22-11-2012, 05:24 PM
Strategic use of representation in architectural massing
[attachment=40719]
Abstract
Architectural massing is the primary sub-set of the early stages of built
form creation. In this empirical study, we seek a better understanding of
the specific cognitive processes contributing to massing. We found that
these processes help the designer improve the management of the
overall design process through strategies that facilitate a discourse
between designer and her graphic representations. These strategies,
which rely on the use of regulating elements, include management of
part–whole relationships, design hierarchy, topology–geometry
relationships, scaffolding the design process, structuring ill-structured
problems, and the restructuring of problem parameters.
Introduction
Architectural massing is the act of composing and manipulating
three-dimensional forms into a unified, coherent architectural configuration.
During this process, the relations among massing
elements are studied; this includes the relations of the building with its
surrounding context and of the building with its sub-parts. Massing comprises
all decisions affecting external architectural form. It is a crucial
component of design because it is the phase where a designer defines her
building’s identity as well as the impact of her building upon its urban
environment.
Le Corbusier defined architecture as “the masterly, correct, and magnificent
play of masses brought together in light”. In his statement, there is an
emphasis on massing as if it were the very essence of architecture.1
Architectural massing is mostly described as a product in the architectural
design literature, and has not been sufficiently analyzed as a process.
Therefore, we set out to analyze the cognitive strategies that contribute to architectural massing. Our primary motivation was the design of effective
computational tools that would support massing. Although the study
presented in this paper focuses on the cognitive aspects of massing, it is
a part of a larger research effort dealing with the computational aspects
required to support massing.
Our initial study consisted of observing six architects as they performed
early design activities that led to three-dimensional massing models. We
collected protocol data that revealed specific mechanisms that were repeatedly
and consistently used as an integral part of several widely recognized
cognitive strategies. These include management of part–whole relationships,
design hierarchy, topology–geometry relationships, scaffolding the
design process, structuring ill-structured problems, and the restructuring of
problem parameters.
Empirical observation
Our initial investigation of the field revealed that the cognitive aspects of
massing have not been adequately described in the architectural or design
process literature. Consequently we set up an empirical study for the purpose
of gaining a deeper understanding of the strategies that guide massing
processes. Since massing does not occur in isolation, we designed a series
of protocol sessions that capture massing as well as early design activities
that, although peripheral, influence massing decisions; for instance, site
design, layout planning, or elevation design.
Experimental set-up
Protocol analysis has been widely used for studying human cognitive
behavior within problem-solving contexts.2 Advantages and disadvantages
of protocol analysis have been debated extensively3 but are outside of the
scope of this paper. We chose protocol analysis because it captures comprehensively
and simultaneously the designer’s graphical representation and
her corresponding verbalization. These verbal expressions encapsulate the
motivation and rationale that are not evident in graphical representations
therefore, clarifying possible ambiguities that are often present in the latter.
Analysis
We refer to participants as P1 to P6 and the corresponding protocol sessions
as S1 to S6. In the first three sessions (S1 to S3), participants used
the pencil/paper medium, while for the remaining sessions they used one
of three available CAD systems. Alternatives generated by each participant
are referred to as Ai1 to Ain, where ‘i’ corresponds to the participant ID.
The protocol sessions were first transcribed into a series of moves, which
included verbal expressions, drawing actions or their combination. Then
these moves were categorized and color-coded according to the activity to
which they contributed (massing, planning, site analysis, program review,
and design structure) and their type (analysis, decision, and evaluation).
Summary of results
The principal mechanism utilized in structuring massing activities was the
use of regulating elements. These include tools such as axes of symmetry,
centers of rotation, alignment axes, diagonal proportion lines, points of
intersection, and bounding lines. All participants maintained geometric
order in their designs using such mechanisms. Although they freely
manipulated (added and removed) massing elements, through the use of
regulating elements they were able to preserve their underlying structures
and even accentuate them.
Analysis of the data showed that designers used these massing strategies,
among other things, to regulate the overall design process. They used these
strategies to help them manage part–whole relationships, design hierarchy,
topology–geometry relationships, scaffolding the design process, structuring
sub-problems, and the restructuring of problem parameters. In the following
sections, we will consider each of these strategies as described in
the literature and manifested in our massing episodes. We believe that these
strategies illustrate that representation is used not as a passive mechanism
merely to display the content of the mind onto external media, but to
actively guide design.
[attachment=40719]
Abstract
Architectural massing is the primary sub-set of the early stages of built
form creation. In this empirical study, we seek a better understanding of
the specific cognitive processes contributing to massing. We found that
these processes help the designer improve the management of the
overall design process through strategies that facilitate a discourse
between designer and her graphic representations. These strategies,
which rely on the use of regulating elements, include management of
part–whole relationships, design hierarchy, topology–geometry
relationships, scaffolding the design process, structuring ill-structured
problems, and the restructuring of problem parameters.
Introduction
Architectural massing is the act of composing and manipulating
three-dimensional forms into a unified, coherent architectural configuration.
During this process, the relations among massing
elements are studied; this includes the relations of the building with its
surrounding context and of the building with its sub-parts. Massing comprises
all decisions affecting external architectural form. It is a crucial
component of design because it is the phase where a designer defines her
building’s identity as well as the impact of her building upon its urban
environment.
Le Corbusier defined architecture as “the masterly, correct, and magnificent
play of masses brought together in light”. In his statement, there is an
emphasis on massing as if it were the very essence of architecture.1
Architectural massing is mostly described as a product in the architectural
design literature, and has not been sufficiently analyzed as a process.
Therefore, we set out to analyze the cognitive strategies that contribute to architectural massing. Our primary motivation was the design of effective
computational tools that would support massing. Although the study
presented in this paper focuses on the cognitive aspects of massing, it is
a part of a larger research effort dealing with the computational aspects
required to support massing.
Our initial study consisted of observing six architects as they performed
early design activities that led to three-dimensional massing models. We
collected protocol data that revealed specific mechanisms that were repeatedly
and consistently used as an integral part of several widely recognized
cognitive strategies. These include management of part–whole relationships,
design hierarchy, topology–geometry relationships, scaffolding the
design process, structuring ill-structured problems, and the restructuring of
problem parameters.
Empirical observation
Our initial investigation of the field revealed that the cognitive aspects of
massing have not been adequately described in the architectural or design
process literature. Consequently we set up an empirical study for the purpose
of gaining a deeper understanding of the strategies that guide massing
processes. Since massing does not occur in isolation, we designed a series
of protocol sessions that capture massing as well as early design activities
that, although peripheral, influence massing decisions; for instance, site
design, layout planning, or elevation design.
Experimental set-up
Protocol analysis has been widely used for studying human cognitive
behavior within problem-solving contexts.2 Advantages and disadvantages
of protocol analysis have been debated extensively3 but are outside of the
scope of this paper. We chose protocol analysis because it captures comprehensively
and simultaneously the designer’s graphical representation and
her corresponding verbalization. These verbal expressions encapsulate the
motivation and rationale that are not evident in graphical representations
therefore, clarifying possible ambiguities that are often present in the latter.
Analysis
We refer to participants as P1 to P6 and the corresponding protocol sessions
as S1 to S6. In the first three sessions (S1 to S3), participants used
the pencil/paper medium, while for the remaining sessions they used one
of three available CAD systems. Alternatives generated by each participant
are referred to as Ai1 to Ain, where ‘i’ corresponds to the participant ID.
The protocol sessions were first transcribed into a series of moves, which
included verbal expressions, drawing actions or their combination. Then
these moves were categorized and color-coded according to the activity to
which they contributed (massing, planning, site analysis, program review,
and design structure) and their type (analysis, decision, and evaluation).
Summary of results
The principal mechanism utilized in structuring massing activities was the
use of regulating elements. These include tools such as axes of symmetry,
centers of rotation, alignment axes, diagonal proportion lines, points of
intersection, and bounding lines. All participants maintained geometric
order in their designs using such mechanisms. Although they freely
manipulated (added and removed) massing elements, through the use of
regulating elements they were able to preserve their underlying structures
and even accentuate them.
Analysis of the data showed that designers used these massing strategies,
among other things, to regulate the overall design process. They used these
strategies to help them manage part–whole relationships, design hierarchy,
topology–geometry relationships, scaffolding the design process, structuring
sub-problems, and the restructuring of problem parameters. In the following
sections, we will consider each of these strategies as described in
the literature and manifested in our massing episodes. We believe that these
strategies illustrate that representation is used not as a passive mechanism
merely to display the content of the mind onto external media, but to
actively guide design.