“Even More Than Architecture”

Richard Coyne

1-Compare Las Vegas in the functionality of architecture and the term of past sells cities as well as the significant natural features of Grand Canyon, Niagara Falls  …, etc. How can architecture bring business in the two cases?

2-In Jacques Derrida investigation in the core of architecture by relying on the principles of modern architecture and the limitations of the four concepts of architecture, Is it explaining all the current architectural precedents?

3-Compare the process of publicity of architects and their work with the idea of flourish of the research to make it valuable?

The following example of a well-known architect Ammar Khammash. Is it research design or artistic product or both?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtkBJLr_c_w&feature=share

An “Artificial Science” of Architecture

Philip Steadman

1-Is the technology or science is essential for architecture, for example, the golden ratio for Renaissance or it is an add to the architectural design to enhance the operational system of it and can be reached without it?

2-Compare research process of Hoods idea and the March and Martin as well as “Spacemate” refers to 3 categories of design research, into, through and for?

3-Is the March and Martin an urban design regulation can have a space for creativity?

Even More Than Architecture, Richard Coyne

1. Coyne writes, “Tschumi reports that on their meeting, Derrida inquired of Tschumi why architects should be interested in his work since ‘deconstruction is anti-form, anti-hierarchy, anti-structure – the opposite of all that architecture stands for,” (185). What does architecture stand for? How can architecture be anti-form, anti-hierarchy, anti-structure? Why would an architect aim to do so? How does Tschumi do this?
2. “Here reading converges with design […] reading becomes active, synthetic, shared, and creative,” (Coyne, 187). What are examples of reading converging with design? What would a design be without reading within it’s process?
3. “Ethnographic study also encouraged participation by the researcher, getting involved, seeing what life is like from the point of view of the subject, and accepting that the presence of the researcher has an effect on the material under study,” (Coyne, 195). When does the design process of architecture become the process of user experience or user-centered design? How do these two differ? Is it important for the two to become one?

An ‘Artificial Science’ of Architecture, Philip Steadman

1. To study the architecture of ancient civilizations, we can only look at what remains of their buildings. What are the implications of this? Do these implications apply to Steadman’s proposition that more can be learned from the architect’s process of design by studying the artifacts directly?
2. “But as Herbet Simon points out, the distinguishing feature of all useful artifacts is that, because they are produced for human purposes, they ‘can be characterized in terms of functions, goals, adaptation’,” (Steadman, 48). How does this relate to biology?
3. “Bon was interested in such effects as architectural cases of allometry, the biological phenomenon  whereby organisms change their shapes as they grow larger, in order to preserve certain ratios essential to their physiological functioning. The ratio of surface to volume is important for example in warm blooded animals, since it affects heat loss or gain through the skin,” (Steadman, 38). This study seems valuable if we are concerned only with architecture as an example as allometry. Which fields of architecture would be most interested in these findings? Is it possible for people to live as simply as animals? If not, what gets in the way of this? Do these reasons ultimately prevent any future of structures becoming as simple as those made by animals? What are the consequences of this?

Reading 1 : Steadman

Q1_ The idea of Spacemate seems interesting, but is something like this actually used in practice?

Q2_ Why did Jones and Alexander distance themselves from their original research?  Did they eventually come to a conclusion that their ideas were not as useful as proposed?

Q3_ In the reading it was talked about how early CAD was supposed to be a generator of design then switched to a representational tool for design.  What has caused us to revisit that idea now?

Reading 2 : Coyne

Q1_ “Architectural research has a relatively small audience, producing modest metrics.  In so far as numbers have any kind of influence, then architectural researchers may start to skew their outputs to appeal to an even wider audience.”  I think this is a very dangerous issue.  We have seen what relying on these metrics has done to journalism, where small newspapers have shut down and can no longer report on local politics and have been replaced with clickbait pseudo news outlets such as buzzfeed, slate, etc.  Here depth and analysis have been replaced with breadth and emotionally charged words used simply to rattle the cages of readers rather than offer any legitimate insite.  Furthermore, these outlets hardly ever produce their own content and instead summarize summaries from other sources.  Is this the direction we want architectural research to head in?

Q2_ Should the benefit of research even be measured in typical media metrics?  The general public sometimes does not make the connection of the benefits of research and thus a valuable research topic could be shut down by simply not producing enough twitter followers.

Q3_ The idea that much research needs to be funded makes plenty of sense, but it is not important to understand who is funding research?  There can always be ulterior motives that can possibly skew research results.

Philip Steadman, “An ‘Artificial Science’ of Architecture”

1. The work regarding the floor space index is stimulating. However, it seems like it could only be used in projects where the boundaries are linear, perpendicular to each other. Could this method be used for more “curvilinear” projects?
2. Are “spacemate” diagrams still being used today? If so, how are they calculated? With today’s technology being more advanced than when it was developed, it is curious to wonder.
3. “Bon was interested in such effects as architectural cases of allometry, the biological phenomenon whereby organisms change their shapes as they grow larger, in order to preserve certain ratios essential to their physiological functioning.” Were any social sciences involved with this project, seeing as a part does interact with people directly?

Richard Coyne, “Even more than Architecture”

1. Coyne criticizes of what happens when web search is used in regarding to research. It is true that a good amount that pops up isn’t useful, but it still helps a lot more than before the internet was used. Isn’t it worth it to find articles and readings online that one would never find within a library even if it takes a little more effort and time?
2. “These media channels and content types do not of course have comparable intellectual impact and influence.” The media is one of the most powerful industries out there no matter what they put out. Ergo, doesn’t that mean that it in fact does have a big impact and influence on the population?
3. Coyne brings up the concept of “otherness” within the article, bringing different disciplines together. While this is a motivating idea in theory, how would this be done in reality? People usually go to school for only one discipline, so their knowledge of various subjects would be limited.

John Mellas

Week 4 Questions

Coyne

1:  While the internet has innumerous resources for architects and students alike, “some critics think that we have entered an era of shallow, superficial browsing and reading.” Being able to “search” within a pdf document helps in the short term but is it harmful in the long term? Has the advent of online resources impacted students to research less? Or, rather, absorb less. Has the online resource pool made us complacent in our research and reading?

2:  With physical books, from cover to cover, it gives you a focus on its written content. There are no external links to follow to lead us off topic. With both book and online taken into consideration, Is the internet of resources overwhelming us with information?

3: Unlike the original Enac and first iteration computers, our phones can fit in our pocket. Why do we need to study the “social and cultural impacts of computer networks on cities” when the networks and computers don’t interact with the architecture?  Should our phones interact with buildings?

Steadman

1:  “Leslie Martin and Lionel March distinguished three simple types of form: ‘pavilions’, ‘streets’, and ‘courts’.” The program that would occupy these spaces can vary, how can limiting to these three help inform “artificial science” and design?

2:  Meta Berghauser Pont and Per Haupt’s developed what was called an “ingenious and useful graphical tool called ‘Spacemate’”. In what way can students use these types of graphical tools? Are these tools developed more for the larger firms and corporations or are methods like the “Spacemate” a useful tool for the average student?

3:  Because of “spacemate’s” integration with other fields within the artificial sciences, can this method of diagram be applicable to those other fields and vice versa? If so, how can students use this information in their work?

“Even more than Architecture” – Richard Coyne

1. Is it justified to compare the number of hits of a YouTube video to number of citations of an academic article? The author mentions there is a difference in content type but other than that there is limitation of access which means YouTube is a free service but most journals are too expensive for a curious uneducated person (uneducated only in that specific field).
2. The author states that architectural research has a relatively small audience and architectural researchers may start to skew their outputs to appeal to a wider audience. Is it really necessary for architecture researchers to deviate from their principles just to attract more audience?
3. Comparing design approach to deliberate introduction of an object to a community that had never before seen such a device: Shouldn’t designs be based on needs? History proves that introducing products that are ahead of their time which are not based on needs are doomed to fail.

An “Artificial Science” of Architecture – Philip Steadman

1. The author states that both John Cristopher jones and Christopher Alexander were leading protagonists of ‘design methods movement’ but distanced themselves from their earlier positions. The reason why is not mentioned and it might be interesting to know. Also, again in this context it is mentioned that deep contradictions in Alexander’s approach was the reason he abandoned the method. Again, nothing about these contradictions are is explained.
2. From 1960s to 1970s, there seems to be a shift in application of computer-aided design (CAD) from generating plans to representation of designs. What are the differences between these two approaches?
3. The outcome of all the three pieces of research in the article was not either a design or a development in design. Therefore, is the outcome of artificial science of architecture suitable for a research studio project or M.Arch thesis?

An “Artificial Science” of Architecture – Philip Steadman

1. “In craft production and vernacular architecture new tools or buildings are produced by copying old ones, and the craftsman or woman may be unaware of why or how they function, just that they do work in practice. ”
   I’m slightly confused by this statement. Shouldn’t the craftsman understand how and why certain tools function because they are replicating it?
2. “One might even venture the proposition that more can be learned about the process of design of artefacts by studying those objects directly than by studying designers in action.” However these artefacts were chosen by the designers. Would studying the designers methodology also help give us insight in their process as well?
3. “Martin and March’s theoretical built forms were not just a random selection of geometrical solids: they were chosen carefully the way in which they satisfy the same two generic functions, while making use of land in distinctively different ways.” Does this mean that their findings only pertain to a specific category then? And may not be completely applicable to every building?

“Even More Than Architecture” – Richard Coyne

1. Coyne begins his article about how it is important and critical for the discipline to borrow from others. It “supports healthy and vital architecture research”. I think this is an important thing to keep in mind, coordinating with other fields helps broaden our field as well as others. Allowing designers  of all kinds to be able to really take on their responsibility within society.
2. “…the issue of what constitutes architectural research is decided dramatically by who i prepared to fund its projects, which journals or venues will it be published in…” Would this mean that some research may be bias or no?
3. “Study one and you’re studying them all.” So this would mean that if I were studying medicine, then I would understand architecture, art, sociology, etc  as well, but rather in a medicinal point of view?

Steadman:

1. Leslie Martin and Lionel March’s approach to land use and built form studies is a rigid example of building analysis that is predisposed for a certain type of answer. If this type of strategy provides a way to a theoretically ‘perfect’ design, why have these perfect design strategies not become the profession of architecture?
2. We are a growing population in a finite expanse of space. How can tools like ‘Spacemate’ work to act as a type of defragmenter allowing us to use space in both a more efficient way as well as a more human way?
3. The term bio-mimicry has been growing in popularity in past years. Although there may be highly refined examples of the adaptation of form and function found in nature, what are the caveats of implementing these findings past a research level?

Coyne:

1. The amount of generated knowledge that we have is ever expanding. As Coyne states, there are digital tools such as the Internet and keyword searching that are meant to increase the pace at which we consume knowledge.  At what point do we hit the speed limit on learning and how will that change how we research?
2. “Design-led research seeks to understand the world through direct intervention by the researcher, rather than through detached observation.” Doesn’t design research do both of these to a certain extent?
3. The question of ‘Identification of need’ is used by Coyle to relate design research to systems theory which follows a more linear research trajectory from need to research to solution. Does this help to bridge the design and science disciplines?

An “Artificial Science” of Architecture

Philip Steadman

Question 1: Steadman States, “One might venture the proposition that more can be learned about the process of design of artifacts by studying those objects directly, than by studying the designer’s actions.” He goes on to relate this to the study of composition in literature and critiques of paintings. Can one truly understand how an architect designed a structure by purely analyzing the finished product? There are many different factors involved within the design process. One could analyze and critique the structure on a “surface” level, but could they really understand the design at a deeper level than that?

Question 2: “Spacemate” is an interesting tool developed for the analysis of structure. Was it ever adopted by anybody other than Berghauser Pont and Haupt?

Question 3: Morphospace could be implemented into the design process at the conceptual level to allow one to find new forms that were not yet thought of. At the time of this research paper, were there any other generative models that architects were using to find form? Or was this the first “form finding” tool?

“Even More Than Architecture”

Richard Coyne

Question 1: Coyne discusses how he would give his students texts by Kafka, Calvino, Hegel, Poe, Joyce, etc. but he would never give them texts about microclimate, servicing, planning, structures etc… Is this a problem within architecture?… That students are learning to become designers but the other elements that shape architecture are de-emphasized? Is this because institutions know that once entering the professional field, students will learn the more specific or technical aspects of architecture. Or is it more so that institutions are more interested in creating designers?

Question 2: It is interesting when Coyne starts to talk about what needs to be researched and if it needs to be problem-solving. Does architectural research need to solve a problem?

Question 3: I’ve written in previous posts about architects and their role as a multi-faceted designer. Somebody who needs to be disciplined in many fields of study. Are architects masters of design and amateurs in other fields? Or are architects diverse in that one may be a master of design but mediocre at environmental analysis, whereas another architect might be a master of environmental analysis but not design.

“An Artificial Science of Architecture” by Philip Steadman

1. I find the conception of the “Science of the Artificial” quite interesting and very relevant; however I start to have doubts when it begins to set up a guide for how to design. The role of “Artificial Science” in my opinion be that of a functional and historical analysis, not rules regarding the future of design.
2. I found this reading very difficult to care about. I believe this was a result of the intense descriptions of the scientific methods undertaken during the research and the relatively dry results that followed.
3. The biological analogy of allometry to the built environment was a very curious idea, but was totally undercooked. The work seemed to just be a categorizing of  buildings considering a space to wall ratio, with illumination acting as the driving force. In no way did they suggest or research a proportionally growing or living space, which is a far more interesting subject.

“Even More than Architecture” by Richard Coyne

1. Yet again the phrase “Master of None” has been used in regards to the Architect. Is our pursuit of outside knowledge leading to a perception in the field that we have no overarching skillset? We are masters in the field of Architecture, why are we not accepting of this role?
2. Researchers are having to take away time from their research in order to publish or post their work. I feel as though to a certain degree this is actually a positive, despite the time removed from research you begin to set hard deadlines and produce a series of documented process points that can keep people more genuinely  engaged in the research and ensure a culmination to the work.
3. Have keyword and other internet search techniques weakened the thoroughness of research. When one is able to immediately consume a quote or single chapter of a book, is the research then diluted to merely what you initially desired it to be and not truly genuine research?

READINGS:

Philip Steadman, “An ‘Artificial Science’ of Architecture”, in Fraser, M. (ed.), Design Research in Architecture- An Overview, Ashgate 2013.

Richard Coyne, “Even more than Architecture”, in Fraser, M. (ed.), Design Research in Architecture- An Overview, Ashgate 2013.