A visual framework for teaching and evaluating design projects. KAREL VANDENHENDE, University of Leuven, ASRO, Leuven, Belgium

Transcription

1 1. A visual framework for teaching and evaluating design projects KAREL VANDENHENDE, University of Leuven, ASRO, Leuven, Belgium Introduction and motivation Architectural design is a form of problem solving in which designers have to deal with many requirements. Ranging from constraints concerning the distribution of towns to constraints concerning the distribution of light fixtures (Alexander 1977). In the case of the design of an Indian Village, Christopher Alexander stated that he worked with up to 140 requirements (Jones 1992). The multitude of requirements makes teaching and evaluation of design projects a difficult job, in which a good checklist might help. The Qualifications Directive 2005/36/EC, that consolidates and modernizes the rules regulating the recognition of professional qualifications in Europe, provides us with a checklist of no less than 11 sentences. In these sentences, even more domain specific competences for architects are described. These texts are not easy to overview while teaching in a design studio. A powerful hierarchical and visual approach Let s propose a more hierarchical, complementary and visual approach. More hierarchical by grouping design requirements, or indirectly competences, in different groupes and scales, according the different scales and modes designers test and examine them. More complementary as to guarantee that with only a few groups, all requirements of the design process are covered. More visual as so to see at a glance all important groups of requirements. And let us propose an even more powerful learning framework, that not only shows us at a glance all groups of competences, but also helps us to teach cognitive and metacognitive knowledge. Cognitive knowledge is about heuristics, strategies for problem solving, learning strategies. Metacognitive knowledge is about self-regulation techniques for planning and control. About teaching students to evaluate themselves and learn them to develop their own design strategies. How can such a framework, that visualises the design process, look like? 1

2 Fig. 1 Fig. 2 Fig. 3 Fig. 4 Fig. 5 2

3 Fig. 1a+1b: Solid and Void. Fig. 1c Rubin s vase: is the solid the figure and the void the background? Or is it vice versa? (after the famous drawing by Rubin, 1921). Fig. 1d: Two versions of the same section of the libray of Seattle, both made by architect OMA, one showing the trading floors or voids of the building, and the other showing the platforms or solids (OMA, 2004). Fig. 2a+2b+2c: Qualities and quantities. Fig. 2d: Two versions of the same plan of Thermen in Vals, both made by architect Peter Zumthor; one exploring mainly qualities, the second mainly quantities (Zumthor, 1998). Fig. 3a: Vitruvius wrote that in architecture, account should be taken of strength, utility and grace (Morgan, 1962). Fig. 3b: Ching defined the 3 groups of Vitruvius as technics, function and form, and added space as a fourth group and context as an upper scale (Ching, 1979). Fig. 3c: Radical, practical, formal and symbolic (Jones, 1992). Fig. 3d: 4 Groups of constraints (on each scale): place, space, object and mass. Fig. 4a+4b+4c+4d: On each scale, the lower scale forms the detail, and the upper scale the context. Fig. 5a: 2 Complementary opposites Fig. 5b: 4 Groups of constraints on each scale. Fig. 5c: Constraints between scales. Fig. 5d: All constraints. Three complementary oppositions A visual framework shows at a glance all important groups of requirements. But how can we group the multitude of requirements in a useful way? Already about 2000 years ago, Vitruvius wrote that in architecture, account should be taken of strength, utility and grace, only using 3 groups of requirements (fig. 3a).... Now these should be so carried out that account is taken of strength, utility and grace. Account will be taken of strenght when the foundations are carried down to the solid ground, and when from each material there is a choice of supplies without parsimony; of utility, when the sites are arranged without mistake and impediment to their use, and a fit and convenient disposition for the aspect of each kind; of grace, when the appearance of the work shall be pleasing and elegant, and the scale of the constituent parts is justly calculated for balance. (Morgan 1960) During history, architecture gradually evolved from a focus on solids, to a shared focus on the solids and the voids (Giedion 1941) and later sharing the focus also with the context (Frampton 1983). So in 1979, Ching defined the 3 groups of Vitruvius as technics, function and form, and added space as a fourth group and context as an upper scale (Ching 1979) (fig. 3b). About ten years later, John Chris Jones organized all constraints in 3 dimensions. The first dimension groups constraints according to their generator, which seems not to be relevant for this paper. The second dimension differs between internal and external constraints. And the third dimension groups constraints according to their function: radical, practical, formal and symbolic (Jones 1992). Radical covering largely function, practical covering largely technics, formal and symbolic covering largely form and space (fig. 3c). Internal and external constraints partially referring to detail and context. Whatever the designer s intentions might be, we inevitably percieve his work on these two levels of the formal and the symbolic. The Union Jack is not just a pattern of colour and form but it is also inescapably a national symbol....we will adopt four functions, which in addition to formal and symbolic include radical and practical. While these four functions are fairly exhaustive, some readers may like to add others or subdivide some to suit more specialised fields of design. The radical constraints are those which deal with the primary purpose of the object or system being designed. Radical is used here not in the sense of revolutionary or left wing but in its true meaning of fundamental. Thus in the desing of a school the radical constraint are those to do with the educational system itself. The practical constraints are those aspects of the total design problem which deal with the reality of producing, 3

4 making or building the design; the technological problem. The radical constraints are those which deal with the primary purpose of the object or system being designed. Radical is used here not in the sense of revolutionary or left wing but in its true meaning of fundamental. Thus in the desing of a school the radical constraint are those to do with the educational system itself. The practical constraints are those aspects of the total design problem which deal with the reality of producing, making or building the design; the technological problem. (Jones 1992) Let s work with a similar grouping, but let us depart from complementary oppositions as to be sure to cover all requirements. And let s use oppositions that are significant for designers, as they imply different modes and scales of research or even different research media to test and examine them. Solid and Void On each scale, Architecture can be examined and tested in 2x2 modes, as if you can shift 2 switches, each into 2 modes. The first switch lets you choose between solid and void. What do you see as figure, and what do you see as background. Is the solid the figure and the void the background? Or is it vice versa, like in Rubin s vase (Rubin 1921). Indeed, architecture deals not only with solids, but also with voids (Ching 1979). Architectural form occurs at the juncture between mass and space. In executing and reading design drawings, we should be concerned with both the form off the mass containing a volume of space as well as the form of the spatial volume itself. (Ching 1979) Quantities and qualities With the second switch, you choose between qualities, like character, composition and poetry, and quantities like dimensions, configurations and rational logics (Lawson 1997). There s the poet and the artist on one side and the technician on the other and this is a good methaphor for what we re up to as architects. The danger is when you see only the technical man, or the artist who doesn t have any practical skills. I see the architect is right in the middle trying to hold these two together in a kind of harmony, and if he gets it right it produces almost another dimension, and if you go into such a building you say ah that s it. (quote of Burton R. in Lawson 1997) Do you try to comprehend the architecture, or do you feel 4

5 it. Is it about dimensions or units that you can measure, or is it about characteristics that you experience, with your senses? Detailed or global, absolute or relative? With the left or right hemisphere of your brain? these different frames of mind involve different instruments for producing or representing what you are doing ranging form felt-tip pens for idea generation to a 2H pencil for testing and getting dimensions right. (quote of Maccormac R. in Lawson 1997) In quantitative mode, we see the solid as mass, as bulk, as a construction of walls and floors, of windows and doors, of plumbing and electricity. With dimensions like length, width, height and weight and with configurations that are measurable and therefore can be calculated. Idem dito for the void in rational mode. Necessary length, width, height, but also the lighting of spaces can be perfectly dimensioned to fit the functional needs. And the lay-out of rooms can be configurated and calculated to meet the organisational requirements. In qualitative mode, we experience solids as objects. Objects with a character, with personality. Objects have non-measurable dimensions: characteristics. Like their apparent color, apparent form, apparent size or apparent weight. These dimensions are not measurable; they are perceived relatively. You compare an object or a composition of objects to adjoining objects, adjoining places and to objects and compositions you experienced in the past. In emotional mode, objects do not have an exact size. They are small or smaller, heavier, more familiar or even funnier. Because of the relative experience, emotional perception can differ from rational perception like for example in Johannes Itten s simultaneous contrast (Itten 1970). Voids in qualitative mode can be experienced as places. Just like objects, places have character and they have relative dimensions. Previously met places, adjoining places, but also adjoining objects influence your perception. Adjoining objects evoke associations with an impact on the adjoining places. Working scale, context and detail Architects test requirements on a certain scale: the scale of a wall, a room, a house, a neighbourhood or a city. Always design a thing by considering it in its next larger context - a chair in a room, a room in a house, a house in an environment, an environment in a city plan. (Saarinen 1956) 5

6 Fig. 6 Fig. 7 Fig. 8 6

7 Fig. 6: Sines Cultural Centre by Aires Mateus (Mateus, 2009). Fig. 6a: The neighbourhood is the addition of voids (urban space) and solids (buildings). Fig. 6b: The building is the addition of voids (outdoor space) and solids (building blocks). Fig. 6c: A building block is the addition of voids (served spaces) and solids (servant blocks). Fig. 6d: A servant block is the addition of voids (servant space) and solid (construction). Fig. 7: CM headquarters by Stéphane Beel (Beel, 1996). Fig. 7a: The neighbourhood is the addition of voids (urban space) and solids (buildings). Fig. 7b: The building is the addition of voids (outdoor space) and solids (building blocks). Fig. 7c: A building block is the addition of voids (served spaces) and solids (Servant blocks and Block walls). Fig. 7d: A block wall is the addition of voids and solid (construction). Fig. 8a: Constraints. Fig. 8b: Design process start. Fig. 8c: Design process objective. Fig. 8d: Design process framework. Whereby on each scale, the lower scale forms the detail, and the upper scale the context. And let s consider solid as the addition of solids and voids of the lower scale; as do the rooms and walls of a house together form the house, at its turn being a solid on the scale of the neighbourhood. (fig. 4, figg. 6-7) The framework thereby becomes selfsimilar on each scale, reflecting the concept of the house as a small city and the city as a large house (Van Eyck, 1962). The design process During a design process, designers develop concepts, or ordering principles (Levin 1966). Concepts are the tentative solutions for one or more constraints of the problem at hand. At start, it s almost impossible to propose a concept that will meet all preconditions at once. A cycle of concept development, evaluation in different modes of constraints and eventually reformulation of the problem, has to be repeated until a satisfactory solution has been formulated. (fig. 9) Eventually unless the design proves totally successful one of two things happen to halt this evolutionary phase. Either the general form of the solution reveals itself incapable of solving enough problems, or so many modifications have to be made that the idea behind the solution is lost and abandonded. In either case the designer is likely to choose the revolutionary step of starting a completely new train of thought. This is the point where creativity is required rather then ingenuity. The train of thought is broken and no longer sequential. Some effort has to be made to look for a new set of problems or a new angle.... Creativity depends upon being able to see the same thing or idea in several different ways, the ability to generate a variety of perspectives. (Lawson 1980) Satisfactory solutions encompass multiple topics at the same time. Ideas encompassing multiple topics are also called integrated (Jones 1992) or also composite (Goldschmidt 2005). So a good visual framework shows how your concepts deal with the constraints, and how the different concepts are interrelated. (fig. 9) Form and construction, appearance and function are no longer separate. They belong together and form a whole. (Zumthor 2006) 7

8 Fig. 9 Fig. 10 Fig. 11 Fig. 12 8

9 Fig. 9a: First Concept. Fig. 9b: Evaluation of the first concept for two other modes of constraints. Fig. 9c: Second concept. Fig. 9d+9e: A cycle of concept development, evaluation in different modes of constraints and eventually reformulation of the problem, has to be repeated (Lawson, 1980). Fig. 9f: integrated (Jones, 1992) or composite (Goldschmidt, 2005) concept: all dots are connected. Fig. 9g+9h: Elaboration. Fig. 10a+10b+10c+10d: Architypes of architecture students. Fig. 11a+11b+11c+11d: Architypes of architecture designers with assymetrical talents. Fig. 12a+12b+12c+12d: Coloured projects. The Framework By representing an acceptable proposal for the requirements on the corners and on the sides of a square of 6 oppositions, and by representing the starting point by a smaller square centred within, each evaluation of a concept can be presented by a dot in the framework somewhere between the two squares. (figg. 8-9) At the beginning of the design process near the inner square, and more outward to the larger square for better responses to the requirements. When several concepts correlate and form composite ideas, dots can be connected. Applications Such a diagram displays not only an evaluation of the design and the process, it also teaches cognitive and metacognitive knowledge by showing the requirements, the undertaken research and the progress of the design, the strengths and weaknesses of the design, and what kind of research should still be undertaken to improve results. (fig. 10) Moreover, the addition of diagrams of several projects by one student shows the strengths and weaknesses of the designer himself. Is the student more engineer, or more artist? Is it a student with or without spatial abilities? (fig. 11) Coloured projects that emphasise on specific constraint, can be represented by asymmetrical squares of oppositions. And an addition of diagrams of all projects in an architectural education can display the specific character of that school. (fig. 12) Conclusion As an alternative for impractical and long lists of requirements, a hierarchical, complementary and visual framework can display not only an evaluation of the design and the process, it also teaches cognitive and metacognitive knowledge by showing important groups of requirements, the undertaken research and the progress of the design, the strengths and weaknesses of the design, and what kind of research should still be undertaken to improve results. Moreover, the addition of diagrams of several projects by one student can show the strengths and weaknesses of the designer himself. And an addition of diagrams of all projects in an architectural education can display the specific character of that school. 9

10 References ALEXANDER, C., 1977: A Pattern Language. New York: Oxford University Press. CHING, F. D. K., 1979: Architecture: Form Space and Order. New York: John Wiley & Sons. JONES, J.C., 1992: Design Methods. New York: John Wiley & Sons. FRAMPTON, K., 1983: Towards a Critical Regionalism: Six Points for an Architecture of Resistance, in The Anti-Aesthetic. Essays on Postmodern Culture, edited by Hal Foster, Port Townsen: Bay Press. GIEDION, S., 1941: Space, Time and Architecture. Cambridge Mass: Harvard University Press. GOLDSCHMIDT, G., Tatsa D., 2005, How good are good ideas? Correlates of design creativity, in Design Studies, vol. 26 No. 6. Amsterdam: Elsevier. ITTEN, J., 1970: The Elements of Color. New York: VNR. JONES, J.C., 1992: Design Methods. New York: John Wiley & Sons. LAWSON, B., 1980: How Designers Think. Oxford: The Architectural Press. LAWSON, B., 1992: Design in Mind. Oxford: Butterworth- Heinmann. LEVIN, P.H., 1966: Decision making in urban design. Herts: Garston. MATEUS, A., 2009: OMA, 2004: Content. Köln: Taschen. RUBIN, E.,1921: Visuell Wahrgenommmene. Kobenhaven: Glydenalske boghandel. VAN EYCK, A.,1962: Steps toward a Configurative Discipline, Forum, no. 3, pp (reprint by OCKMAN, J., 1993 in Architecture Culture New York, Columbia Books of Architecture, pp ). MORGAN, M. H., 1960: Vitruvius, De Architectura libri X. New York, Dover Publications. ZUMTHOR, P., 1998: Works: Buildings and Projects Baden: Lars Müller Publishers. ZUMTHOR, P., 2006: Thinking Architecture. Basel: Birkhauser. 10