Architectural Precedent Analysis

Ali Guney, architect; lecturer in precedent analysis at the Faculty of Architecture, TUDelft

ARCHITECTURAL PRECEDENT ANALYSIS A Cognitive Approach to Morphological Analysis of Buildings in relation to design process

1


CONTENT:........................................................................................ 3 1) 2)

Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 3 Cognitive Relevance to Architectural Precedent Analysis .......................................... 5 Cognition, Affordances, Knowledge, Analysis, Synthesis, Metaphor, Analogy .................................. 5 3) Some Basic Concepts Related to Morphological Analysis of Architectural Precedents ................................................................................................................................. 8 Morphology ................................................................................................................................. 8 Morpheme ................................................................................................................................... 8 Topology ..................................................................................................................................... 8 4) How to Analyze (morphologically) a Building (complex) ........................................... 10 Spatial Relations, Spatial Organizations, topological representation of Spaces (hierarchically) .........10 5) How to represent all these decomposed basic units/ and or elements with a pleasantly surprising method. ............................................................................................... 14 F(M) - O - P (analysis) .........................................................................................................................14 6) A Cognitive Structure of Design Process .................................................................... 16 P - O - F(M) (design) ...........................................................................................................................16 Constrain: ...................................................................................................................................16 Recursive: ...................................................................................................................................16 Iterative processes: .....................................................................................................................16 7) Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 19 8) Key Words: ...................................................................................................................... 20 9) References ...................................................................................................................... 20

2


CONTENT: 1) Introduction Many people, not only philosophers and other professionals, have been busy with the epistemological issues; diverse approaches are presented, discussed, implemented, etc. A lot of attempt has been made to do discover what human minds’ mechanisms, properties and abilities 1 would be to understand what ‘knowing’ is. Some believes in respecting appearances , and some in structures. This is an ongoing project and there are many controversial ideas about it. Among all approaches (which I am not going to write down here all philosophical styles and others since it is written already in many books and are well known issues), I am more convinced with the traditional idea of knowledge as ‘Justified true belief’ which needs empirical support as well. I used the term ‘convincing’ because I can not imagine an absolute truth, 2 although I can understand that of an ‘absolute belief’ which can not convince me, at all. Nevertheless, human being acts one way or the other; some times it does it, consciously; and some times by instinct or by intuition. Thus, we all do something in either case, whether if we are aware of what we are doing or not. I understand that human kind can only know something just to a certain level; because to 3 know everything of anything means, not only knowing every data of it but also all relational other 4 properties , thereof; is it really possible to know everything about an object (factual or conceptual)? In principle, it has a conflict with human mind to think that possible since we think there is always more to find out. Thus, this is also an open set; still an ongoing process. Fortunately, human mind has many faculties; among others, she/he can perceive external and internal objects, save them, operate on them by reason, and represent them one way or the other; language is one them. I will try to treat this reasoning in turn when necessary. We all know and complain that several academicians use terminologies with their different meanings; Therefore, I want to explain some basic ones here and also explain how they are used within this frame of architectural morphological analysis, including “architectural precedent analysis”. Besides, I take into account that this article is also meant for students at TUDelft - Faculty of Architecture who can also understand Dutch; that is why some explanations are written in Dutch, as well. Through this view, I will try to expose some ways to morphological analysis of architectural precedents.

1

My tendency is to take logical notions at face value, instead of trying to reduce them to something else. As elsewhere in philosophy, I believe in respecting the appearances. (McGinn, 2000) 2 Absolute belief in the sense of unjustified (by human rationality) belief 3 “To know something, you must know all data of it”- J.S.Doorman (during lectures for ph d students of AIIA, 1994) 4 “In order to really know an object, it is necessary to comprehend, to study all sides of it, and all its internal and external connectivities” - Lenin in Problems of contemporary architecture, in Tzonis, 1987.

3


In part 2, I will treat some basic concepts related to architecture, so that we can have a common ground to exchange ideas about the cognitive structure of architectural knowledge; like: Cognition, Cognitive Affordances, Knowledge, Analysis, Synthesis, Metaphor and Analogy. In part 3, some crucial concepts will be clarified concerning the morphological analysis of architectural precedents, and some related basic issues like: Morphology, Morpheme, Topological Representation of Spaces In part 4, here I will present some methods for analysis of architectural morphology with some examples, and explain some basic relevant terminology like: Spatial Relations, Spatial Organizations, topological representation of Spaces (hierarchically) In part 5, All mentioned methods will be represented by a pleasant way, so that these interrelated issues make more sense in analyzing buildings. In part 6, I will make an intensive attempt to interpret the cognitive structure of architectural design process by a mechanical representation of it and relevant concepts, like Constrains, Recursive and Iterative processes; In short: P - O - F(M) In part 7, some inferences and implications will be explained as conclusion. The rest of it speaks itself.

4


2) Cognitive Relevance to Architectural Precedent Analysis Cognition, Affordances, Knowledge, Analysis, Synthesis, Metaphor, Analogy “Ons gevoel registreert en oordeelt.”5 “Maar is het gevoel feilloos? Laten we ons niet meeslepen door vooroordelen, eigenbelang, modieuze trends, status? Zou de rede een bemiddelende rol kunnen spelen?”6 When we look at an object(s), hear sounds, touch, smell or taste something, we get some impression about them and then we process this information, then we combine it with our present knowledge and presuppositions. Through this process, human being conceives an idea about all this information. Some information is received even without being aware of it, and also combined with other saved information that we are not aware of it. More over, we evaluate them by reason and by our individual subjective prejudgment; even perceive them through our presuppositions. After all, all people have some representations of all entities, object(s) - either factual or conceptual-, external and internal world of their own. We can describe this as “Distributed cognition” “Distributed cognition, in our view, is a term for a branch of cognitive science that is concerned with a special type of cognitive systems whose structures and processes are distributed between internal minds and external environment, across a group of individual minds, and across space and time. From the distribute cognition perspective, the unit of 7 analysis is the interaction between the components of the system, not the components themselves.”

However, communication (in its widest sense) is possible; either with your self and everyone or with anything else. Nevertheless, no one shares every impression as the same with that of others; yet our minds has the ability to do so to some extend, thanks to our cognitivedevice built in it. “The term cognition (Latin: cognoscere, "to know") is used in several loosely related ways to refer to a faculty for the human-like processing of information, applying knowledge and changing preferences.” “…Recently, advanced cognitive researchers have been especially focused on the capacities of abstraction, generalization, concretization/specialization and meta-reasoning which descriptions involve such concepts as beliefs, 8 knowledge, desires, preferences and intentions of intelligent individuals/objects/agents/systems”

Briefly, human mind constructs a human subjects and human objects; human object is that we all have a similar representation of anything and human subject is that of the private unshared one.9 We use also metaphors10 while analyzing/ understanding and designing anything to find out their analogical11 resemblances also in architectural processes in its widest sense.

5

Kleijer, 2004 Ibid. 7 Distributed Cognition, Representation, and Affordance Jiajie Zhang, In press: Cognition & Pragmatics, 00, 000-000. Wikipedia, October 2006. 8 Wikipedia, October 2006. 9 Serial lectures about Kant, J.S.Doorman, 1994 10 Merriam-Webster’s unabridged dictionary 11 Ibid, 2b and 3 6

5


Architects are supposed to create spaces within some harmonious compositions, so that functions will be realized very naturally; these spaces, compositions would have some affordances12 which could make us feel invited naturally. All these issues show that cognitive approach to architectural precedent analysis and to design process is an intrinsic issue about architectural world in a wider sense. Finally, to build up the cognitive structure of architectural knowledge13, we have to analyze architectural precedents, so that we can use this knowledge to go on with the synthetic process. “Analysis: it is a kind of representation of breaking up a whole into its components on such a way that the elements do not have to be broken down into more ‘unnecessary’ (due to some criteria) details; besides, the structural and semantic relations between components must be preserved and exposed. This “… unnecessary details…” will lead us to the term ‘morpheme’ in morphological analysis of architectural design.”14 “Synthesis: bringing the ‘undividable’ (according to some criteria- morpheme) components into a possible whole(s) within their mutual structural and semantic relationships. This is, of course, a very short explanation of synthesis in general. Later on I will, further, explain what possible combinative mutual structure and semantic is in architectural compositions through their components or morphemes /and or: combination of morphemes (objects).” 15 Designer should be aware of the cognitive explanation of knowledge to be aware of what they do in all phases of creative design process. 16

We can classify knowledge in three sorts : KNOWLEDGE: “1-Declarative knowledge fact-like nature of representations; data structures: a - language-like representations; PROPOSITIONS b - perception-like representations; IMAGES 2-Procedural knowledge knowing how. 3-Tacit knowledge” “...Cognitive penetration is difficult to assess (vaststellen in Dutch) because subjects may not be aware of the knowledge that they are bringing to bear on a task. They may strive to perform an imagery task in a way that is natural and feels like seeing without being able to articulate how they did it. In such cases subjects are said to be using tacit knowledge.”17 Is it fruitful to know what “knowledge” is or which knowledge it is? I think it is because, at least, it helps us to organize our all kind of representations of the issues so that we can use them when necessary, effectively and efficiently. Much of our entire impressions and presuppositions can even be simulated, artificially. We can share knowledge by well defined representations and submit it to the human kind to use. Professionals can make use of this above mentioned 12 An affordance of anything is the "specific combination of the properties of its substance and its surfaces taken with reference to an animal" (Gibson, 1977, p.67). Since Don Norman's use of the term, namely as perceived affordances, it has been used predominantly to describe features of the immediate environment, which indicates how to interact with that object or feature. The empty space within an open doorway, for instance, affords movement across that threshold. A couch affords the possibility of sitting down on it. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 13 Justified true belief 14 Guney, 2007 15 Ibid. 16 Stillings et al. (1987) 17 Ibid.

6


representation of what knowledge is to share and exchange it more properly than a paralyzing set of loosen information. Although it seems to us as if mostly visual information is the representation of external world, but it is deeper than that; because it is only one of five sensorial information instruments helps us to receive information to process and save in our semantic long term memory. After all, not the single by single data by itself but a theoretical system of it can only be representation. “I claim that if a species as smart as human beings had been irrevocably blind, it would have got on fine with auditory and tactile representations, for to represent is part of our very nature. Since we have eyes, most of the first representations were visual, but representation is not of its essence visual.”… “Theories, not individual sentences are representations.”18 After we construct some representations of objects, environment whatsoever in our cognitive device, thus have some knowledge of them; and then it needs to be represented to others to communicate and share. There are several knowledge representation technics, but I will not treat them all, here; yet there is one which is useful to note since in later parts I will use it. Conceptual scheme is sometimes a very clear and useful representation in architectural morphological analysis; it tells us about much of essential characteristics of the artifact(s). How is the artefact’s structure and what the elements are; which are its syntax and semantics. This will be applied to represent the major units of buildings in part 4, 5 and 6. “…A knowledge representation scheme is a system of formal conventions-sometimes called its syntaxtogether with a way to interpret what the conventions mean-sometimes called its semantics.”19 Why would analysis be fruitful to design process? Is it possible that architects could ever design without analyzing and thus without knowing the basic elements to produce more complex objects or complexes? It seems to me intangible to be able to design something at all, unless you have the necessary cognitive instruments to think, to reason, to infer, to operate on, etc. “Ontwerpers kunnen niet ontwerpen zonder onafgebroken te analyseren.Aan mijn observaties ligt de stelling ten grondslag dat de elementen die we moeten hanteren om architectuur te analyseren en te toetsen dezelfde zijn als de elementen die architecten inzetten bij het ontwerpen van architectuur.Achitecten zetten architectonische elementen, dat wil zeggen architectonische middelen, in om architectonische doelen te bereiken.”20 In English: “Designer can not design without analyzing, continuously. To my observation, basic proposition is that the elements which we must manipulate to analyze and test the architecture are the same as that of the elements the architects use during designing architecture. Architects set the architectonic elements, that is to say architectural means, to achieve the ends.”

18

Ian Hacking, 1993, p133-134 Stillings et al., 1987, Chapter 4.2 20 Kleijer, 2004 19

7


3) Some Basic Concepts Related to Morphological Analysis of Architectural Precedents These concepts described below, are crucial to morphological analysis of architectural precedents, without a clear understanding of these terminology, we might risk the clarity of our analysis and its representation. I, of course, adopt these terminologies to architecture by analogy; in part 4, 5 and 6, I will explain them with examples. Nevertheless, in my forthcoming book, case studies, in detail.

21

all concepts in this article will be implemented bye

Morphology “Morphology (architecture), the study of the shape and form of buildings”22 “Morphology studies morphemes, and includes the study of inflectional as well as lexical units.”23 “Morphology - the study of the forms of things, in particular: - Biology: the branch of biology that deals with the form of living organisms, and with relationships between their structures. - Linguistics: the study of the forms of words, in particular inflected forms. In linguistics, morphology is the study of word structure”24

Morpheme “Morpheme: The minimal unit of grammar. Free forms of morphemes are those that can occur as separate words; bound forms are items such as suffixes that must be recognized as components of grammatical structure.”25 “A morpheme is the smallest meaningful unit in the grammar of a language.”26 “Morfeem: kleinste betekenisdragende eenheid” 27 “Morpheme: De kleinste eenheid van vorm en betekenis in de linguistiek. Het kan vrij zijn(bijv. ‘boek’, ‘eet’) of gebonden zijn, in de zin dat het niet kan worden gebruikt zonder een ander morfeem (voorbeelden: on-, -heid).”28 “Morpheme: 2- a meaningful linguistic unit whether a free form (as pin, child, load, pray) or a bound form (as the -s of pins, the -hood of childhood, the un- and -er of unloader, and the -ed of prayed) that contains no smaller meaningful parts.”29

Topology “The word “topology” is derived from the Greek word “[tau][omicron][pi][omicron][varsigma],” which means “position” or “location.” A simplified and thus partial definition has often been used (Croom, 1989, page 2): “topology deals with geometric properties which are dependent only upon the relative positions of the components of figures and not upon such concepts as length, size, and magnitude.” Topology deals with those properties of an object that remain invariant under continuous transformations (specifically bending, stretching, and squeezing, but not breaking or tearing).30

21

A.Guney – Forthcoming- architectural precedent analysis and its implications through design process, 2007 Wikipedia, October 2006 23 Oxford Grand Dictionary, 2002 24 Ibid. 25 Ibid. 26 Wikipedia, October 2006 27 Grote van Dale, 2005 28 Reber, A.S; Woordenboek van de psychologie 29 Merriam Webster-unabridged (druk, jaar?) 30 Braha, 2000 22

8


“Topological properties, are based on proximity (contiguity), succession, closure(inside-outside), and continuity.””…The universe of graphs is very simple, it contains only two elements; points and links. Points stand for locations, links for circulation access.(Note that even the outside of the building is also represented as a point.) Weather in a matrix form or in a graph, the information contained is the same, concerning the existence of access between locations and the overall structure of relationships of adjacency or in betweenness of location.”31

31

Tzonis, A.; Oorschot, L., (1987)

9


4) How to Analyze (morphologically) a Building (complex) Spatial Relations, Spatial Organizations, topological representation of Spaces (hierarchically) There are many ways to analyze architectural objects and many aspects of them as well. I will limit myself within some ways to do it by some sketches, so that we can refer to them while presenting. First, there need to be enough documents about the artifacts, like all necessary drawings or buildings themselves so that we can examine them as a whole, physically including physical (site) context. Then, try to discern the major units of the object(s) which form the total form of the building(s), if there are, of course, more than one unit; if not, then go to study sub units, like staircases, elevator cores or the like. Afterwards, we go on with this process into lower scale; into 32 the level of internal division of the major units. 33 After that, we study the aspects of other properties like: light, messing (shape) , geometry, structure, circulation to use, symmetry and balance and, finally, parti (the basic general scheme 34 of an architectural design (M.W.)“...dominant underlying idea.)). Finally, after we complete this process, we examine their spatial relations, special organization and we represent them with a conceptual scheme including their topological 35 relations. Later on, in part 5, I will assemble this partial analysis into consistent representation; the so called ‘F(M)-O-P. I wan to begin with an example which is one of many examples I use in my seminars for “the bridge semester of HTO students” to describe, schematically, what the “spatial relations” and “spatial organizations” are:

Figure 1. Spatial relationships and spatial organizations.

32

36

Lectures by A. Guney for “HTO bridge semester to master class” students, the so called ‘Method of Ching’ in http://team.bk.tudelft.nl/ 33 “…Of course, we would specify the shape of an object before its colour or texture; shape is nearly always the more defining characteristic.” Stillings et al, 1987 34 Lectures by A. Guney for “HTO bridge semester to master class” students, the so called ‘Method of Clark & Pause’ on http://team.bk.tudelft.nl/ 35 Lectures by A. Guney for “HTO bridge semester to master class” students, the so called ‘Method of Steadman’ on http://team.bk.tudelft.nl/

10


Figure 2. A schematic representation of a fictional building. This is, of course, a grid organization. Figure above shows an illustration, where I use a schematic representation of a fictional project to explain how to relate the major units (we can analogically compare this abstraction as 37 geons- geometrical ions (Figure 3) with their certain relational characteristics (spatial relationships, spatial organizations and topology of accessibility. This fictional project, I assume as studied well and abstractly represented to this level; because to bring it to this schematic level is a question of carefully examination of a building. But after this level, there comes the essence of what I wanted to explain.

Figure 3.

36 37

In the spirit of Ching, 1996 Biederman, 1993

11


Nevertheless, there are more issues to treat but that is again a question of labor; yet the essential properties of all major, minor units and of the related elements must be noted so that we can complete our morphological analysis at this level. We can, certainly, go into last level, to that of morpheme when necessary, but it is not within the frame of this paper since it would require 38 pages. Any how, it all be treated in my forthcoming book. The graphical representation of this building which is illustrated on the next page shows all the basic principals of all morphological relations. It is a kind of schema sometimes called semantic network. Nonetheless, without the properties of shown units, there is no complete semantic network, because they are the frames of it. Any way, semantic networks have nodes 39 with relations, these nodes are its frames without which is not complete. “A frame is a collection of slots and slot fillers that describe a stereotypical item. A frame has slot to capture different aspects of what is being represented. The filler that goes into a slot can be an actual value, a default value, an attached procedure, or even another frame (that is, the name of or a pointer to another frame)” “…In general, a default value is a value that we assume to be true unless we are told otherwise.” Finally, by assuming the presence of their necessary properties, we have a semantic network by that of figure below.

38 39

Guney, 2007 Stillings et al., 1987

12


13


5) How to represent all these decomposed basic units/ and or elements with a pleasantly surprising method. F(M) - O - P (analysis) There are several kinds of methods and techniques for morphological analysis and representations of design artifacts. This is one of them which I understand as the most comprehensive, clear and consistent. If we can apply it to our analysis properly, we have a great chance to achieve a surveyable representation of the analyzed artefact. These illustrations below show how Tzonis analyzes Le Corbusier's Unite d' Habitation. I will follow the same cognitively mechanical constraint of the interrelated process with a slight alteration concerning causality vs affordability (read notes on affordances). Like in the realm of the science of ecology, I believe there is also a very powerful idea of affordances in that of the design. We all know from our experiences that when we see or get any kind of sensorial contact with an artifact, we guess what it might be; by noting, of course, we also have our own prejudgments and cultural semantic network. Yet, because of the common sense of human being we can all have a shared idea about some basic expectations. I try to give a simple example to clarify what I mean. Suppose we walk in the sun on a desert and we see some shelter like object; wouldn’t we all expect that this artifact is something to go in and get rid of the hot sun? I think nearly all people would. Like the Grand Master says: “From form it predicts operation, and from operation performance”40 Figure 4. “The design frame, graphically expressed, looks like that:” 41

What I attempt to present that of with a small alteration is also valid for part 6.

40 41

Tzonis,1990 Idd.

14


Figure 5. We could also follow the opposite direction; either by guessing what was expected to reach as performance, or we can find out what the norms are. For example: “what operation would afford to this performance; or-if we find out the expected performance What I attempt to present that of with a small alteration is also valid for part 6.

15


6) A Cognitive Structure of Design Process P - O - F(M) (design) Constrain: “1 a : to force by stricture, restriction, or limitation imposed by nature, oneself, or circumstances and exigencies”42 Design by constrains can help us to achieve our goals more effectively and efficiently. Constrains are crucial in design process; if we know them, we will not be hindered by unnecessary and uninteresting repeated faults; otherwise we repeat the same mistakes.

Recursive: “2: the solution of a problem by means of a procedure that uses a copy of itself as one of its steps so that the problem is simplified with each execution of the procedure until a simplest case is reached for which the solution has been defined and the basic solution is applied to complete the solutions of the more complex versions”43 Like in many other disciplines, there are many recursive processes in design activities; especially when complicated.

Iterative processes: A process “1: marked by or involving repetition or reiteration or repetitiousness or recurrence”44 While designing, we repeat and test our instructions until getting a reasonably satisfactory solution or a set of solutions. This is an iterative process. What is actually needed for a design activity, what are the minimum requirements to begin, at all? Designer must have a basic knowledge and skills of the relevant issue. Program of requirements should approximately be clear and also context analysis is essential; without it there can not be suitable satisfactory design solution. “We finally consider all the above, form, operation, performance of a design product, in reference to the context within which the artefact is to be realized.”45 “Form, operation, performance and context are interrelated. This interrelationship can be expressed in constraints that state which performance of a building may result from which operation and, in turn, which operation may result form which form, a rule chain whose links are neither deterministic nor closed. The performance of an artifact may depend on external conditions, conditions that apply to its operation, as the operation itself may depend on external conditions attached to the artifact's form.”46 Besides what the customer wants as program of desires, as constrains; professionals should also anticipate and participate in this process, so that there can be constructed more reasonable set of requirements.

42

Merriam Webster-unabridged Ibid. 44 Ibid. 45 Tzonis, 1990 46 Ibid. 43

16


I made a scheme, which is placed on the next page, to make an attempt to express the program of requirements; it is not an absolute scheme but it might help.

Figure 6. Finally, after having all these requisites, designer can begin to a cognitive adventure to achieve their goals. Tzonis has observed intelligent designers cognitive activities and has 47 construct a representation of them, it in detail. How does this mechanic representation of the cognitive structure of design process work? Is it possible to achieve the performance required by it? What kind of process is it that sounds as if it is a mathematical formula? Can architects make use of it like a design instrument? How creative is it to understand the mechanic structure of it? “In design practice predictions are used in the evaluation of artifacts. That means, given an artifact's form and operation, to forecast how close the expected performance of the artifact is to the normative one, as specified by the design program; or, how an artifact ranks in relation to that of another artifact in respect to an expected performance.”48 I want to open up a discussion about these above mentioned anxiety by using the same graphic as in part 5 but symmetrically. We will see then that insecurity might vanish if we carefully look at it.

47 48

Tzonis, 1990 Ibid.

17


Here is the scheme:

Figure 7.

Besides all their abilities, if designers are alert enough they can link performancial demands to operation, and operation to form since these are all interrelated. If and only if designers make effort to discern this process with its background, that is to say: all sub issues of these three interrelated aspects of the future design solution, then this constraining mechanical cognitive machine will help them. Nevertheless, this a not a linear process only, but also recursive and iterative as well.

18


7) Conclusion NOG INVOEGEN

19


8) Key Words: Constrains, Recursive and Iterative processes, Spatial Relations, Spatial Organizations, topological representation of Spaces (hierarchically),Morphology, Morpheme, Topological Representation of Spaces, Cognition, Cognitive Affordances, knowledge, Analysis, Synthesis, Metaphor, Analogy

9) References Biederman, I. (1993) Visual Object Recognition in: A. I. Goldman Readings in Philosophy and Cognitive Science (Cambridge, Mass.) The MIT Press Braha, Dan (2000) Special Section: Topological representation and reasoning in design and manufacturing. In: Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing, Volume 14 , Issue 5, Pages: 355 - 358 Ching, Francis D.K. (1996) Architecture: Form, Space, and Order (Stad) Uitgever Goldman, A.I., Ed. (1993) Readings in Philosophy and Cognitive Science (Cambridge, Mass.) The MIT Press Guney, A. –Forthcoming- architectural precedent analysis and its implications through design process, 2007 Hacking, Ian (1993) Representing and Intervening (Cambridge) Uitgever Kleijer, E. (2004) Instrumenten van de architectuur (Amsterdam) SUN Krasil’nikov-Sovremennaya, Nikolai (1928) Lenin in Problems of contemporary architecture, Arhitektura, 1928, number 6, 170- 176 McGinn, Colin, Logical Properties - Oxford, 2000- preface Reber, A.S. (1994) Woordenboek van de psychologie (Amsterdam) Uitgeverij Bert Bakker Steadman, J.P. (1989) Architectural Morphology (London) Pion Stillings, N.A.; Feinstein, M.A.; Garfield, J.L.; Rissland, E.L.; Rosenbaum, D.A. (1987) Introduction to Cognitive Science (Stad) Uitgever Tzonis, A.; Oorschot, L. (1987) Frames, Plans, Representations (Stad) Uitgever Tzonis, A., Faculty of Architecture, Huts, ships and bottleracks: Design by analogy for architects and/or machines. The Netherlands A first version of this paper appeared in: Tzonis, A. 1990. "Hütten, Schiffe, und Flaschengestelle" Archithese 20 (3), pp 16- 27 Winston, P.H. (1993) Artificial Intelligence (Massachusetts, California New York, Ontario, England Amsterdam, Bonn, Sydney, Singapore, Tokyo Madrid, San Juan, Milan, Paris) Addison-Wesley Publishing company

20

Architectural Precedent Analysis

Recommend Documents