Research methods and techniques in architecture elxbieta danuta niezabitowska, routledge, 2018 scan

Constructing research approaches and methods is a highly creative act; Niezabitowska’s book is a highly creative presentation of how best to fashion research from the array of technique

“This book by Elżbieta Niezabitowska sums up valuable, long-term research devoted to the application of

scientific methods in architecture It is the first such work, contributing the discourse of Polish theoreticians

As a comprehensive and structured approach, it can be used by both young enthusiasts of space shaping

and mature researchers studying architectural problems.”

Jan Słyk, PhD , architect and Professor at Warsaw University of Technology, Poland

“Research Methods and Techniques in Architecture brings attention to the complexities of architecture and

of the designing process The variables of importance are bundled together The research approaches and

methods necessary to enhance the knowledge base of architects and all designers must be tailor-made to

deal with those complexities They cannot be simply borrowed from the sciences Elżbieta Niezabitowska

succinctly presents the reader with a forthright and rigorous description, explanation, and analysis of the

utility of the techniques available for developing theory and enhancing professional practice in the design

fields Constructing research approaches and methods is a highly creative act; Niezabitowska’s book is a

highly creative presentation of how best to fashion research from the array of techniques available and that

may have to be formulated so that they are appropriate to the tasks that designers face.”

Jon Lang , Emeritus Professor, Faculty of the Built Environment, University of New South Wales, Australia

“This overview of architectural research methods and the discussion of the complex and challenging

relationship between architectural design, architectural research and science is relevant in education,

research and practice Empirically tested theories, ex ante and ex post evaluations of designs and buildings,

research by design and design studies are all necessary input to evidence based design and to provide the

best possible fit with different interests and needs of clients, end users, and modern society.”

Theo J.M van der Voordt , Faculty of Architecture and the Built Environment, Delft University of Technology,

the Netherlands

A scientific approach to architectural and architectonic research from the scope of just one discipline is

no longer sufficient With contemporary considerations such as behavior, health, and environmental

protection, architects and students alike need holistic research methodologies that incorporate qualitative

elements as well as more traditional quantitative ones Research Methods and Techniques in Architecture

examines research methodologies and tools applied in science and architectonic practice Beginning with a

thorough introduction to the main scientific, environmental, and architectural theories of the late twentieth

century, the book guides the reader through the different aspects of architectural research design, building

research teams, choosing applicable research methods, and representing research results.

Elżbieta Danuta Niezabitowska is a retired professor associated with the Architectural Faculty at Silesian

University of Technology, Poland She has authored over 170 scientific papers She has supervised multiple

research grants, including one international She specializes in research methodology in architecture,

especially inter- and transdisciplinary research

Routledge titles are available as eBook editions in a range of digital formats

ELŻBIETA DANUTA NIEZABITOWSKA

Techniques in Architecture

A scientific approach to architectural and architectonic research from the scope

of just one discipline is no longer sufficient With contemporary considerations such as behavior, health, and environmental protection, architects and students alike need holistic research methodologies that incorporate qualitative elements

as well as more traditional quantitative ones Research Methods and Techniques

in Architecture examines research methodologies and tools applied in science and architectonic practice Beginning with a thorough introduction to the main scientific, environmental, and architectural theories of the late twentieth century, the book guides the reader through the different aspects of architectural research design, building research teams, choosing applicable research methods, and representing research results.

Elz˙bieta Danuta Niezabitowska is a retired professor associated with the

Architectural Faculty at Silesian University of Technology, Poland She has authored over 170 scientific papers She has supervised multiple research grants, including one international She specializes in research methodology in architecture, especially inter- and transdisciplinary research.

“The book by Elz·bieta Niezabitowska sums up valuable, long-term research devoted to the application of scientific methods in architecture It is the first such work, contributing discourse of Polish theoreticians As a comprehensive and structured approach, it can be used by both young enthusiasts of space shaping and mature researchers studying architectural problems.”

—Jan Słyk, PhD Architect, Professor, Warsaw University of Technology

“Research Methods and Techniques brings attention to the complexities of architecture and of the designing process The variables of importance are bundled together The research approaches and methods necessary to enhance the knowledge base of architects and all designers must be tailor-made to deal with those complexities They cannot be simply borrowed from the sciences Elz·bieta Niezabitowska succinctly presents the reader with a forthright and rigorous description, explanation, and analysis of the utility of the techniques available for developing theory and enhancing professional practice in the design fields Constructing research approaches and methods is a highly creative act; Niezabitowska’s book is a highly creative presentation of how best to fashion research from the array of techniques available and that may have to be formulated so that they are appropriate to the tasks that designers face.”

—Jon Lang, Emeritus Professor, Faculty of the Built

Environment, University of New South Wales

“This overview of architectural research methods and the discussion of the complex and challenging relationship between architectural design, architectural research and science is both relevant in education, research and practice Empirically tested theories, ex ante and ex post evaluations of designs and buildings, research by design and design studies are all necessary input to evidence based design and to provide the best possible fit with different interests and needs of clients, end users, and modern society.”

—Dr Theo J.M van der Voordt, Faculty of Architecture and

the Built Environment, Delft University of Technology.

and Techniques in

Architecture

© 2018 Taylor & Francis

The right of Elz˙bieta Danuta Niezabitowska to be identified as author of this work has been asserted by her in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

All rights reserved No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilized in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers.

Trademark notice : Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

A catalog record for this book has been requested

Foreword xi

Acknowledgments xv

Acronyms xvii

Introduction xix

1 The Relation Between Science, Theory of Architecture, and Practice 1

1.1 A Brief History of Architectural Development Perceived as a Practical Discipline 4

1.2 Causes of Development of Science in Architecture and Urban Planning 8

1.3 Drawbacks of Science in Architecture 9

1.4 Inter-, Multi-, and Transdisciplinarity of Architecture and Urban Planning 11

1.5 Architecture as a Science: Literature Overview 14

The Philosophical Reflection Trend: Literature Analysis 15

A Research Trend in Architecture Aimed at Perfecting Design Practice 20

Scientific Research Trend in Architecture 26

1.6 Scientific Theories in Architecture: Select Examples 31

The Environmental Theories That Influence the Creation of a New Paradigm of Architecture 32

The Environmental Design Theory of Jon Lang 40

Kevin Lynch’s Theory of the Urban Space Structure 43

The Theory of the Sign of Robert Venturi: Architecture as a Means of Communication 45

The Privacy Gradient and Oscar Newman’s “Defensible Space” Theory 46

Christopher Alexander’s Pattern Language: The Theory of Form Synthesis 51

The Theory of the Phenomenological Approach of Christian Norberg-Schulz 52

䊏 Contents

Stewart Brand’s Theory of Transitions and a Stratified

Construction of Architectural Objects 53

Select Theoretical Conceptions Pertaining to the Research on Space Structure 56

Conclusion 60

Notes 60

References 61

2 The General Image of Science 66

2.1 Introduction 66

2.2 Philosophy and Its Role in the Development of Science 73

2.3 Facts and Phenomena: Their Cognition and Interpretation 78

Philosophical Interpretation of Facts 79

Ideological Interpretation: Ideas and Doctrines 80

Interpretation of Facts in the Sphere of Practice 80

Scientific Interpretation 81

Looking at Facts and Other Phenomena in Architecture 82

2.4 The Processes of Mental Cognition 84

2.5 Requirements for Research Results 87

2.6 The Attitude of Scholars to Scientific Problems 88

Notes 92

References 92

3 Basic Notions Applied in Science 94

3.1 Defining of Notions in Science 94

3.2 Paradigm 96

3.3 Scientific Theories 98

Grounded Theory 100

3.4 Laws and Generalizations 102

3.5 Research Problem 102

3.6 Research Methods 104

Research Assumptions, Theses 106

Hypotheses 108

Research Questions 109

Dependent and Independent Variables in Empirical Research 110

3.7 The Comparison of Research Methods, Techniques, and Tools 111

References 111

4 Scientific Research in Architecture 113

4.1 The Aims of Research in Architecture 114

4.2 Review of Literature that Pertains to the Methodology of Research in Architecture 115

4.3 The Subject Matter and the Subject of Research in

Architecture 118

4.4 Scientific Research and Its Types 119

4.5 Expert Research Versus Participation Research 121

4.6 Methodology of Research Works and Its Component Parts 123

The Strategy for Conducting Research (Organization, Selection of Methods, Tools, and Research Techniques) 124

Research Tools 124

Research Techniques 125

Triangulation of Research 126

Monitoring in Scientific Research 127

Notes 128

References 128

5 Research Process Designing 130

5.1 Basic Steps in Research Process Designing 131

5.2 Building the Research Team 132

5.3 Implementation of Research Results 136

5.4 Research Financing 136

Notes 137

References 137

6 Research Methods Applied in Architecture 138

6.1 The Method of Logical Argumentation: An Analysis and Logical Construction 140

6.2 The Method Based on Historical–Interpretative or Interpretative Research 143

6.3 Experimental Research 148

6.4 The Method of Quantitative and Statistical Research 150

6.5 Modeling and Simulative Research 154

6.6 Qualitative Research 159

POE: A Special Variation of Qualitative Research in Architecture 168

6.7 Case Studies 173

6.8 Action Research Method: Interventional Research 180

6.9 Heuristic and Forecasting Methods 181

6.10 Mixed Methods 183

Notes 184

References 184

7 Research Techniques 188

7.1 Research Techniques and Research Methods 189

7.2 Research Techniques Applied in Architectural Scientific Research 189

Description, Explanation, and Interpretation 193

Literature Research, Analysis, and Critique 196

Field Trip, Walkthrough 197

Collecting Documents, Artifacts, Photographs, Drawings, etc 199

Measurements 200

Statistical Techniques and Surveys 200

Correlations 210

Comparative Studies 212

Scaling Techniques 217

Semantic Differential 219

Observations 221

Mapping 227

Sorting 228

Interviews 230

Focus Group Interviews 236

7.3 Research Techniques That Support Decision-Making Processes in Design and Strategic Development 238

Workshops 239

Adjacency Analysis 239

Modeling: Physical, Graphic, Virtual 239

Checklists and Scale Ratings 246

SWOT Analyses 247

Scenarios 251

Heuristic and Prognosis Research Techniques 254

Delphi Techniques 254

Brainstorming 255

Marketing Techniques 257

Summary of Forecasting Techniques 257

7.4 Pilot and Pretest 258

Notes 259

References 260

8 Practical Activities Connected with the Realization of Research 264

8.1 Design-Related Research 264

8.2 Tools for Recording Research Results 266

Description 267

Tables 267

Cross Tabulations/Matrices 268

Graphical Charts, Schemes, Diagrams 268

Graphical Models 272

8.3 Tools for Checking the Quality of a Built Environment 272

䊏 Contents

8.4 Techniques for Checking Credibility of the Results of

Research 276

8.5 Errors in Understanding, Errors in the Interpretation of the Results of Research 277

Notes 278

References 278

9 Conclusions 281

9.1 New Research Areas in Architecture 282

9.2 The Role of Professional Organizations in Science Development in Architecture 285

References 286

Appendix 1: Preamble, Title Page, Surveys, Authorization for the Interviewer 287

Appendix 2: The List of Research Tools Used When Checking the Quality of the Objects and Projects Based on Select Qualitative Criteria 292

Appendix 3: Questions in Surveys and Interviews 296

Appendix 4: Checklists of Quality Criteria for Nursing Homes for the Elderly 298

Appendix 5: A Comparison of Factors and Attributes That Influence the Total Wear of the Real Estate 302

Appendix 6: AEDET: General Issues 310

Bibliography 316

Index 327

This very book is the final effect of my scientific interests; therefore, I would like to dedicate it to my longtime co-workers and friends from the former Department of Designing Strategies and New Technologies in Architecture, who have continued to develop my passions at the Department of Design and Qualitative Research in Architecture, at the Faculty of Architecture of the Silesian University of Technology (Poland) under the supervision of Prof Klaudiusz Fross.

I hope that this textbook, while not entirely exhaustive, may be of assistance

to all those individuals to whom the need to develop science is obvious, in accordance with Pascal’s words: “Practice without theory is blind, theory without practice is dead.”

Architectural knowledge has always been complex and often difficult to grasp

in terms of its practice and academia (i.e disciplinarity, as well as transdisciplinarity) Nowadays, this kind of knowledge is even more complex and advanced, allowing for a competent response to the challenges following the creation of more ecologically oriented and user-friendly new physical environments.

inter-Already in the first century B.C., Vitruvius defined three basic quality criteria for architecture: firmitas, utilitas et venustas (strength, utility and beauty) Over the centuries, architects mostly addressed in their work the criterion of esthetic and style, depending on demands The functional requirements were defined through dialogue between the future owner and prospective user of the designed building, on the one hand, and the architect, on the other As building technology has developed over time, its more complex demands were addressed by various building technologies (construction engineering, installations, etc.) With the advent of the nineteenth century architects were confronted with new challenges of building for mass users (for instance, the prospective inhabitants of settlements for working classes) This new professional challenge demanded the development of knowledge about the needs of the yet-unknown users and about how these needs could be “translated” into singular buildings and urban settlements with regard to the existing fabric of the cities.

Yet, other needs for advanced knowledge appeared in the twentieth century New functional demands required insights and competencies for constructing new, more complex buildings for industry, offices, hospitals and other purposes, demanding new organizational and technological solutions Environmental psychology has supported architects in their search for a better understanding of the differentiated needs of users The phenomenological approach to architecture paved the way for a better understanding of the individual behavioral needs of people, besides the basic physiological and safety necessities (see, for example, the Maslow hierarchy of human needs).

In the recent decennia, new demands appeared with regard to mental protection, energy savings, building usage cost reductions and flexibility

environ-in adaptenviron-ing to the contenviron-inuous changes environ-in the demands and challenges of contemporary developments.

In the second part of the twentieth century, facility management became another way of regarding architecture The origins of this new field of knowledge are connected to the development of multi-spatial office buildings, but it addresses a broader spectrum of aspects Facility Managament guides the processes leading to reduction in maintenance costs, and it in turn deals with improving functionality and organizational programmes connected with spatial solutions, fit to various types of labour and executed by various individuals and groups.

New concepts of assessing the quality of buildings have been developed Among them, the most renowned and used is Post-Occupancy Evaluation (POE) It provides knowledgeable modes of evaluating a building through technical, organizational and economic criteria The insights, derived from such assessment investigations shed knowledge on: (i) how existing buildings function and the various needs of their users; (ii) functional programmes and the various needs of prospective buildings, and (iii) modernization proposals, including how to adapt existing buildings to new demands.

Computers opened new avenues in advancing programming and design processes Generic design, offering the possibility of including computers in design processes in an almost unlimited mode, has changed design processes

in a basic way.

Historically, design processes were based on the professional knowledge

of architects Nowadays, these processes have become more complex, and they tend to proceed in three stages The first is (i) developing functional programmes for building investments, with the participation of architects who are specialists within POE practice and research together with a multi- professional and multi-disciplinary team of various stakeholders (among them investors/clients, representatives of prospective users, facility managers, etc.) The second is (ii) generative project design, based on creating alternative versions, addressing complex technological, behavioral, functional, organiza- tional, and economic demands, and the third is (iii) completion of the project design by representatives of design professions (such as architects, designers, landscape architects, interior designers, etc.).

These developments in design practice call for educating a new generation

of designers who will also be prepared to become involved in investigations within so-called evidence-based design (EBD), in support of more traditional design processes.

The book at hand, Research Methods and Techniques in Architecture, is a manual, whose objective is to prepare students of architecture and design to engage in a knowledgeable way in various research methods and techniques, which in the near future can be useful for those architects who will work in programming and technical documentation in generative design It can be useful, as well, to architectural and design practitioners who already work within generative design Hopefully, it will be of interest to not only architects and designers, but also those who cooperate with them, i.e other stakeholders of

䊏 Foreword

the building processes who might wish to understand better how architects and designers work, which in turn could improve their cooperation on multi- professional teams.

Not only is this book an introduction to research methods and techniques used by architects and designers, but it also presents a broader historical and academic background of various relevant circumstances.

Halina Dunin-Woyseth Oslo School of Architecture and Design

The following textbook could not have come into being if it had not been for several people I was fortunate enough to meet along the way, as well as a series of events that influenced my way of thinking about architecture and science in architecture.

In particular, my work experience (on building sites and in design offices) contributed to my perception of architecture, which I developed later as part of

my didactic and professional activity at the Faculty of Architecture of the Silesian University of Technology in Gliwice, Poland Contacts with the outer world of the 1990s, especially participation in the Tempus Phare 1996–1999, titled Quality Assessment and Facility Management in Architecture, by the guidance of Prof Andrzej Niezabitowski, was a most important experiment in my life Cooperation together with the Architectural Faculty in Eindhoven (Prof A Wagenberg), in Gothenburg (Prof J Saks and Prof J Alin), the School of Business in Glasgow (Centrum FM, Prof K Alexander), as well as Hugh Anderson Associates, a design studio based in Glasgow, and finally a research company cooperating with Andreas van Wagenberg BV University of Technology in Eindhoven, helped shape my career path and accelerated my personal development Thanks to that experience and contact with the persons mentioned above, I was able

to see that architecture constitutes not only creation, but also a complicated, interdisciplinary process that leads to the development of an environment designed for human beings.

Thanks to the experience gained earlier, in 2000 I was able to take on

a post of a teacher of an entirely new subject called Research Methodology, which was initially based on POE, and then, as new knowledge was being mastered, also in a greater methodological scope, as depicted in the following textbook Some of these methods were also tested in various research projects (both as part of my own projects, the PolSenior project, as well as

an international project concerning Great Housing Developments of the Communism Period, of which I was in charge), and also as a result of my supervision over doctoral dissertations, as well as research of my co- workers from the Department of Design Strategies and New Technologies in Building.

All these experiences mean that I have devoted the last 20 years to the issues connected with the methodology used in architectural scientific research, which was used not only in my individual work, but also in didactics.

I would like to thank all my colleagues from the Faculty of Architecture at the Silesian University of Technology in Gliwice (Poland), and doctoral students whose individual and personal approach to methodological issues inspired me and helped me better understand them.

Scientific cooperation with Prof Adam Bartoszek, a sociologist, which started in the 1990s, was of significant importance to me, especially in the PolSenior project and an international project in cooperation with the Helmholtz Institute in Leipzig I would like to thank him for all his scientific and content- related support, as well as all his kindness.

Moreover, I would also like to express my gratitude to Prof Halina Woyseth from the Oslo School of Architecture and Design for taking note of the fact that science in architecture is not only interdisciplinary, but also trans- , hybrid-, and multidisciplinary I would also like to express my thanks for the literature I received, as well as all the support.

Dunin-Thanks are also due to all those people and publishers that provided material, illustrations, and copyright permissions These include:

Publishers: ArchNet IJAR Journal, Psychological Journal, Society for Psychology & Architecture, Scientific Society for Organisation and Manage- ment—Dom Organizatora Torun ́, THOTH Publisher, Wydawnictwo Politechniki Śla˛skiej (Publisher of Silesian University of Technology), Wydawnictwo Naukowe Slask (Slask Publisher), Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Ś la˛skiego (Publisher of University of Silesia).

Persons: Adam Bartoszek, Lisbet Birgersson, Piotr Błe˛dowski, Bartosz Czarnecki, Halina Dunin-Woyseth, Catharina Dyrssen, Michael Edén, Richard Foqué, Magdalena Jamrozik-Szatanek, Taeke de Jong, Beata Komar, Beata Kucharczyk-Brus, Katarzyna Kurzydło, Jon Lang, Yasser Mahgoub, Manfred Max-Neef, Andrzej Niezabitowski, Marek Niezabitowski, Frederic Nilsson, Elz˙bieta Pallado, Lena Simes, Michał Sitek, Michał Tomanek, Joanna Tymkiewicz, Barbara Urbanowicz, Theo van der Voordt, Herman van Wegen, Magdalena Z˙mudzińska-Nowak.

Thanks are due to my daughter Ewa Niezabitowska for preparing most of the figures in graphical form, and Jacek Łyson ́ for translation of my book into English.

Special thanks should also be extended to my dear husband, Prof Andrzej Niezabitowski, for all consultations, conversations, and support, as well as impressive historical knowledge and a highly humanistic approach to issues connected with architecture.

䊏 Acknowledgments

ABSIC Advanced Building Systems Integration Consortium AEDET Achieving Excellence Design Evaluation Toolkit

ANFA Academy of Neuroscience for Architecture

ANOVA analysis of variance

A&P architecture of persuasion

ASPECT A Staff and Patient Environment Calibration Toolkit BiU Building-in-Use

BPE building performance evaluation

BQA building quality assessment

BREEAM Building Research Establishment Environmental

EBD evidence-based design

EBS environment behavior studies

EDRA Environmental Design Research Association

EIA Environment Impact Assessment

EuroFMNetwork European Facility Management Network

FSA Functional Suitability Assessment

HOOP Home Options for Older People

IADL Instrumental Activities of Daily Living Scale

IAPS International Association of People-Environment Studies IFHP International Federation for Housing and Planning IFMA International Facility Management Association

ISOVIST architectural spatial analysis called isovist theory

LCA Life Cycle Assessment

LEED Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design

LSA Land Suitability Assessment

MCA Multiple Correspondence Analysis

MCS multiple case studies

ORBIT Organization, Buildings, and Information Technology ORI Office of Research Integrity

PBAP&MM Physical Building Audit Procedures and Maintenance

Management

PE fit person–environment fit

POE Post-Occupancy Evaluation

PolSenior Medical, psychological, sociological, and economic

aspects of aging in Poland—project no

PBZ-MEIN-9/2/2006

REN Real Estate Norm

SECI socialization, externalization, combination, internalization SIA Social Impact Assessment

SPSS Statistical Package for the Social Sciences

SSA Space Syntax Analysis

STM Serviceability Tools and Methods

SWOT strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats

UD Universal Design

VIA Visual Impact Assessment

䊏 Acronyms

Writing a book on research works methodology in architecture has been a great challenge and a risk to the author It is a result of two principal reasons: on the one hand, architecture, a mainly practical activity due to poor development of scientific theories in architecture, finds itself in a pre-paradigmatic stage as

a science; on the other hand, a significant part of architects’ environment negates the existence of science in architecture A significant part of architectural circles is of the opinion that architecture is only an art, and is not subject to any scientific rigors, does not require research, and hence does not require any methodology Scientific attitude is more often expressed by architects of Northern Europe (the UK, the Netherlands, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Germany) and the US than architects of Southern parts.

Such an attitude, popular among a major group of the architectural environment, is not justifiable, especially in times of rapid development in science The second half of the twentieth century brought along an extension

in the understanding of architecture by environment-behavior studies, which is connected with human needs within a built environment As a result, the art of shaping the space leads to the necessity of including behavioral needs in architectonic design, which has also been recorded in the guidelines of the EU concerning the program of architectonic studies.

In tandem with a great development of knowledge on the built environment created by other architecture-related disciplines, there is also a need for not only assimilation of such knowledge in practical actions, but also the necessity for creating science for the purposes of architecture—a discipline of scientific knowledge, as well as the formation of a methodology of research that supports both the development of science—”studies on architecture” or “arteology,” and the workshop of a practical designer Such a view is present in subsequent parts of the book, a study on scientific and didactic circles in the US, Canada, the Netherlands, Finland, Norway, Sweden, the UK, and Australia.

This book, originally a textbook for adepts in architecture, does not aspire

to show a complete image of scientific issues in architecture, nor is it supposed

to create its paradigm Challenges the author set out to meet include:

• Presentation of correlations between practice and theories.

• Presentation of bases for a scientific workshop per se, that is, an explanation

of basic notions used in research methodology.

• Presentation of several levels of science realized in architecture, a practical level in the form of ex ante research and a scientific one in ex post research

on buildings and the built environment, creation of scientific theories, and generalizations based on research (conducted on the basis of facts), as well as philosophical reflections over the significance of ideas that emerge and are realized in practice.

• Detailed elaboration of methods and tools applied at the research level, which is a part of science, developed in order to enrich designing tech - niques.

The basic problem with the classification of architecture as science is the issue

of building a paradigm of architecture as a science and a collection of its theories

The traditional theory of architecture, which refers merely to ideologic assumptions applied in designing, and discussed as part of the history of architecture, refers to views on architecture expressed by great individuals who created their own “theories–doctrines” on the topic of principles of artistic shaping of buildings, which are often inconsistent, such as the famous sayings

“horror vacui” and “less is more” (Mies van der Rohe), as well as “less is a bore” (Venturi).

The history of architecture is, traditionally, connected with a debate on the works of specific architects, extraordinary works, their comparison, and a description of characteristics that pertain to works of a given style However, significant scientific theories connected with architecture of a local type came into being on the basis of research, completed by researchers coming from different disciplines, such as “behavioral setting” by Roger Barker or other architects using notions from psychology, sociology, and other cognitive theories such as “pattern language” put forth by Christopher Alexander or a semiotician— Robert Venturi—”complexity and contradiction,” mental maps and imagebility

by Kevin Lynch, as well as “defensible space” by Oscar Newman.

These important notions are only perfunctorily touched upon by the author due to the need for providing some explanations of the significance of elements

of architectonic traditions and the variables of its paradigms, dictated by changes

to architectonic styles, in the entire development of architecture as a science and practical activity The main focus is put on methods and research tools implemented in both ex ante and ex post research These methods and tools, however used in science, must be adjusted to the needs of such a multi- and transdisciplinary discipline as architecture.

䊏 Introduction

Theory of Architecture, and

of mutual and developing contacts between theory and practice The statement made by famous architect Peter Eisenman—which is radically artistic—does not accept the possibility of science interfering with architecture as an artistic discipline only This view is quite popular among architects, and it significantly impedes the development of scientific theories, as well as the search for objective knowledge on the developed environment, and it questions the funda- mental responsibilities of an architect in relation to society for negative effects

of a solely artistic approach to the construction of an architectonic and urban environment that can significantly influence the quality of life of societies and individuals Architecture came into being as a practical discipline, and just like other engineering sciences must be based on the achievements of both practice and science The artistic element is important from the perspective of environ - mental psychology, and it may not be negated, but at the same time it may not play a dominating role, putting aside the principles of engineering art and usability principles that are based on knowledge.

Science comes into being as a result of a specific dichotomy between practical operations and a broader reflection upon their significance Reflection upon the world gave rise to philosophy, which in turn gave rise to all sciences

and doctrines If a specific scientific branch is to be developed, however, practical operations supplemented with mere philosophical reflection are not sufficient If one wishes to use practical knowledge in a broader manner, scientific research, which makes it possible to gather information that can be generalized and applied in similar practical operations in the future, will be needed.

This constitutes an outline and an enormous mental shortcut that can represent the history of development of all scientific disciplines, the progress

of which occurred in cooperation with practice, research, and their generalization, but at the same time it is impossible to differentiate between cause and effect With respect to the wealth of knowledge gathered over the years of develop ment in civilization, science was divided into disciplines in antiquity, and these disciplines branched out separately, creating their own research principles, often referred to as research methods, which always make it possible to reach the same practical effect within specified scopes Mature sciences possess an established scientific paradigm—a set of basic symbols, a specific language, laws and theories, etc If the scientific development of a given discipline causes the previous basis of the scientific paradigm to be questioned, then, according

to Thomas Kuhn, one is dealing with the so-called scientific revolution and a transformation of the paradigm 1

In architecture, a discipline not yet firmly established, a problem arises connected with the specification of the paradigm, the cohesion of which is still doubtful.

Problems concerning the relation between theory and practice have a long history, and their presentation is not the aim of this study Nevertheless, it is worth presenting the latest ideas in this scope, generally accepted in the last decades.

Toward the end of the twentieth century, Ikujiro Nonaka and Hirotaka Takeuchi (1995), two Japanese management specialists, built a science devel -

op ment model—SECI 2 —in which they presented the transition from tacit knowledge to explicit knowledge Tacit knowledge comes into being during practical operations, at the place of work, while explicit knowledge is developed

at research centers and at universities Practical knowledge, which is a result

of practical operations at the workplace and in the process of socializing 3 and externalization, 4 as well as a combination of these, allows the creation of new scientific knowledge This knowledge, scientifically approved, is then spread over the world, while the implementations based on it permeate back to practice, where after accumulation and processing they create a new lexicon

of knowledge for further intellectual reflection This model was designed to control the management of firms, and it perfectly shows the processes that take place in the creation of knowledge per se, in direct contact with practice.

In the process of knowledge internalization and within the scope of developmental and implementation works, new practical and operational knowledge comes into being, which may be applied at the workplace On the

䊏 Science, Theory of Architecture, and Practice

basis of the conception presented above, which was put forth by Nonaka and Takeuchi, one may distinguish four basic levels of science development (see Figure 2.1 in Chapter 2), which range from the practical and scientific level to the implementation level.

In architectural design, one can also observe a two-way flow of information and knowledge between practice and theory.

Figure 1.1 presents the spiral of knowledge in architecture based on the environmental approach devised by Jon Lang, in which architectural knowledge transitions between positive theory (the one creating scientific knowledge) and normative knowledge created in the process of work, that is, in the process of designing The knowledge development model in architecture was created earlier by John Zeisel in 1981, and it was presented in the book entitled Inquiry

by Design Zeisel shows that practice is a place where new solutions proposed

on the basis of quality research are tested and are performed on existing buildings The solutions that are practical are spread, while the inappropriate ones are eliminated.

Attempts at eliminating the artificial conflict between the practical approach and the scientific one were made by the authors of Ways to Study and Research (de Jong and van der Voordt, 2005), by way of a presentation of the mutual relations and strong connections between practice and scientific research A similar standpoint is taken by Richard Foqué from the University of Antwerp, Belgium, in his book entitled Building Knowledge in Architecture (2010), in which he explains the understanding of architecture as a scientific discipline, practice, and art (see Figure 1.2).

All three approaches presented by Foqué give rise to a future world based

on the existing one; however, the approach to all the three seemingly alien worlds is different, as characterized by the questions raised by researchers (how things are), by designers (how things could be), and by artists (how I see things) Answers may vary, but they all lead to the creation of new technology, new designs, and new artistic interpretations Designing consists of being able

to connect these three seemingly distinct manners of perceiving the new reality

EXPERTISE

BASIC RESEARCH WORKS DEVELOPMENTAL INTRODUCTORY

PRODUCED KNOWLEDGE

INTERCHANGE INFORMATION FLOW

AREA OF POSITIVE THEORY WORKING

AREA OF NORMATIVE THEORY WORKING

Figure 1.1

The spiral of

knowledge in

architecture

This model refers to architecture, but at the same time the first two

columns, which are connected with the relationship between science and

design, refer to all technical sciences aimed at basic research, as well as

practical realization and implementation.

1.1 A BRIEF HISTORY OF ARCHITECTURAL DEVELOPMENT

PERCEIVED AS A PRACTICAL DISCIPLINE

The art of construction has accompanied humanity since the very beginning,

practically since the times of caves, when humans searched for shelter for

protection against the outside world Developing the interior and protecting the

entrance were the first operations connected with building Depending on

the climate, humans were able to survive in lean-tos or mud huts before they

learned to use stones and rocks as building materials and bricks made from

clay Along with the advent of more and more novel materials, they had to

䊏 Science, Theory of Architecture, and Practice

Observation

Facts Visions Beliefs Reflection Interpretation Expression

Unique and Not Repeatable Contextual

Coincidental

Testing Pointless

Individual Synergic Questioning Confronting Visionary Communicative

Artistic Interpretation

THE FUTURE WORLD

Figure 1.2

Comparison of scientific research, research on design and artistic operations

Source: Foqué (2010,

p 44, Figure 1.2.2)

perfect their building technique by trial-and-error methods, implementing the principles of structural analysis by way of intuition and practice.

Together with the development of science, the art of building gets support first in surveying, then in representation (of figures), and finally in static calculations, thanks to which architecture has acquired the possibility of operating vast spaces without supports The next step in improving the conditions inside buildings was the development of sanitary and environmental engineering, which made it possible to modify the microclimate of interiors according to needs Another step forward that delineated the direction of the research on the built-up environment was connected with saving energy and with implementing intelligence inside buildings.

As one may learn from such a shortened presentation of the development

of the building art, architects during the whole term of the development of modern architecture diminish the scope of competence concerning unassisted construction of buildings Each step in the development of sciences that support the processes of building causes new scientific and practical specialties to arise from architecture, and so at the turn of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries constructional engineering became distinct, and a little bit later related types

of engineering came into being At the end of the twentieth century, facility management appeared and took over the functional and spatial programming

in real estate It had the authority to look after the interests of users in the process of creating new built environments New areas of environmental research, such as geography, sociology, and either environmental or architectural psychology, have had a significant influence on the development of knowledge

in architecture At present, due to the influence of the informational revolution and modern designing tools, people are dealing with generative and parametric design.

Since the times of Marcus Vitruvius, the features of architecture have been defined as firmitas (solid), utilitas (utility), and venustas (beauty), transposed into construction, function, and form by Le Corbusier for the sake of associating

Figure 1.3

The colligation of

the Vitruvian triad

with the triad in a

this with a balanced development in which durability stands for ecology, usability stands for economy, and beauty stands for the satisfaction of social and cultural needs of humanity (see Figure 1.3) As a result, a broadly defined element of social needs was added to the values that are expected of architecture Having analyzed the aforementioned features, one may claim that architects are no longer liable for the durability of buildings—this is something that constructors as well as building materials specialists deal with They deal with usability, but to a limited extent, since this duty is more and more frequently directed at functional and spatial programming specialist and facility managers Some of the formal issues connected with artistic aspects in architecture have not been fully specified yet, or could not have been fully defined, as they are subject to current trends.The developing neurobiology gives rise to questions that may indicate new research areas aimed at architecture, especially when it comes to the last component part of architecture, which is the beauty in the context of human needs within this scope (Eberhard, 2008) In the research on the connections between the build of the human brain and the way architecture

is perceived by people, one has to ascertain whether there are solid preferences that should be taken into consideration in designing when it comes to this sphere of esthetic needs and spatial order.

When it comes to the problems of designing, the problem of beauty and spatial order, as well as the problem of meeting requirements, is connected with a broader scope of the depiction of design operations, namely the user of the built environment Some practice architects declare that the implementation

of the needs of users is not important, but only the possibilities of architects’ artistry Such a view will evoke surprise, in view of the fact that:

• Buildings are created by labor of the hands, which is indispensable for all contemporary individuals, and these buildings are not only residential, but are also workplaces, hospitals, schools, and other objects of social use that serve a specific function and were erected so that they could serve a given purpose As a result, buildings that are artistic but do not meet the require - ments of the occupants/users in terms of usability are deemed socially useless and harmful Moreover, they generate extra costs and may pose serious threats to the lives and well-being of the people who live in them Hence, they are not in accordance with the principles of a sustainable development.

• Buildings are some of the most expensive artifacts created by humankind (although there are many more expensive objects, such as airplanes), and they, just like other things, should meet needs, and not just serve as monu - ments This is a logical effect of the market activity, where a product must have its purchaser or else it will be deemed unnecessary and will be demolished.

• As the design of a building is always commissioned to a specific architect

by a specific user or his or her representative, against remuneration, they

䊏 Science, Theory of Architecture, and Practice

have the right to demand that the building meet their usable and esthetic expectations This means that the architect’s vision does not always accord with the needs of the investor, nor with the general public, who not only will have to look at the building on a daily basis, but will also have

to use it.

In this context, the arrogance and nonchalance of architects who always try to impose their artistic visions on society may come as a surprise Hence, a question arises: Where does such a view in the architects’ community come from?

Not so long ago, an architect designed his works solely for the client, who defined his or her needs and set the requirements Since the nineteenth century, people have been dealing with a new phenomenon, mass construction, which includes, above all, patronal as well as residential and cooperative estates They are built and have been built for an anonymous user Publicly usable buildings are created for organizations, which in turn are built for numerous groups of users who often present different needs, which must be sustainable when it comes to the project (e.g the need for low building costs and maintenance versus the need for comfortable working conditions in the office) Architecture is a highly marketable profession in which success is measured

by the amount of contracts and by the quality of the previous products of the provider, such as buildings that gained the respect of the general public or a specific group of users This point indicates the course of action for the research activities and interests of architecture The environmental approach, which depicts users’ needs in a broader sense, constitutes a certain challenge of the second half of the twentieth century (Lang, 1987; Preiser et al., 1988) This approach gave rise to the creation of the aforementioned modern profession con cen trated on the user, which is referred to as facility management The traditional process of designing includes phases related to the shaping of a built environment through the trial-and-error method, the copying of accepted models, and the modification of accepted solutions (see Figure 1.4).

Figure 1.5 presents an extended scheme of the design process in which, apart from a reality observation, an important role is played by the personal knowledge of the designer, as well as his or her interpretation of this know - ledge, advances in science that consist of an examination of an existing built environment, implementation of the knowledge stemming from usage, typology

REALITY OBSERVATION, SHAPING OF PATTERNS BY WAY OF TRIAL-AND-ERROR METHOD

ADDITION OF NEW ELEMENTS

EXPERIMENT / TEST

Figure 1.4

Traditional design

process

building, ordering the knowledge, and evaluating the effects of its practical

application.

A comparison of Figures 1.4 and 1.5, which present a traditional method

of designing and a contemporary diagram, shows that there are currently

numerous domains in designing that may develop only on the basis of verified

scientific knowledge This refers to the new knowledge that pertains to the

society and its expectations (brief, using), typology, and a constant testing of

currently made objects in terms of meeting more and more refined usability

criteria, including technical and environmental.

1.2 CAUSES OF DEVELOPMENT OF SCIENCE IN ARCHITECTURE

AND URBAN PLANNING

Architects may mistake, life never.

Le Corbusier

Having observed the development of architecture as a practical discipline, one

may claim that there have always been questions provoking the development

of science:

• The choice of a building plot provoked questions concerning climatic, soil,

water, and physiographic conditions Collecting data concerning the issues

at hand allows the next generations of architects to make locational

decisions consciously.

• The specification of the size of the building required further development

of knowledge connected with surveying, as well as familiarity with the

users’ needs.

• Stability and safety of the construction, one of the most basic technical

issues concerning the realization of architecture, was a cause of

develop-ment of structural analysis.

• Function layout was initially dominated by constructional possibilities and,

along with the development of new constructional and building materials,

as well as the knowledge on the topic of the possibility of overlapping,

䊏 Science, Theory of Architecture, and Practice

Figure 1.5

Schematic presentation of the design process

today it provides people with far greater possibilities of a constraint-free layout of the interior than at the beginning of the development.

• The appearance of the building constitutes, in simple terms, the basis and the core of architecture; it has its own dimension that is not only artistic (the main source of doctrines is difficult to be scientifically verified at the develop - ment stage), but also social and cultural Knowledge of anthropology and of culture studies is developing on the basis of a tendency analysis, as well as the influences coming from the shaping of local and global styles and cultural diversity.

• Location of the building within the structure of the city leads to research connected with planning and the development of urban areas.

The most difficult part of the scientific discourse, which pertains to the problems

of esthetics of the building, is starting to develop on the basis of physiology, which will make it possible in the future to find answers to some rudimentary questions as to why some shapes and artistic solutions fascinate

neuro-us and some do not, and how it is connected with the build of the brain and how predictable these reactions might be.

The construction of the basis of architectural morphology is a key element

in further research within this scope, and this is what Andrzej Niezabitowski undertook to elaborate on in his literary works, such as O budowie przestrzennej dzieła architektury, Podstawy metodologiczne opisu, analizy i systematyki układów przestrzennych (Spatial Construction of a Work of Architecture, and Methodological Basis of a Description, Analysis and the Systems of Spatial Lay- Outs) (1979), “Architectonics: A System of Exploring Architectural Forms in Spatial Categories” (2009), and On Spatial Structure of Architectonic Objects: The Basics of General Spatial Morphology in Architecture (2017).

The rapid technical and technological civilization development, which is forever complicating our social life, especially the development of information science, as well as increasing demands of sustainable development, generate new research-related challenges in architecture It seems that if architecture, treated as an independent discipline that deals with the spatial shaping, is to survive, it will soon have to join the general research level that has been present for years in similar disciplines, such as civil engineering, environmental engineering, and information science, and it will also have to join the level of social sciences that gave rise to a series of important discoveries within the scope of architectural psychology and environmental sociology Generative and parametric design also poses a new challenge, which in the next 10 years may change the approach to architectonic design.

1.3 DRAWBACKS OF SCIENCE IN ARCHITECTURE

Architecture still seems to be stuck in the pre-paradigmatic phase, which leads

to some disadvantageous phenomena that hinder the development of this

discipline, also as a scientific one, due to a one-sided focus on the development

of designing practice According to Pentii Routio, a Finnish researcher, these disadvantageous phenomena that hinder the development of science include:

• basing on “honored” authorities, whose theorems resemble dogmatic nature and which cannot be criticized per se, especially the ones that were tested empirically, which would be impossible, because the method of formulating these theorems excludes that;

• using research methods which do not possess a high level of verification, which makes an unlimited freedom of interpretation possible;

self-• avoiding definitions of notions that are conscientious and precise; and

• avoiding the use of mathematical models, which really hinders a quantitative formulation of phenomena, and consequently a scientific description and comparison.

(Niezabitowski, 2010, pp 158–159)

The history of architecture connected with the history of art is considered to be the most scientifically advanced sub-discipline A genuine, solid, and well- established scientific technique of the history of art, which has been devel op - ing since the Enlightenment, is a strong point of this sub-discipline Its weak point, on the other hand, is undoubtedly connected with limiting architectonic problems mainly to artistic aspects, along with the omittance of other issues, essential to architecture, such as technical and functional as well as social and cultural aspects Moreover, the methods applied in research on artistic objects are becoming more and more insufficient, especially when it comes to research

on objects that are complex and perform complicated functions just like architectonic objects.

In an article cited above, Niezabitowski (2010, pp 159–160) concludes that: The capital of knowledge accumulated to date and the application of research methods taken from various disciplines makes it possible to examine phe - nomena and architectonic processes from many different, complementary angles connected with anthropology, psychology, sociology, semiotics etc., where historical perspective is just one of the many possibilities The aforementioned capital of knowledge seems to be closing in on the critical mass which should initiate the creation of a separate discipline which would concentrate on the research on phenomena and the processes of how architecture is created, how it develops and what social interaction it brings, which above all is connected with the problem of quality The concept of a built-up environment, which is much broader in scope than architecture and urban planning but at the same time it is able to cover both concepts, is becoming a key notion when it comes to the domain of research currently being discussed.

䊏 Science, Theory of Architecture, and Practice

He also states that:

Nevertheless, this research should be fused into one discipline, which could provisionally be referred to as architecture studies or even science of archi - tecture—keeping in mind that the name itself is not the most important issue right now.

The scientific capital which has been gathered to date, concerning architecture and urban planning seems to indicate that the classic Vitruvian triad: solidity, solid (firmitas), usefulness, utility (utilitas), beauty (venustas), maintaining in its most basic sense its timeliness, requires, however, a sig nifi - cant extension and more detail in the scope of areas and research domains essential to understanding architecture.

The need for creating an interdisciplinary science paradigm in architecture is justified by taxonometric classification adopted in many countries as the basis

of formulation of guidelines in the scope of architectonic didactics, as well as

in professional practice, and especially in certification procedures that formally confirm the qualifications of the candidates to practice a profession in Art 3 of the European Directive on Architecture 85/384/EEC This taxonomy was introduced by Dutch architecture researchers Thijs Bax and Henk Trum of the Technical University in Eindhoven (Bax and Trum, 1994), who distinguished 12 thematic disciplines of architecture, which were later called concepts or sub- disciplines These concepts are shown in Table 1.1.

1.4 INTER-, MULTI-, AND TRANSDISCIPLINARITY OF

ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN PLANNING

The disciplines of science create a specific system of knowledge in which, on the one hand, there are subsystems that are concentrated on narrow issues; and on the other hand, these subsystems are open to related disciplines due

to the fact that numerous issues (scientific, technical, or social) cannot be solved in the scope of these narrow perspectives linked to individual specialties

or domains of the research Problems that are beyond disciplinary in their nature and require that fragmentary research perspectives be linked often come into being This is the first common approach to interdisciplinarity.

Table 1.1 Thematic domains: concepts of the discipline of architecture

(1) General architectonic domain (7) Temporal

(2) Cultural (8) Social

(3) Professional (9) Economic

(4) Scientific (10) Usability

(5) Artistic (esthetic) (11) Stability-related

(6) Morphological (formal) (12) Feasibility-related (makability) Source: Adapted from Bax and Trum (1994)

Nowadays, the natural process of integration, systematization, and

unifica-tion of different disciplines of knowledge is visible along with a progressive and

rapid development of science This process is manifested by the increase in

connections that are characterized by interdisciplinarity, 5 multidisciplinarity, 6 and

transdisciplinarity, 7 the creation of new para-disciplines and hybrid disciplines

that come into being as a result of linking a few areas into a new discipline of

science.

Architecture—a scientific and practical discipline—seems to be a system

that is intrinsically connected with interdisciplinarity Being familiar with the

current developmental trends of science, one may claim that architecture is an

interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary domain that utilizes knowledge coming

from the following areas:

• technical science (statics, materials science, building installations, systems

of automatic building control, etc.);

• economy (usefulness and functionality);

• ecology (energy saving, natural environment protection); and

• social studies (the needs of users that are both physical, including health

and safety, and mental, along with social, cultural, and spiritual).

Moreover, it links knowledge on the process of shaping the built

environ-ment on three different scales: architectonic, urban, and spatial planning (see

Figure 1.6).

Architecture, by virtue of its connections with technology, belongs to a

group of technological sciences characterized by its practical nature, which

means that all research operations are focused, above all, on perfecting practices

connected with design, execution, and utilization Due to the fact that a human

being is the subject of all design operations in architecture, the significance

of social research is becoming more and more recognizable, especially in

䊏 Science, Theory of Architecture, and Practice

SPATIAL

POLITICS

BUILT ENVIRONMENT

HEALTH & SAFETY

FORM & MEANING

USERS’ NEEDS FUNCTIONALITY USERS’ NEEDS

ENERGY SAVING

DURABILITY (CONSTRUCTION)

BEAUTY (FORM)

USERS’ NEEDS PHYSICAL, PSYCHOLOGICAL, SOCIAL, CULTURAL, MENTAL

NEW TECHNOLOGICAL

Multidisciplinarity of architecture: the connection of technological sciences, economy, ecology, and social sciences in the process of sustainable development

terms of psychology and environmental sociology, and it is focused on meeting the needs of a human being in a built environment Economic aspects are an equally important element of research on architecture, just like the processes

of planning, programming, designing, and construction contracting, as well as the exploitation of architectonic objects and urban units.

It should be stated that both architecture and urban planning are domains

of interdisciplinary, multidisciplinary, and transdisciplinary knowledge that link together technical and humanistic sciences, as well as social and economic ones characterized by both science and practice, and which require implemen- tations on various levels of management and politics What is more, architecture, treated as a domain of practical knowledge, exhibits the necessity of including elements of science coming from different domains that are not strictly related

to architecture, such as management, hygiene, medicine, etc Architecture is a multilevel domain that develops on the scientific, practical, design, and artistic level Hence, the close relationship with art, with the visual arts to be precise,

is often seen as a form of practical activity and constitutes an important element

hybrid one inside

the area of dialog of

The problem concerning transdisciplinarity and the multifacetedness of architecture and urban planning is a subject of interest for European scientists Halina Dunin-Woyseth and Frederic Nilsson, scientists of the School of Architecture and Design in Oslo and Chalmers University of Technology Department of Architecture in Gothenburg, elaborated a model for creating transdisciplinary knowledge in architecture, and they presented it in the article

“Some Notes on Practice-Based Architectural Design Research” (2008) They define the research and practice area as synergetic, multidisciplinary, and hybrid, directed at transdisciplinary research (see Figure 1.7).

The concept of transdisciplinarity in architecture and urban planning presented by Dunin-Woyseth and Nilsson corresponds to the concept of science and research in architecture in a close relation to design practice, presented in the aforementioned book by de Jong and van der Voordt (2005), as well as van der Voordt and van Wegen’s Architecture in Use (2005).

1.5 ARCHITECTURE AS A SCIENCE: LITERATURE OVERVIEW

When referring to the analysis of architecture as a science, it must be stated that it is a relatively young science in which the basic paradigm is still under construction, and, what is more, the acknowledgment that knowledge on archi - tecture as a science still encounters strong resistance in the circle of architecture practitioners–designers, and also, partially, in the circles that deal with teaching The differentiation of the problem of architecture, that is, “the science about architecture,” which is concentrated on the theory seen as a clarification and

a description, as well as “the science in architecture,” which concentrates on the applications of theoretical knowledge in practice, should be stressed at this point.

From a historical standpoint, since the dawn of time, literature that accom panies the architectonic practice has been developing, with literature that pertains to practical problems (e.g Palladio, 1965; Vitruvius, 1914) and esthetic aspects of architecture (e.g Giedion, 1949; Jencks, 1980) The knowledge of the history of architecture arose from this trend, and this type of knowledge does not give rise to any objections in the architectonic environment.

-In spite of all the existing objections in the architectonic environment when

it comes to the approval of the scientific trend in architecture, a greater need for reflection has accompanied the development of architecture, and it is still developing today One can notice a few main trends in this reflection, which led to the creation of the so-called theory of architecture They include:

• Architectonic literature analysis from the earliest times (from the time of Vitruvius, at the turn of antiquity and the new era), to modern times, closely related to the history of architecture, style analysis, and the design workshop.

䊏 Science, Theory of Architecture, and Practice

• Putting contemporary knowledge in order and an attempt at specifying what theory in architecture is, and a classification of the trends of its development.

• Research trends that favor ex post (existing, built) and ex ante (devoted to perfecting the design skills) research in architecture.

• Research trends directed at the creation of scientific knowledge about and

in architecture, that is, working out the principles and rights that govern the whole construction of the built environment and the interrelations with human behaviors and needs, as well as culture and environmental protection.

These trends each have their representatives in various circles around the world, and are consistently being developed in this day and age (namely in the last 20 years of the twentieth century and the first years of the twenty-first century).

The Philosophical Reflection Trend: Literature Analysis

In the first trend of the architectonic literature analysis, from a historical standpoint, much importance is attached to the anthology of literature prepared and edited by Harry F Mallgrave in 2006 entitled Architectural Theory: An Anthology from Vitruvius to 1870 This book provides an overview of theoretical literature that pertains to architecture dating back to antiquity, the Middle Ages, the Renaissance, baroque, and classicism (French and British), through neoclassicism and the Enlightenment, the theory of picturesque and idealism,

up to historicism of the nineteenth century.

The second volume of this work, also prepared and edited by Mallgrave and Christina Contandriopoulos under the title Architectural Theory: An An thol - ogy from 1871 to 2005 (2008), encompasses the following issues: early mod - ern ism and its formation between 1894 and 1914, the 1920s, the policy of modern ism (1930–1945), postwar modernism (1958–1969), the 1980s, and the millennium tension at the turn of the ages.

This trend also includes the book by Hanno-Walter Kruft entitled History

of Architectural Theory from Vitruvius to Present (1994), which elaborates on the develop ment of architectonic thought from the time of Vitruvius, through the Renaissance, the Enlightenment, baroque, neoclassicism in European countries, with special focus on the period between the sixteenth and eighteenth centuries,

in the following countries: England, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and Spain.

It touches upon the significance of the French École des Beaux-Arts in the nineteenth century and the change in the paradigm at the turn of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries in the US, Europe, and Soviet Russia It focuses on the changes in the architecture of the US in the first half of the twentieth century, along with the transition from vernacular architecture to skyscrapers (F.L Wright,

E Saarinen, L.H Sullivan, R Neutra) At the end, it presents a short description

of the changes and the main figures of postwar architecture between 1945 and 1970.

A book by K Michael Hays entitled Architecture Theory Since 1968 (1998) constitutes an overview, or an anthology of significant texts written between the 1960s and 1990s of the twentieth century, along with a commentary They constitute a discussion over architecture and intellectual currents, as well as philosophy (poststructuralism, phenomenology, psychoanalysis) of these times Hays cites select texts of Peter Eisenman, Robert Stern, Charles Jencks, James Stirling, Reem Koolhaas, Leon Krier, Bernard Tschumi, Jacques Derrida, etc Using the notion of theory in the titles of books that constitute a compilation

of articles and literature on the topic of architecture and depict the development

of the reflection on architecture, and on how the notion of architecture is defined, professional counseling (Vitruvius, Palladio, et al.) has become significant for the architectural thought When it comes to the contemporary understanding of the notion of theory, it can be understood as:

• A coherent system of notions, definitions, axioms, and theorems that describe the chosen domain and establish the relation between notions and axioms.

• The whole series of logical and coherent generalizations worked out on the basis of scientific research, which constitute its natural summary This theory is characterized by falsifiability, a possibility of verification, and

it serves as an explanation for causes, circumstances of creation, and a specified sequence of phenomena in a given domain The theory made ready in this manner allows exploiting its establishments in designing.

When analyzing the significance of theory in architecture, one may claim that the first method of grasping the theory in architecture, which constitutes a compilation of past ruminations over this domain, does not create a coherent system of notions, definitions, axioms, and theorems, but it does describe, to some extent, the domain of architecture The majority of these views are non- falsifiable and resemble philosophical ruminations In most cases, this part of the literature is associated with the history of architecture, history of the thoughts on architecture, and the analysis of works and ruminations concerning architectonic styles The only studies that are verifiable are the ones that refer strictly to the design skills (art, competence) and pertain to the principles of style or provable facts deriving from the history of architectural development This reflective and humanistic method is defined by some authors as theorizing The notion of theorizing appears in many books devoted to the theory and history of architecture, including the book by Kate Nesbitt entitled Theorizing a New Agenda for Architecture: An Anthology of Architectural Theory 1965–1995 (1996) This book distinguishes four main types of theoretical approach:

䊏 Science, Theory of Architecture, and Practice

1 the one characterized by regulations or orders (prescriptive);

2 the one characterized by bans (proscriptive);

3 the one characterized by the affirmative and approving nature (affirmative); and

4 the one characterized by the critical nature (critical).

The first two approaches are characterized by a normative nature, while the remaining ones refer to the literature of the so-called “architectural theoreti- cians”, characterized by reflective and humanistic nature They do not refer to theories supported by research This is the traditional approach to theory in architecture accepted by a majority of architects who think that, in accordance with the nineteenth-century paradigm, architecture treated as art is not subject

to research and scientific generalization.

Paul Alan Johnson expresses a similar view on contemporary literature The book by Johnson, a professor at the University of Wellington, titled The Theory of Architecture: Concepts, Themes & Practices (1994) can hardly be classified as one of the aforementioned trends This book was written within the scope of a scientific ground, in which Johnson had the possibility to meet with architects, who were both teachers and practitioners, from the US, the

UK, and Australia On the basis of these contacts and conversations, Johnson came to realize that architecture, being a practical discipline, is not focused

on the creation of science, while emerging literature and the reasoning of practitioners on the topic of architecture is rather characterized by a “theory- talk” or “design-talk, rhetoric” nature, which means theorizing during the design process Only the theories put forth by Roger Barker, “behavior settings”, and Oscar Newman, “defensible space”, as well as Venturi’s “theory of signs”, 8

may be included by Johnson in established architectonic theories that are practically justified Johnson is very critical of research based on quality assessment (of architectural objects) completed with the assistance of the users He is also critical of the information resulting from environment behavior studies (EBS), as he claims that the knowledge connected with EBS is “too dense, too abstract, too localized and methodologically bound, or too culturally diffuse” (Johnson, 1994, p 62) to be useful for architects, and consequently used in designing.

Johnson, who has a rather skeptical view on the subject of science in architecture, presents a list of key practical problems: theoretical positions

of the practitioners (design talk), definition of architecture, architect and professional attitudes, ethics and architecture, ordering architecture, authority

in architecture, governing concepts of architects, relationships in architecture, and architecture expression.

Jon Lang, an American architect and scientist, sees the problem of theory and practice in architecture differently In 1987, Van Nostrand Reinhold published

an important book by Lang on the theory of architecture titled Creating Architectural Theory: The Role of the Behavioral Sciences in Environmental

Design Having compared stances presented by Johnson and Lang, whose books came out almost at the same time, one may state that their views on the theory of architecture, especially on its role in the environmental approach, vary greatly Johnson, in his book, deals with what Lang refers to as the normative theory, which is a set of ideas on architecture and architectonic skills, which has no scientific base, and is only based on the views and beliefs

of the academic community or designers, while Lang elaborates on the positive theory on the grounds of the environmental research approach, which was permanently embedded into science in the second half of the twentieth century, and has been developing intensively ever since.

The interest of architects in the scope of environmental problems was initiated by the conference in Florida at the Franklin Institute in 1971 under the leadership of the American Institute of Architects titled Architecture of Human Behavior, and it was focused on the issues of “environmental psychology” and an earlier establishment of the Environmental Design Research Association (EDRA) in 1968, an international and interdisciplinary organization that joins designers–scientists who deal with social problems, students, academic teachers, and facility managers located in the US The aim of this organization is to develop and disseminate environmental design research through understanding the relation between people and their built and natural environment, as well as assisting in creating an environment that meets the needs of people A year later, in 1969, a similar initiative was taken in Europe

in the form of an established interdisciplinary scientific organization called the International Association of People-Environment Studies (IAPS), with its headquarters in the UK, focused on research on mutual relations between the process of shaping the built environment and people.

The activity of Pentti Routio, who was mentioned above, may also be found in the trend that is focused on bringing order to the scientific knowledge

in architecture Routio sees architecture as an element of science that he calls arteology, a science on artifacts that are created by human hands, and architecture is one of these creations He is the author of a book titled Arteology: The Science of Artifacts—Guide to Research and Development It consists of

40 online pages Initially, the book was published in 1995, and at present it is constantly being updated online.

On the web page called Theory of Architecture, Routio divides the publi cation on the topic of architecture in three areas:

-• Descriptive studies, which are to create a report, a description of the current or previous condition of the object, which, in architectonic studies, refers to a building or a defined class or a series of buildings, as well as people connected with these buildings.

• Explanatory studies that clarify why each building has got a specific shape Examples may also be taken from the past, from a current context, or alternatively from the future.

䊏 Science, Theory of Architecture, and Practice

• Normative studies in which an attempt is made to indicate which elements

of design studies should be improved and which method should be implemented to achieve this.

According to Routio, in situations where the results of normative studies can

be subject to generalization and to application in similar objects, one may speak

of the theory of designing.

Routio, in his approach to the theory of architecture, refers to issues connected with the architectonic design skills that have got a historical significance Literature that refers to architecture and is important to him is the kind that includes works connected with, above all, practice.

One could determine that up until the nineteenth century, revolutions that changed paradigms in architecture referred to esthetic problems, with constructional problems serving as a background The changes introduced in functionalism led to a switch from issues that are purely esthetic to ones that are connected with occupants, in this case a mass of anonymous occupants, which probably results from the change in the relation between architects, investors, and occupants, in which case investors, more and more frequently, serve as the representatives of anonymous occupants and the needs of the users are satisfied on the basis of what the architect sees fit The phenomeno- logical approach introduced by Christian Norberg-Schulz changed this simplified image of standard needs The individual approach, which is known in historical architecture, is becoming more and more recognized and oriented to meeting the needs of individual clients/users.

Environmental design has become yet another shift in the paradigm, in which the subject of the designing process relates to the relations between people and the natural and built environment, while the decisions of the designers are made on the basis of scientifically gathered knowledge on the topic of the said relations.

As one may learn from this study, Routio looks at the theories of architecture from a perspective of a design practicing architect, and when it comes to reflection upon architecture he looks at it practically, just like generalizations that are to support design skills Routio’s opinion on the theory

of synthesis is similar to Lang’s approach in the positive theory.

A similar stance, in which the ex post (when it comes to built-up architecture) and the ex ante (during the design process) trends are used to improve the design workshop, is presented by scientists from the Faculty

of Architecture in Delft, from the Faculty Methodology Committee, which aims

to promote research methods in the processes of architectonic education as well as professional practice in order to balance out the scientific level of students and apprentices of architecture with the level of the representatives

of different technical faculties, related with civil engineering.