The Essential Method: The Segal Method

Author: Jon Broome
Year: c. 1986 (The Architects' Journal special issue, "The Segal Method"; staged file dated 1962, referring to Segal's first Highgate house)
Source type: article
Raw file: raw/articles/broome-1986-essential-method-segal.md

Summary

Jon Broome, a self-builder and joint architect with Walter Segal on the Lewisham self-build schemes, presents the "Segal method" — a rational timber-frame building system developed for self-build. The method is characterized as "an attitude of mind rather than a system of construction": a rigorous simplification of the whole building process from design to completion, using standard, readily available materials in market sizes. Broome emphasizes the method's openness (unlike closed systems), its rethinking of technical problems (flat-roof failure, condensation) from first principles, and its democratizing potential — enabling ordinary, non-skilled people to build their own homes.

Key Claims

• An attitude of mind, not a system: the method is "rigorous simplification of the whole building process from design to completion," rethought from first principles to handle tolerances and thermal/moisture movement, reducing elements to essentials for maximum economy of material and effort.
• Open system building: uses readily available materials and techniques rather than specially manufactured components, absorbing improvements and benefiting from market competition; "open ended" assembly reaps the speed/economy of open systems "while avoiding the monotony and inflexibility that can result from a closed system."
• Humane architecture of liberation: Segal houses are "not monumental or heavy, or which 'encircle' the personality, but rather that encourage a feeling of lightness and optimism"; they are adaptable, easy to extend, and "responsive to the people who live in them." It is "an architecture of liberation."
• An appropriate vernacular for our time: not imposed for stylistic reasons but uses basic industrial products and common skills—"essentially an updated version of medieval timber-framing"—with "echoes of a pre-industrial age" and a demonstration of a "post-industrial one."
• Self-build potential: simplification lets non-experts build and non-professionals control design. First demonstrated in 1971 (a Suffolk schoolteacher); in 1978, 14 families from a council housing waiting list built their own houses in Lewisham, including people in their 60s and a single mother.
• Technical principles: post-and-beam frame (not stud-wall panel), tartan modular grid derived from panel widths (600/1200 mm) and structural thickness (50 mm), genuine dry joints (bolts/screws), foundations reduced to isolated bases so buildings stand on posts, and "transparent" documentation (schedule of materials combining bills of quantities/specification/order list).
• Rethinking from first principles: e.g. flat roof membrane laid loose like a "tablecloth" to avoid crack/leak from structural movement; walls made as loose "sandwich" layers (like clothes) allowing air circulation to prevent condensation rather than relying on an unreliable vapour barrier.
• Future implications: the method would alter the role of tradesmen and professionals, change attitudes toward buildings—no longer "fixed edifices ... but rather as 'tools' to be put to different uses"—alter maintenance, financing, and offer residents far greater choice. Segal became "the only living architect ... to get his name into the London A to Z" (Segal Close).

Connections

Concepts: Self-Build · Everyday Architecture · Authorship · Dwelling · Flat Ontology
Authors: Jon Broome · Walter Segal · John McKean · Jeremy Till & Sarah Wigglesworth
Debates: Genius vs. Bureaucracy
Related source notes: A Discourse on Method: The Segal System (McKean) · Buildings Without Architects (May & Reid) · The Future Is Hairy (Till & Wigglesworth)

Direct Quotes

"It is an attitude of mind rather than a system of construction."

"[T]he method reaps the benefits of speed and economy promised by open system building, while avoiding the monotony and inflexibility that can result from a closed system."

"It is an architecture of liberation."

"Segal houses demonstrate an appropriate vernacular for our time. It is not imposed for stylistic reasons ... It is essentially an updated version of medieval timber-framing."

"Because each family builds its own house, it is not constrained by the usual requirement to build identical houses for reasons of fairness."

Open Questions

• Does the Segal method's celebration of individual self-build and authorship of one's own home risk neglecting the collective, street, or public realm — the same critique McKean levels at Segal? Does "collaborative action" sufficiently answer that charge?
• How does the Segal method's "vernacular of our time" relate to Geoffrey's broader theorization of everyday and vernacular architecture against both the monumental canon and the hero-genius myth?