Industrial Buildings—Dialogue Between Architecture and Structure

Abstract

Industrial architecture is the result of the integration of complex planning and construction, with the goal of attaining an optimal arrangement of building processes toward the creation of a quality working environment. The subject of research focuses on the architecture of light-industry buildings and product warehouses and includes sustainable smart concepts and laboratories for modern industry with high-quality production and working environments. All of this is expressed in the creation of architecture as a result of the meaningful dialogue among the components of architectural design. The goal of this research is to determine the main categories of the interaction of industrial architecture and construction and, at the same time, to provide an answer to the main research question of what the application determinates are in a given relationship: environment—architectural expression—construction. The quantitative and qualitative methods of research are focused on the choice, definition, and correlation (dialogue) of the elements of architecture and construction, in dependence on the character of the industrial activity. The research outputs, in the form of diagrams and illustrative graphic displays, make a contribution toward the visual interpretation of the architecture/construction relationship and the methodological basis for the creative process of designing industrial architecture within the context of contemporary trends. Their use in engineering and architecture education is of undoubted significance.

1. Introduction

Industrial buildings cover the technologies and secrets of production, which are currently a magnet for architects and, quite often, a starting point for non-traditional architectural concepts. The courses of production inspire and open possibilities for new approaches in architectural creation. Industrial architecture must reflect the logic of the movement of products, manufacturing processes, and employees. Justifiably, this branch of architecture is most often presented as rational. Rationality does not automatically mean spiritlessness and boredom from the point of view of architectural creation. Creativity in design, modern approaches, sustainability, consideration, context, efficiency, and rationality are all determinants that change boring boxes for production into interesting architectural works. At first glance, industrial architecture, when compared with buildings for other purposes, equally reflects social developments. However, it must, above all, embody the requirements of its production activities.

Aitchison wrote, “Historically, industry has implied a concentration of bodies, materials, and energy, and demanded significant investment in the shape of buildings and infrastructure, which often became landmarks for industrial regions and symbols of prosperity” [1] (pp. 1–8). At the turn of the 18th and 19th centuries, it was inspired by the buildings where the powerful factory owners had their residences. The third industrial revolution changed production halls into simple and clearly functional buildings without architectural spark. Accordingly, for many years, industrial architecture was shifted to the outskirts of towns [2]. Factories were, for the most part, conceived without regard to aesthetics, which made them more like containers for industrial activity [3] (pp. 7–8). One reason for this was the financial demands made by industrial structures, with investment, for the most part, dedicated to the accompanying necessary technology. A building’s envelope was not essential, and there was no great interest from the architectural side in designing industrial buildings. One reason for this was the relatively small space for the implementation of architectural concepts, plus the difficulty of coordinating activities between the professions involved.

In spite of this, there are examples of industrial architecture (of architects Aalto, Kahn, Wright, Rogers, Grimschaw, Vasconi, etc.) that show that it is possible to present individual beauty and progressiveness and that industrial architecture can be a witness to human creativity, captivating precisely because of the combination of the production atmosphere and design expression in large spaces [4]. The 20th century offered many industrial buildings whose appearance suggested more than simple, functional boxes covering up manufacturing processes. Innovations were incorporated into designs, from the interior to the exterior. It can be maintained that there was a great attempt to integrate effectivity, functionality, and up-to-date technologies in architectural design with the goal of creating a visually attractive environment [5,6].

It has often been shown that a typological categorization of engineering works is a combination of art and engineering, which also holds true for quality industrial architecture in the context of structural design. A technical way of seeing, industrial thinking, and the perception of engineering aesthetics must be combined with architectural sensitivity. Engineering is characterized by innovations in various areas. In order to work creatively with innovations and technology, the designer must be familiar with them [7] (pp. 76–82).

Innovations in the area of production technologies and processes are mentioned for a better understanding of the context. Industry 5.0 is centered on technologies that enhance rather than replace human talents. New technologies do not control human beings; instead, they control and use technology for their benefit [8]. The presented research will not study them more closely. Apart from innovations directly related to industrial construction, new technologies are also important in the area of building materials and structures. Structures have their own special mission, as they appear in the entire process of creation—at the beginning in the form of a structural concept and at the end in the form of the material embodiment of all the components. The incorporation of smart materials (for example, self-healing concrete), modular elements, and prefabricated building technologies increase the effectiveness of a structure and the quality of the resulting work; this applies equally to the industry as a whole. The goal is to achieve consistent quality, simplicity, and speed in the construction process, which is of primary interest in industrial construction [9]. The present times require open approaches that support experimentation and the introduction of innovations. An analysis of the trends and new technologies, together with critical interpretation, makes it possible to work out a suitable design scenario for industrial construction [10].

Industrial architecture reflects technological progress, incorporating the results of science and research with the goal of achieving economic effectiveness. It creates its own system of modern world consumption, prosperity, and economics. Industrial architecture as a system can be defined only when certain criteria are defined [11] (pp. 661–666). These criteria reflect not only the needs of production and consumption but also the demands of the production environment and the architectural and aesthetic requirements of a specific environment. The subject of research is undertaken with these criteria. The answer to the main research question: In industrial architecture, what determines the relationship between the architectural shape (form) and the structure? is enriched by research and answers the partial questions that arise in the investigation of the dialogue between architecture and structure.

The aim of this research is to uncover the dialogue between architecture and structure as directed by the creators of architectural works. The observer of an architecture need not be aware of this dialogue; sometimes, it is a hidden process. The dialogue has an irreplaceable function because, by means of it, an exchange of information between the two sides is achieved [12] (pp. 103–112). Research is accordingly taken up by the dialogue between the physical (visual) architectural form and the structural logic. First of all, the logic derived from a visual perception need not always conform to the logic of the structures [13] (pp. 20–21). Does it hold that if something is structurally logical, it is also physically attractive?

2. Materials and Methods

The research is oriented to the investigation of the relation and interpretation of expression and structure in industrial architecture through dialogue.

It was necessary to narrow the investigated problem to contemporary architecture to the period of the 21st century. The area of investigation is oriented on universal production halls of various sizes. It is necessary to emphasize that, from the standpoint of typology, this category of industrial manufacturing is classified as light industry and logistics centers. The category of halls of medium and large dimensions has the greatest percentage of representation in this category [14] (pp. 32–34). The research did not deal with the architecture and structure of buildings for heavy industry, which function as single-use manufacturing halls and apparatuses. This is a category of architecture primarily dominated by technology and where supporting structures are closely linked with technological colossuses (cement factories, energy producers, steel manufacturing, the mining industry) [15] (pp. 25–43). The research also deliberately stayed away from examinations of the industrial area as a whole; attention was focused only on production halls. This was a methodologically logical step since, in production areas there also appear buildings of varying typological purposes (administrative buildings, engineering halls), which would have distorted the results of the research.

The methods used in this research are typical and suitable for architectural observation. Research steps and methods are presented in the diagram; see Figure 1. The research was methodically organized into three stages. The creation of a database from graphic materials, photo-documentation and text data selection took place in the first stage of the research. Analytic methods and filtering were implemented in its second stage. Formal analysis is, simply put, the approach used as an analytic approach through which architects examine earlier structures with the final goal of deriving the principles of operation [16]. In the final stage—groups of representative objects—buildings were created by the comparison and synthesis methods. They have the characteristic marks and principles of the linkage of architectural shapes and structures.

Architectural works of industrial production and logistics were chosen for the evaluation process. The database was made up of representative works of architects from the entire world and the proposed academic studies from the workshop of the authors of this contribution that best presented the stated determinants of the dialogue. A non-traditional research methodical approach was offered, which is to carry out a dialogue about a dialogue in the area of industrial architecture. Why was the form of dialogue chosen?

Carbaugh states, “Dialogue has become a key and powerful term and form of action in many academic, linguistic, and cultural communities” [17] (pp. 9–38). Through the holding of a dialogue, it is possible to achieve balanced relations between two sides/phenomena. In the presented research there are two sides: architecture and structure. Dialogue is understood as a communicative method of investigation, advancing to a better understanding of the relations and the diversity of the two sides. Dialogue is also used in educating, supports modern methods for gaining knowledge, and is applied as a method of investigation [18] (pp. 33–44).

The methods of investigation, the approaches, and the results are graphically presented in the form of evaluation tables and comprehensible graphs [19]. Infographic methods play an important role in architectural research, and accordingly, graphs, schemas, and illustrations are inherent in the architect’s expressive speech. Dunlap and Lowenthal claim, “An infographic’s structure and sequence can help make it compelling, propelling the readers through the content via a succession of related ideas” [20] (pp. 42–59). The application of infographic methods helps to round out and clearly explain the results of research, including visually.

FAD STU Bratislava students have for a long time participated systematically in research, in the initial phase of the creation of databases, and in the phase of analysis of examples as part of subjects focusing on the structure of hall buildings and the typology of industrial buildings. The students always worked one semester during the duration of the research.

3. Background of Research—Architectural Styles

In the dialogue of architecture and structure, it is not possible to leave out the context of architectural styles. The typological sort, industrial architecture, first appeared in the 19th century. On these buildings are most frequently presented elements of Romanticism and Eclecticism, which cover over the functions and the constructional methods. Chiefly, however, they reflect a form of the residential fortresses of the ruling class. There do exist exceptions—concepts that were generous and kind to the environment and to the employees.

One significant example is the innovations of A. Kahn. In the first half of the 20th century, he turned industrial buildings into functional, utilitarian constructions with special aesthetics. Albert Kahn held the opinion that the manufacturing function played a dominant role both in the interior space and the exterior form of the modern factory and also that the structure should serve the production process and the placement of technology lines. He placed great emphasis on natural daylight and ventilation. The authors Han, Liu, and Cornaglia [21] maintain that the theory of designing modern industrial architecture can be formulated into five basic points (briefly: function determines the size of the manufacturing area and the shaping of facades; the production process determines the choice of structure system; the rhythm of the facade determines the placement of windows; the exterior form of an object presents the aesthetics of structure and function; daylight and ventilation are the basis of working comfort). Kahn created a characteristic building style based on a system of reinforced concrete and steel frame structures that supported the usage of large-scale windows on the façade and dominant skylights on the roof [5] (pp. 5–24). The distinctive aesthetics of Kahn’s industrial buildings was supported by the shaping of the roofs. The ingenious butterfly shape of the roof (in Seamless Steel Tubes, Ford River Rouge Glass Plant, and the Lady Esther Cosmetics Plant), advantageous for both-sided lighting, replaced the typical saw-shaped roof shape [6] (pp. 28–44).

One display of how quality industrial architecture can form an environment is found in the whole town of Baťovany, founded in 1938 (today, we know it in Slovak under the name Partizánske). A modern urbanistic concept, modern industrial architecture, innovations in the area of construction, and quality social programs formed a single corporate identity for this Bata town, which primarily carries the signature of the architects J. Voženílk and V. Karfík [22] (pp. 24–34).

Industrial architecture from the 20th century has gone through various styles—modernist, post-modernist, along with other directions and streams, even in the present day, looking for new interpretations [23] (pp. 30–33). Simply put, it is possible to discern movements where structures are dominant, accepted, or pushed down. In the industry database, there are to be found buildings that are celebrations of pure functionalism (the works of A. Aalto, A. Kahn, V. Karfík) and of expressive high-tech architecture (for example, the authors R. Rogers, N. Grimschaw). Less represented is corporatism, in which the architects (for example. F. L. Wright) aimed at a unification of the manufacturing and aesthetic functions with a corporate identity. Its goal was to satisfy the demands of the corporations. In this direction (up to the 1970s), the influence of American business was significant [24] (pp. 114–116).

It can be claimed that contemporary industrial architecture focuses more on the visibility of the product, and so also the structure. This is the merit of construction concepts and quality materials. It is amazing that the architect P. Behrens managed to achieve this right at the beginning of the 20th century. In Behrens Hall at AEG, the huge areas of glazing on the facade were surprising, revealing the structure and its tectonic and aesthetic rendering. Pevsner wrote, “For the first time the imaginative possibilities of industrial architecture were visualized” [25] (pp. 158–159). This is an illustration of the previously unprecedented interplay of architectural expression and structure, the package and the content, closedness and daring transparency.

New Concepts (Minimalism, Sustainability, Repetitiveness)

Within the contemporary directions of architecture, it is possible to focus attention on concepts whose compositional and architectural intentions express the logic of uniting the manufacturing, the structural, and the architectural expression.

Today, industrial architecture is logically moving toward popular minimalism and sustainable architecture (works of architecture agencies, for example, Gottlieb Paludan, BIG, HENN). Permanent sustainability presents an unassailable moral imperative through which it is possible to defend, for example, revolutionary manipulating with form [26] (p. 138). It is the responsibility of the architect and engineer that the form of industrial buildings not be formally revolutionary but rather designed within the intentions of thoughtful design. Minimalistic concepts with the use of smart approaches are represented widely. In the dialogue of architecture and structure, this has the form of an unambiguous convention of expression. Simple shapes and uncomplicated solutions dominate on both sides.

In every area of architecture there is pressure toward intelligent solutions. For creation in industry, this means an orientation on concepts sparing the environment—from land usage up to the involvement of smart manufacturing technologies and building materials on the base of recycling and a low carbon footprint. The difficulty of applying green building initiatives is a prejudice. The authors McKenna, Harris, Heinrich, Stewart, and Gharehbaghi maintain that even small changes enormously affect ecology and energy demands [27]. The simple-sounding thought of the renowned architect Tojoo Itó, “We must base architecture on the environment”, perfectly describes regenerative design [28] (p. 265). It is a contemporary trend that emerged as a reaction to the degeneration of the ecosystem. Unfortunately, it must be admitted that the industry of the past contributed to this to a large degree. The regeneration of the systems is based on a concept, and a good architectural concept has the potential to revive the harmonious coexistence of man, his activities, and nature [29] (pp. 75–81). It is necessary to consider right from the architectural-structural concepts systems considerate of the environment, including the use of modern drafting instruments, at present BIM (building information modeling). The use of BIM itself does not guarantee that a building will be built in conformity with quality projecting, but it dramatically increases the possibilities of effective administration and coordination of the processes and is, therefore, a precondition for quality implementations [30].

In industrial architecture, there are arguments for the process of effectively repeating well-designed blocks, modules, elements (also structural), and so on with overall savings. The individual character of design, which is characteristic of repetitive, modular architecture, may become part of design manuals and application of the identity, the brand, of a firm. Repetitiveness, as a justified method of designing in industrial architecture, creates a rhythm, an impression of motion and dynamism, and may correct the proportions of a building. The repetition of modules, materials, elements, and details may visually unite various parts of buildings and areas and so create a unified and harmonic design.

Modular design thinking is based on system solutions, on repetition and standardization, and on the possibilities of creating integrated solutions with a link to structure. For industrial architecture, creating a functioning module is effective in terms of speed of construction and increases in quality standards, which has a strong influence on the reduction of costs [31] (pp. 50–56). The rationality of using modular systems also resides in the creation of three-dimensional designs based on BIM, which, in turn, is an important link to the accuracy and coordination of design. Vráblová, Czafík, and Puškár state, “The prefabricated modular architecture of the past has inspired architects and designers around the world with its many features” [32] (pp. 64–74). The stated assertion is also valid in the present time. It is clear that modular prefabricated structures are easy to disassemble and are dynamic and customizable. They support flexibility and make changes to spaces and layouts in constructed buildings possible, as well. The modular style of design attracts engineers and researchers. The reason for this is the possibility of a certain variability within a module where specific modular design elements may later be changed [33] (pp. 175–205).

Another industrial architecture term from the last four decades is ephemeral architecture. At first glance, it evokes second-ratedness or lower demands on the quality of expression. It is given by the high level of demands on the flexibility and universality of manufacturing premises, and its benefit is based on the principles of design efficiency and ease [34] (pp. 163–172). The stated requirement applies to standard, type, and modular structural designs. This development trend produces cyclically repeating structures in a different location, architectural patterning, and, to some extent, also dullness [35] (pp. 259–272). This is confirmed by the appearance of industrial parks in many town outskirts, characterized as unified corporatism. It mostly reflects the degree of mobility of financial capital.

4. Research

This research set the goal of seeking an answer to the basic research question regarding the functioning of the interaction between architecture and structure in industrial buildings. The research question could also be stated otherwise: What defines the dialogue between architecture and structure in industrial architecture?

The design of industrial buildings is determined mostly by the production activity, which, in addition to technology lines, has specifics such as the placement of the various types of technology transport, cranes, skylights, and other technological production components forming part of the main material of the production hall. In addition to the demands of the production process, the designs must also take into account the requirements for a quality work environment. It requires adequate lighting and micro-climate, a safe environment, and suitable materials. Accordingly, modern concepts enforce demands for consideration, energy efficiency, and blue-green approaches. A structure must fulfill conditions for the application of the stated requirements and must be open to the usage of smart materials and new effective solutions, including in the area of load transferring.

To achieve the goal, the first stage of the research was oriented to creating theoretic models of the architecture/structure relationship (Figure 2) and selecting a sufficient number of examples (Figure 3) on the basis of criteria (span, structural system, material). The criteria were determined so that in the database for analysis were represented characteristic buildings in which varying levels of the attributes of the architecture and structure relation are presented. These attributes characterize the essence of industrial architecture. The research authors established the attributes as follows:

• Urban and landscape environment attributes (structure and scale, sustainability factors);
• Production process and environment attribute (arrangement of technology, hygiene, social facilities);
• Architectural means of creation (composition of mass, material, color);
• Construction feasibility of the building attribute (structural span, material, shaping and type of structure, load, technical and construction-technological possibilities).

Figure 2. Dialogue on the relationship of architecture and structure determinants. Legend: UL—Urban environment and landscape; AI—Architectural intention, idea; TC—Technology concept, operation; SE—Sustainability, ecology; R—Rationality; SS—Structural system, span; MS—Material solution; CT—Construction technology possibilities; E—Efficiency; I—Innovation.

Figure 2. Dialogue on the relationship of architecture and structure determinants. Legend: UL—Urban environment and landscape; AI—Architectural intention, idea; TC—Technology concept, operation; SE—Sustainability, ecology; R—Rationality; SS—Structural system, span; MS—Material solution; CT—Construction technology possibilities; E—Efficiency; I—Innovation.

Figure 3. Number of evaluated examples in the database (total number: 133).

Figure 3. Number of evaluated examples in the database (total number: 133).

In the second stage, the research was focused on filtering, and in the third stage, on a synthesis of the knowledge. The synthesis was a response to the level of the influences of the individual attributes in the architectural result. Filtering was performed of the characteristic representatives (buildings) so as to reflect the aforementioned attributes, taking into account two supporting factors in each category:

• The span of the structure;
• The shaping logic of the industrial building and structures, taking into account the composition of the technological components (horizontally or vertically arranged).

The research is supported by the schemes in Figure 4, where the types of industrial spaces are delineated in terms of the method of arrangement of technology and usage of the suitable structural resolution.

According to span parameters, the buildings were categorized into three blocks: small span (12–24 m), medium span (24–36 m), and large span (more than 36 m), initially without specification of material. The research authors agreed with this categorization, which is presented by several authors in their works [36,37,38]. In the research, the validity of the empirical relations of the span and the thickness of the roof structure was verified. The basic empirical relations are presented by authors in a number of publications, for example, [37,38,39]. Slight deviations occurred mostly due to the absence of detailed knowledge of the relations of the individual structure elements. In general, it is true that with an increasing span, the material of the roof structure also increases. An appropriate solution for large spans is a move from so-called pure structure systems to hybrid systems and structures based on steel ropes, referred to as hanging and suspended structures.

The frequency of representation of types of industrial hall roofing structures was examined. In the analyzed examples, the authors of buildings used structure systems based on bending, compression, tension, or hybrid types of structures. In the tested samples, the most frequently applied are frame-bearing structures and space structures (3D) (Figure 3). Attention was focused on the relationship of architecture and the structure of the roof, which is the true materialization of the shape design of hall buildings. The conceptual structure is the aspect of an architectural design that creates the logical form of the building on the basis of the span and of the determined system of arranging the components (e.g., composition principles, technological requirements) [40] (pp. 1091–1104). In the process of designing, of importance is the argument that everything that has components must also have a structure and a logically ordered hierarchy of the components and a one-to-one correspondence between functional and structural elements [41,42]. If it is possible to create a repeatedly usable component, then this approach supports modularity.

It is clear that large, open spaces are among the most important determinants of industrial buildings. The characteristics of the open spaces define the possibilities of applying a structure type. In connection with other restrictions such as dynamic load, weight, and equipment, the natural requirement for robustness and ensuring the stability of the structure is of consequence. Crocetti observes, “The single most important parameter, for the design of efficient load-bearing structures is without doubt the relationship between structural form and the configuration of the loads” [43].

The securing of these properties is closely connected with the material design of structures. In modern concepts for production halls, there has been a shift from ‘mono’ material designs to their combination. This makes it possible to work more effectively with a number of materials, designing spaces with larger spans and increasing the aesthetic value of a structure, both overall and in detail. The maximum strength–minimum material relation should hold true. Structural efficiency is crucial in architectural construction, as it focuses on reducing material consumption while maximizing load-bearing capacity [44]. The analyzed examples favor ecological materials with low carbon footprints. This is a step along the road to a sustainable, economical, and eco-friendly way of designing a structure. “Innovative designs can be created by making better and more subtle use of the materials we have to hand. High-yield steel, lighter or better-performing concretes, improved alloys and new composites are all available to build structures that use material more efficiently and can help promote more elegant solutions combining rigidity and lightness”, claimed Parkyn [45] (pp. 182–187).

5. Results and Discussion

The simple answer to the research question is that the architecture and structure dialogue is defined by a set of determinants: stylishness, sustainability and eco-friendliness, energy effectiveness, rationality, product aesthetics, and environment. This is the path to understanding the architecture and structure relationship. After stylistic periods (from the 20th century), the structural connection of the building to its artistic expression—architecture started to be more visible. This was a harmonic compliance that also had an influence on the creation of detail [46] (pp. 27–31).

In the arrangement of elements in a space, it is necessary to analyze the logical relations that arrange the elements and then, consequently, form a compositional structure arranged in different ways [47] (pp. 561–564). In industrial architecture, these logical relations are defined by stability, span, choice of material, construction technology, and practicality. This is also supported by the thoughts of the well-known architect P. Zumthor, whose creation is characterized by subtlety, purity of shapes, and knowledge of materials, “Beauty in architecture derives from practicality” [28] (p. 269).

Here also can be found an answer to the partial question: Is it true that if something is structurally logical, it is also visually alluring? Visually alluring, therefore beautiful, in industrial architecture is also determined by practicality and the simplicity of a structure solution. As was stated by Tait James, a gap may occur between the intentions of the architect and the actual structure design [48] (pp. 168–170). This is then the reason for the emergence of additional improvement (embellishment). The question is if it is in any way possible to avoid this with complex industrial buildings. Perhaps this is why additional modifications (embellishments) are accepted and excusable. As Tait states, “The elimination of later improvements and the beautification of the architecture is possible as a result of clear communication between the architect—the engineer—the implementer. The contribution from cooperation lies in the exchange and gaining of knowledge and the impact on the quality of the design proposals” [49] (pp. 184–189).

Structure and architecture can be connected in the wide gap between extremes. In one way, structure has complete superiority over architecture; the latter does not at all take into account structural requirements in determining the form of a building and its aesthetic processing [50] (pp. 73–114).

There is an interesting opinion by Dinçer, Aydınlı, “Architecture as a physical realm cannot be blurred, but the limits of architecture might be” [51] (pp. 48–60). In a number of studies, there have been examined architectural concepts and the possibilities of blurring the boundaries between specified borders, such as interior versus exterior, artistic versus natural, and open versus closed [52] (pp. 1–13). As part of the conducted research, the question arose: Is it at all possible to blur the boundary between the architecture–structure dualities? If the boundary is expressed as something that includes the interaction created through the dualities, then it is possible. The architect’s meaning and intention is precisely the interaction in the united perception of architecture and structure, including industrial architecture. This depends on the specific concept and the details of the industrial concept for which the object is designed. The logic is the interpretation and mutual interaction of the architectural form and the structure, so it refers to the truth of the expression.

The author Macdonald [50] analyzes in detail six possibilities for uniting architecture and structure (ornamentation of structure, structure as ornament, structure as architecture, structure as form generator, structure accepted, structure ignored). The architect E. Hlaváček speaks of two fundamental possibilities for the application of structure in the expression of a structure. The first accents the technology of the structure—from the structural elements right through to a demonstration of the entire system of the structure. The second accents the result of the entire form of the structure, where the structural elements give way to the desired form, as if being hidden [53] (pp. 100–101). The results (see Figure 5) of the presented research for the field of industrial architecture settled on the term structure in architecture as a whole as follows:

• Structure fully accepted as a bearer of a building’s architectural expression—atypical design with a dominance of the interpretation of the structure;
• Structure partially accepted—consistency of the structural and architectural solution, the structure is presented mostly in the interior;
• Ignored structure—from the exterior and the interior, unarticulated structure, the architectural skin of the building dominates.

Figure 5. Evaluation of the relationship between industrial building and structure.

Figure 5. Evaluation of the relationship between industrial building and structure.

Presented schemes of structural solutions of buildings are understood holistically. The column graph outlines the level of application of attributes, the type of structure, material, and characteristic expression. Evaluated was not only their static logic but also the space possibilities of the structure, as was presented similarly in [54] (pp. 115–147). The structure proposal includes a consideration of the various requirements and factors influencing the overall arrangement and dimensions of the structure. The results are alternative structure designs that offer the best general resolutions. The chief requirement is the function of the structure; secondarily are, for example, aesthetics, effectivity, and sustainability [54]. From the research of the subject database (Figure 5), it follows that those most represented include frame and beam structures with variously curved axes and space structures.

Of interest are the concepts of folded plates and suspended and hanging structures. Shells are on the decline due to technological and construction difficulties. In the same way, hanging and suspended structures are used only for objects with wide roof spans where structure supports are not required (columns in the interiors).

On the one hand, the bearing function interprets the structure form from the standpoint of ensuring stability, while on the other hand, the construction may share in the organization of the spaces and the establishment of the architectural values [55] (pp. 2–5).

It has been confirmed that the quality of industrial architecture is not defined only by the structure. Mosseri argues, “A structural system usually functions parallel to other systems and together they create the whole architectural creation” [56] (pp. 589–599). The goal of industrial architecture design is to achieve a balance between functionality, sustainability, aesthetic attractiveness, and constructional logic [4]. The authors Celadyn M. and Celadyn W., in their research, deal with a non-conventional perception of contemporary architecture and its details through the optics of attractive artistic rendering. This requires a specific approach not only to the perception of the spatial and aesthetic features of buildings but, above all, to the designing of aesthetically valuable architecture (including industrial) [57].

Only complex solutions from the exterior to the interior guarantee a good result. The role of architects and engineers is, likewise, the propagation of quality industrial architecture. The reason for investing in quality architecture is explained by Barkow Leibinger Architects, “…better working conditions prevail more in a good industrial building than in a trapezoidal sheet metal box put together with neither love nor care and which really only the very short-sighted would still regard as being cheaper, because better working conditions have a positive effect on all sectors” [58].

An important determinant of the overall appearance, energy effectiveness, and spatial quality is lighting and functional articulation (Figure 6 and Figure 7).

The design of large production premises is not possible without adequate lighting. Natural light, which A. Kahn intensively engaged in, is a priority in sustainable designs not only due to energy savings but also from the standpoint of a pleasant working spirit and the provision of hygienic requirements and work safety. This ties into the general culture of the work environment.

The results of this research identified a trend of cohabitation between the structure and the architecture of industrial buildings and a reciprocal share of the individual attributes in the complete phrase. In the reciprocal interaction between architectural expression and the shaping of the structure, the vertical structure (wall, column, frame) is not essential, but more so the type of structure of the roof. The ideal is that the structure and the architectural expression coexist in perfect harmony. The structural form is dictated by the constructional requirements; it arises out of the static principles and supports the stability of the building [59] (pp. 72–86). The structure of hall objects is becoming so important that it even takes over the functional demands of the building. In this way, the structural elements guarantee the fulfillment of the operating function of the building [60] (pp. 17–27).

Research has shown that in the dialogue of architecture and structure, other “attributes” also have an influence—mostly the arrangement of the production technology and the related building–construction and environmental requirements resulting from the organization of the environs of the production hall. Industry inevitably requires flexibility in its manufacturing space, effectiveness and logic in the locale’s arrangement, and as few space and layout obstacles as possible. The reason for this is the smooth placement of the production technology, the fluid movement of the employees, and the possibility of future technology replacement in the future. This, too, must call on the timeless thinking of the creators of industrial buildings. Flexibility is the essential characteristic of premises for modern industry, and this must be reflected in the construction.

Analyses have also confirmed that steel, concrete, and compositional materials are prevalent among building materials. In halls with smaller dimensions, structures based on wood are in the majority. Authors incline to the opinion of Parkyn, “Innovative designs can be created by making better and more subtle use of the materials we have to hand. High-yield steel, lighter or better-performing concretes, improved alloys and new composites are all available to build structures that use material more efficiently and can help promote a more elegant solution, combining rigidity and lightness” [45] (p. 192).

6. Conclusions

The strength of the beauty of industrial architecture is hidden in a long-lasting dialogue and common response of architects and engineers. The synergy between architecture and structure is the basis of a quality project. Architecture cannot be separated from structure, nor structure from architectural expression. This paper deals with the logic of the relationship between the form of industrial architecture and the structure. Research has shown the possibilities this paper has brought forth and the need for a change in opinion regarding the designing of industrial buildings as an equal-value typological sort in the category of civil structures. Nowadays, experts do not treat industrial architecture as only an ephemeral type of building.

The conclusions of the research can be summarized into the following points:

○

The architectural forming of a structure responds to the attributes of creation and the dialogue between architecture and structure (Figure 2, Figure 4, and Figure 5);

○

The structure reacts to the unavoidable flexibility of the production space (Figure 3);

○

Element and volume “LEGO” modularity is a precondition of the repetitiveness of the architecture;

○

The resistance of the construction materials fulfills the attribute of sustainability;

○

The sustainability of the production and landscape environment is a precondition of regenerative architecture.

The results of the research have the aim of shifting the perception of industrial architecture, as well as opening a dialogue on the relationship between architecture and structure, and a dialogue between the professions. This process must be reflected in the professional development of future architects. The subject results of the research can be of aid toward this goal. Here, it is necessary to place emphasis on a positive attitude toward the enforcement of interdisciplinarity in education since this approach develops the analytic capabilities of students. The preparation for practice is thereby more demanding, yet all the better for it [61] (pp. 35–39). Another reason is the situation in practice, where computer-aided design tools, along with changes in the aesthetic paradigm of architecture, which have been established by the tools of computer designing, where computer-aided design tools have become established with changes in the aesthetic paradigm of architecture, and thus expertise in the use of complex structural systems is expected [62] (pp. 358–363).

The presented schemes and figures from the authors are a guide for easier decision-making and the choice of aesthetically suitable designs for production halls. Architecture does not only create new volumes and a new place in the city and landscape but reflects trends in technical and technological innovation (Industry 4.0 and 5.0) in the spirit of the time, along with sustainability with impacts on the architecture of the future. In the case of industrial building, which works with large areas and volumes, this context is especially important. This is the reason why industrial architecture must be of quality.

The conclusions of the research have confirmed that only a balance between expressive aesthetics, structural logic, and functional and operational purity is the condition for a supertemporal considerate concept of the architecture of industrial buildings.