International Research Journal of Applied and Basic Sciences 2016 Available online at www.irjabs.com ISSN 2251-838X / Vol, 10 (7): 869-875 Science Explorer Publications Challenges of Making Structurally Fit Building Regulations for Architectural Design Asghar Mohammad Moradi 1, Mohammad Ali Khan Mohammadi 2, Mojtaba Pour Ahmadi 3 1. Professor of Architecture, School of Architecture and Environmental Design, Iran University of Science & Technology, Tehran, 13114-16846, Iran 2. Assistant Professor of Architecture, School of Architecture and Environmental Design, Iran University of Science & Technology, Tehran, 13114-16846, Iran 3. researcher of Architecture, School of Architecture and Environmental Design, Iran University of Science & Technology, Tehran, 13114-16846, Iran Corresponding Author email: m_moradi@iust.ac.ir ABSTRACT: The current research examines the interaction of architectural design with building regulations. It attempts to find out the reasons behind the probable structural tensions between architectural design process and building regulations. It aims to provide the relevant rule-makers with new insights into the way building regulations can become more structurally-fit for architectural design. Ten Iranian expert architects with a successful work experience of more than thirty years were interviewed and their views concerning the role and status of building regulations in architectural design, their challenges for the design process and their desired characteristics were sought. The paper concludes that generally expert architects' attitudes toward building regulations indicate their adaptation to the realities of architectural design and in order to be evaluated as structurally fit for architectural design, building regulations should give proper responses to three main challenges: challenge of inner balance, challenge of anticipation, and challenge of accuracy. Keywords: architectural design, expert designers, building regulations, structural fit, Iranian national building regulations INTRODUCTION Architects have to work with building regulations in their design process. However, writing building regulations for being smoothly used in architectural design seems to be a challenging task. A glance over the current criticisms levelled at the performance of building regulations in architectural design makes the point clearer. From the viewpoint of many architects building regulations are inflexible tools that can hinder creative behaviour and encourage conservative and passive designs (see: 1: 520; 2; 3: 138; 4: 1; 5: 159). Another criticism of building regulations is their incapability of assuring environmental quality [6: 20]. They may be viewed by many designers as 'an additional burden with which they have to conform' [2: 280] or may be seen as an 'add-on' outside the creative process of design [3: 140]. The current research examines the interaction of expert architects with building regulations in order to find out the reasons behind the probable structural tensions between architectural design process and building regulations and provide rule-makers with some recommendations on how to make regulations that are more structurally-fit for architectural design. The current literature on the design of building regulations is not well-developed [7: 435]. One of the few commentators who have undertaken a theoretical discussion on the design of building regulations is Baer. He believes that general systems theory and cybernetics 'seem to provide the best theoretical foundation for regulation design' [8: 48]. In this regard, he points to the theorem by Conant and Ashby that says 'every good regulator of a system must be a model of that system' [ibid]. They argued that 'any regulator that is maximally both successful and simple must be isomorphic with the system being regulated' [9: 89]. According to this principle, it can be argued that the simplest optimal regulators for architectural design must be a model of it and reflect its inner processes. So, in order to identify the characteristics of good building regulations, it is necessary to investigate its structural relationship to architectural design. In this research it is attempted to develop a theoretical model to
identify and explain the critical issues that may cause tension between architectural design and building regulations and to suggest some practical solutions to relieve the problem. Figure 1. This research explores the structural tensions between architectural design and building regulations. MATERIALS AND METHODS Based on the Groat and Wang's book [10], the current research is classified as a qualitative research. After doing a literature review and establishing the basics of the research, the technique of interview was utilized in order to identify the viewpoints of expert designers about building regulations, their challenges and their desired formal characteristics. The designers to be interviewed were selected by purposive sampling method. It was aimed to use a sample with acceptable variety of experienced architects. The sample consisted of 10 architects. They all had professional architecture work experience of more than 30 years and mostly had special expertise in drawing up building regulations, training professional architects, or controlling architectural designs according to building regulations. Table 1 presents some relevant information about the interviewed architects. No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Table 1. Details of the interviewed sample Name Education Relevant Work Experience Asghar Saed Samiee Member of the committee for writing Part 4 of Iran's National Building Regulations (NBR) Mohammad Taghi Rezaee Hariri Member of the committee for writing Part 19 of NBR Hamid Shariat Razavi Teacher of professional development courses in Iranian Engineering Order Organization in Tehran Mohammad Reza Hafezi Member of the committee for writing Part 19 of NBR Farhad Azarmi Member of the committee for writing Part 4 of NBR Naser Bonyadi Member of the committees for writing Part 4 and Part 20 of NBR Ghaffari Senior architectural control official of Iranian Engineering Order Organization in Tehran Siavash Teimoori Member of the committee for writing Architectural and Building Order Law, 1973 Hossein Mehrdadi MSc Managing director of consulting engineers Abadgarane Asre No Shahab-Aldin Arfaee MSc Managing director of consulting engineers Arge Bame Kerman The interview questions were designed with regard to three main themes. There were two predesigned questions in each theme and during interviews according to the course of discussions some new questions might be posed as well. Questions of the first part dealt with the status, the way of entry and usage of building regulations in the design process. The second part of questions was about probable defects and unreasonable 870
performance of building regulations, their relationship with design creativity and their influence on the balance of design process. Suggestions concerning the desirable form of building regulations were sought in the third part of the interviews. Interviews were recorded and in average each of them took 42 minutes. According to Groat and Wang [10: 194] the final stage of a qualitative research is "drawing conclusions and verifying". In this stage "once the data has been coded, reduced, and displayed, the researcher gradually moves toward identifying patterns, providing explanations, and evaluating the findings" (ibid). In its final stage, the current research tries to reach a theoretical model to explain the challenges of making building regulations that are structurally fit for architectural design. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION In this section the expert architects' answers to the interview questions are presented under three main themes. General assessment of the status of building regulations in architectural design The expert architects' first reaction to questions about the status of building regulations in architectural design was mainly welcoming and throughout the course of interviews they generally demonstrated a positive and optimistic attitude toward building regulations. Although all of them could remember cases of undesirable function of building regulations in their design processes, no one assessed building regulations as inherently problematic. It was observed that for the expert designers the first important issue was that discussion about the status of building regulations in architectural design was conducted from a true architectural perspective. That is, if they felt that the criticisms were raised from an artistic conception of architecture, then they took on a defensive position and rejected it outright. For instance, one of the interviewees while defending the role of building regulations in architectural design, states: This line that we draw as architects differs from that of a painter. This line has material, weight, resistance to natural factors if somebody doesn't master these issues, let him go and paint. Of course, when the architects assured that the discussion was correctly positioned and conducted in the architectural design sphere, then they might speak of some weaknesses of building regulations. According to their statements, the general relationship of architecture and regulations can be summarized as follows: Form the viewpoint of the expert designers 'building regulations help the designer to design better' and in fact are 'designer's guide'. Also, building regulations form a part of the attraction of architectural design. One of the interviewees compared the role of building regulations in architectural design with rules of chess and stressed that as chess is not attractive without its rules and constraints, architectural design will not be attractive without building regulations. In general, from the viewpoint of these expert architects building regulations are mixed with the nature of architectural design in a manner that one cannot think of architectural design without building regulations; as one of the respondents put it: We recognize an architect as a solution-finder, as the creator of a work in which all the building regulations are observed. From the interviewed architects' point of view, building regulations are similar to other constraints which a designer must normally deal with in a design process. In response to questions about the probable negative effects of building regulations on architectural design, one of the interviewees calmly stated that: Basically regulations are similar to any other constraints in design. I am told to design in a 300 m 2 piece of land. Well, I liked it was 400 m 2! Therefore, it is expected from a good architect to be able to work with constraints of building regulations and still design creatively; as one of the respondents said: 'regulations must not overcome your ideas'. They believed that if an architect cannot do it, this is 'his own weakness'. It could be inferred from the interviews that for these architects observing building regulations in architectural design has been elevated to the level of ethical significance. Even one of the interviewees used the word 'sacred' to emphasize the importance of building regulations and to describe his attitude toward them. Interpretation of the probable tensions between regulations and design Through discussions with expert designers, it appeared that from their point of view there were two major problems with building regulations. The first problem can be formulated as the weak inner construct and logic of building regulations while the second problem was lack of transparency. It can be inferred from these topics that the designers' assessment of the regulations is on the one hand formed by their attention to their performance in the design process and on the other hand with attention to their inevitable interaction with building control officials. Regarding their application in the design process, 871
building regulations should enjoy a strong inner logic and with respect to their control process, they demand that building regulations be transparent and clear. Weak inner construct and logic Weak inner construct was the main concern of the expert designers. As one of the interviewees put it 'some regulations have a logic that cannot be challenged simply'. As an example, He mentions the specification for the height of doors in part 4 of Iranian national building regulations and explains that in an emergency it will allow safe and quick passing of a mother through the door while embracing her child. It is not likely that any designer have problem with its logic. But if designers think that the inner logic of regulations is not strong enough, they will feel unsatisfied to obey them and even may try to circumvent it. One of the interviewees provided a good example for this issue. As he said once in one of the municipalities of Tehran a rule was passed that was aimed to solve the problem of privacy and overlooking in high buildings. According to it in residential buildings no window could be installed in less than 170 cm from its floor. He explained that it was 'an absurd and problematic' rule that many architects tried to circumvent. Regarding this rule, another interviewee believed that it could create 'inhumane' spaces for living. The weak inner logic of building regulations may arise from the legislator's unreasonable prioritization of the effective factors of design. The legislator may have forcefully prioritized one factor as the absolute determinant factor over all other involved elements. Normally, in determining the height of a window from floor a variety of factors take part, such as view, light, ventilation, energy saving, aesthetics and so on. When for an unjustified emphasis on the problem of privacy the other important factors are sacrificed, the inner logic of relevant building regulations will be evaluated as weak and questionable. Here the legislators lack an exact conception of the dynamic relationship of the intended parameter with other involved factors. In addition, they try to intervene in only one scale of intervention and manipulate only the fewest mediums. In the case of this window, the municipality wanted to solve the problem of privacy as isolated from other architectural design factors and preferred to solve it only by manipulating the height of windows. This is while architects know that this problem can be tackled in other scales like the placement of buildings in the neighbourhood, the general building form and so on. And they know that in addition to privacy, the height of a window affects its climatic, psychological and other functions simultaneously. Why the officials decided to adopt this reductionist approach may have various reasons but probably their practical and administrative constraints were among the main ones. The expert designers discern the effect of these non-architectural reasons and as a result they think that this rule is externally imposed on architecture. In the interviews, car parking was another issue that prompted similar reactions in architects. At the present time, according to Iranian regulations, the required number of parking spaces for any building must be generally provided under the same building. This constraint can be such influential on designing the whole building that overshadows many other architectural concerns. Some of the interviewees pointed out that if there were the possibility of providing parking spaces out of the building footprint or outside the plot, they could design better buildings. Since it is not now feasible in Iran, they find themselves compelled to come to terms with this rule. Another issue that was frequently mentioned and criticized in the interviews was the rigidity and inflexibility of building regulations. From the viewpoint of the respondents, it was sometimes considered as a barrier to design creativity and freedom and sometimes the strict enforcement of regulations was blamed for some unreasonable results from building control process. One of the interviewees remembered a case in which the control official ordered to demolish the stone facings of the walls of the path to the parking because the width of the passage was two centimetres lower than the required amount. He complained that: This millimetre and centimetre strictness does not solve any problems. It may waste the resources and does not add anything to the value of the building. Another aspect of the inflexibility of building regulations returns to the fact that they usually cannot keep pace with changes of their context. For example, one of the interviewees mentions the fact that the average size of cars has enlarged in Iran in recent years, but the relevant dimensions in building regulations have not changed. A more important aspect of this recent point is building regulations' conservative relationship with technological developments. Building regulations usually fall behind new technologies. As a result, they create limitations for designers in using these new technologies and decrease design freedom. For instance, the point that current Iranian building regulations do not permit using new technologies to locate cars in parking has been criticized by some of the respondents. Although the interviewed architects pointed out the inflexibility of regulations as the problematic characteristic, it can be argued that the very inflexibility of building regulations is not the problem by itself but the blind inflexibility is the problem. 872
Interpretative and vague regulations In describing characteristics of good building regulations in addition to their inner logic, the expert architects often mentioned that they should be decisive, clear and interpretation-free. It seems that this issue more than being a design-related concern, is related to the administration and official aspects of building control. In fact, working with vague building regulations is frustrating and confusing for these expert designers, not because they are not able to work with them, but since they find themselves in a weak position in front of building control officials. Clear and transparent building regulations can stifle probable corruption. Suggestions for the good form of building regulations As it was mentioned before, it is inferred from the viewpoints of interviewed architects that the two main characteristics of good building regulations consisted of first, strong inner construct and logic and second, transparency and clearness. In relation to the strong inner logic of building regulations, since one of the key points in the expert designers' remarks was flexibility, it deserves a specific attention here. Flexibility of regulations means that they should be sufficiently sensitive to different design conditions and should not block the possibility to produce new reasonable solutions. From the interviews it was clear that the problem is partly related to the concept of minimum acceptable standards in regulations. One of the respondents said that it is better that in the regulations instead of defining 'a fixed quantity' 'an acceptable range' is determined. This idea has a problem that another respondent pointed out: The problem is that if the legislator sets tolerance or increases the tolerance, it may be better. But it does not seem to make sense, because it has a minimum and maximum again. Thus, the problem of flexibility is not solvable in this way. A more careful examination of the designers' statements reveals that what they want is a different kind of acceptable minimums that can be used in special cases. For example, one of the architects mentioned the half diameter rule to determine the distance between fire exits and adds that: In my opinion, if in a large building you contravened this rule by one or two meters and that has happened for a sensible architectural reason, then these one or two meters can be ignored. It seems that the majority of the architects, but not all of them, agreed that this specific kind of tolerance for exceptional cases will be a good thing. For instance, when it was asked from one of the respondents that in special cases whether it should be acceptable for a designer to reduce the size of a parking space by five centimetres from the minimums of regulations, he stated that: There should be some committees to examine these special cases. Probably this five centimetre violation is not worth changing the whole plan of the building. It is surprising that one of the respondents who is the senior architectural control official in Tehran, while describing his own control method, confirms that he actually uses such an argument. According to him in a design if he sees that the designer 'has approximately observed all the relevant regulations but because of some limitations slightly contravened a few requirements' and his judgment is that it is not much serious, then he will overlook this violence and accept the plan. Therefore, although none of the architects used such a term, it can be inferred from their statements that most of them wanted that in addition to "normal minimums", "emergency minimums" were acknowledged in building regulations and a commission for special cases was empowered to examine their use in designs. Another aspect of the flexibility of building regulations returns to their relationship with new building technologies. By their permission to utilize new technologies, building regulations provide architects with more freedom in design. Some of the architects pointed out that legislators should try to pursue their objectives in the smallest possible architectural intervention scales and new technologies are a great help to this aim. As an example, when speaking about fire safety regulations, one of the respondents indicated that they expect legislators solve the problems of fire safety as far as possible in the scale of mechanical engineering and leave fewer interventions to architectural design scale. Furthermore, their suggestion of using performance-based building regulations can be another way to increase the flexibility of these regulations. In addition to above-mentioned items, a number of other issues were raised to describe good building regulations such as they should be concise; they should undergo proper approval processes, and so on. Since these issues less frequently appeared and were generally less emphasized by the architects through the interviews, they are not examined in this paper. CONCLUSION Based on the examination of expert architects' viewpoints, challenges of writing building regulations from a design research perspective can be formulated. The most important demand of expert architects was that building regulations should enjoy a strong inner logic. To this aim, they should give satisfactory responses to three main challenges: challenge of balance, anticipation, and accuracy (figure 2). When using building regulations in their architectural design process, expert architects will not judge them as unfit and imposed, if 873
these regulations can give adequate answers to the following three challenges: Figure 2. Challenges facing architectural legislation The challenge of inner balance Rules and orders applicable to architectural design should consider the sensible prioritization of design factors and respect their balance. The specific factor that is going to be legislated should not be over-emphasized to the point that other influential factors are downplayed. The pre-mentioned example of the regulation on the minimum height of a window from the floor in residential buildings is relevant here. The more the dimensions of the issue being regulated, the more serious will be the challenge of inner imbalance. For example, drawing up regulations on the height of doors in ordinary residential buildings will be much less challenging than writing regulations for the arrangement of fire exits in large hospitals. In the second case the danger of imbalance is much more probable. Even in a seemingly simple case like determining the minimum height of doors it is possible that one-sided emphasis on its physical performance produces an imbalanced rule. For example, in a Persian zoor-khaneh 1 the clear height of the entrance door to the central space is traditionally lower than normal to evoke a sense of respect and humility in entrants. So, in making relevant regulations this cultural performance of the door should be considered. Generally, moving towards more specialized and case-based regulations can effectively decrease the possibility of inner imbalance in regulations. Of course, it increases the volume of building regulations which in turn may cause specific difficulties for architects. In addition, setting up commissions for special cases in the design control process can prove useful in compensating the possible faults and inner imbalances of building regulations. The challenge of anticipation If in the challenge of inner balance the regulations should be based on a sensible balance of design factors in the present time, the challenge of anticipation returns to the requirement that the given rule should be able to remain sensible in the face of unpredicted future conditions. They should work well with the new building technologies, environmental changes, and design innovations that may happen in the future. In this respect, the examples of the changes in the sizes of the cars and introduction of new technologies for mechanized car parking and their consequent changes in the relevant building regulations have been discussed previously. Although there is not an accurate logical response to this challenge, arranging procedures for regular revisions of the building regulations and providing the architects with the possibility to use performance-based regulations can be effective in meeting the challenge of anticipation. 1. A zoor-khaneh is a building for a specific kind of Persian heroic sport which is recognized by UNESCO as "Pahlevani and zoorkhaneh rituals". 874
The challenge of accuracy The third main challenge for writing building regulations for architectural design is the challenge of accuracy. It indicates that the amount of accuracy that is normal and sensible in any architectural design condition should be considered in drawing up and enforcement of the relevant building regulations. However, the legal function of building regulations makes it difficult to find a perfect answer to this challenge. The example of the two centimetre shortage of the path in the parking and its consequent verdict has been discussed formerly. Sometimes strict observation and enforcement of the requirements of the regulations may appear insensible. In this respect the legislators should note that firstly the minimums determined in building regulations be actually the least amounts of acceptable quantities, not the optimums. Empowerment of review committees to evaluate the slight violations from the quantities indicated in the regulations can help increase the tolerance of building regulations to fit the natural accuracy of architectural design. It seems that in best approximate solutions can be devised for these three challenges and it is theoretically impossible to offer definitive, accurate and complete answers to them. The fact that building regulations are not free from human discretion can be seen as a testimony to the argument that 'procedures can never substitute for human interaction and judgment' [1: 521]. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This paper is based on the third author's doctoral research which is being conducted under the supervision of first and second authors at Iran University of Science and Technology (IUST), Tehran, Iran. REFERENCES Baer, W. C. (1997) Toward design of regulations for the built environment. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 24(1), 37 57. Carmona, M., Magalhães, C. (2009) Local environmental quality: establishing acceptable standards in England, TPR, 80 (4-5), 517-548. Conant, R. C., Ashby, W. R. (1970) Every good regulator of a system must be a model of that system, International Journal of Systems Science, 1:2, 89-97. Gann, D, M., Wang, Y., & Hawkins, R. (1998) Do regulations encourage innovation? - the case of energy efficiency in housing, Building Research & Information, 26 (5), 280-296. Groat, L., Wang, D. (2002) Architectural Research Methods. New York: John Wiley and Sons. Imrie, R. (2004) The role of the building regulations in achieving housing quality, Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 31, 419-437. Imrie, R., Street, E. (2011) Architectural Design and Regulation. Wiley-Blackwell. Punter, J. (1999) Design Guidelines in American Cities: A Review of Design Policies and Guidance in Five West Coast Cities, Liverpool: Liverpool University Press. Saint, A. (2001) Lessons from London, in Echenique, M. and Saint, A. (eds.), Cities for the New Millenium, Spon Press, London. Street, E. (2006) Project Paper 2: Architecture and the regulation of design: a review. Department of Geography, King s College London. 875