Bibliographic record
Abstract
While the pinwheel plan type assumes its place within practices of twentieth century architecture, the evolution of the type has never been traced historically. For the first time, this paper will open an account of the pinwheel plan type from its emergence in Le Corbusier’s spiral form projects of the 1930s to its proliferation in the international scene of the 1950s and ’60s. Taken up seriously in works by James Stirling and the members of Team 10, including Alison Smithson, Piet Blom, Aldo van Eyck and Jaap Bakema, as part of search for flexible openended plan forms, the pinwheel plan had virtually disappeared by the mid-1970s. Drawing upon this reconstructed history of the pinwheel plan, the paper will frame the early work of eminent Australian architect, John Andrews, who adopted the plan type in a little known housing scheme for the Canadian Stelco company in 1964. Andrews’ use of the pinwheel plan marks a critical moment in his creative development in which the architect turns from the use of relatively simple geometric forms in plan to the kinds of geometrically sophisticated forms that dominated his practice from the mid 1960s onwards. Analysis of Andrews’ design for the Bellmere Public School (1964-65) will be used to evidence the impact of pinwheel forms on Andrews’ technique of planning. Yet it is Andrews’ development beyond the type during the period of the mid 1960s that would eventually mark an important legacy of the architect’s work for the culture of contemporary architecture.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".