On John Portman’s Atria: Two Exercises in Hotel Composition

  • Heather LiglerEmail author
  • Athanassios Economou
Conference paper


Two formal exercises in hotel composition are presented. In both, the hospitality work of the architect John Portman is the focus. His language of hollow forms is addressed following his unique claim on the organizing principles found in his 1964 house, Entelechy I. The first exercise outlines a generative specification for his atrium hotel language in a parametric shape grammar informed by the logic of the house that generates an atrium hotel prototype. The second exercise speculates with a sketch on how transformation grammars can yield various configurations to explore Portman’s atrium hotel language for a series of initial shapes.


  1. 1.
    Koolhaas R, Mau B, Werlemann H (1998) S, M, L, XL. New York, MonacelliGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Rice C (2016) Interior urbanism: architecture. John Portman and Downtown America, Bloomsbury, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Portman J, Barnett J (1976) The architect as developer. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Portman J (1997) An island on an island. l’Arca, MilanGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Craig R (1989) Mythic proportions: the portman home. Southern Homes, Jan/Feb, pp 90–99Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ligler H, Economou A (2016) Entelechy revisited: on the generative specification of John Portman’s architectural language. Environ Plann B Plann Des 0265813516676489Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Stiny G (1980) Introduction to shape and shape grammars. Environ Plan 7(3):343–351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Stiny G (2006) Shape: talking about seeing and doing. MIT Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Knight TW (1994) Transformations in design: a formal approach to stylistic change and innovation in the visual arts. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Knight TW (2014) Regarding rules: from Rimini to Rio. Joelho. Revista de Cultura Arquitectónica 5:12–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sullivan L (1990) A system of architectural ornament, according with a philosophy of man’s powers. Rizzoli, in cooperation with the Art Institute of Chicago, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Stiny G (1977) Ice-ray: a note on the generation of Chinese lattice designs. Environ Plan 4:89–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Stiny G (2011) What rule (s) should I use? Nexus Netw J 13(1):15–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Economou A, Kotsopoulos, S (2014) From shape rules to rule schemata and back. design computing and cognition DCC‘14. In: Gero JS, Hanna S (eds) Springer 2014, pp 419–438Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Stiny G (2015) The critic as artist: Oscar Wilde’s prolegomena to shape grammars. Nexus Netw J 1–36Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mitchell WJ (1990) The logic of architecture: design, computation, and cognition. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Stiny G (1976) Two exercises in formal composition. Environ Plan 3:187–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Georgia Institute of TechnologyAtlantaUSA

Personalised recommendations