2.1.2 Categories of architecture
Only a small part of all built environment is designed by architects. Unfortunately, architects tend to restrict themselves to “proper architecture”, which confines their influence.
There are many ways of categorising architecture in order to get a general idea of this huge field. We could use the scale of the project, the function of the building, the quality of the building, the region where we find it, the tradition or singularity, the construction method, the material used, the style, the date of building, and so on. All these categories overlap, and it is difficult to count or even estimate the number in each category. In the course of this discussion, “scale” will often be used for categorisation.
Difference in scale implies different boundary conditions and thus different planning and development processes. For this reason, the categories “urban design”, “building”, “process” and “material” will be used for a comparison with criteria of life, and will then be explained in more detail.
Other categories will be applied when needed.
The most important aspect for categorisation when asking about innovation and progress is the innovativeness implemented in a project.
Quantification is not possible within the frame of this book. The categories’ qualities are described and examples are mentioned. Figure 1 (opposite) shows architectural categories referring to a specific scale of innovation.
“Architecture of provision” is the lowest possible stage and is not identified in the scheme. Shelters are made of whatever can be used and no formal planning process is used. Today, unplanned settlements and slum architecture exist predominantly in warmer climate zones. Out of necessity and pragmatism, traditional architecture typologies have developed in a long empirical optimisation process. Traditional building typologies differ according to environmental conditions: society, climate, landscape, resources, technological standard, historical development and other influences. These typologies form the base for further development. All architecture is based on tradition: historical building typologies which have evolved over a long time, and which slowly adapted to the changing environmental conditions of the time, although these conditions may no longer exist.
The so-called “one-off projects” are singular phenomena in architecture. As the term says, their existence is a singular stroke of luck. The circumstances under which the implementation of such a project is possible include a visionary mind, the success of the technology being implemented, the necessary resources (ideally unlimited), excellent engineers, the support of the client as well as the support of society in terms of acceptance (building laws, political decisions). One-off projects are also well known by the general public, and judged by history. Few buildings become extraordinarily famous, e.g. the Centre Pompidou in Paris (Richard Rogers and Renzo Piano), Lloyds in London (Rogers) and the Hong Kong and Shanghai Bank in Hong Kong (Norman Foster), the Cupola of the Reichstag in Berlin (Foster). Some of these also become public landmarks of design, symbolising countries or even continents, for example the Eiffel Tower or the Sydney Opera House. These buildings represent a high-tech approach of a global architectural style.
The innovation realised in these projects makes them role models for many other exemplary and high-quality buildings. The inventions (architectural features which can not be patented or otherwise copyright protected) developed in the course of the generation of these projects inevitably spread and become general knowledge, to the resentment of one and the delight of the other designer. Many renowned architects experiment on this 1:1 level, using their building tasks to develop specific ideas and push industry ahead.
Between these extreme positions the large field of “standard architecture” exists. Standard architecture covers a wide range of quality from high to low standard. This mass building (housing, office buildings, industrial…) is to only a small extent architect designed, and does not usually deliver outstanding experimental innovations.
Innovation achieved in this field concerns industrial economy, often conflicting with quality.
A small section of individual buildings show outstanding innovative potential – isolated visionary phenomena, designed by individual house owners or small companies.
Apart from that, innovation that raises quality usually occurs only in the upper upper right segment of Figure 1. The information flow between these categories of architecture is mutual.
Innovation from other disciplines and new technologies influences architectural development and is integrated into one-off or exemplary projects. Information then spreads slowly down to standard buildings (e.g. point fixing in glass, fingerprint access control – features which are now common even in single family housing). Innovative architecture is in many cases also influenced by traditional typologies – it is known that many famous architects have travelled extensively and studied traditional buildings typologies.
Occasionally, information of the individual section is taken up and spread into other fields. This is especially interesting, as these outsiders’ achievements are often based on and integrated into a local environment.
Small field: experimental architectural research
Experimenting with building tasks is the usual way for developing new solutions, but makes life hard for architects, companies and clients. Only small steps can be taken, and any innovation has to comply with specific building regulations, still provide security and functionality for the users, must have the same quality as the standard solution, and must not require extra resources. The planning costs for the design innovation are usually not calculated – the architect or designer and the building companies have to cope with this “loss” and all the dangers which a new solution may bring.
Strategic experimental research would require a platform free from the restricting 1:1 condition. Due to the lack of interest and funding, experimental design research is done by very few people and organisations. It is usually done at universities in the course of design programs, diploma and dissertation projects. Research bodies are funded if either the pressure to find new solutions is high enough to provide the necessary resources, or if economic success is expected in the near future.
2.1.3 Where biomimetics comes into play
The connection between architecture and biology and the starting points for biomimetics in architecture are in the design of projects, where innovation is needed, especially in cases like these:
- Design of architecture for new environments
- Solutions for new challenges have to be found, based on role models provided by nature
- Investigation of optimised and adapted building traditions informs modern architecture
- Better relationship between architecture and living organisms
- Better relationship between architecture and the environment
- Better quality of life
- Better design of the cultural environment
New challenges always push the boundaries: in the case of architecture it is the discussion about environmental issues (climate change, energy and resources, ecology and sustainability) and the need to cope with new environments which will shape the architecture of the 21st century with the help of nature’s role models.
2.1.4 The many levels of a project
An architectural project is designed to fit many different and often conflicting requirements. The ultimate demand is to provide sheltered space for the user’s activities.
However, other than basic functional levels of design are not limited to: external and internal circulation, the relationship between privacy and public access, visibility and transparency, construction and material, colour, light and surfaces, supply systems and infrastructure, building physics and building services, detailing, intangible things like general idea, abstract concept, geometric order, aesthetic concept, style, significance of the building to its surroundings, functional and aesthetic relationships to the environment including flows of energy and matter, urban and regional planning issues, ecological issues…
The architect’s task is the integration of all these levels in the final project. The value that the designer attributes to the different topics and the relative importance of the topics for the final project is part of the freedom of design and the individual approach to architecture in general. The significance of the topics considered and their relative importance for the given task is not always decided consciously, but chosen through personal intuition, and they may be ousted by the complexity of project development.
The factors responsible for the project’s final “identity” can differ widely. And wide is the field of application of any novel idea – from highly detailed items to large urban structures.
The quality of the final project is also defined by the quality of investigation conducted in the important stages of design.
2.1.5 Quality in architecture
The question of architectural quality is a complex and difficult one. To judge seriously the overall quality, for example of a building, all the levels of design mentioned above would have to be evaluated and compared. The assumption that architecture projects can be compared requires a more or less linear scaling, and the existence of a “best design”.
Considering the difference in levels of design and the difficulty of assessment of aesthetic values, this is not possible. A holistic evaluation would, on the other hand, imply an agreed value and defined relationship of all parameters that can be measured. Thus, overall quality is not measurable, and this may be the reason why evaluation of architectural projects is not at all taken for granted.
But specific qualities are very well measurable. For instance, energy processing of buildings is a serious current issue, as is the amount of embodied energy in building materials. Measuring is not limited to the world of matter and energy, but is also possible for activity and intangible parameters. The space syntax theory of Bill Hillier, for example, measures the value of “integration”, which expresses a kind of urban importance of a space.
Summing up, it can be said that evaluation in architecture is not routine at all, and that even simple checks (e.g. the assessment of the internal circulation of a building) are not often carried out, so that consistent quality enhancement usually does not exist. Another reason for this is the individuality of architecture projects in contrast to product design in industry, where high quantities justifies the implementation of quality control.
For these reasons, it is generally the market size that decides on quality, and the criteria remain largely unexplored. The measured parameter is market price per m2, which provides no information about resources and energy, nor about architectural quality.
2.1.6 Innovation and expectation
Expectation is a key to occupant satisfaction. The image of architecture in the user’s mind settles his interpretation of space and potentials of activity.
Obviously, unexpected events are not likely to be appreciated (e.g. malfunction, disorientation because of unclear spatial relationships), but slow change is. The capacity of humans to deal with new situations is amazing, but doing so costs time and energy. Relying on the well-known makes the day-to-day routine (and advancement in many other fields) possible, but palls at the same time. The happy medium has to be found – introduce the new and unexpected, but not too much at a time, so that people have a chance to change their minds.
There are solutions in architectural design which have proved to work out very well. Here the introduction of novel ideas would lead to a decrease in quality. Nonetheless many architects continue to reinvent the wheel.
Satisfaction of users is crucial to the success of architecture as a discipline, which creates, forms and organises people’s lives. The lack of connections between planners and users leads to continuing misinterpretations. On the other hand, integration of users into the planning process can be very difficult in terms of decision-making, time and therefore cost (regardless of the fact that the user’s opinion does by no means guarantee satisfaction). As a matter of fact any field that can reasonably be influenced by the future user’s wishes has to be defined clearly, as well as those fields where future users will have no say. The distinction relates to hierarchical levels in design, which will be explained later.
