Notes on Hubsch

Here are a series of notes on H. Hubsch
For more on Hubsch see Bergdoll below
General remarks on Hübsch (Barry Bergdoll, "Archaeology vs. History: Heinrich Hübsch's Critique of Neoclassicism and the Beginnings of Historicism in German Architectural Theory," The Oxford Art Journal, 5:2, 1983; 3-12.):

Hubsch refuses Neoclassical doctrine of imitation as a principle of design: Vitruvius is not the model. Style is rather the outcome of universal laws of materials and construction with the particular demands of climate and socio-economic structure. Truth of style derived through analytic reflection. But analysis of historical evidence is from a radically different set of hypotheses. Previously, style in architecture corresponds to ideals of beauty located in original architectural productions (Greece) which in turn were based on an imitation of nature (primitive hut). Hübsch argued that the history of architecture is rather a dynamic system (not a correlation of original truths or models and their examplars). So, Hübsch rejects both doctrine of imitation as well as belief in transcendental ideal (Ideology as the last of the philosophies of the Classical episteme) as the main factors in architecture. The question then is: what is a generative factor for style? This depends on Hübsch's analysis of two things, the needs of the present moment, and the historical organic development of the past. Hübsch is thus probably the first to speak of the new style in architecture (its possibility) in terms of an analysis of the past. The vault, for example, has an evolved history: it is not just an ideal form. He uses the concept, therefore, of active historical forces. "Thus, Hübsch's history is analytical, tracing the vault's development in Early Christian, Byzantine, and even Romanesque architecture in order to see how a structural principle generates a new style. Functional and material determinism, the formative influence of climate, and a belief in technical progress are the analytical determinants of Hübsch's history. Aesthetics, he maintained, are sophistry." (p. 10). "Hübsch proceeds to outline the requirements of the modern period: large spaces and consequent broad roof spans, generously sized windows and entrances, and so on. In short, he creates a conceptual "scaffold" to describe the new architecture functionally without specifying style or formal appearance." [ I.e., the analysis will lead to the correct visible form. But what are the analyses of, ontologically speaking? Are they ideas? Objects? Well, they are systems, the nature of which is visible only through analysis.]

Summary Remarks on Hübsch's text, In What Style Should We Build?, (manifesto for a meeting of Nazarene artists at the Dürer festival in Nuremberg, 1828. (Reader).
Hübsch places great emphasis on function, the formative factors in style derive from function. The essence of form as a condition of style, therefore, is a non-issue, there is no criteria for it. Only those essential parts of a building are the elements of style. There is not original form (no primitive hut model); there are only formative factors. Structurally there are only two basic conditions: the trabeated and the vaulted. And these change and develop according to internal dynamic laws, over time. There are four factors (which derive from function) in the formation of style, and the ones that we require today are opposite those that were used in Ancient Greece. The superimposition of Greco-Roman principles on architecture is simply just equal to decoration.
Questions: What is the analysis of, what kinds of analysis does he employ, and how do they relate the invisible (function) to the visible (Style)?