Design Driven by Discovery
Robert Barelkowski, dr hab. inz. arch. (Ph. D. Arch., Prof. Ass. WSG) Affiliation: The Polish Academy of Sciences, Poznan Branch
Contact:
[email protected] Theme: Time and Place
"To hear, one must be silent", A Wizard of Earthsea, Ursula K. Le Guin
The researchers, who observe the contemporary architectural tendencies and attempt to define their synthesis, often conclude that architecture clearly indicates typical symptoms of crisis and a paradigmatic breakthrough. If one is going to ask where architecture goes, what the primary architectural goals are, it appears that there are no clear answers to these questions as there is no clear definition or agreement on the borders of autonomy of architecture as a discipline. The latter question appears to be a particular problem as it leads to unrestrained relativization of the notion of architecture, the criteria to evaluate it and the role of architecture. As a result, it becomes more difficult now than ever, to differentiate architecture from art. Architectural criticism became one of the forces shaping the contemporary perception of architecture and, what's more important, of the values of architecture. Saunders unveils the mechanisms of formation of criteria and describes, how far the validation of architecture and its impact on the environment have been limited to personal tastes and individual emotional responses (2007: 138-139). Similar problems are diagnosed when confronting the architects' claims on contextuality, sustainability or
other popular keywords with the reality of architectural implementations. The shift towards the admiration of an image, rooted in the contemporary forces of civilization, leads to focusing on the temporariness, on the impressions related to the experience of an architectural event, on the appearance instead of the content and meaning (Pallasmaa, 2007: 99). Stern's voice is almost solitary, when making his statement on urbanism and architecture and polemizing with associating these two areas with (liberated) arts (2003: 21), at least commenting on the state of architecture at the turn of the millennia. The question whether architecture can still refer to universal, yet abstract values and maintain the balance between the changeable and the changeless, thus providing the sense of continuity and flexibility in an environment, appears to be completely justified, bringing the problem of true responsibility for two fundamental conditions of architectural activities – the environment and human-centeredness (Barelkowski, 2007b: 23). It revives the necessity to re-formulate architectural principles or at least to allow for their individual definition in every single design process. Although this idea is not new, and it is not contradictory to the contemporarily acclaimed attributes, it is intended to rearrange the hierarchy of criteria. On one hand, invention, and especially innovation, resemble a kind of the Holy Grail of the contemporary architecture, as a motivating force, technologically-driven pursuit to reach for more, to expose the creativity as a self-contained, unrelated and artificially created value. On the other hand, market-driven mechanisms support two kinds of approach; the first is related to maximizing economical efficiency and the second sacrifices some of the efficiency for creativity, but only as long as it fuels added market-value due to its association with popular, acclaimed architectural brands. Consequently, to fulfill the requirements of the market – not the requirements
of the environment, the urge for creativity is motivated by the search for new forms, new configurations, new amazing spaces. Architecture is a specific discipline, interdisciplinary in its nature, where problem solving process requires an ability to operate through various domains and issues, often connected to other professional fields. Therefore, architectural thinking encourages a holistic approach to the environment and, at the same time, it makes every single design task impossible to be defined parametrically, measured or calculated. This conclusion reveals a basic discrepancy between the said definition and many design practices as well as architectural writings, in which a seemingly comprehensive attitude tends to fragment reality and concentrate on the selected tendencies observed in particular spaces or, more often, on ego-centered formal proposals fostering the image of architectural practice instead of new or renewed identity of a place. The identity of the form of space is equated with the identity of the space itself, banalizing the problems of the environment (social, cultural) and eroding social apprehension of the importance of space as a valuable resource. There is clearly at least one more line of tension, that defines these environmental contradictions, according to Fisher's comparison of architectural profession as an entity and academia (2001: 8), which still, after a few years, seem to be still up-todate. Socially or culturally focused design methodologies are rare and most of the time they are a result of unique research, its scale unparalleled to commercial developments, which dominate in common consciousness and which are often perceived (at least some of them) as cutting edge projects. An example of this phenomenon is well represented by bringing together Pearl District in Portland, widely known and (with all its possible glitches) appreciated for focusing on humancentered space, but definitely less popular than, for example, Potsdamer Platz in
Berlin, recognized mostly by the names of famous architects (to give examples of large scale interventions). Theoretical concepts discussed by the representatives of an academic world are sometimes too far from reality and harsh conditions which professionals have to face, but that kind of a gap can be crossed and both compromise and common ground may be sought regardless of the size of the project. I would argue that discourse on architecture should be more reflective than inventive, and, at the same time, that instead of principality of inventing new forms or elaborating new technological innovations, we should perceive architectural task as inventing creative spaces. This kind of thinking – of creative spaces – can be achieved by inclusive versus exclusive thinking on both problems to be solved through design and methods or methodologies as well as tools to be used during the process. Flexible academia rooted methods can efficiently support free, creative, core design process. What's more, a place can become a generator of design process, stimulating unrestrained aesthetic creativity of an architect (who still can try to shape the object according to their formal preferences or style), however it demands to cover up, if not to reject, other inspirations behind the place, its cultural roots, social conditions and needs, and the acknowledgement of all dynamic factors present in a particular place (Barelkowski, 2005: 112). Social behavior, types of use and use cycles, among others, may become and should become crucial elements affecting the course of design (cf. Norberg-Schulz, 1999: 223), but, simultaneously, these elements exist in strong relations to socially rooted concepts of abstract notions and values – culture, locality, community spirit. And all these dynamic contents fluctuate in time, making the phenomenon of space almost ephemeral and impossible to represent as fixed. I'd like to present the concept of design driven by discovery,
starting from the diagnosis of the kinds of processes existing and functioning in a particular space and referring to the problems evoked by this unstable nature of the environment. This paper is intended to discuss problems of specific design approach, favoring the concept of discovering and enhancing the attributes of urban or rural space instead of exhibiting the formal innovations, thus Meta-Design methodology requires a brief introduction only. The principle idea lies in simultaneous, parallel threads of design activities, named "core design" and "meta-design". Core design describes unique author's approach, adjusted individually to each task. In this basic process only its keypoints are defined to mark decision-making or verification moments. There is no intention to hamper the architect's freedom and flexibility, including the use of personally elaborated procedures, therefore, beyond these keypoints, there are no strict guidelines. Contrarily, in meta-design procedures more abstract values and terms are investigated in an indirect manner. Meta-Design forms a kind of a superprocedure, an indirect control mechanism. It consists of programming activities – in predesign phase and concept design, evaluation mechanisms and procedural guidelines. The latter, with regard to programming, suggests and enables to integrate interdisciplinary design activities. These contents have a character of procedures and reference basis, rejecting algorhythmic type of design processing (cf. Barelkowski, 2007c: 76-79). In this particular work, however, we are more interested in supporting the potential of locus to evolve through architectural design – to be discovered and exposed instead of being artificially imposed by the architect. Therefore, I would like to focus on selected methodological aspects, which are implemented in Meta-Design and constitute an important part of its structure. There are three particular issues, present
in Meta-Design, that are significantly linked to the idea of discovering the essence of a place: firstly, it is the development of architectural "hearing", its permanent presence in the process of defining architectural space, especially maintaining sensitivity to multiple layers of human environment, including cultural and social factors among others; secondly, it explores the possibilities of juxtaposing the programming of abstract values and their physical manifestations in volumes and open spaces in an attempt to "objectivize" the conceptualization; thirdly, it sets the temporal references in design using reversed analyses in order to keep pace with ever-changing conditions in an environment, to merge the durable with the flexible, and to permeate the process of becoming – a design that accommodates temporal changes in fluctuations of use.
Fig. 1. (Meta+)Design process structure, auth.: R. Barelkowski, 2006 How to make an architect more sensitive to the environment? Meta-procedures precede the core design activities and in this way they allow for a combined effort to absorb the features of locus, to decipher its code and complexity as well as filter and
process the intervention means in order to maintain, enhance or recreate genius loci. In the answer to the abovementioned question, we found necessity to redefine the design process in order to accumulate the potential to comprehend the environment with all layers, only partially perceptible (rather felt). It requires to expand the typical architectural practice to the other structure, more interdisciplinary oriented, gaining through cross-discipline thinking, researching and evaluating. This postulate raises doubts on applicability, but a flexible structure of analyses, observation, perception, especially social participation (in projects where it is justifiable), has proved many times that this analytic effort slows pace at the beginning, but saves time afterwards and, ultimately, results in shaping better architecture (cf. Sanoff, 2000: 130-131). Do architects have to abandon their working methods and assimilate new ones? That would not make Meta-Design an attractive proposal to improve design process. But in fact – without much changing the core activities it requires (and helps) to open mind – giving guidelines on how to "hear" the space. In this way the design process has to be reconstructed or supplemented with meta-procedures, controlling, evaluating and self-evaluating mechanisms, which are necessary to verify whether the architect has caught the essence of space (and to what extent) in a particular phase of a project. But there is one more issue– how the analytic part, implemented in Meta-Design, differs from typical analyses proceeded in the course of common architectural activity. The fundamental difference lies in integration, multiplication of sources of information and in personal engagement of members of a design team to "feel" the character of space, also in terms of cross-disciplinary aspects of the environment and its perception. A second significant question discussed here is a technologically rooted notion of programming and objectivization (in reference to objective versus subjective reality,
objectivization may be seen as an attempt to eliminate false subjective observations, not to acquire an objective representation, but using Merleau-Ponty's understanding of distinction of phenomenological approach to space, as compared to psychologist approach; 2001: 316-319). Programming is the key to liberate the architect from formal conventions, aesthetic chains, often hampering the ability to have a chance to transform and improve space in a truly creative way. Programming a design process acts as a common ground for abstract values distilled from the environment (and e.g., local society) and those originated from architect's assumptions. This is the field of controlled, yet not pre-supposed, negotiation resulting in hierarchization of values. Abstract values are also keywords to understand the (social) intentions space is imbued with – finally to give a hint to an architect, what he is expected to achieve in non-figurative way. The establishing of a set of values is accompanied by the set of criteria, in order to construct proper evaluation reference basis. Again, its metaprocedural nature allows Meta-Design to process usually unprepared initial data for a project, and to extract the ideas space is determined to convey. Then these ideas are constraints for physical formation of project solution, liberating the imagination and allowing to make design ideas and design reality coherent from the very beginning. Establishing criteria may be seen as constructing the basis for common language among parties interested in transformation of the environment. These criteria, along with the values, are becoming the principal warranter for exchange of ideas and opinions, even among members of the design team with profound understanding. Here, it is worth mentioning – regarding all diagnosed limitations of language – architecture conversions. The time issue is equally (if not more) important. It brings on the question of permanent process of alteration of the environment. It affects users and their
opinions, it generates changes in processes present or absent in space. It also exposes another common problem of architectural design, which is polarization of design tendencies – the one focused on fixed representation of reality, the other one artificially contemplating the ephemeral manifestations of civilization activities. MetaDesign attempts to introduce the integrated view of the solid and the transformable in space. Non-movable place cannot be associated with static space, but it definitely has to provide a firm platform to contain all dynamic and location-changing factors, which define its purpose or mark direction of its adjustment or alteration. Does space look the same the moment it is designed and when it is occupied? This trivial phenomenon is, nevertheless, disregarded. While the reason to evade it could be found in problems of inadequacy of prognosis, impossibility to predict how the space will be used in distant future, I argue that it is substantiated in the perspective of 10, 20 or even 50 years, depending on the specificity of locus. There is more danger in ignoring the temporal aspect of design and the existence of its product. What's more, good quality of architecture, as described above, is susceptible to adjustment and conversions maintaining high (sometimes higher) acceptance of space by its users (cf. Barelkowski, 2007: 271-272). A good example of this kind of approach may be seen in the case of several football stadiums, designed for large sports events, but with the assumption that when the event is finished and the structure proves to be excessive, it may be partially (sometimes temporarily) removed. All the above mentioned assumptions of Meta-Design form a supporting structure of guidelines intended to be followed but not necessarily in a direct way. There is feedback connection between the open content of Meta-Design, generated each time and particularly targeted to support specific project, with the sense of perception of place in all its aspects, including temporal. The aesthetic or technological means to
define architecture are planned to be and should become secondary in comparison with place-related indications or requirements. I disagree with strongly narrowing criticism concerning the emergence of phenomenology and its manifestation in architectural theory, as presented by Vanderbrugh and Ellis (2001: 117-118), who limit positive influences of this philosophical trend to the redefinition of the notion of truth and language, because many other fields, more closely related to architectural practice, benefited from the concepts inspired by phenomenology. The famous Heidegger's sentence – which refers to the essence of architecture and its existence as the entity, which can only partly be defined by mere architectural and building activities (1971: 159) – is a source of multiple interpretations, which are equally significant in architectural thinking, and respond to social activities, investigate and solve specific socio-spatial conflicts. Vanderbrugh and Ellis, however, discern accurately the evolution of phenomenological thinking with its shift from static constraints towards dynamic processes and dangers of straightforward translations and linguistic metaphors as spatial occurrences (op. cit.: 118). It seems to correspond with the principles of Meta-Design, while it avoids methodological involvement in semantic interpretations, simply "quoting" the space or its users expectations, grounded in values and attributes which most often can be found locally. Then its change, as a result of architectural intervention, merges benefits of continuation and renovation or revitalization of space. One cannot evaluate the methodology without evaluating its applicability, or – to be more precise – its implementation. A group of projects were included in the research to test Meta-Design in commercial tasks, modified only to the extent allowed by negotiated contracts. Therefore the scope of application varies and rarely involves
the use of full methodological structure, but (as related in the publication scheduled to be printed for Communicating by Design Conference, April 2009, in Brussels) it proves its efficiency. The methods to test and evaluate Meta-Design were intended to simulate completely the real architectural work, effectively becoming examples of this kind of work. This assumption led to the acquisition of a variety of projects, distinct themes, different groups of users and parties involved. In all projects, an attempt to realize a non-presupposed creative process was undertaken. In all cases, valueoriented design process was executed, with few structures built. This kind of methodology is hoped to weave seemingly unsolvable and contradictory tendencies of the planned and the logical into the unpresupposed and the impressional in the design process, enabling the creation of design driven by discovery.
Bibliography Barelkowski, R.: 2005, Statyczne a dynamiczne czynniki ksztaltowania rozwiazan architektonicznych , in L. Zimowski (ed.), Intuicja i architektura, Wydawnictwo Politechniki Poznanskiej, Poznan, 111-116 Barelkowski, R.: 2007a, Designing Time – Architecture of Becoming. The Strategy of Genuine Development of Architectural Design, in 4th International Conference ArchCairo 2007, Linking and Bridging:.Academia and the Professional Realm, Department of Architecture, Faculty of Engineering, Cairo University, Cairo, 268-290 Barelkowski, R.: 2007b, Meta-design versus self-contained design, in A. Dutoit, J. Odgers, A. Sharr (eds.), Quality, Welsh School of Architecture in Cardiff, Cardiff, 23 Barelkowski, R.: 2007c, Towards comprehensive architectural design – Meta-Design, in J. M. Hernandez Leon, Paisaje Cultural Cultural Landscape, EURAU 2008,
Universidad Politecnica de Madrid, Escuela Tecnica Superior de Arquitectura de Madrid ETSAM/UPM, Madrid, 76-79 Fisher, T.: 2001, Revisiting the Discipline of Architecture, in A. Piotrowski and J. W. Robinson (eds.), The Discipline of Architecture, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, 1-9 Merleau-Ponty, M.: 2001, Fenomenologia percepcji, Wydawnictwo Aletheia, Warszawa Heidegger, M.: 1971, Being and Time, Harper and Row, New York Norberg-Schulz, C.: 1999, Znaczenie w architekturze zachodu, Wydawnictwo Murator, Warszawa Pallasmaa, J.: 2007, Toward an Architecture of Humility: On the Value of Experience, in W. S. Saunders (ed.), Judging Architectural Value, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, 96-103 Sanoff, H.: 2000, Community Participation Methods in Design and Planning, John Wiley and Sons, New York Saunders, W. S.: 2007, From Taste to Judgement: Multiple Criteria in the Evaluation of Architecture, in W. S. Saunders (ed.), Judging Architectural Value, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, 129-149 Stern, R. A. M.: 2003, Urbanism is about Human Life, in B. Tschumi and I. Cheng (eds.), The State of Architecture at the Beginning of the 21st Century, The Monacelli Press, New York, 20-21 Vanderburgh, D. J. T. and Ellis, W. R.: 2001, A Dialectics of Determination: Social Truth-Claims in Architectural Writing, 1970-1995, in A. Piotrowski and J. W. Robinson (eds.), The Discipline of Architecture, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, 103-126
