predicting the future

PREDICTING THE FUTURE

EDITED BY JOACHIM B. KIEFERLE AND KAREN EHLERS

25

2007

eCAADe

A CD-ROM containing the digital version of the proceedings is enclosed with this book

Prof. Joachim Kieferle ([email protected]) Faculty of architecture and civil engineering FH Wiesbaden Kurt-Schumacher-Ring 18 D-65197 Wiesbaden Germany

Prof. Karen Ehlers ([email protected]) Faculty of architecture, civil engineering, geomatics FH Frankfurt Nibelungenplatz 1 60138 Frankfurt am Main Germany

Copyright © 2007 eCAADe (Education in Computer Aided Architectural Design in Europe) and FH Wiesbaden/FH Frankfurt www.ecaade.org Printed by Kanne Graphischer Betrieb GmbH, Ginsheim-Gustavsburg www.kanne.com ISBN 978-0-9541183-6-5

eCAADe 2007

Predicting the Future

Proceedings of the 24th Conference on Education in Computer Aided Architectural Design in Europe September 26-29, 2007 Frankfurt am Main, Germany FH Wiesbaden and FH Frankfurt www.fab.fh-wiesbaden.de/ecaade007/ Edited by Joachim B. Kieferle and Karen Ehlers

Acknowledgements We are first of all indebted to the authors that honour this publication with their work as well as to the keynote speakers, Alexander Rieck and Paul Seletsky. The work of the international team of reviewers was instrumental to review each of the more than 220 submitted abstracts by three independent reviewers which sums up to over 660 reviews. We had a very high quality of abstracts, so the reviewers judged more papers publishable than we were able to accept for the conference due to various limitations. We apologize for omitting the papers that we were not able to accept. Based on the reviewer’s recommendation, the eCAADe council was a great help in the decision process. The reviewers for eCAADe 2007 were: Henri Achten, Aleksander Asanowicz, Martin Bechthold, Vassilis Bourdakis, Alan Bridges, Andre Brown, Luisa Caldas, Dimitris Charitos, Scott Chase, Nancy Cheng, Bauke de Vries, Ellen Yi-Luen Do, Wolfgang Dokonal, Dirk Donath, Jose Duarte, Dietrich Elger, Harald Gatermann, Evelyn Gavrilou, John Gero, Jens-Peter Grunau, Jens Guthoff, Jeremy Ham, Adam Jakimowicz, Loukas N. Kalisperis, Mike Knight, Branko Kolarevic, Jose Kos, Alexander Koutamanis, Silke Berit Lang, Yu-Tung Liu, Gustavo Llavaneras, Thorsten Michael Lömker, Earl Mark, Bob Martens, Tom Maver, Javier Monedero, Volker Mueller, Michael Mullins, Marc Muylle, Herman Neuckermans, Rivka Oxman, Giuseppe Pellitteri, Chengzhi Peng, Hannu Penttila, Frank Petzold, Rabee Reffat, Bjarne Rüdiger, Peter Russell, Benjamin Späth, Martijn Stellingwerff, Peter Szalapaj, Chris Tweed, Jos van Leeuwen, Johan Verbeke, Andreas Voigt, Jerzy Wojtowicz, Stefan Wrona, Tadeja Zupancic. During the whole preparation eCAADe president Henry Achten and, the ever-so-helpful conference liaison, Bob Martens were always available when needed! A conference like eCAADe can only be held with the best organizing and scientific team: Andrea Benk, Martin Hoeglund, Frank Salffner and Ulrike Seeber as well as the best student helpers of our schools Isabel Baumgartner, Thomas Böhm, Jessica Heym, Karl Horrer, Franziska Kinsukoin, Anna Stone, Verena Warrlich. We express our gratitude to the companies supporting the conference with their donation: Bentley Systems and AutoDesk, and those supporting the accompanying social events: the Monestary Eberbach and the “German Architecture Museum” (DAM). The support of the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (German Research Foundation - DFG) is essential for the high quality of the conference. Finally we would like to thank the presidents of our schools, Clemens Klockner (FH Wiesbaden) and Wolf Rieck (FH Frankfurt) for their commitment to personally support this joint conference and also provide us with all necessary resources. We shall pass the honour of organizing the next eCAADe 2008 to Belgium, where the first conference was held a quarter century ago in 1983 and look forward to further inspiring research and discussions.

eCAADe 25

7

Contents Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Keynote speakers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Session 01: Digital Applications in Construction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Architectural Use of Computer Controlled Deformation Techniques on the Example of CNC-Bent Tube Structures 21

Benjamin Dillenburger, Frank Thesseling, Toni Kotnik, Monika Annen, Claudia Fuhr, Yael Girot-Ifrah, Martin Tann, Dong Youn Shin, Sladjana Markovic, Meindert Versteeg, Tobias Wendt, Matthias Zäh

An Integrative Design and Spatial Visualization System for Cable Strut Self-tensioned Structures 27 Katherine A. Liapi

Umbrella Schoolyard Roofs in Zurich 35

Reflecting on a 1:1 Seminar with Digital Sheet Metal Fabrication Christoph Schindler, Maud Châtelet, Barbara Wiskemann, Oskar Zieta

B-processor 43

Building Information Design and Management Kristian Agger, Michael Lassen, Nikolaj Knudsen, Ruben Borup, Jens Rimestad, Peter Norholdt, Nikolaj Bramsen

The Trondheim Camera Obscura 51

A Case Study on Digital and Analogue Project Development in Timber Construction Knut Einar Larsen, Fabian Scheurer, Christoph Schindler, Simen Stori

The DigiTile Project 59

Conceiving, Computing and Creating Contemporary Tiling Prototypes Using Computer Aided Modelling Techniques Jack Breen, Martijn Stellingwerff

Session 02: Virtual Environments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 Spatial Dynamic Media Systems 69

Amalgam of Form and Image through Use of a 3D Light-point Matrix to Deliver a Content-driven Zone in Real-time Matthias Hank Haeusler

The influence of Lighting on the Affective Qualities of a Virtual Theater 77 Joske M. Houtkamp, Erik D. van der Spek, Alexander Toet

Building Activities visualized in Virtual Environments 85 Alcínia Zita Sampaio, Pedro Gameiro Henriques

Experimental Results in Immersive Virtual Reality (IVR): Searching Critical Design Factors within IVR to Increase Architectural Space Qualities 91 Constantin Boytscheff, Marilu Kanacri Sfeir

Construction of a Participatory Community Space Design System 99

Expansion of a Three-dimensional Area Information Support System and Application Using GIS Data Atsuko Kaga, Atsushi Miyagawa, Tomohiro Fukuda

eCAADe 25

11

Session 03: Collaborative Design and Presentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107 Structural Analysis as Driver in Surface-based Design Approaches 109 Oliver Tessmann

No Place for Drones 117

Paul Nicholas, John Bahoric, Garry Ormston, Peter Bowtell, Mark Burry

Management system for a Virtual Cooperative Project 125 Mohamed Buattour, Gilles Halin, Jean Claude Bignon

Implications of Representation-Presentation Distinction in Developing a Presentation Environment for CAAD 133 Bimal Balakrishnan, Loukas N. Kalisperis, Katsuhiko Muramoto

χ-House – a Game to Improve Collaboration in Architectural Design 141 How to Distill a CD Based Model into an E-learning Tool Gianfranco Carrara, Antonio Fioravanti

Map-Based Repository of Image System for Sharing the Photographs in Design Studio 151 Riken Homma, Mitsuo Morozumi, Yasunobu Onishi, Yuji Murakami

Session 04: Human-Computer Interaction and Cognition. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159 CAVE without CAVE 161

On-site Visualization and Design Support in and within Existing Buildings Frank Petzold, Oliver Bimber, Christian Tonn

Simulating the Atmosphere of Spaces 169

The AR-based Support of 1:1 Colour Sampling in and within Existing Buildings Christian Tonn, Dirk Donath, Frank Petzold

Effects of Cognitive Styles on Performance in CAAD Tasks 177 Sule Tasli Pektas

Extended Perspective System 185 José Correia, Luís Romão

Session 05: Simulation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193 The Space Re-Actor 195

Walking a Synthetic Man through Architectural Space Taro Narahara

Decision Support in Architectural Strategic Planning 203

Towards a Volumetric Modeling of Solution Strategies in Investment Planning Agnieszka Sowa, Ludger Hovestadt

BIMGame: Integrating Building Information Modeling and Games ttto Enhance Sustainable Design and Education 211 Wei Yan, Geqing Liu

Simulating Dynamic Forces in Design with Special Effects Tools 219 Earl Mark

Performative Design in Architecture 227

Employment of Virtual Prototyping as a Simulation Environment in Design Generation Rivka Oxman, Roey Hammer, Shoham Ben Ari

12

eCAADe 25

Session 06: Animation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235 SAFDE - Sadness, Anger, Fear, Disgust, Enjoyment 237 Antonio Serrato-Combe

Generative Systems Based on Animation Tools: Shaping Alternatives to Structure and Form in Architectural Design 245 Dounas Theodore

Mediating between Architectural Design Ideation and Development through Digital Technology 253 Dynamic Animation Toys and Mediation Methods in Designing Sarah Benton

Playing with Game Theory: Deviant Strategies for Digital Design 261 Asli Serbest, Mona Mahall

New Digital Procedures through Animation: 269 Brief History and Developments Gonçalo Castro Henriques

Gelassenheit: Dilemma of Computational Thinking in Architecture 275 Şebnem Yalınay

Session 07: Knowledge Modelling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 283 Looking Back to the Future 285

An Updated Case Base of Case-Based Design Tools for Architecture Katharina Richter, Ann Heylighen, Dirk Donath

Conceptual Design of High-rises with Parametric Methods 293 Victor Gane, John Haymaker

A Generic Data Structure for an Architectural Design Application 303 Stefan Boeykens, Herman Neuckermans

Location-Based Optimization to Foster Economic Decision-Making in Revitalization 311 Thorsten M. Loemker

Indexing and Retrieval of Visual Design Representations 319 Alexander Koutamanis, Gilles Halin, Thomas Kvan

Enhancing the Precision of Design Processes with Localized Time-based Media 327 Robert Flanagan

Session 08: City Modelling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 333 Parsimonious Models of Urban Space 335 Paul S. Coates, Cristian Derix

Novel Approaches to City Modeling: Generation and Visualization of Dynamic Complex Urban Systems 343 Silke Berit Lang

Procedural Design of Urban Open Spaces 351

Andreas Ulmer, Jan Halatsch, Antje Kunze, Pascal Müller, Luc Van Gool

Second City 359

A Three-dimensional City Model as Interdisciplinary Platform for Research Joaquin Ramirez, Peter Russell

eCAADe 25

13

Precise Uncertainty: Notes on Historical Modeling 367 Rodrigo Paraizo

CityZoom 375

A Visualization Tool for the Assessment of Planning Regulations Benamy Turkienicz, Bábara Bellaver, Pablo Grazziotin

Session 09: Digital Design Education. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 383 Geometry in the CAAD Curriculum 385 Michael Hofer, Andreas Asperl

Evolution of CAAD Teaching Methods 393 Alexander Asanowicz

Sharing and Enriching Metadata in Architectural Repositories 401

Ann Heylighen, Herman Neuckermans, Martin Wolpers, Mathias Casaer, Erik Duval

CAAD Restarted 409

Some Experiences in Improvement of CAAD Education Dana Matějovská, Henri Achten

me, Architect 415

Formal Representation and Self-Expression of Semantic Ideas as a Tool for Teaching Computer Techniques Krzysztof Koszewski, Stefan Wrona

Inserting New Technologies in Undergraduate Architectural Curricula 423 A Case Study José Duarte

Trends in Graduate Research on IT & Architecture: a Qualitative Comparison of Tendencies in Brazil and abroad 431 Regiane Pupo, Gabriela Celani

Session 10: Design Methodology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 439 Scenario-based Design 441

Integrating Design Computing with Design Studio Alan Bridges

Mining a Collection of Animated Sketches 447 Nancy Yen-wen Cheng

Pattern Language and Embedded Knowledge in Building Information Modeling 457 Filiz Ozel

A Technology-Enhanced Metacognitive Strategy 465

Time-based Media in the Documentation of the Design Process Antonieta Angulo

The Dancing Curve 473

An Emerging Paradigm in Cross-stylistic Discourse Emmanouil Vermisso

Expanding Design Boundaries 483

Symmetry Experiments in Frank Lloyd Wright’s Textile Block Houses Carlos Roberto Barrios, Christina Lemley

14

eCAADe 25

Session 11: Prediction and Evaluation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .491 Natural Behavior and Computational Logic for Optimization of Architectural Design 493 Ashik Vaskor Mannan, M. Saleh Uddin

Predicting or Inventing the Future? 499

Common Grounds in Architecture and Strategic Marketing Silke Berit Lang

Heuristic Methods in Architectural Design Optimization 507

Monte Rosa Shelter: Digital Optimization and Construction System Design Kai Rüdenauer, Philipp Dohmen

Linking Measurement, Simulation and Prediction 515

Photographic Acquisition of Local HDRI and Use of IBL for Simulation Jelle Post, Alexander Koutamanis

Predicting the Future from Past Experience 523 A Reflection on the Fundamentals of CAAD Bob Martens, Alexander Koutamanis, André Brown

Holistic Cost-Information Management in Building and Construction 533 Joaquin Díaz

Session 12: Pervasive Computing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 541 The Kino-eye in Digital Pedagogy 543 Cameron Campbell

Matching Representation to Perception 551

Building Identification Using a Mobile Architectural Guide Alexander Koutamanis

Representation of User Movements with Multi Agent Systems: Shopping Malls 559 Sehnaz Cenani, Gulen Cagdas

Soft Façade: Steps into the Definition of a Responsive ETFE Façade for High-rise Buildings 567 Work in Progress Daniel Cardoso, Dennis Michaud, Lawrence Sass

Challenges of Media Integrated Architecture 575 Categorizing the Illusory Real Architecture Odilo Schoch

Remote Location in an Urban Digital Model 581

Michael Knight, Ghousia Saeed, Yu-Horng Chen, André Brown

Session 13: Modelling. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .589 A Complex-Based Building Information System 591 Norbert Paul

Transformative Design 599

A Process Orientated Design Method to Explore Digital Tools within the Making of Architectural Design Martin Tamke, Olaf Kobiella

Building Information Modelling of Modern Historic Buildings 607 Case Study of HUT / Architectural Department by Alvar Aalto Hannu Penttilä, Marko Rajala, Simo Freese

eCAADe 25

15

RQS - Reverse Quadratura for Surveying 615

Applying Ancient Methods to Digital Techniques Alberto Sdegno

The Radiolaria Project 621

Structural Tessellation of Double Curved Surfaces Christian Troche, Gregor Zimmermann

Materializing a Design with Plywood 629 Lawrence Sass, Dennis Michaud, Daniel Cardoso

Session 14: Virtual Environments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 637 Training Programs for Art and Design Learning in the Virtual Studio 639 Francisco Olmos

Reconfiguring Course Design in Virtual Learning Environments 647 Tadeja Zupancic, Michael Mullins

Combining GPS and CAD 655

Designing Virtual Models in Real Space Werner Lonsing

From Oh-Oh to OO 663

The Development of the Object Oriented Faculty Andreas Dieckmann, Sarah Netten, Peter Russell

An Architectural Learning Environment 671 André Brown, Mike Knight, Martin Winchester

Session 15: User Participation in Design. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 677 A Choice Model of Consumer Participatory Design for Modular Houses 679 Chuen-huei (Joseph) Huang, Robert Krawczyk

Constraint-Based Design in Participatory Housing Planning 687 Dirk Donath, Luis Felipe González Böhme

Organised Complexity 695

Application of Statistical Design in Large-Scale Building Projects Pia Fricker, Ludger Hovestadt, Markus Braach, Benjamin Dillenburger, Philipp Dohmen, Kai Rüdenauer, Steffen Lemmerzahl, Alexander Lehnerer

No Man is an Island (Even in the Virtual World): The Online_Communities Project 703 Anja Pratschke, Marcelo Tramontano

Mapping Design Process into Process Design: Implementing Collaborative Design from Social Psychological Approaches 711 Bauni Hamid

Digitized Planning Processes in the Revitalization of Buildings by an Interdisciplinary Project Study 717 Empirical Work with Students in Argentina Ursula Kirschner, Armin Ohler

16

eCAADe 25

Session 16: Web-Based and Collaborative Design. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 725 Web Based Collaborative Architectural Practice Using a Fractal System 727 Sabu Francis

Collaborative Knowledge Construction in Digital Free-Form Design 735 Tuba Kocaturk

Virtual Studio 743

Distributed Teaching and Learning of Design in a Networked Environment Jerzy Wojtowicz, Tsukasa Takenaka

Teaching 3D Generative Virtual Architecture with VIPA CONSTRICTOR 751 Philipp Seifried, Jochen Hoog, Christoph Falkner

Intervision3D: Online 3D Visualisation and Conferencing 757 Felix Heidrich, Peter Russell, Thomas Stachelhaus

Session 17: Digital Fabrication and Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 765 Teaching Technology: CAD/CAM, Parametric Design and Interactivity 767 Martin Bechthold

The House of Affects Project 777

Techniques of Optimization in Architectural Design Giorgos Artopoulos, Lampros Kourtis

FAB Finding 785

Towards a Methodology of Material Guided Digital Fabrication Neri Oxman

Digitally Fabricating Tilted Holes 793

Experiences in Tooling and Teaching Design Tobias Bonwetsch, Ralph Bärtschi, Daniel Kobel, Fabio Gramazio, Matthias Kohler

Digital Chains in Modern Architecture 801 Philipp Dohmen, Kai Rüdenauer

Seamless Architecture 805

Digital Fabrication Research for Integrated Design Innovation Eva Sopeoglou

Session 18: Digital Aids to Design Creativity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 813 Predicting the Future: Open Source CAAD? 815 Kostas Terzidis, Jan Jungclaus

Specification of an Operator for the Design of Architectural Forms: “Pleating” 821 Jean-Paul Wetzel, Salim Belblidia, Jean-Claude Bignon

Crossing Interactions between Architecture and Media 827 A Pedagogic Model for Contemporary Education Leandro Madrazo

A Computational Tool for the Use of Colour Harmony Rules in Facade Design 837 Sally Semple, Scott Chase

eCAADe 25

17

Digital Design Tools vs. Sketching in Design 843 Wolfgang Dokonal, Michael Knight

Parametric Possibilities: Designing with Parametric Modelling 849 Heike Matcha

Session 19: Generative Design. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 857 Composing the Bits of Surfaces in Architectural Practice 859

Methodologies and Codes for Generation, Rationalization, and Analysis of Non-Standard Geometries Onur Yüce Gün

Parameters in the Design Process 869

A. Benjamin Spaeth, Klaus Schwägerl, Isolde Stamm

Transforming Grammars for Goal Driven Style Innovation 879 Testing a Methodology Sumbul Ahmad, Scott C. Chase

From Designing Objects to Designing Processes: Algorithms as Creativity Enhancers 887 Günter Barczik, Winfried Kurth

The M.ANY Project - Exploring a Matrix Model for a Fully Digital Workflow in Architectural Design 895 Arno Schlueter, Tobias Bonwetsch

Discretization of Continuous Surfaces as a Design Concern 901 Sawako Kaijima, Panagiotis Michalatos

Session 20: Shape Studies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 909 Artificial Networks for Spatial Analysis 911 Moamed Amine Benoudjit, Paul S. Coates

Design by Grammar: 919

Hybrid Applications of Grammar in Design Studio Projects Birgul Colakoglu

The Sponge Epidermis : A Study on Minimal Surfaces & Porosity 927 Simos Vamvakidis

The Climax from a Conceptually Transparent Architecture towards a Digitally Transparent Image 935 Anastasios Tellios

QSHAPER 941

A CAD Utility for Shape Grammars Tuğrul Yazar, Birgul Colakoglu

Sieve_n 947

A Computational Approach for the Generation of all Partial Lattices of Two-dimensional Shapes with an n-fold Symmetry Axis Athanassios Economou, Thomas Grasl

Index of Authors. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .955 Appendix 1:1 – Snakebar. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 959

18

eCAADe 25

χ-House – a Game to Improve Collaboration in Architectural Design How to Distill a CD Based Model into an E-learning Tool Gianfranco Carrara1, Antonio Fioravanti2 Dept. Architettura e Urbanistica per l’Ingegneria, Sapienza University of Rome, Italy www.dau.uniroma1.it 1 [email protected], 2 [email protected]

The current research we are conducting refers to a general model of architectural design. The complexity of the present-day design process is such that new ICT tools are required to consciously and appropriately govern the design choices. In particular, the tools that involve the early phases of the design process, when the choices crucial to the entire building process are made. In this perspective we are developing, together with a general model of architectural design based on Collaborative Design (CD), a simplified version of it – the χ -House game – that can be used to help university students appreciate the complexity of doing architecture and building. This “simplified version” of the general model is therefore a useful ‘design training tool’ in the case of complex problems that can be solved by means of iterations, trade-offs, creativity, and group work; and at the same time makes it possible to highlight, define and link relatively little known aspects of design, such as scheduling, relations among operators, decision-making mechanisms, and process and design priorities. Keywords: Collaborative design, game; research and education, web based design. Design and collaboration The research we have been conducting refers to a general model of architectural design process. The general approach followed is focused on the centrality of design. Ever since ancient times it has reflected characteristic features: physically, socially and culturally rooted in the local territory, collective work of the human mind. Other features derive from these,

such as the uniqueness of the artifacts produced and the more or less intensive collaboration among design process operators. The intrinsic nature of design in architecture is embodied in its multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary nature and the consequent complexity of the design problems, regardless of the project dimensions and the disciplinary areas involved. As far as the project is concerned, we take into consideration the

Session 03: Collaborative Design and Presentation - eCAADe 25

141

specific aspects of the Technology of Architecture, of Building Production, Procedures and Codes. The successful outcome of architectural design and its correct translation in terms of consistent and adequate implementation is linked to numerous factors, all of which dependent on the more general problem of governing the complexity of the design process. It is worth reflecting on the ultimate significance of ‘design’ activity. Different attributions [in the sense of attribution = “meanings prevalently associated” with the design of an architectural work], have been made to design activity. According to Cross (Cross, 1985, pp. 170-171) it may be subdivided into three large categories: methodological and managerial – activity aimed at problem solving (Archer, 1965); systemic – conscious attempt at imposing a significant order (Papanek, 1972); fideistic – performance of a complex act of faith (Jones, 1966). Without doubt, in actual fact, these and other attributions are always copresent to different degrees. According to this classification (with all the reservations and arbitrariness that accompany each type of classification) for example, we might imagine that in King Mausolos’ mausoleum the methodological aspect accounts for 15%, the systemic aspect 25%, and the fideistic aspect 60%; in Beaubourg 50%, 30% and 20%, respectively. Other classifications and consequent attributions might be made if we took into consideration the type of actor called upon to operate, his role, in the design phase being examined, the economic and cultural situation in which the activity is carried on, etc. Here we intend to examine the operating aspect. Having ascertained that it is in practice “a decisionmaking activity aimed and directed towards the satisfaction of certain human desires or needs” (Asimov, 1962), how does this activity develop materially? As a matter of fact we note that design is the capacity to choose from among various hypotheses. What are needed, therefore, are: • solution hypotheses, i.e. physical and behavioural prefiguration of the building by means of models of reality;

142

• the possibility of selectively choosing (i.e. choosing from among a narrow group) various solutions that belong to an equivalence class; • comparison versus the aims pursued, so that hypotheses are rendered comparable whenever they are not already; • the ability to speed up the process through the conscious choice of solutions, corresponding more closely to the aims. It is therefore not enough to produce a myriad of hypothetical undifferentiated solutions provided by the actors involved or by programs [as happened with the “Automatic Design” programs developed in the 1970s and the early 1980s], but it is necessary to ‘skim off’ the more promising ones. To do this it is necessary to have criteria and methods of assessment and therefore, even earlier, to make them homogeneous (or at least quasi-homogeneous) in a “space of comparison”. This is the heart of Design. Clearly in the “space of comparison”, this is a recursive process, i.e. it passes through a series of intermediate solutions that are progressively adapted to the aims, which are also gradually outlined as the process continues and both (solutions and intermediate aims) become new starting points for exploring the goals-solutions “space of comparison” (Carrara and Kalay, 1994, pp. 149-150 ). This operating aspect of design activity, has been spreading in industry, research and professional offices, namely architectural offices. It actually satisfies the demands of a working environment that facilitates information exchange, the dissemination of knowledge, comparison of different hypotheses, the creative urge, and the choice of more shared, conscious and participatory solutions. However, while the methodology is widely shared, there are severe shortcomings in the support tools. As outlined above with regard to the operating aspect of design, we currently possess tools referring to the partial and specific aspects of this process because the models of reality from which they are

eCAADe 25 - Session 03: Collaborative Design and Presentation

derived only rarely refer to the consideration of the Collaboration in Design as a whole. In this connection the concept of design needs to be clarified more. Architectural, and other design, takes on two distinct meanings: • to elaborate, develop and verify a basic idea in detail; • to explore and extend the range of solutions by proposing new ideas. These correspond to two phases that alternate in the course of design and, although dependent on the actor’s greater or lesser capacity, in any case follow relatively recurrent rules and timing (Maher, 2002) . Hence the basic idea of research in this field concerning the second meaning has been to develop new ICT tools capable of facilitating collaboration among the actors involved. Over time these (design) problems have lost their narrower, highly specialized and sectorial scientific scope, passing from the CSCW (Computer Supported Cooperative Work) studies to those of CWE (Collaborative Working Environment) and those of CE (Collaborative Environment. They now investigate the entire organization of the work from a multidisciplinary point of view (van de Broek and Stewing, 2007).

Collaborative Design The paradigm of the working environment CE regarding design, where actors can share knowledge, design solutions and goals in a collaborative way is called Collaborative Design – CD – (Kvan, 2000; Kolarevič, 2000). The CD may be defined as an environment where actors work at the same level of importance, exchange knowledge with each other, are aware of each others’ problems, feel other actors’ problems to be their own and that the overall design solution is shared. So that CD, within the assigned time frame, allows the field of exploration to be extended, the choices to be made explicit and their technical-scientific aspects to be examined in

greater detail already in the early phases of the design process, as well as the operational efficiency of the design development in the concluding phases to be enhanced also thanks to the most advanced ICT tools and resources. All actors (designers) in a project have their own workspace characterized by a time period, a field of action that they can manage, by choices they can propose to other experts, by decisions they may take, by a hierarchy of authority, by a degree of autonomy vis-à-vis the other operators, by limited allocated resources: we have called all this ‘Personal Workspace for Design Solution’, Personal Design Workspace (PeDW), for short. Each actor in his own PeDW develops his own design solution on the basis of his own experience and specific knowledge of his own specialist field; the instance deemed the most satisfactory is then transferred to the Overall Desogn Workspace (ODW). This instance is incorporated into the overall design being developed, thus it is becoming available to all the other actors (designers) in other disciplinary sectors who can themselves import it into their own PeDW and modify it, according to their specific skills. At every stage, each actor’s solution hypothesis is the ‘actor’s design solution’(an instance) proposed by him in the ‘space of the design solutions of his own PeDW’. Since the ‘space of the actor’s design solution’ is the intersection set in the PeDW of his Specialistic Knowledge Base – SpKB – with that of the operating context and with that of the procedural rules, it is a subset of the PeDW. However, the actor can propose ‘actor’s design solutions’ that do not respect the truth of the intersection set temporarily suspending the application of constraints and requirements so as to extend the exploration of his new solutions in the PeDW (Hofstadter, 1988). By expanding his knowledge in the PeDW he may find ‘actor’s design solutions’ that are indeed ‘new’ solutions as they show up the inconsistency


143

or the non applicability of those constraints that initially seemed to deny the possibility of having a non empty intersection set. This is what has happened in design reality in all periods and is another fundamental aspect of design that must be taken into account in the model we are developing: the possibility of exploring and then proposing design solutions that are incoherent towards some SpKBs and inconsistent towards data. Furthermore, as there are several ‘actors’, who modify their PeDW, we can claim that also the set of the sets of ‘design actor’s solutions space’ varies over time. Likewise in the ODW, the ‘space of overall design solution’ is given by the intersection set of the Common Knowledge Base – CKB – of those deriving from the overall operating context and with that of those proposed by the overall procedural rules. In the ODW the CKB is a KB that makes it possible to become part of this work environment and facilitates interactions among actors having fundamental rules, main object-concept characteristics and the essential requirements (Fioravanti and Rustico, 2006; Carrara and Fioravanti 2006; Carrara et al., 2004; Carrara and Fioravanti, 2002). This intersection may prove to be an empty set, in the case of conditions that are too rigorous as often happens in reality, and so no overall building design will exist, or else, in the ODW, the solutions defined above are partially overlapping and so a set of more or less agreed sets of solutions exists. In this sense, the project is the outcome of collective decisions and hierarchically managed by one or more of the ‘actors’.

Collaboration in preliminary design phases Our research deals with the early phases of the

144

project when, within a short space of time, the operators involved, from now on “actors”1 (Wix, 1997) have to choose among different options that will have a crucial impact on the outcome of the entire building process. These phases are usually denoted as Conceptual and Preliminary design. Indeed, although most of the overall building cost is situated in the construction phase, its definition is practically made at the very beginning of the process, along with conceptual and preliminary design choices (Penttilä, 2006). The subsequent two phases of the design process, denoted as detailed and constructive ones, find powerful aids to design, to assessment and to verification in the shape of CAD tools and software in all their forms: CADDrawing, CAM, CAE etc. Conversely, the first two phases are difficult to formalize as they demand a relationship that is: • highly direct among the operators involved, in order to reduce the intermediate decision-making levels, eliminate red tape and “flatten” the hierarchical pyramid (Cross, 1985, pp. 144-145); • explicit, in order to be immediately comprehensible to many actors and avoid misunderstanding it is necessary that the information transmitted includes the cultural and scientific context from which it is drawn, clearly expressed and attached to the information itself. It is important, in other words, to avoid implicit, uncontextualized, jargonized information comprehensible only to “experts”; 1 “Actor: a functional participant in building construction”. Its object oriented representation is: ENTITY BC_Actor SUPERTYPE OF plier)); actor_name: postal_address: office_address: postal_code: telephone_number: fax_number: email_address: END_ENTITY


(ONE OF ( Principal, Manufacturer, SupS T R OPTIONAL SET OPTIONAL SET OPTIONAL SET OPTIONAL SET OPTIONAL SET OPTIONAL SET

I N [1:?] OF [1:?] OF [1:?] OF [1:?] OF [1:?] OF [1:?] OF

G ; STRING; STRING; STRING; STRING; STRING; STRING;

• highly interaction (almost simultaneous), in order to speed up the taking of decisions that are conscious and as shared as widely as possible, having a prompt feedback for the hypothesized decisions with possible observations, counterdeductions, proposals; • de-hierarchized, so that actors can intervene freely (and responsibly) in the design process, since the more “equal” the work environment, the greater the extent to which the full involvement of the actors is obtained, who become proactive, and at the same time, also stimulated and receptive. Indeed, still today in the early phases of the collaborative design process, the instruments and the procedures most frequently used are working meetings attended by a small number of experts in different disciplines which are held both periodically and when unexpected problems arise. In order to establish remote interactivity, in addition to the conventional tools such as e-mail and the telephone, also videoconferencing or Internet messaging systems are used (Dakros and Knox, 2004). This working method, which often translates into actual procedures, inside design and production organizations, aims at viewing “with an open mind” the design challenges of our times, which are always new, unexpected, and at the same time to take account of possible resources: new materials, technologies, procedures and verifications proposed by the building industry and regulatory techniques. Awareness of the problems and the new resources is then disseminated by the various actors. It should however be pointed out that these procedures do not have any support tools to ensure effective collaboration. Those available do not achieve what was previously analyzed point by point because, for example, they do not allow asynchronous collaboration with a coherent and contextualized explanation of requirements that are not respected. Beginning from this starting point we have been developing a general architectural design model based on CD, on the one hand, and on the other a

more simplified version. This ‘simplified version’ of the general model will prove useful both in defining and correlating little known aspects of design, such as its timing, the relations among the actors, decision-making mechanisms, design and process priorities, and as a ‘training tool’ for complex problems that can be solved through interactions, trade-offs, creativity and group work.

χ -House game For this purpose we have been designing a ‘game’ – χ-House – (Fioravanti and Rustico, 2006) to study the above-mentioned problems in a more restricted (but significant) field: a simplified design process system in an architectural design course will be a powerful e-learning tool (Kalay and Jeong, 2003; Moloney, 2005; Moloney, 2002; Brown and Berridge, 2001; Woodbury et al., 2001; Woodbury et al., 2001a). It that can be of assistance to university students in allowing them to appreciate the complexity of doing architecture and building. In the present paper we shall be examining this second model. The differences between the two models are more quantitative than qualitative so as not to reduce the universality of the CD model. They refer to: • the actors, who are numerous, here are 5 (Client, Architect, Structural Engineer, Energy-plant Engineer, Builder- quantity surveyor) (fig. 1); • the actors, who are variable and are active only in given phases, become fixed; • the actors, who may have different hierarchies in the various design phases, now have only two hierarchical orders: the superior order of the Client and the lower one of the other four actors, considered as equals; • the scheduling, in which “event-activities” prescheduled in time become random (each actor can intervene by proposing new design solutions at will);


145

• the geometry of the spaces, from free now becomes constrained to orthogonality and modularity; • the building components which from continuous dimensions with even complex forms now take on modular dimensions with the form of a parallelepiped; • the type of component that from ever-increasing numerosity due to continuous innovation is now limited from the outset; • the characteristics of the components, which from a high number dependent on a complex context, now become only position, geometry, orientation, time and the actor(s) related to the component; • the quality, which is not evaluated using complex functions, but by means of a conventional point score assigned by each actor. There are no salient differences between the two models regarding: • innovation, the possibility of adding new components (albeit in a limited number in the second model); • the application and removal of constraints, referring both to the PeDW and the ODW; • the variability of the component characteristics, although limited to a few simple aspects of the second model (such as wall thickness of walls); • predefined values – the defaults – already present in each building component and in each Space Unit or Building Unit; • the ontology of the Building Object – BO – defined as a unitary system of the Space System and of the Technological System; • the possibility of varying the required properties

146

• • •

• •

•

and thus the expected performance of the entire BO by the client and like the specialistic aspects of the BO by the other actors; the transmission of information and knowledge among the various actors; the shareability of part of the knowledge between one actor and the others; the responsibility and traceability of the choices made and the design solutions proposed by each actor for each BO part and component; the interactive and simultaneous design space – ODW; the specificity of the PeDWs, their representations, interfaces and the working tools of the individual actors. quality, which is globally assessed through the joint assessment of the proposed design solutions (in the simple model is given as the sum of the assessments of all the project aspects, including those for which they are not strictly responsible).

Game procedures The actor-client C determines the needs of the desired type of building by setting a series of requirements. On the basis of this the other actors develop their own design hypotheses in their PeDW. Two process rules may be observed for the actor’s intervention: a. he publishes his own design solutions freely in any time ∀tx; b. he can publish only according to a set time schedule t1, t2, t3, t4. In actual fact the two modes alternate as they have both set times, in which everyone must release their own design solutions or else approve the overall design solution, and also free times within the former. χ-House achieves CD among the actors through the design solutions present in the ODW in two different modes: asynchronous and synchronous. In the first (fig. 2) the actor works collaboratively


Figure 1 Actors in II-House game and ODW

Figure 2 Off-line collaboration

with the others in a ‘mediated’ fashion: through a partial knowledge one’s own proposed design solutions are evaluated immediately (by the SpKBs), or else, through an overall knowledge one’s own design solutions are evaluated in partial time (by the actors). To do this the actor works in his PeDW where he is able to activate only the local requirements of his SpKB, or else activate also a few (ultimately all) the requirements of the SpKBs of the other actors. This is achieved through an instantiation of one’s own design solution in the ODW such as to trigger the mechanism for propagating constraints, the properties of the BO, the checks and thus the warnings and the explanations of how to overcome them.

This second phase may be a ‘Test’ phase in that it is concealed from the others, or else a ‘Public’ one, in the sense of being made visible. Usually each design solution may be released as having respected the requirements (Yes) or not (No) in the PeDW as in the ODW. In the second, synchronous, mode (fig. 3), the actor works collaboratively with the others (not necessarily all of them simultaneously) in a ‘non-mediated’ fashion: his own design solutions are evaluated instantaneously and in detail (by the SpKBs and by the actors). The actors work in the ODW on the same design solutions (or rather on the author’s ‘personal instances’ – the “valencies” – of the same design solutions.

Figure 3 On-line collaboration between Actor-i and Actor-j


147

The graphic objects of the game are Architectural Desktop ones, the data base is a MySQL and the KBs are implemented in CLOS. The simplified CD model - χ-House – allows architectural and building problems to emerge, gets students accustomed to working together and complies with the specific nature and role of each actor/ student in the design process. As any conflict can be flagged, combined with an immediate explanation thereof, actors/students may understand others’ constraints and goals and can propose new creative ideas.

Acknowledgements The research was partially funded by MiUR (Ministry of the University and Research), Project of Research of National Interest 2005: “A Model of cross-cultural collaboration for integrated design in architecture”.

References Archer, L.B:1965,Systematic Method for Designers, The Design Council, London. Asimov, M.: 1962, Introduction to Design, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Brown A. and Berridge P.: 2001, Games One:Two:Three - A triangle of virtual game scenarios for architectural collaboration CAAD, in M Stellingwerff and J Verbeke (eds.), ACCOLADE - Architecture, Collaboration, Design. Delft University Press (DUP Science), pp. 95-120. Carrara G. and Kalay, Y.E.: 1994, Past, present, future: process and Knowledge in Architectural Design, in G. Carrara and Y.E. Kalay (eds.), Knowledge-Based Computer-Aided Architectural Design, Elsevier Science Publishers B.V., Amsterdam, pp. v-vii and 389396. Carrara, G. and Fioravanti, A., Nanni, U.: 2004, Knowledge Sharing, not MetaKnowledge. How to join a collaborative design Process and safely share one’s knowledge, InterSymp 2004 Symposium, Baden-

148

Baden, pp. 105-118. Carrara, G. and Fioravanti, A.: 2001, A Theoretical model of shared distributed Knowledge bases for Collaborative Architectural Design, SKCF ’01 Conference Proceedings. Carrara, G. and Fioravanti, A.: 2002, ‘Private Space’ and ‘Shared Space’ Dialectics in Collaborative Architectural Design, InterSymp 2002 Symposium, BadenBaden, pp. 27-44. Carrara, G. and Fioravanti, A.: 2003, Needs Requirements Performances Vs Goals Constraints Values, in Collaborative Architectural Design, Proceedings of SIGraDi 2003 Conference, Rosario, pp. 253-255. Carrara, G. and Fioravanti, A.: 2006, A Game of Collaborative Architectural Design: the Birth of II– House. A true simulation of a first briefing session, InterSymp 2006 Symposium, Baden-Baden, pp. 29-49. Cross, N.:1985, L’architetto automatizzato, Liguori Editore, Napoli, Authorized Italian translation of The automated architect, Pion Ltd, London, 1977. Drakos, N. and Knox, R.E.: You need More Than E-Mail to Share Tacit Knowledge , http://www4.gartner.com/ DisplayDocument?id=450075. Fioravanti, A. and Rustico, R.: 2006, II-House game - A Space for simulating a Collaborative Working Environment in Architecture, in V Bourdakis and D Charitos, Communicating space(s), 24th eCAADe Conference Proceedings, Volos 6-9 September 2006, pp. 506-511. Hofstadter, D.R.: 1988, Gödel, Escher, Bach: un’Eterna Girlanda Brillante, Adelphi Ed., Italian translation of Gödel, Escher, Bach: an Eternal Golden Braid, first published by Basic Book, 1979. Jones, J.C.: 1966, Design methods reviewed, in S Gregory (ed.), The Design Method, Butterwoth, London pp 295-309. Kalay Y.E. and Jeong, Y.: 2003, A collaborative Design Simulation Game, International Journal of Architectural Computing, 1(4), pp 423-434. Kolarevič, B., Schmitt, G., Hirschberg, U., Kurmann, D., Johnson, B.: 2000, An experiment in design collaboration, Automation in Construction, 9(1): 73-81.


Kvan T.: 2000, Collaborative design: what is it?, Martens, B (guest ed.), Special Issue eCAADe ’97, Automation in Construction, 9(4): 409-415. Maher, M.L., Gabbriel, G.C.: 2002, Coding and modelling communication in architectural collaborative design, Automation in Construction, 11(2) 119-211. Moloney, J.: 2002, StringCVE Collaborative Virtual Environment software developed from a game engine, in K Koszewski and S Wrona (eds), [Designeducation] Connecting the Real and the Virtual, 20th eCAADe Conference Proceedings, Warsaw 18-20 September 2002, pp. 522-525. Moloney, J.: 2005, Game Engine and Virtual Design Studios – Technology and Pedagogy, in JP Duarte, G Ducla-Soares and A Zita Sampaio (eds), Digital Design: the Quest of New Paradigms, pp. 55-62. Papanek, V.: 1972, Deisgn for the Real Work, Thames and Hudson, London. Penttilä, H.: 2006, Managing the Changes within the Architectural Practice -The Effects of Information and Communication Technology (ICT), in V Bourdakis and D Charitos, Communicating space(s), 24th eCAADe Conference Proceedings, Volos 6-9 September 2006, pp. 252-260. Van de Broek, G., Stewing, F.-J.: 2007 From CSCW over CWE to CE: the Evolution of Needs and Tools – MATES Revised, 5th Workshop on Challenges in Collaborative Engineering, Krakow, 11-13 April 2007, pp. 115-124. Wix, J.: 1997, ISO 10303 Part 106, BCCM (Building Construction Core Model) /T200 draf. Woodbury, R.F., Shannon, S.J. and Sterk, T.D.: 2001, What works in a design game? - Supported by student reactions to being made to play, in JS Gero, S Chase and M Rosenman (eds), 6th CAADRIA 2001, Sydney, 19-21 April 2001, pp. 411-420. Woodbury, R.F., Wyeld, T.G., Shannon, S.J., Roberts, I.W., Radford, A., Burry, M., Skates, H., Ham, J., and Datta, S.: 2001a, The Summer Game, in H Penttilä (ed.), Architectural Information Management, 19th eCAADe 2001, Helsinki, 29-31 August 2001, pp. 293-297.


149

Index of Authors Achten, Henri Agger, Kristian Ahmad, Sumbul Angulo, Antonieta Annen, Monika Ari, Shoham Ben Artopoulos, Giorgos Asanowicz, Alexander Asperl, Andreas Bahoric, John Balakrishnan, Bimal Barczik, Günter Barrios, Carlos Roberto Bärtschi, Ralph Bechthold, Martin Belblidia, Salim Bellaver, Bábara Benoudjit, Moamed Amine Benton, Sarah Bignon, Jean Claude Bimber, Oliver Boeykens, Stefan Böhme, Luis Felipe González Bonwetsch, Tobias Borup, Ruben Bowtell, Peter Boytscheff, Constantin Braach, Markus Bramsen, Nikolaj Breen, Jack Bridges, Alan Brown, André Buattour, Mohamed Burry, Mark Cagdas, Gulen Campbell, Cameron Cardoso, Daniel Carrara, Gianfranco Casaer, Mathias Celani, Gabriela

409 43 879 465 21 227 777 393 385 117 133 887 483 793 767 821 375 911 253 125, 821 161 303 687 793, 895 43 117 91 695 43 59 441 523, 581, 671 125 117 559 543 567, 629 141 401 431

Cenani, Sehnaz Chase, Scott C. Châtelet, Maud Chen, Yu-Horng Cheng, Nancy Yen-wen Coates, Paul S. Colakoglu, Birgul Correia, José Derix, Cristian Díaz, Joaquin Dieckmann, Andreas Dillenburger, Benjamin Dohmen, Philipp Dokonal, Wolfgang Donath, Dirk Duarte, José Duval, Erik Economou, Athanassios Falkner, Christoph Fioravanti, Antonio Flanagan, Robert Francis, Sabu Freese, Simo Fricker, Pia Fuhr, Claudia Fukuda, Tomohiro Gane, Victor Girot-Ifrah, Yael Gool, Luc Van Gramazio, Fabio Grasl, Thomas Grazziotin, Pablo Gün, Onur Yüce Haeusler, Matthias Hank Halatsch, Jan Halin, Gilles Hamid, Bauni Hammer, Roey Haymaker, John Heidrich, Felix

559 837, 879 35 581 447 335, 911 919, 941 185 335 533 663 21, 695 507, 695, 801 843 169, 285, 687 423 401 947 751 141 327 727 607 695 21 99 293 21 351 793 947 375 859 69 351 125, 319 711 227 293 757

eCAADe 25

955

Henriques, Gonçalo Castro Henriques, Pedro Gameiro Heylighen, Ann Hofer, Michael Homma, Riken Hoog, Jochen Houtkamp, Joske M. Hovestadt, Ludger Huang, Chuen-huei (Joseph) Jungclaus, Jan Kaga, Atsuko Kaijima, Sawako Kalisperis, Loukas N. Kirschner, Ursula Knight, Michael Knudsen, Nikolaj Kobel, Daniel Kobiella, Olaf Kocaturk, Tuba Kohler, Matthias Koszewski, Krzysztof Kotnik, Toni Kourtis, Lampros Koutamanis, Alexander Krawczyk, Robert Kunze, Antje Kurth, Winfried Kvan, Thomas Lang, Silke Berit Larsen, Knut Einar Lassen, Michael Lehnerer, Alexander Lemley, Christina Lemmerzahl, Steffen Liapi, Katherine A. Liu, Geqing Lömker, Thorsten M. Lonsing, Werner Madrazo, Leandro Mahall, Mona

956

eCAADe 25

269 85 285, 401 385 151 751 77 203, 695 679 815 99 901 133 717 581, 671,843 43 793 599 735 793 415 21 777 319, 515, 523, 551 679 351 887 319 343, 499 51 43 695 483 695 27 211 311 655 827 261

Mannan, Ashik Vaskor Mark, Earl Markovic, Sladjana Martens, Bob Matcha, Heike Matějovská, Dana Michalatos, Panagiotis Michaud, Dennis Miyagawa, Atsushi Morozumi, Mitsuo Müller, Pascal Mullins, Michael Murakami, Yuji Muramoto, Katsuhiko Narahara, Taro Netten, Sarah Neuckermans, Herman Nicholas, Paul Norholdt, Peter Ohler, Armin Olmos, Francisco Onishi, Yasunobu Ormston, Garry Oxman, Neri Oxman, Rivka Ozel, Filiz Paraizo, Rodrigo Paul, Norbert Pektas, Sule Tasli Penttilä, Hannu Petzold, Frank Post, Jelle Pratschke, Anja Pupo, Regiane Rajala, Marko Ramirez, Joaquin Richter, Katharina Rimestad, Jens Romão, Luís Rüdenauer, Kai

493 219 21 523 849 409 901 567, 629 99 151 351 647 151 133 195 663 303, 401 117 43 717 639 151 117 785 227 457 367 591 177 607 161, 169 515 703 431 607 359 285 43 185 507, 695, 801

Russell, Peter Saeed, Ghousia Sampaio, Alcínia Zita Sass, Lawrence Scheurer, Fabian Schindler, Christoph Schlueter, Arno Schoch, Odilo Schwägerl, Klaus Sdegno, Alberto Seifried, Philipp Semple, Sally Serbest, Asli Serrato-Combe, Antonio Sfeir, Marilu Kanacri Shin, Dong Youn Sopeoglou, Eva Sowa, Agnieszka Späth, A. Benjamin Spek, Erik D. van der Stachelhaus, Thomas Stamm, Isolde Steinbächer, Florian Stellingwerff, Martijn Stori, Simen Takenaka, Tsukasa Tamke, Martin Tann, Martin Tellios, Anastasios Terzidis, Kostas Tessmann, Oliver Theodore, Dounas Thesseling, Frank Toet, Alexander Tonn, Christian Tramontano, Marcelo Troche, Christian Turkienicz, Benamy Uddin, M. Saleh Ulmer, Andreas

359, 663, 757 581 85 567, 629 51 35, 51 895 575 869 615 751 837 261 237 91 21 805 203 869 77 757 869 959 59 51 743 599 21 935 815 109 245 21 77 161, 169 703 621 375 493 351

Vamvakidis, Simos Vermisso, Emmanouil Versteeg, Meindert Wendt, Tobias Wetzel, Jean-Paul Winchester, Martin Wiskemann, Barbara Wojtowicz, Jerzy Wolpers, Martin Wrona, Stefan Yalınay, Şebnem Yan, Wei Yazar, Tuğrul Zäh, Matthias Zieta, Oskar Zimmermann, Gregor Zupancic, Tadeja

927 473 21 21 821 671 35 743 401 415 275 211 941 21 35 621 647

eCAADe 25

957

Conference Theme: Predicting the Future Digital tools can support the whole design process from the early phases through to final production. They enable the project participants to gain a better understanding of ideas and issues throughout all project phases. The focus of the eCAADe 2007 conference is that of tools and methods that support the whole range of participants from laymen to specialists in communicating, planning, costing and realizing built projects in all of the architectural fields.

eCAADe eCAADe (Education and Research in Computer Aided Architectural Design in Europe - www.ecaade.org) is a non-profit making association of European Schools of Architecture with a history going back for 25 years. The purpose of eCAADe is to promote the sharing of ideas and collaboration in matters related to CAAD education and research. eCAADe covers Europe, Middle East, North Africa and Western Asia and works in collaboration with its sister organisations in North America (www.acadia.org), Asia and Oceania (www.caadria.org) and South America (www.sigradi.org).

ISBN 978-0-9541183-6-5