation to those who perceive it, is significant, influencing the preservation, improvement and development of the human world. Properties and relations exist in reality. The relationships objectified by architecture are no less real than the material objects created as a result of construction activities. Moreover, these relationships act as a real resolution of many contradictions, as a result of which certainty, uniformity, limited information content, and the limited reality of the material substrate of the object are overcome. Overcoming, but not breaking with it.
The multiformity of architecture allows a person to exist in many realities, as a way out of their traditional limitations. But this “output” is also not unlimited, since architecture organizes and directs the activities of people through its influence on their world.
The organizational side of architecture is one of the essential ones. But what specifically does architecture organize? Space taken in a geographical sense? But construction activities do the same. Space in architecture can be considered as a certain form, as the interaction between material and ideal processes and states, their coexistence, as an event characterized by dimension, the unification of consciousness and the objective world with the formation of stable systems in various types of reality. But architecture is about sustainability. Stability is a criterion for highlighting what is essential; it is the stability of connections, interactions and relationships, dynamics, variability. Hence the repetition in architecture, the reproducibility of its forms. Dynamic stability is higher than static. In architecture, therefore, we can talk about the measure, degree, order of stability, and measure it.
Analysis of sustainability, its role and factors is one of the areas of architectural research. The pattern is based on sustainability. Statics is a moment of movement, self-reflection of architecture, striving to realize what has been “conquered.” Architecture is always directed towards eternity, always relevant, realized present, modeling, improving and developing the world of man, society, humanity. Sustainability is ensured by architecture that creates stable directions for human interactions that are not random, stochastic. Although very often the arbitrariness of the construction of architectural objects is noted, without visible cause and effect. But in any case, the construction must be subject to the requirement of optimization and expediency, both in general and in particular. This is always a targeted focus on creating a socially significant new, more advanced one, since the main vector of architecture is creativity.
Architecture, as the organization of the human world, is universal, since it connects together the real and unreal, explicit and implicit, material and ideal, simple and complex, utilitarian and supra-utilitarian, stable and unstable, uniformity and multiformity, intelligible and sensory data, etc. Belonging architecture to many, “everyone” at once, assumes that it immediately embraces the multiworldliness of people, forms a community as a super complex system of connections and interactions, their multiworldliness. Real reality can be reduced to a limited number of traditional forms of reality. And this is naturally predetermined by the logic of everyday life. The effectiveness of architecture lies in its multiformity, in its formative ability. This is also its logical proof of social effectiveness.
The multiformity of architecture, as well as design, therefore acts as a realization of the most important social need. This is a social need that is clearly unconscious. Hence the inexplicitness and multivariate definitions of architecture, the impossibility at times of expressing its essence rationally and conceptually. Only the visual possibility of expressing real connections between people, real interactions in the sensory form of an object means it as a certain concept, as a definition. This explains why, both in Russian and foreign architectural theory, the empiricism of research, replete with colorful epithets, phrases, neologisms, and terms that describe the phenomena of one’s own consciousness, prevails.
Each architectural form is a new language, a new verbal system. The specificity of a language lies in its applicability to many, if not all, conventionality. A language that is not used is a dead language. A significant exaggeration of the semiotic specificity of architecture not only does not help improve its understanding, but, on the contrary, narrows the possibilities of using other approaches. The verbal form is a translation, service capabilities for the user, an explanation of the essence.
Architecture acts as a modeling of the world, defining a whole system of connections, interactions between people, and new forms. Architecture influences the organization, modeling, improvement and development of the world of man and society, cognizing, feeling it, modeling it, doubling it, forcing at the same time to be determined by its objectivity in the creation of its interactions and connections. Doing in architecture is also an understanding of this world, its self-realization, its existence, its creative essence. There is no doubt that creative ideas play an important role in architecture. The idea is multifaceted and multifaceted, it is like a diagram, like a theory, in relation to which reality is considered as an interpretation. An idea as an essence, as a whole, united in connections and interactions, but not having a tangible, sensually perceived form of existence.
Modeling acts as an essential characteristic of architecture. Moreover, modeling is a means of not only formalization, but also understanding. A model is both a technology of cognition, a method of proof, and a means of understanding and explanation. Therefore, the result of doing, building, creating architectural and urban planning activities is the organization, improvement, modeling and development of the human world through the influence of the objective environment on it, materially embodied and subjectively implicitly expressed in the ideality of the image. An object that has diverse qualities and properties, both utilitarian and supra-utilitarian. Architecture is the activity of organizing, modeling, improving and developing the world of man and society through the influence of objects created by the architect, which have various qualities and properties: utilitarian and aesthetic, sensory-material certainty and ideal variability.
A certain complexity arises when we analyze the general, special and individual phenomena such as architecture and urban planning. Architecture and urban planning should be compared within the framework of the specifics of these types of activities. Construction in architecture and the architectural nature of urban planning are manifested in the creation, “making” of the architectural world, its organization. It is the imparting of stability to the objective world that is carried out through the construction specifics of architecture. At the same time, the architecture of urban planning, as the organization, modeling, improvement and development of the human world, is a constant overcoming of stability, inertia, and temporary stagnation of the created objective world. Architecture therefore exists as a constantly created and constantly resolved contradiction between the material and the ideal, stable and changeable, new and old. At the same time, this is a constant overcoming of relativism by giving architectural forms material stability that has existed for centuries, either quickly destroyed objectively, or at someone’s whim.
The dialectical nature of architecture is sometimes perceived as a manifestation of its synthetic and syncretic nature. It is understood as a resolved contradiction, where various opposites transform into each other, determining the development of architecture. Does this mean that the architecture, for example, of a city, can be considered in the utmost syncretism and syntheticity of the “tower” and the “colorful garden”? One can agree with this interpretation if a certain dominant principle of architecture is identified, implemented at one time or another. If we consider architecture from a historical perspective, then we can identify other dialectical components: “arch” and “pyramid”, “square” and “ball”, “web” and “open square”, “network” and “network cell”, “graph” and “graph edge”, etc.
BUILDINGS ARE CREATED FOR LIVING, WORK, MEETINGS, STUDY, RECREATION, SLEEPING,... IN THEIR TURN, PUBLIC BUILDINGS ARE CALLED TO UNITE PEOPLE. THE MORE THESE PUBLIC SPACES ARE IN DEMAND, THE MORE NEUTRAL AND EFFECTIVE THE ARCHITECTURE SHOULD BE. YOU JUST COMPARE THE LOBBIES OF A HOTEL AND A SHOPPING CENTER TO UNDERSTAND HOW DIFFERENT THE NEEDS AND PURPOSE OF THESE BUILDINGS ARE.
The rise of consumer society in the 1960s forced architects, contractors and developers to rethink their role as creators of public spaces. So, it turns out that the task is to create buildings of a high level, and at the same time, complying with the unwritten laws of numbers and money? Since then, they have tried to find a balance between these two impulses, because when the needs of people change, accordingly, the same happens with architecture. In public places, people tend to personalize their territory, for example by placing a photo on their desktop, or placing their coat on the next seat on the train. In large public buildings, such as transport hubs, people unsure of their route almost always look to the right and to the best-lit areas. In public restrooms, toilet stalls are often located at right angles to the door because people don't like to look directly at toilets. Extroverts need less office space than introverts and tend to have livelier decorations in their workspaces. Why do we always buy more than we planned when we go to IKEA? Having circled along the path marked by arrows for half an hour, we want to feel that we have not wasted our time in vain. All this information about human behavior comes from scientific research in the field of social psychology.
Giving meaning to the moment
For architects, contractors and investors, this kind of knowledge is of great importance. Buildings such as shopping malls and libraries have become places that also promote rest, relaxation and meeting other people. In this sense, they follow the trend of train stations, airports and museums. Here, public spaces take into account the need for places to sit and talk, walk and shop, and just hang out. At the same time, the hall of an apartment building, the lobby of an office building, the reception room of a hospital or the foyer of a theater - the more general the purpose of the building, the more general the language of its form.
Vennsela Library
©Helen & Hard AS - photo: Hufton + Crow
What impact does this have on events and trends in architecture? The power of big numbers and big money leads to standardization. Standardization made social housing and large-scale production possible after the war, but it also meant that the work of architects became much more politicized and economical. Are architects ready for such a close connection with the rationalization of the construction process? Or will it distract them from the architect's ultimate task: to create an autonomous, cultural and ideological language of form? This was the subject of debate in the 1970s, led by Manfredo Tafuri, who examined the relationship between architecture and capitalism in his book Architecture and Utopia (1973). What exactly he meant became clear only about twenty years later, when the economy and, as a consequence, architecture were on the rise. After all, the downside of architecture for the masses is the presence of chains such as McDonald's and IKEA, which are the same all over the world. And this leads not only to the interchangeability of buildings, but also to the interchangeability of cities. French anthropologist Marc Auger examined this phenomenon in 1992 in his essay Non-Lieux, introduction à une anthropologie de la surmodernité.
Conference decks and passarelles at the Barco headquarters, as a window onto the activities in the central atrium
©Jaspers-Eyers Architects - photo: Philippe Van Genechten
Perth Arena: color schemes and wooden walkways
©ARM+CCN, a joint venture of ARM Architecture and CCN Architects - photo
: Stephen Nicholls
People's living conditions are becoming more and more impersonal. Auger calls all these transport hubs, shopping centers and apartment buildings “NOT places.” These are buildings for the masses, buildings that have no impact on you as an individual: you are born and die in a hospital (not in your own bed), you spend your holidays at an all-inclusive resort (not in a leaky tent) and you shop at the supermarket (not your local baker). As a result, people spend most of their lives in impersonal buildings and spaces. So it became clear that it was extremely important for the designers of these faceless rooms to make them more individual and meaningful. Research such as the one described above helps architects in this process. This is how we know that people living in apartment buildings are less likely to hide in their own apartments if the path to them is more lively and attractive. That's why architects are now creating floor plans with spaces for both personal meeting and privacy. Naturally, this approach will not work at an airport, where maximum field of view and light are necessary to ensure awareness and smooth circulation of people. In this situation, designers take into account closed areas by creating demarcations in rooms, such as partitions or partitions. An interesting example of this is the Perth Arena concert hall and sports stadium in Australia (see page 14), where "humanity in scale" is evident in the division of façades into smaller sections, color schemes and woodwork. However, buildings like this are first and foremost efficient machines, designed to move people efficiently from one place to another, although their public spaces have been designed with great care.
Uniqueness
But where the level of new construction is declining, standardization and large scale are less of an issue. In addition, people tend to value craftsmanship and uniqueness more. This is the reason why marketplaces are so popular in Europe at the moment, such as the covered market in Ghent by Robbrecht & Daem or in Rotterdam by MVRDV. Another good example is the Sir Duncan Rice Library in Aberdeen by schmidt hammer lassen architects. Here the atrium was created not only to surprise, but also to create a window into the building through the clever use of the so-called “vortex” - openings in the floors that are slightly offset on different floors in relation to each other. This gives volume to the space, because the floors are viewed both from top to bottom and in the opposite direction, creating the impression of observing a doll’s house or a beehive. You can see books, students, groups of people, life,... everything at once! Architects, clients and the visitor tap into this need for community and craftsmanship. The creation of a special place, not just its effectiveness, has become an important theme in modern architecture. This is determined by the fact that people want to get a sense of community, experience, uniqueness from public places, and associate their memories with it. It is no longer a matter of people needing to be efficiently accommodated in a large space, but rather that they need to have the feeling that they are part of a larger whole.
PACIFIC HEIGHTS, SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA
I don’t know about you, but I quickly get bored of cities lined with vertical boxes made of aluminum, concrete, and glass. The point is not in the building material, not even in the lack of individuality and wretched primitivism of forms. The main problem with the so-called modern development of urban centers is - for me - that the size of the buildings does not correlate well with the scale of the human being. The space of this building is organized in such a way as to suppress people, in the manner of the Egyptian pyramids, Stalinist high-rise buildings in Moscow or the gloomy wells of Manhattan. I have long divided architects into those who organize living space and those who create lifeless space.
Having worked in the financial center of San Francisco for 17 years, I never felt comfortable in the concrete jungle of downtown. Somewhere on the corner of New Montgomery and Sutter Streets is a good place to commit suicide, but it is not very comfortable for a living person to exist there - even to work.
But there is an old district in San Francisco that still continues to resist the onslaught of the nouveau riche and their architectural depersonalization. This is Pacific Heights. From here, from the height of a sandstone hill, there is a stunning view of the Bay, the Golden Gate Bridge, Alcatraz and Marin Heights. I don't remember the last time I saw an advertisement for houses for sale in this area: they live here "old money". The mansions were built in the second half of the 19th century and saw California's heyday. They were lucky: the fire that destroyed most of the city after the 1906 earthquake spared Pacific Heights, and today this area of the city is a museum of architectural mansions of the 19th century. The California Historical Society is located in one of the local mansions, jealously ensuring that old architectural monuments are not rebuilt or destroyed.
Below the cut are several photos taken in Pacific Heights.
The financial center boxes are located east of Pacific Heights, teeming with people and cars, but here there is silence.
On the north side of the hill, the streets descend steeply to the Bay. These streets are a favorite backdrop for filmmakers who shoot thrillers with frantic car races and stunt cars taking off at intersections.
Along Pacific Street are lined some of the oldest Victorian mansions - built in 1890.
Wood carving details on the facades of old mansions have outlived many younger houses built without love for people. A tribute to the times - garages attached in front of houses...
Here you can also find several apartment buildings of a later construction, but no more than 7 floors, and I think this is the maximum height for this type of development. It is important that the seven-story buildings are built so as not to disturb the overall feeling of peace and human presence.
Artistic cast iron and carefully chosen landscaping accentuate the classic forms of Pacific Heights mansions.
The stone and concrete cladding of the plinths of many mansions deceives the viewer's eye (in fact, due to high seismicity, most buildings up to 5 floors are made of wood, although they look very substantial under the plaster).
A significant number of buildings are faced with brick and look indistinguishable from brickwork
Newer buildings are clad in mahogany plank
Cast iron fences, balcony grilles, gutters, lanterns. Or bronze gutters and chimneys... the excesses of housing of yesteryear...
The human scale of architectural development, in my opinion, is determined by the fact that a person does not need to lift his head to see the space organized by the architect - a comfort unattainable for megalopolises!
On a slope, you can build a mansion that hides its multi-story structure from a pedestrian walking along the street: the eye naturally follows from the buildings to the views of the bay opening between them (imagine what this area would look like if the architects did not leave gaps between the buildings, cutting off a person’s view of the north!)
Invisible to street pedestrians, courtyards and terraces create recreation areas for residents of mansions - with tennis courts, gardens, gazebos and outdoor Jacuzzis...
I have not specifically photographed or written about iconic Pacific Heights buildings here, such as the Haas Lilienthal House (built entirely of mahogany in 1886 for Bavarian Jewish immigrant William Haas, who arrived in California in the 1860s and founded a chain of retail grocery stores ) or Spreckels Mansion - a castle built in 1913 from limestone blocks in the French Baroque style, now home to the famous creator of the conveyor belt for the production of sentimental romance novels, Danielle Steele (this castle with 55 rooms and a ballroom in the style of Louis XVI was built by the Sugar King Adolf Spreckels for his bride Alma De-Bretville-Spreckels; her statue adorns the monument in Union Square).
It’s worth writing about these famous buildings separately, and who knows, maybe someday I’ll gather the courage again... Here I wanted to talk about urban architecture of a reasonable scale. Write if you agree or disagree with what I tried to say about the city as a space commensurate with man.
“I don’t think that architecture is just a building or a simple fence. It should excite you, calm you down, make you think. Architecture is how a person positions himself in space, and fashion is how you position an object on a person.”
2. About the idea and its implementation
“One day I looked at the plans for large developments and realized that they looked very massive and cumbersome. And I thought that if we made them in the shape of a hill or a hill, these urban buildings would not be so heavy. Then I began to work with landscape and topography through smooth flowing lines that give the building the appearance of being made of liquid. It took years to translate the very phrase “fluid space” into an idea, and the idea into a building.”
3. About progress
“The understanding of topology has changed radically. They used to think: architecture is always tied to the earth, connected to gravity, so it must be down-to-earth and rational. Everything was tied to production, it had to remain flat, monotonous - an endless conveyor belt. This is what has changed. A modern building literally merges with the ground; there is no gap between the idea and its production implementation.”
Did you know that architecture, along with other factors, influences our life expectancy? But ancient highly developed civilizations knew this very well, and therefore erected buildings and structures in which length, height and width were correlated in accordance with the law of the “golden ratio”. Such architecture of buildings brings the rhythms of the human body into line with the natural rhythms of nature, which helps strengthen immunity and increase life expectancy.
That is why people who lived in ancient times, long before the Great Flood, which destroyed not only most of humanity, but also contributed to the loss of much hidden knowledge, lived much longer than us. Here is what V. Shemshuk writes about this in his book “Meeting with Koshchei the Immortal”:
“Antediluvian people lived on average for 1000 years or more not only because they ate special food, as the ancient Greek philosopher Thales believed. The food of our ancestors was indeed very different from modern ones, since it did not contain herbicides, pesticides, mineral fertilizers and was not genetically modified But the main secret of the long life of antediluvian people is that ancient people were included in the biocenosis, that is, they lived in harmony with the surrounding World.
Having entered into resonance with the vibration frequency of the biocenosis, an inexhaustible source of energy, a person does not get sick or become decrepit. According to the Bible, Methuselah lived 969 years, Noah - 950 years, of which 350 years were after the flood. One of his sons, Shem, lived only 600 years, and Arphasat, the son of Shem, lived 465 years. Later people lived even shorter lives. Moses lived only 120 years, Joseph - 110 years, and modern man - just over half a century. There is a gradual disappearance of longevity, since protected forests (forests where people lived according to the Vedas) were mercilessly destroyed.
The Egyptian pyramids, which are based on the “section of life” found in the geometric forms of all living things, are not destroyed because they are resonantly fueled by the vibration frequencies of living organisms, equal in wavelength to their internal frequency. They still stand, although they were built much earlier than the pyramids based on the Egyptian triangle ratio, which have now almost completely collapsed.
Paradoxically, when there is a high level of correlation in the structure and form of large and small, then a kind of energy-information exchange occurs, that is, a flow of energy - and the form is not destroyed. The phenomenon of vibrational frequencies flowing was discovered at the beginning of the last century. We affirm that a person's future is in the things that surround him, in the people he meets, in the thoughts, deeds and actions that he bears and performs.
Even the architectural form of a building affects the shape of the protein of the human body - and therefore, if the vibration frequencies of the building correspond to the vibration frequencies of a person, or are multiples of his wavelength, or those future vibration frequencies to which evolution should lead, then the shape of the building helps a person to open up, that is reveal new abilities inherent in him and extend his longevity. If the vibration frequency of a building is not a multiple of the vibration frequency of a person, then it slowly kills him. Not only incorrectly constructed buildings destroy people’s bodies with their wavelengths that are not harmonious with humans, but also the vibration frequencies of people in the building destroy such buildings. This is one of the reasons why renovations are constantly required in apartments.
When constructive sections are used in the construction of buildings, three goals are achieved: buildings are less likely to collapse, they are beautiful and functional. Not only buildings, but also clothing, furniture and their compositions that resonate with the human body can lead to raising the vibration of the cells of our body, to advancing a person towards enlightenment and the revelation of his abilities. The architecture of the house should not only be correlated with various types of creative sections, but also be multifunctional, i.e. protect from bad weather, provide clean air, food and energy.
Frequencies, vibrations and rhythms subordinate to the “section of life” or, as it is also incorrectly called the “golden ratio”, being in resonance, have a remarkable synergetic property: self-sustaining. Our ancestors knew this well, who, along with the “section of life”, used other ratios, i.e. volumetric resonators: a cross-section of perfection, creation, creativity, transformation, harmony. enlightenment, knowledge, etc."
Even the brilliant Leonardo da Vinci discovered that the human body is built in accordance with the law of the “golden ratio”, and, therefore, to harmonize it with natural rhythms, the architecture of buildings built on the same principles is necessary. The fact that such buildings contribute to improving health and increasing life expectancy was proven by the Leningrad architect I.P. Shmelev, who used knowledge of the law of the “golden ratio” in the design parameters of his house.
But how many modern buildings were built in accordance with the laws of world harmony? This is why humanity, driven into the concrete jungle of megalopolises and large cities, is sick both physically and spiritually. After all, constant exposure to inharmonious architecture leads to a mismatch between human rhythms and the natural rhythms of Nature and, as a result, to loss of health and low life expectancy. But the natural landscape, as well as buildings built in accordance with the law of the “golden section”, lead to the opposite result.