Updating the ideas that shape our buildings: teaching design with sustainability in mind Vanessa Gomes da Silva and Doris C.C.K. Kowaltowski State University of Campinas / UNICAMP, School of Civil Engineering, Architecture and Urban Design, Dept. of Architecture and Building, CP 6021, Campinas/SP, 13.083852, phone: +55 019 35212390, e-mail:[email protected] Abstract - Ideas that shaped buildings were based on principles and specific design processes. Traditional architectural education focuses on the process across the design studio sequences, whilst engineering training usually concentrates on applied sciences principles. Synthesis of these two approaches is both the major goal and challenge. The ideas that shaped architecture were mainly formal aesthetic, functional, technical and economic aspects of buildings. Since the 1970s, the desire to apply scientific methods and concerns for users, have sought to improve both architectural design and education. Engineering education, on the other hand, has greatly benefited from the development of IT instruments, equipment and software, that indeed facilitate calculations but introduce new variables and risks connected to the so called “black box syndrome”. New ideas have come to the forefront, such as: 1) innovation, 2) environmental comfort; 3) psychology; 4) urban impacts, 5) larger insertion of computer aided design tools and foremost 6) sustainability. This paper addresses some related questions: Has the accumulated knowledge on the creative process been applied in architecture and engineering formal education? Does user comfort deeply permeate design proposals? Must designers be made more accountable for their action? Can computers participate more effectively in the design process and its teaching? What kind of changes is needed in design education? Is the concept of sustainability clear in its application to building design? Reflexion on these questions indicates that the implementation of “green building design” cannot be simply prescriptive or based on a traditional design process with its distinct phases of: analysis, synthesis, evaluation and definition. There is a need to deepen the conceptual knowledge of designers of the first principles of sustainability. New team compositions are necessary to share the same knowledge and achieve what is termed collective intelligence. The information transfer rate must be rapid. Education should focus on the strategic, tactical and operational management of a sustainable building design process. Productivity and a recognized quality of sustainable solutions are among the questions that remain and should be studied in professional practice and in formal design education.

Index Terms  design and engineering education, sustainability, building design. INTRODUCTION Building design can be said to have two basic objectives, one is functional, permitting (mostly) human shelter necessities and the other is aesthetic, fulfilling extra-practical goals [1]. These two objectives are not always in total harmony, but have influenced the ideas that shaped buildings over time and are of concern in formal professional education of Architects and Civil Engineers, agents in the building process. According to Hearn [2] architectural ideas were based on principles and were the result of specific design processes. In the classical tradition, treatises were established as prescriptive conventions or rules for building types. Proportions influenced architectural spaces, their use or functions. Later the breaking of rules established an alternative aesthetics, but in itself, formal aspects of architecture continued to be of prime importance. Design processes on the other hand are concerned with problem solving, rather than adherence to rules. Methods became a driving force of architectural development from the 1800s, in line with scientific thought of the time. Rational design procedures were born. Concerns for a functional program emerged and studies on materials and the stability of structures became more prevalent.

With Viollet–le-Duc the design emerges as a generation of form from the inside out, giving importance to the section, in conjunction with the plan, to create an integral architectural form. This tradition continued with Frank Lloyd Wright, who frequently discussed the principles of plan making, based in his case, on an organically conceived design that fits into a specific natural setting. Thus context (nature) becomes a driving force or idea for design. New lifestyles influenced architectural design strongly. Informality and the rejection of social segregation created the open-plan design idea and with Le Corbusier, the fundamental form giver idea is the plan. Proportions are as well emphasized through the “Modulor” as a tool for composition. Modernist theories were created. Their assumption was that a building should communicate its plan to users from the exterior, manifesting the activities contained. From this, the overriding ideas of this architectural movement were: simplicity, clarity and honesty of form and predictability. Building design is thus primarily concerned about space. The failure of the modern movement, to address user needs, satisfaction and comfort, and the development of the building industry with mass produced components, demanded new ideas for architectural form. Since the 1970s the desire to apply scientific methods and concerns for users has sought to improve building design and its formal education. Research has since influenced design. Formal aesthetic, economic, functional, environmental comfort and psychology, as well as technical aspects of buildings are investigated. The development of stylistic ideas has continued in parallel to building design research. Many movements have proliferated in the last fifty years from: functionalism, rationalism, structuralism and the international style symbolized by the ubiquitous glass box, to post-modernism, brutalism, de-constructivism, blobism, etc... [3]. Autonomy of form has been part of many of such movements. In parallel to the quest for an increased scientific method to design, architectural education has changed in the last twenty years. Many schools demand that student designs be based on an adequate functional program with user comfort in mind and design methods have been introduced in both engineering and architecture curricula. Recently new ideas have come to the forefront, which demand rethinking the ways design occurs and is taught. There is a stronger need for innovation and more in-depth concern for environmental comfort and psychology. Computer Aided Design has radically changed the process of building design production and shown its influence on architectural forms generated. Foremost, building designs should be evaluated in relation to their urban and environmental impacts with the concept of sustainability becoming an important underlying idea in building design.

INNOVATION Innovation has been a driving force in the creative architectural process. For many professionals innovation is a prime goal, shunning repetition of ideas. Cookie cutter architecture is the symbol of all that is wrong with our present-day society: fast food, cheap throw-away products, etc. The objectives of creativity in building design should not be innovation for its own sake, but the search for new ways of solving problems in intelligent ways. The problems to be solved are the continuing basic goals of: finding appropriate forms for urban context and functional, technical and aesthetic requirements, with new environmental responsibilities coming from sustainability demands. To foster innovation the typical professional designer relies manly on the talent of the team members. In design education the question of creativity is considered an implicit factor. Due to this little emphasis is given to teaching methods that develop creative, independent and individual abilities in higher education [4]. Studies on the creative thought process have identified that it depends on characteristics of an individual: receptiveness or attitudes in search of innovative solutions, immersion into the problem at hand, dedication and motivation, questioning attitudes, analysis of ideas, especially flawed solutions [5]. The capacity to solve problems depends, as well, on two factors of cognition: repertoire (facts, principles, concepts) and heuristics of problem solving (systemization of insights). Creativity can be defined as a process of becoming sensitive to a question, to a flaw or a missing link in an area of knowledge. Innovation is the identification of difficulties and the formulation of hypotheses of such flaws to finally attain a solution, test it and communicate it to a wider audience. Interesting prospects present themselves with available methods that stimulate creativity for solving today’s design problems intelligently. Some methods come to mind: Serendipity, Brainstorming, Analogy, Design Combinations and Mutations, Design from First Principals and finally TRIZ [6]. These should be tested in the building design context and the teaching studio environment. Another important factor in stimulating creativity is the imposition of restrictions. In the building design process restriction are present

through codes, site conditions, costs to mention just a few. Although often seen negatively as impositions, they can be positive challenges to the flourishing of new ideas.

ENVIRONMENTAL COMFORT AND PSYCHOLOGY While creativity continues to have only informal importance, environmental comfort has become a mandatory subject in architecture schools with hands-on laboratory activities. In engineering schools the subject is introduced in basic science subjects and in some courses extracurricular activities may give emphasis on areas of urban climate, air-conditioning, room acoustics etc. In the profession as well, thermal, acoustic and lighting evaluations have become part of many design offices through the use of simulation tools and scientific consultations with specialists. Research has grown, but many building evaluations still demonstrate that designs often fail to anticipate user comfort. Evaluation tools however are not yet mandatory in most countries [7]. Difficulties of using data from simulations are the synthesis of scientific concepts with architectural form and the visualization of environmental comfort phenomenon in the typical design drawings [8, 9]. The ideas that have influenced design with climate in mind are strongly related to the overall form of buildings, and architects like Ken Yeang have applied these in innovative ways. For lighting a long, thin shape is advised to improve the distribution of natural illumination levels in functional spaces. Acoustic design demands careful choices regarding building form as well. Traffic noise can be negatively amplified through wrong decisions taken in siting a building or choosing an inappropriate shape. Urban questions as well impact architectural form with globalization demanding new insights on the appropriate regionalism in design. Also, urban densities need renewed reflections on building heights and the traffic verticalization may induce. Environmental psychology has found its way into design through interdisciplinary actions to increase user need awareness and through participatory processes. The concept of humanization of architecture presents ideas sensitive to user and community needs [10, 11]. In many architectural schools however this literature is often divorced from the mainstream studio discussions or rejected for being too prescriptive in relation to appropriate contemporary architectural forms. In Engineering schools such literature rarely enters the curriculum, although an effort has been made by many courses to give students a broader view with the introduction of multidisciplinary discussions, service education and obligatory subjects in the social sciences.

COMPUTER AIDED DESIGN Computers have been part of the design process for the last three decades, although often only as drafting tools. They have influenced architectural form, by allowing for more complexity. Computer based simulation tools on the other hand still require an input of simplified forms and thus have not had their full impact in most professional practices. Most of computer applications in the early stages of design are primarily concerned with formal aspects of design and do not explore fully the computer’s ability to store and retrieve information coming from the diverse design variables.

SUSTAINABILITY Sustainability as a design concept influences the shape of buildings in multiple ways. Studies on sustainability investigate the complex interactions between society and nature. Development footprint, construction density, impermeability rates, materials and soil conservation are typical sustainability indicators [12]. The complexity of sustainability affects not only the design solution but also the creative process, which needs new procedures, teams and support tools. Buildings need a longer life span, serving functional dynamics adequately without major wasteful reforms. Crucial to sustainability is user comfort, to avoid the introduction of inefficient, costly or questionable retrofits. Building service and infrastructure quality is vital through an integrated concept of design. Building materials can no longer be specified regarding traditional economic, aesthetic or maintenance questions. They must be analysed in relation to: building performance, life cycle costs, manufacturing impacts, precedence of raw materials and transportation questions. The design team must be geared to address the issues of sustainability in a holistic way during the building production and use process. Specialists should participate in the decision making process to direct design solutions toward a building product which is energy efficient, reduces water consumption, recycles waste, is site sensitive, climate conscious, addresses user needs and contributes positively to the landscape.

REFLECTIONS ON FORMAL EDUCATION AND THE PROFESSIONS The discussion of this paper started out acknowledging that the ideas that shaped buildings are no longer valid in a world with growing sustainability concerns. The implementation of “green building design” cannot be simply prescriptive or based on a traditional design process with its distinct phases of: analysis, synthesis, evaluation and definition. Design students and professionals need formal reflections on their design methods, through discussions of the literature at hand and experimentation of a taxonomy of tasks tested in the context of practice [13]. Building design is still an intuitive business, with outcomes depending on professional experience and talent. New compositions of design teams may alleviate subjectivity through participatory input of various expertises. Architects, engineers, special consultants and the users (and or clients) should work in collaboration during the whole building production and use process to bring forward the rich culture and history of various disciplines [14]. Some impositions from regulations and environmental impact assessments have incorporated more objective measures into the design decision-making process. Such impositions may be criticised as curtailing the creative process, but have in fact increased professional responsibility. However restrictions are seen as important aspects of the design process, in so far that studies on creativity have shown that limits are essential to the creative process [15]. The concept of sustainability adds an increasing number of concerns, such as future usability, quality of life and healing of present, often undesirable or inadequate, conditions. A largely subjective design method is no longer a safe means of achieving positive results efficiently. Designing is a form of problem solving and reasoning proceeds from objective and functional assessment to means or (product) design, but does not follow a formal scientific process in which, by deduction, one reaches a logical result from posed premises. To improve this process, creative methods should formally play part, to stimulate innovative solutions. Informal practices may cause sidestepping and missing opportunities. Brainstorming or other creativity methods, criticism and decision-making activities should intertwine with traditional design, drafting, prototyping and testing activities to provide the foundation for greater innovation and awareness in the sustainable building design process. There is a need to deepen the conceptual knowledge of designers on the first principles of sustainability. Architects are inclined to rely on their intuition rather than hard science when it comes to detailed decisions. Engineers on the other hand often rely on tried and existing solutions, with a certain reluctance to experimentation. New team compositions are necessary to make use of the positive aspects of both personalities. Also the new team should share the same knowledge and achieve what is termed collective intelligence, with an adequate level of coherence within a design team. The information transfer rate must be rapid to ensure that differences in the relevant knowledge among team members are small. Communication has to be cooperative and collaborative with a high level of coherence among individuals, where design participants learn to think and act more context oriented.

CONCLUSION The building construction industry is exposed to the pressures of the information society on a global level. There is a growing stock of information on building components and materials to be considered. Design teams are usually overwhelmed by the degree of communication and collaboration required to integrate this kind of knowledge. A high degree of transparency on the many related subjects, usually conducted by separate participants is therefore important. Design procedures should include the use of tools to stimulate innovation, set out goals, develop and analyse alternative proposals and direct a transparent decision making process. A recommended design team composition should involve experts from various fields (technical, social, artistic, business), ages, backgrounds and even cultures to enrich this process. As a final thought, the implementation of sustainable building design cannot be simply prescriptive or based on a traditional design process with its distinct phases of: analysis, synthesis, evaluation and definition. The ideas that should shape buildings, indicated above, should be incorporated into a sustainable building design process. Education should focus on the strategic, tactical and operational management of a sustainable building design process. Productivity and a recognized quality of sustainable solutions are contemporary goals of professional practice and formal design education. Many questions remain and should be studied both in building industry and in design schools.

REFERENCES [1]

Bertel, S.; Freksa C. & Vrachliotis, G., “Aspectualize and conquer in architectural design,” IN: Visual and spatial reasoning in design III, 2004, pp. 255-279.

[2]

Hearn, F., “The ideas that shaped buildings,” MIT Press, Campridge, Mass., 2003.

[3]

Van der Voordt, T.J.M. & van Wegen H.B.R., “Architecture in use: An introduction to the programming, design and evaluation of buildings,” Architectural Press, Amsterdam, Netherlands, 2005.

[4]

Alencar, E.M.L.S.; Fleith, D.S. “Inventory of educational practices that favour creativity in higher education level,” Psicol. Reflex. Crit., Porto Alegre, v. 17, n. 1, 2004.

[5]

Kneller, G.F., “Arte e ciência da criatividade,” Trad. J. Reis. São Paulo: IBRASA, 1978.

[6]

Altshuller, G. S., “Creativity as an exact science: the theory of the solution of inventive problems,” Translation A. Wiliams; Gordon and Breach, Netherlands, 1984.

[7]

Delbin, S.; Silva, V. G.; Kowaltowski, D.C.C.K.; Labaki, L.C., “Implementing building energy simulation into the design process: a teaching experience in Brazil.” IN: proceedings of PLEA2006, the 23rd Conference on Passive and Low Energy Architecture. Proceedings. Geneva, Switzerland, 2006, pp., 755 - 761.

[8]

Kowaltowski, D.C.C.K.; Labaki, L.C.; Pina, S. Mikami G.; Gutierres, G.C.R. and Gomes, V.S., “The Challenges of Teaching bioclimatic architectural design,” IN: Proceedings of International Conference: Passive and low energy cooling for the built environment, PALENC 2005, Santorini, Grécia, Vol 1., 2005, pp 327 – 332.

[9]

Kowaltowski, D.C.C.K., Labaki, L.C., Pina S.M.G. & Bertolli, S.R., “A Visualização do Conforto Ambiental no Projeto Arquitetônico,” IN: Proceedings of VII Encontro de Tecnologia do Ambiente Construído e Qualidade no Processo Construtivo, 2730 april, Florianópolis, SC, 1998, pp. 371-379.

[10] Alexander, C.; Ishikawa, S. & Silverstein, M. A., “A Pattern Language,” Oxford University Press, Nova York, USA, 1977. [11] Kowaltowski, D.C.C.K., “Humanização e Arquitetura,” IN: Projeto, No. 126, São Paulo, outubro, 1989, pp. 129-132. [12] Silva, V. G., “Avaliação da sustentabilidade de edifícios de escritórios brasileiros: diretrizes e base metodológica,” São Paulo: Escola Politécncia da USP. (thesis), 2003. [13] Bramford, G., “From analysis/synthesis to conjecture/analysis; a review of Karl Popper’s influence on design methodology in architecture,” IN: Design Studies, Elsevier Science Ltd., , 23, 2002, pp. 245 – 261. [14] Silva V. Gomes da, & Kowaltowski, D.C.C.K., “The Concept of Sustainability and its impact on the building design process,” IN: Proceedings of Engineering Sustainability 2007: Innovations that Span Boundaries, Pittsburgh, April 15 – 18, 2007, CD. [15] Boden, M. A. (org.), “Dimensões da Criatividade,” transl., Porto Alegre: Artmed Editora. 1999.