Modules and Scale

The question of modularity and modular coordination so far reveals a common desire to develop a system of measure that would simplify the design and construction of buildings in an effort to reduce costs and reduce waste. It was also recognizable at that time that industrial processes and methods of manufacturing were advancing and that no common standards existed in the building trade. The question returns to the argument of standardization and its limiting factor in the freedom of design. It could be said that the basis of architectural design are rooted in proportions of differing scales, as demonstrated throughout history. An architectural order guides the designer through the variants of the process, allowing his concept to be revealed on his own terms. In his book The Evolving House, Bemis says, “Houses will not be built of modules, but the module must be a practical unit for the specific design of structural parts.” Modularity itself should not limit the ability for expression of a conceptual design, unless it is the intent of the designer to do so.
This brings us to the question of scale. The dimensioning systems so far are based on the human scale, where proportions are based on the human body. Le Corbusier’s Modulor are based on anthropometric measurements, as well as Schindler’s system that considers the basic measurements of human height, room height, and door height. Also, building elements that conform to a basic modular dimension were considered to be easily handled and maneuvered by humans. Since the basic axiom of a modular system is its ability to increase dimensions proportionally, can the system be used on a larger scale such as the scale of a site? If the design of a building uses the scale of the site as the regulating factor, what parameters of the modular system need to be modified?