Architecture Beyond Criticism Expert Jud

EDITED BY

WOLFGANG F. E. PREISER, AARON T. DAVIS, ASHRAF M. SALAMA AND ANDREA HARDY

ARCHITECTURE BEYOND CRITICISM Expert judgement and performance evaluation

ARCHITECTURE BEYOND CRITICISM

For the �rst time, this book demonstrates that the two paradigms of architectural criticism and performance evaluation can not only co-exist but complement each other in the assessment of built works. As architecture takes more pr incipled stances worldwide worldwide,, from from environmental sustainability to social, cultural, and economic activism, this book examines the roles of perceived and measured quality in architecture. By exploring in tandem both subjective traditional architectural criticism and environmental design and performance evaluation and its objective evaluation criteria, criter ia, the book argues that both methodologies and outcomes can achieve a comprehensive assessment of quality in architecture. Curated by a global editorial editori al team, the book includes: • • •

Contributions from international architects and critics based in the UK, USA, Brazil, France, Qatar, Egypt, New Zealand, China, Japan and Germany Global case studies which illustrate both perspectives addressed by the book and comparative analyses of the �ndings A six part par t organization which includes introductions and conclusions from the editors, to help guide the reader and further fur ther illuminate the contributions. contr ibutions.

By presenting a systematic approach to assessing building performance, design professionals will learn how to improve improve building design and performance with major stakeholders in mind, especially end users/occupants. Editors Preiser, P reiser, Davis, Salama and Hardy represent an aggregate agg regate of cutting edge architectural practice, consulting, research and lecturing on a global basis. They have a collective publication record of 25 books with major publishing houses in the world. Senior editor Wolf Wolf Preiser has chaired national committees in the US, among others, for the National Academy Academy of Sciences; Aaron Davis has become an expert in consulting on the design of building fa çades; Ashraf Salama is editor of two international inter national professional journals; and Andrea Hardy is an Architectin-Training in-T raining exploring explor ing the concepts of developing the public realm in growing desert cities.

9780415725323pre_pi-xxxiv.indd i

9/6/2014 6:24:17 PM

9780415725323pre_pi-xxxiv.indd ii

9/6/2014 6:24:17 PM

ARCHITECTURE BEYOND CRITICISM Expert Judgment and Performance Evaluation

Wolfgang F. E. Preiser ,  , Aaron T. T. Davis , Ashraf M. Salama , and Andrea Hardy

9780415725323pre_pi-xxxiv.indd iii

9/6/2014 6:24:17 PM

First published 2015 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN and by Routledge 711 Third Av Avenue, enue, New York, York, NY 10017 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business

© 2015 2 015 Wolfgan Wolfgangg F. F. E. Preiser, Aaron T. T. Davis, Ashraf M. Salama, Sal ama, and Andrea And rea Hardy H ardy The right of the editors to be identi�ed as the author of the editorial material, and of the authors for their individual chapters, has been asserted 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 utilised in any for m 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 Product or corporate cor porate names may be trademarks or

only for identi�cation and explanation without intent to infringe.

registered trademarks, and are used

British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

[CIP data]

ISBN: 978-0-415-72532-3 (hbk) ISBN: 978-0-415-72533-0 (pbk) ISBN: 978-1-315-74065-2 (ebk) Typeset in Bembo by Out of House Publishing

9780415725323pre_pi-xxxiv.indd iv

9/6/2014 6:24:18 PM

CONTENTS

List of figures List of tables Notes on the editors Notes on contributors Preface  Acknowledgments Foreword: Nigel Oseland

viii xiv xv xvii xxvii xxix xxx

PART I

Introduction

1

1

3

Introduction Wolfgang F. E. Preiser, Aaron T. Davis, Ashraf M. Salama, and Andrea Hardy

PART II

Evolution and role of architectural criticism

21

2

23

Identity crisis: estrangement in the evolution of architectural criticism  Aaron T. Davis

3

The role of editors as critics

37

Michael J. Crosbie

4

Is curating the new criticism?

46

Pedro Gadanho

9780415725323pre_pi-xxxiv.indd v

9/6/2014 6:24:18 PM

vi 

Contents

5 Architectural criticism and radicalism in Brazil

53

 José T. Lira

6 Super�cial material similitude

66

Galia Solomonoff

7 The performance of buildings, architects, and critics

75

Thomas Fisher

Re�ections on Part II: Daniel S. Friedman

83

PART III

Plurality of perspectives on criticism in architecture

8 Media coverage and users’ reactions: Al Azhar Park in Cairo re-examined

89

91

 Ashraf M. Salama

9 The in�uence of the “milieu” on architectural criticism

104

Yann Nussaume

10 Architectural criticism and building performance evaluation in Germany

111

Ursula Baus and Ulrich Schramm

11 An analytical critique of Cairene urban conservation projects

121

Remah Y. Gharib

12 Buildings and their use: the dog that didn’t bark

128

Frank Duffy

13 Oblique alternatives: architectural advancement through performance

133

Paul Knox

Re�ections on Part III: Daniel S. Friedman

140

PART IV

Historical review and types of building performance evaluation

145

14 Historical review of building performance evaluation

147

Wolfgang F. E. Preiser and Andrea E. Hardy

15 Building performance evaluation in the UK: so many false dawns

160

Bill Bordass and Adrian Leaman

9780415725323pre_pi-xxxiv.indd vi

9/6/2014 6:24:18 PM

Contents

16 Mid-occupancy urbanism in Shanghai: the current state of the site of Expo 2010

vii

171

Clare Jacobson

17 Architectural criticism meets building evaluation in Japan

183

 Akikazu Kato, Gen Taniguchi, and Shiho Mori

18 Architectural critics as another building stakeholder: a global perspective

193

Chris Watson

Re�ections on Part IV: Daniel S. Friedman

200

PART V

Architectural analysis within building performance evaluation

205

19 Using scienti�c research methods in assessing visual aesthetic quality

207

 Jack L. Nasar

20 Performing the urban form-based codes as a method of architectural critique

217

Brenda C. Scheer

21 The socio-cultural context of architectural criticism and evaluation

224

Yasser Mahgoub

22 Quality assessments in health care environments

232

Dina Battisto, Deborah Franqui, and Clayton Boenecke

23 Building performance evaluations and universal design

244

Korydon H. Smith

24 Regenerative design: rede�ning the limits of architectural judgment

252

Elizabeth Walsh and Steven A. Moore

Re�ections on Part V: Daniel S. Friedman

265

PART VI

Epilogue

269

25 Talking the talk: about architecture

271

Ike Ijeh Index

9780415725323pre_pi-xxxiv.indd vii

278

9/6/2014 6:24:18 PM

FIGURES

1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 2.1

2.2 2.3 2.4 3.1

Increasing architectural analysis, description, understanding of context, history, and overall architectural knowledge and education Source : Andrea Hardy. The need for the academy to enlarge the overlap of criticism and performance evaluations in architectural education Source : Andrea Hardy. The habitability framework Source : Hunter Byrnes. Habitability research Source : Hunter Byrnes. The mirrored balance of OMA and AMO �rms Source : Andrea Hardy. Building delivery and life-cycle: performance evaluation Source : Amber Adams-Hill. Elements of architectural criticism Source : Andrea Hardy. Excerpt from Diderot’s Encyclopédie, ou dictionnaire raisonné des sciences, des arts et des métier  showing the structure and machinery involved in sugar production Source : public domain image. Kazimir Malevich’s “Modern Buildings” (1924) Source : public domain image. The Cincinnati Contemporary Art Center by Zaha Hadid Source : photo by Sarah Le Clerc. OMA’s CCTV Tower, headquarters of China Central Television Source : public domain image. Contents page of the January 1910 edition of Architectural Record  Source : photo by author.

9780415725323pre_pi-xxxiv.indd viii

4 4 8 10 13 14 16

25 28 29 30 38

9/6/2014 6:24:18 PM

List of figures

3.2 3.3 3.4 4.1 5.1

5.2

5.3

5.4

5.5

5.6

5.7

6.1 6.2 6.3

Cover of the January 1955 issue of Architectural Forum Source : photo by author. Progressive Architecture ’s April 1994 issue. Source : photo by author. Cover of 35th Annual P/A Awards issue, January 1988 Source : photo by author. 9+1 Ways of Being Political  exhibition at MoMA in 2012 Source : author. Candido Portinari, Desbravamento da Mata (Entry Into the Forest), mural painting, 316 × 431 cm, Library of Congress, Washington, DC, USA, 1941 Source : Projeto Portinari. Candido Portinari, Descoberta do Ouro (Discovery of Gold), mural painting, 394 × 463 cm, Library of Congress, Washington, DC, USA, 1941 Source : Projeto Portinari. Oscar Niemeyer, Dance Hall in Pampulha, Belo Horizonte, Brazil, 1940–1943 Source : photograph by Gustabo Neves da Rocha Filho. FAU-USP’s Library. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/deed.pt_BR Oscar Nimeyer, Casino in Pampulha, Belo Horizonte, Brazil, 1940–1943 Source : photograph by Eduardo Kneese de Mello. FAU-USP’s Library. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/deed.pt_BR João Vilanova Artigas and Carlos Cascaldi, Faculty of Architecture and Urbanism at the University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil, 1961–1969 Source : SEF-USP. João Vilanova Artigas and Carlos Cascaldi, Faculty of Architecture and Urbanism at the University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil, 1961–1969 Source : photograph by Raul Garcez. FAU-USP’s Library. João Vilanova Artigas and Carlos Cascaldi, Faculty of Architecture and Urbanism at the University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil, 1961–1969 Source : photograph Eduardo Kneese de Mello. FAU-USP’s Library. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/deed.pt_BR Dia:Beacon entrance, with Walter De Maria’s Equal Areas, 1977. Stainless steel on ground, 2003 Source : David Joseph. Galia Solomonoff, Defective Brick, 2000, at Artist Space Source : Lily Wang. Galia Solomonoff, Defective Brick, 2000, at Artist Space Source : Lily Wang.

9780415725323pre_pi-xxxiv.indd ix

ix

41 42 43 50

56

57 58

58

60

61

62

68 69 70

9/6/2014 6:24:18 PM

x

List of figures

6.4 Galia Solomonoff, with Columbia University students. BOB, The Pavilion installation, 2011 Source : Alex Guerrero. 6.5 Galia Solomonoff, with Columbia University students. BOB, The Pavilion installation, 2011 Source : Alex Guerrero. 6.6 Galia Solomonoff, Solomonoff Architecture Studio.The Pavilion interior, 2011 Source : Galia Solomonoff. 7.1 Architecture is less … Source : author. 7.2 The performance cycle Source : author. 7.3 Performance characters Source : author. 7.4 Performance roles Source : author. 8.1 View of Al Azhar Park to the north Source : photographer: Gary Otte; Aga Khan Trust for Culture, Geneva. 8.2 View to the north of the park through the main spine Source : author. 8.3 View to lakeside café through the lake Source : author. 8.4 Front view of hilltop restaurant showing outdoor terraces and the Mamluk architectural motifs adapted to create a contemporary image in harmony with the context Source : author. 9.1 Azuma House by Tadao Ando in Osaka: (a) street façade; (b) �oor plan level 1; (c) �oor plan level 2; (d) �oor plan level 3 10.1 Development of the policy for energy-efficient and sustainable buildings in Germany Source : diagram by U. Schramm based on http://www.enevonline.de and http://www.nachhaltiges bauen.de 10.2 Example of an energy performance certi�cate, based on the real energy consumption of a residential building during occupancy, indicating a benchmark of 124.3 kWh/m2a Source : U. Schramm with energy consultant U. Schreiner. 10.3 Federal Environment Agency, Dessau, 2005 DGNB-Certi�cate: “Gold,” RIBA award, Deutscher Architekturpreis: High Commendation Source : Wikipedia Commons, February 28, 2014. 10.4 Demolition works and protest demonstration at the north wing of Stuttgart’s 100-year-old train station Source : Wikipedia Commons, February 28, 2014.

9780415725323pre_pi-xxxiv.indd x

70 71 71 76 78 79 81 92 93 93

94 107 114

115

116 118

9/6/2014 6:24:18 PM

List of figures

11.1 Examples of Egyptian architecture magazine covers – Alam El-Benaa and Medina Magazine   Source : author. 13.1 41 Cooper Square at the Cooper Union designed by Thom Mayne of Morphosis Source : author. 14.1 An in-house approach to the use of post-occupancy evaluations Source : Andrea Hardy. 14.2 Key components of a post-occupancy evaluation Source : Andrea Hardy. 14.3 Categories for post-occupancy evaluations, simpler indicative to more complex diagnostic POE Source : Andrea Hardy. 14.4 In-house and external in�uences through the use of postoccupancy evaluations Source : Andrea Hardy. 14.5 People in�uence buildings and buildings in�uence people Source : Andrea Hardy. 14.6 POEs allow for a more direct interaction and in�uences between clients, occupants, and buildings Source : Andrea Hardy. 14.7 Each examination room has a unique view – some of the sky, others the parking lot Source : buildipedia.com, April 6, 2014; Credit: Iwan Baan. 14.8 Imagine having to wash windows after a sand storm Source : buildipedia.com, April 6, 2014; Credit: Gehry Partners LLP. 15.1 The cover illustration from Flying Blind (Bordass 2001) Source : Louis Hellman. 16.1 Footprint of buildings during Expo 2010 Shanghai China Source : Clare Jacobson. 16.2 Footprint of buildings on July 12, 2013 Source : Clare Jacobson. 16.3 Site map of �ve zones during Expo 2010 Shanghai China Source : Clare Jacobson. 16.4 Site map of future use of �ve zones, as de�ned by the Expo Shanghai Group, March 2013 Source : Clare Jacobson. 16.5 National pavilions in Pudong during Expo 2010 and during the summer of 2013 Source : Clare Jacobson. 16.6 National pavilions in Pudong during Expo 2010 and during the summer of 2013 Source : Clare Jacobson.

9780415725323pre_pi-xxxiv.indd xi

xi

123 137 150 151 151 153 155 155 156 156 164 172 173 175 175 177 178

9/6/2014 6:24:18 PM

xii

List of figures

16.7 National pavilions in Pudong during Expo 2010 and during the summer of 2013 Source : Clare Jacobson. 17.1 A picture book on the journey of Marron Sister and Acorn Brother Source : Akikazu Kato. 17.2 Ward plan of Katta Public General Hospital (�oor level 3) Source : courtesy of Taro Ashihara Architects. 17.3 Single-bed room versus multi-bed room Source : Shiho Mori. 17.4 Suggestion to make two inconsistent ideas possible in Japan Source : Shiho Mori. 17.5 Ideal type of relations between privacy and communication Source : Shiho Mori. 17.6 Example of adjusting interpersonal relationship Source : Shiho Mori. 17.7 Schematic sketch of all single room inpatient ward Source : Akikazu Kato. 19.1 Evaluative map of Knoxville by residents Source : author. 19.2 Evaluative map of Chattanooga by visitors Source : author. 19.3 Adjective checklist for qualities the new headquarters should convey Source : author. 20.1 Form-based codes, Columbia Pike,VA Source : photo by Brett VA, licensed under CCx3.0. 20.2 Form-based codes architecture Source : photo by D. Scheer. 21.1 Researcher and informant dialogue Source : author. 21.2 Profession, criticism, and evaluation dialogue Source : author. 22.1 Quality improvement POE levels Source : Dina Battisto and Sonya Albury-Crandall. 22.2 POE components informed by MHS world-class principles Source : Dina Battisto and Sonya Albury-Crandall. 22.3 Simpli�ed performance concept to connect outcomes to facility design Source : Dina Battisto and Deborah Franqui. 22.4 POE performance framework Source : Dina Battisto, Deborah Franqui, and Mason Couvillion. 22.5 POE phases and data collection tools Source : Dina Battisto, Deborah Franqui, and Mason Couvillion.

9780415725323pre_pi-xxxiv.indd xii

179 185 187 188 189 189 190 190 213 213 214 220 222 229 229 234 235 236 237 239

9/6/2014 6:24:18 PM

List of figures

22.6 Example of metrics for access and way�nding Source : Dina Battisto and Deborah Franqui. 22.7 Example of data collection tools and metrics for access and way�nding Source : Dina Battisto and Deborah Franqui. 23.1 Illustration of discriminatory design practice Source : photo by Korydon Smith. 23.2 Illustration of universal design practice Source : photo by Korydon Smith. 23.3 Conceptual diagram of the complementary paradigms of universal design Source : Korydon Smith. 24.1 The Interrelated Concepts of Regenerative Design. From Beyond LEED, exhibition at the University of Texas at Austin, Fall 2012. Elizabeth Walsh, designer, produced through http://www.wordle.net 24.2 Public conversation as a driver of changing social, ecological, and material conditions 24.3 Greensburg Regenerative Design Dialogue Source : BNIM, © BNIM. 24.4 Greensburg Regenerative Rebuild, LEED-Platinum high school Source : BNIM, © Assassi. 24.5 Regenerative tourism at Playa Viva Source : courtesy of Playa Viva; photo by Randolph Langenbach. 24.6 Participatory process for the Potty Project Source : Julia King. 24.7 A decentralized sewerage system in the making Source : Julia King. 25.1 Example of Eisenman’s use of sloping windows and ground planes at the Greater Columbus Convention Center Source : Mark Olson. 25.2 The shattered building style of Libeskind’s addition at the Royal Ontario Museum compared to the frenzied work of Gehry at MIT’s Stata Center Source : Wikipedia. 25.3 The shattered building style of Libeskind’s addition at the Royal Ontario Museum compared to the frenzied work of Gehry at MIT’s Stata Center Source : Wikipedia.

9780415725323pre_pi-xxxiv.indd xiii

xiii

239 240 245 246 249

253 256 258 259 260 260 261 272

274

275

9/6/2014 6:24:18 PM

TABLES

1.1 1.2 A1.1 2.1 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4 14.1 15.1 19.1 19.2 19.3

Milestones in the evolution of habitability research Space: toward a new paradigm and taxonomy Core bibliography Major phases in the evolution of architectural criticism in the United States and its European antecedents in aesthetic criticism Categories of concepts/terms utilized in the content analysis of media coverage of Al Azhar Park Compelling titles used by the media to project and depict Al Azhar Park Reasons for users’ ratings of the park design as excellent or good Activities people perform when visiting the park Milestones in the evolution of POE/BPE Elements of a new professionalism: ten points developed with the Edge Salient physical characteristics of environments Strengths and weakness of various modes of presentation Items for use in assessing salient aspects of emotional appraisals

9780415725323pre_pi-xxxiv.indd xiv

7 11 17 32 96 97 99 101 148 168 210 210 211

9/6/2014 6:24:18 PM

NOTES ON THE EDITORS

Wolfgang F. E. Preiser,

University of Cincinnati and Arizona State University, holds a PhD in Man–Environment Relations from Penn State, and several architecture degrees from Virginia Tech, Karlsruhe Tech (Germany), and Vienna Tech (Austria). He has over 40 years of experience in teaching, research, and consulting in the evaluation and programming of environments, including health care facilities, public housing, public libraries, cross-cultural and universal design, as well as design research in general. He has published 18 books and over 130 chapters, monographs and articles. His most recent books include: Enhancing Building Performance  (Wiley, 2012); Universal Design Handbook (McGraw-Hill, 2010); and Designing for Designers: Lessons Learned From Schools of Architecture  (Fairchild, 2007). Preiser has lectured worldwide at 69 venues and conferences in the United States and Canada, as well as 86 overseas. He has served on national committees with the American Institute of Architects, the Building Research Board of the National Academy of Sciences, and the National Institute for Disability Rehabilitation Research. Preiser has received many awards, including: two Progressive Architecture Awards; two Professional Fellowships from the National Endowment for the Arts; The Career Award from the Environmental Design Research Association (EDRA); two EDRA Achievement Awards; as well as other awards while at the University of Cincinnati. Aaron Davis holds

a Master’s degree in Architecture from Columbia University (2009). His undergraduate degree in Architecture is from the University of Cincinnati (2004). He has been practicing in architecture for the past ten years with Foster + Partners in London and New York, and Rafael Vinoly Architects in New York and Cleveland, Ohio. Davis is currently a Partner at PRE-OFFICE. Aaron has served as a guest cr itic at Columbia University, the University of Cincinnati, and The Rhode Island School of Design where he was also a Graduate Thesis Critic in 2009–  2010. Davis has been published in numerous journals, including:  Art & Education, Volume , Urban China, Test Pattern, and The International Journal of Architecture Research. Ashraf M. Salama ,

PhD, FRSA, FHEA is a licensed architect in Egypt, and received his BSc, MSc, and PhD from Al Azhar University, Egypt and North Carolina State University,

9780415725323pre_pi-xxxiv.indd xv

9/6/2014 6:24:18 PM

xvi

Notes on the editors

Raleigh, North Carolina, USA. He is Professor and Chair of Department of Architecture at the University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK. Dr. Salama has wr itten over 100 articles and papers in local and international conferences, archival journals, and trade magazines; contributed 14 book chapters; and authored and co-edited seven books: New Trends in Architectural Education: Designing the Design Studio  (Tailor Text Publishers, 1995); Human Factors in Environmental Design (Anglo-Egyptian Publishers, 1998);  Architectural Education Today  (Comportements, Lausanne, Switzerland, 2002);  Architecture as Language of Peace   (Intra-Moenia, 2005), Design Studio Pedagogy: Horizons for the Future   (Urban International Press, 2007); Transformative Pedagogy in  Architecture and Urbanism (Umbau-Verlag, 2009); and Demystifying Doha: On Architecture and Urbanism in an Emerging City  (Ashgate, 2013). He is currently working on a book entitled Spatial Design Education (Ashgate, 2015). Professor Salama was the recipient of the �rst award of the International Architecture Design Studio, University of Montreal, Canada, 1990, and in 1998 he won the Paul Chemetove Prize for his project on Architecture and the Eradication of Poverty, a United Nations International Ideas Competition. Dr. Salama has been appointed Technical Reviewer for the Aga Khan Award for Architecture in Geneva, 8th Cycle (1998–  2001). He has chaired the jury team for the International Students Competitions organized by the IAHH – the International Association for Humane Habitat – Mumbai, India in 2006–2007. In 2012, he served as a jury member in the international limited competition for designing an eco-villa organized by Gulf Organization for Research and Development (GORD), and sat on the panel of Jurors in CityScape Awards in Qatar. Andrea Hardy,

Arizona State University, Creo Architects, holds a Master’s degree in Architecture from Arizona State University (2012). Her undergraduate degree in “Architectural Engineering Technology” is from Wentworth Institute of Technology (2007). She has been practicing in architecture offi ces for the past ten years both during and between obtaining her degrees. After working professionally in Boston and Phoenix, and studying public architecture through Arizona State University in Buenos Aires, Argentina, Hardy is currently working at Creo Architects in Phoenix and is working towards getting her architectural license. While at Arizona State University, Hardy was a member of the American Institute of Architecture Students, served one term as Secretary for the American Institute of Architecture Students, was a teaching assistant for a design studio and history class, received multiple scholarships, and participated in non-academic activities such as volunteer work for Habitat for Humanity and working on multiple design competitions.

9780415725323pre_pi-xxxiv.indd xvi

9/6/2014 6:24:18 PM

NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS

Dina Battisto, PhD, is Associate Professor in the School of Architecture at Clemson University

where she teaches in the Architecture + Health Program and leads the Built Environment and Health concentration area in the PhD program. She conducts environmental research with a goal of improving the design of health care facilities using a building performance approach. As Principal Investigator, Dr. Battisto has been awarded a total of $3.5 million of external research funding since 2008. In addition, she has won numerous national design awards, is highly recruited to speak at conference venues, and is widely published. Ursula Baus studied art history, philosophy, classical archaeology, as well as architecture, in

Stuttgart, Germany and Paris, France. Her studies culminated in her doctorate in architectural history in Stuttgart in 1999. For over two decades, she has been working as publisher, �rst as editor of an architectural magazine and subsequently as independent critic and researcher in architecture. Until 2011, she taught architectural theory and criticism at several universities, published textbooks on a variety of topics, and lectured both nationally and internationally. In 2004, she co-founded the partnership “frei04 publizistik,” for both national and international architectural publications. Until 2012, she served as vice-president of the advisory board for the Bundesstiftung Baukultur (Federal Foundation for Architectural Culture). Since 2010, she has been a scienti�c advisor to the IBA Basel 2020 (International Building Exhibition). She serves as a member of the advisory board for the Schelling Architecture Foundation and as expert for the Mies van der Rohe Award.As an editor, she was a member of the internet portal www.german-architects.com until 2013. Currently, she is owner of a new internet portal for architectural criticism. Clayton Boenecke, MHA, serves as the Chief, Portfolio Management, in the Defense Health

Agency. Clay leads a team of civilian health care planners and collaborates with colleagues from the army, navy, and air force to identify the most important medical facility investments for the Department of Defense. Clay actively supports EBD principles and research and their inclusion in military medical facility construction and renovation. Clay is a Fellow of the Health Facilities Institute and member of ASHE.

9780415725323pre_pi-xxxiv.indd xvii

9/6/2014 6:24:18 PM

xviii

Notes on contributors

Bill Bordass, William Bordass Associates and the Usable Buildings Trust, is a scientist who

moved to the designers RMJM London, going on to lead its building services and energy groups. He now studies technical and environmental performance of buildings in use and works closely with human factors specialists. He was a member of the team that undertook the published PROBE series of post-occupancy evaluations. With co-author Adrian Leaman, he helped to set up the Usable Buildings Trust charity which seeks to make building perfor mance evaluation a routine activity for design and building teams and their clients. Michael J. Crosbie, PhD, FAIA, has made signi�cant contributions in the �elds of architectural

 journalism, research, teaching, and practice. He studied architecture and received his Doctor of Philosophy degree from Catholic University. He has served as an editor at  Architecture: The  AIA Journal , Progressive Architecture , and  ArchitectureWeek.com, and since 2001 he has served as editor-in-chief of Faith & Form, a quarterly interfaith journal on religious art and architecture. He is also a frequent contributor to Oculus magazine,  Architectural Record , and writes about architecture and design for the Hartford Courant . He is the author of more than 20 books on architecture, including �ve books for children. Dr. Crosbie is a Professor of Architecture and Chair of the Department of Architecture, and Associate Dean of the College of Engineering, Technology, and Architecture at the University of Hartford, and has served as an adjunct professor at Roger Williams University and Catholic University. He has lectured and served as a visiting critic at architecture schools in North America and abroad, among them the University of California (Berkeley), the University of Pennsylvania, Yale University, and the Moscow Architectural Institute. Dr. Crosbie has practiced with Centerbrook Architects and Steven Winter Associates, is a registered architect in the State of Connecticut, and is a member of the College of Fellows of the American Institute of Architects. Frank Duffy trained as an architect at the Architectural Association School in London from

1959 to 1964. He became interested in office design in the fourth year when his class was given the br ief to design an office building that, unlike briefs for more socially committed projects, was extremely abbreviated. Coincidentally, his imagination was stimulated by a novel form of offi ce planning in Germany called Buerolandschaft , or office landscaping, based on studies of internal patterns of communication. In 1967 Duffy went to the USA as a Harkness Fellow, �rst to Berkeley then to Princeton, where the focus of his doctoral research was the study of how several sociological dimensions, complexity of hierarchical structures, as well as the frequency and intensity of internal interactions related to varying degrees of differentiation and openness in offi ce layouts.In 1971 Duffy returned to London, initially working on a series of offi ce projects across Europe for IBM. These projects were the foundation of DEGW, the international architectural and space planning practice he helped to found. DEGW has published widely in architecture and interior design and has conducted many research studies, most notably the ORBIT series on the impact of information technology on the workplace.Duffy has been much involved in professional politics, serving as President of the Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) and of the Architects’ Council of Europe. In 1997 he was appointed a Commander of the British Empire (CBE) by Her Majesty the Queen. Thomas Fisher is a Professor in the School of Architecture and Dean of the College of Design

at the University of Minnesota. A graduate of Cornell University in Architecture and Case

9780415725323pre_pi-xxxiv.indd xviii

9/6/2014 6:24:18 PM

Notes on contributors

xix

Western Reserve University in Intellectual History, he was recognized in 2005 as the �fth most published writer about architecture in the United States. He has written seven books, 47 book chapters or introductions, and over 325 articles in professional journals and major publications. Named a top-25 design educator four times by Design Intelligence, he has lectured at 36 universities and over 150 professional and public meetings in the US.He has written extensively about architectural design, practice, and ethics. His books include In the Scheme of Things:  Alternative Thinking on the Practice of Architecture  (Minnesota, 2000), Architectural Design and Ethics, Tools for Survival   (Architectural Press, 2008), Ethics for Architects: 50 Dilemmas of Professional Practice  (Princeton Architectural Press, 2010), two monographs on the work of architect David Salmela (Minnesota, 2005, 2011), a book on the work of Lake Flato (Rockport, 2005), and a book on system design entitled Designing to Avoid Disaster:The Nature of Fracture-Critical Design (Routledge, 2013). He has also co-edited a book with Wolfgang Preiser and Jack Nasar entitled Designing for Designers: Lessons Learned from Schools of Architecture  (Fairchild, 2007). Some recent chapters he has written include one on the history of ethics education in  Architecture School:Three Centuries of Educating Architects in North America  (MIT, 2012) and one on ethics for the next edition of The Architects Handbook of Professional Practice  (AIA, 2013). Deborah Franqui,  AIA, is currently a PhD candidate in the Planning, Design and Built

Environment PhD Program in the College of Architecture, Arts and Humanities at Clemson University. Her experience as a licensed architect and owner of SPACES architects in Puerto Rico focused on the programming, planning, design, and construction management of workplace environments. Her recent exper ience has focused on developing pathways to assess the performance of ambulatory care clinic environments. Daniel S. Friedman is Dean of the School of Architecture at the University of Hawaii at

Manoa. Prior to joining the faculty at UHM, Friedman served as Dean of the College of Built Environments at the University of Washington, director of the School of Architecture at the University of Illinois at Chicago, and director of the School of Architecture and Interior Design at the University of Cincinnati. Friedman lectures and writes on professional education, public architecture, ethics, and contemporary theory. He earned advanced degrees in architecture at the University of Pennsylvania, where he completed his doctoral dissertation on the history and design of the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in La Jolla. He was elevated to the AIA College of Fellows in 2001. Pedro Gadanho is the Curator of Contemporary Architecture in the Department of

Architecture and Design at the Museum of Modern Art, New York. Previously, he divided his activity between architecture, teaching, writing, and curating. Gadanho holds an MA in art and architecture and PhD in architecture and mass media. He is the author of  Arquitetura em Público, and recipient of the FAD Prize for Thought and Criticism in 2012. He was the editor of BEYOND   bookazine, writes the Shrapnel Contemporary blog, and contributes regularly to international publications. He curated Meta�ux at the 2004 Venice Architecture Biennale and exhibitions such as Post.Rotterdam, Space Invaders, and Pancho Guedes, An Alternative Modernist. He was also a chief curator of ExperimentaDesign between 2001 and 2003. Amongst exhibition layouts, galleries, and refurbishments, his designs included the Ellipse Foundation in Lisbon, and the widely published Orange House, in Carreço, Family Home, in Oporto, and GMG House, in Torres Vedras.

9780415725323pre_pi-xxxiv.indd xix

9/6/2014 6:24:18 PM

xx

Notes on contributors

Remah Y. Gharib received his PhD in Architecture and Urban Design from the University

of Nottingham, where he developed his knowledge of revitalization of histor ic quarters. His research focuses on aspects of public policy for mulation and implementation. Prior to receiving his PhD, he earned his Master’s within the �eld of managing historic cities. He received his Bachelor in Architectural Engineering from Misr International University in Cairo. Dr. Gharib is currently coordinating the Urban Design and Architecture in Muslim Societies program at Hamad Bin Khalifa University and teaching four courses at the Master’s level. He published in several refereed journals, participated in inter national peer-reviewed conferences, and is currently a collaborating editor for the International Journal of Architectural Research-Archnet . Ike Ijeh is a practicing architect and is architecture critic for Building  and BD  magazines, two

of the UK’s leading architecture publications. Ike also founded London Architecture Walks, London’s original architectural guided walks company. He is also a senior partner at Blackstone Architects and is a specialist on London’s architecture, planning, and public spaces. At Building  and BD  magazines Ike has become one of the UK’s foremost architecture critics. He is also a  judge for the Building Awards, one of the UK’s most prestigious construction industry awards and the Carbuncle Cup, the irreverent annual prize for the UK’s worst building. Through London Architecture Walks Ike has pursued his aim of making architecture more accessible to the public and has hosted acclaimed walks and presentations for a wide range of lay and professional audiences.Blackstone Architects specializes in residential, community work as well as academic research in the UK and abroad. Previously Ike has been employed by some of the UK’s foremost architectural practices including Foster + Partners where he worked on the successful part-pedestrianization of London’s Trafalgar Square.He has also prepared extensive masterplans for major mixed-use urban regeneration projects and has worked on the design of several residential and commercial buildings across the UK.Ike is an inaugural member of the Hackney Design Review Panel and has been a trustee of the Hackney Histor ic Buildings Trust and contributor to the St Giles Regeneration Forum. He is also preparing a manuscr ipt for a book on new public spaces in London. Clare Jacobson is a Shanghai-based design writer and editor. She is the author of the book New Museums in China  (Princeton Architectural Press, 2013) and co-author of Karlssonwilker Inc.’s Tell Me Why: The First 24 Months of a New York Design Company  (Princeton Architectural Press, 2003). Jacobson is a contributing editor to  Architectural Record , and her articles have also appeared in Engineering News Record , Randian, Architectural Review Asia Pacific , Landscape  Architecture , and other magazines. As editor and editorial director at Princeton Architectural

Press for 21 years, she originated, acquired, and developed more than 120 books on architecture, graphic design, landscape architecture, photography, and visual culture. She has a BArts and BArch in architecture from Penn State University. Akikazu Kato is Professor of Architecture at Mie University Graduate School of Engineering,

 Japan. His appointment includes teaching and research responsibilities in the �elds of architectural planning and facility management. Previous positions include faculty member of other national universities, and licensed architect at Kume Architects. He received his doctorate in Engineering from Nagoya University. He has published a number of books and refereed papers, and presented at various international symposiums. Also, he planned and designed a number of architecture works mostly in the health care �eld including those winning prizes as

9780415725323pre_pi-xxxiv.indd xx

9/6/2014 6:24:18 PM

Notes on contributors

xxi

1991 Minister of Health Award for Hekinan City Hospital and 2001 Minister of Construction Award for Asahi-honmachi Housing for Elderly. Paul Knox holds a Master of Architecture degree from Columbia University’s Graduate School

of Architecture, Planning and Preservation. He is currently a façade consultant in New York City. He has previously worked for the Buell Center for the Study of American Architecture, Rafael Vinoly Architects, and Gensler. He has received awards from Columbia University’s GSAPP and the American Institute of Architects. Adrian Leaman,  Building Use Studies Ltd and the Usable Buildings Trust, specializes in

understanding buildings from the point of view of their users and managers. He is best known for his work with Building Use Studies, and has been involved with pioneering projects including Space Syntax, the PROBE series of post-occupancy studies, and studies of sick building syndrome, and workplace productivity. With co-author Bill Bordass, he helped to set up the Usable Buildings Trust, a charity devoted to disseminating independent and objective �ndings about building performance and to in�uence the industry, its clients, building managers, and government. José T. Lira, University of São Paulo, graduated in Architecture (1989) and Philosophy (1999).

Lira is an Associate Professor at the Faculty of Architecture and Urbanism of the University of São Paulo (FAU-USP), where he has got his Doctorate (1997) and ‘Livre Docencia’ (2008) degrees. Since 1998, he has been in charge of several research projects on the history, historiography, and criticism of architecture, planning and housing, and acted as full advisor in the Master’s and PhD programs at FAU-USP. He is a research affi liate of the Brazilian National Council of Research (CNPq) since 1999 and in 2009 has developed a post-doctorate research program at Columbia University. Between 2010 and 2014 he was the director of the Center for Cultural Preservation at the University of São Paulo (CPC-USP). He has lectured at several universities, taking part in different seminars and conferences in Brazil and elsewhere. He has authored and co-edited nine books and over 70 articles, chapters, papers, and book introductions in academic journals, books, and other publications. His most recent books include Memória, Trabalho e Arquitetura (Editora da Universidade de São Paolo, 2013), São Paulo, os estrangeiros e a construção das cidades (Alameda, 2011), and Warchavchik: fraturas da vanguarda (Cosac & Nafy, 2011), which has received a book award at the 7th Ibero-American Architecture and Planning Biennale and a Jabuti Prize. Yasser Mahgoub is an architect, academic, and scholar. He received his BSc in Architectural

Engineering from Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt in 1978 and a Doctorate in Architecture from the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, USA in 1990. He has held several academic positions since 1990 at Ain Shams University, United Arab Emirates University, Kuwait University, and Qatar University. He has practiced as a professional architect in Egypt and was a founding member in 1980 of “The Egyptian Designers” architectural �rm in Cairo, Egypt. He has participated as an architect consultant from 1990 to date. Mahgoub teaches architectural design studios, architectural research, environment and behavior studies in architecture and architectural professional practice. His research interests include social and cultural aspects of architecture, sustainable architecture, architectural education, and the impact of globalization on architecture. He has published refereed research papers and book chapters, and attended and

9780415725323pre_pi-xxxiv.indd xxi

9/6/2014 6:24:18 PM

xxii

Notes on contributors

presented papers in several international and regional conferences. He is a member of many conferences and journal scienti�c committees/editorial boards. Steven A. Moore is Bartlett Cocke Regents Professor of Architecture and Planning at the

University of Texas at Austin where he teaches design and interdisciplinary courses related to the philosophy, history, and application of sustainable technology. He is Director of the Graduate Program in Sustainable Design and Co-founder of the University of Texas Center for Sustainable Development. Moore is a Fellow of the National Endowment for the Arts, a Loeb Fellow of the Harvard Graduate School of Design, and the recipient of an Individual Scholar Award from the National Science Foundation. He is the author of many articles and book chapters and six books on the topic of sustainable architecture and urbanism. Moore’s most recent book, co-authored with Barbara B. Wilson, is Questioning Architectural Judgment: The Problem of Codes in the United States (Routledge, 2014) Shiho Mori is Assistant Professor of Architecture at Mie University Graduate School of

Engineering, Japan. She carr ies out consulting on master plans in medical and welfare facilities, to focus on the relation between the management and the space planning. She has presented at international congresses, and worked as a lecturer in training courses for facility directors of nursing homes. Her previous position was the planner of a housing equipment offi ce. Using the experience of her previous post, she is participating in several projects, from detached houses to a large-scale housing complex planned to realize universal design. Jack L. Nasar, PhD, FAICP, is a Professor of city and regional planning at the Knowlton School and editor of  Journal of Planning Literature . He has published more than 80 scholarly articles on

meaning, cognition, fear, crime, and spatial behavior in relation to the environment. Nasar served as architectural critic for The Columbus Dispatch and guest critic for Landscape Architecture . His books include Environmental Aesthetics:Theory, Research, & Applications (Cambridge, 1988); The Evaluative Image of the City (Sage, 1997); Design by Competition: Making Design Competitions Work (Cambridge, 1999); Universal Design and Visitability: From Accessibility to Zoning   (with J. Evans-Cowley) (Ohio State University Press, 2007); and Designing for Designers: Lessons Learned from Schools of Architecture  (with W. F. E. Preiser, and T. Fisher) (Fairchild, 2007). An invited lecturer around the world, Nasar has received the EDRA Career Achievement Award, Lumley Award for Excellence in Research at Ohio State, Ethel Chattel Fellowship from University of Sydney, and the Distinguished Alumni Award from the School of Architecture at Washington University in St. Louis. Yann Nussaume, French architect is Professor and co-director of the research team AMP

UMR LAVUE CNRS 7218 at the Ecole Nationale Sup érieure d’architecture de Paris La Villette in Paris. He is an architect and the author, editor, or co-editor of publications on architecture and landscape, such as Tadao Andô (Hazan/Birkaüser/Jaca, 2009); Toyo Itô: Détails de structures lé gères (Le Moniteur, 2003); Construire en Chine   (Le Moniteur, 2005); La Maison Individuelle  (Le Moniteur, 2006); La Maison individuelle vers des paysages soutenables? (La Villette, 2012); and Teaching Landscape in Architecture  (La Villette, 2009). He was also one of the organizers of the international conference “Landscape and Imagination” on 2–4 May 2013, the proceedings of which have been published as C. Newman,Y. Nussaume, and B. Pedroli (eds), Landscape & Imagination: Towards a New Baseline for Education in a Changing World  (UNISCAPE, Florence / Baldecchi & Vivaldi, Pontedera, 2013).

9780415725323pre_pi-xxxiv.indd xxii

9/6/2014 6:24:18 PM

Notes on contributors

xxiii

Nigel Oseland is a workplace strategist, change manager, environmental psychologist, and

author with ten years’ research and 15 years’ consulting experience. Nigel is an internationally recognized expert in occupant feedback methods, performance and productivity, agile working, environmental conditions, and the psychology of the workplace.Nigel established his own consulting practice, Workplace Unlimited, several years ago. His approach to workplace consulting is to apply his knowledge, obtained through both academic research and practical experience. He advises occupiers on how to rede�ne their workstyles to provide spaceefficient and cost-effective workplaces that enhance business performance. Nigel specializes in workplace strategies that improve collaboration, enhance creativity, facilitate concentration, meet psychological needs, respond to changing organizational structure, and deliver maximum value.Nigel mostly focuses on his consulting practice but occasionally carries out client funded research projects, for example on behalf of the British Council for Offices, Office Productivity Network, the MOD, and Herman Miller. He is also the Chair of the Workplace Consulting Organization and co-founder of the Office Productivity Network. He continues to write articles and guidance, present regularly at international conferences, and organizes the annual Workplace Trends and the Learning Environments conferences. He was the lead author of the BCO’s Guide to POE . Brenda C. Scheer, AIA, FAICP, is a Professor at the College of Architecture + Planning at the

University of Utah, where she was dean for 11 years. She is a nationally recognized authority on urban design and the development of cities. She was a Loeb Fellow at the Har vard Graduate School of Design, and is a registered architect and planner. As dean, she made environmental and civic concerns her hallmark, creating an innovative metropolitan planning program and emphasizing community and environmental engagement. Professor Scheer serves on multiple civic boards, including Envision Utah. She has served on the editorial boards of the  Journal of the American Planning Association, Housing Policy Debate , and Urban Morphology. Scheer is the author of three books, including her most recent book: The Evolution of Urban Form: Typology  for Planners and Architects (American Planning Association, 2010). She is also the author of multiple journal articles on the role of urban design in urban policy. Ulrich Schramm is Professor in the Department of Architecture and Civil Engineering at the

University of Applied Sciences in Bielefeld, Germany. His appointment includes teaching and research responsibilities in the �eld of facility programming and building performance evaluation. He received his Doctorate in Architecture from the University of Stuttgart and a postdoctoral fellowship from the German Research Foundation (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, DFG) for his stay at the University of Cincinnati as Visiting Professor of Architecture. Results of his research within the International Building Performance Evaluation (IBPE) consortium have been presented at EDRA and IAPS conferences since 1995 and published in several articles and book chapters. Korydon H. Smith is Associate Professor in the Department of Architecture at the University

at Buffalo, where he teaches undergraduate and graduate courses in architectural design and conducts research on design and social justice. Smith is the lead author of  Just Below the Line: Disability, Housing, and Equity in the South  (University of Arkansas Press, 2010), co-editor of the Universal Design Handbook, 2nd edn. (McGraw-Hill, 2010), and editor of Introducing Architectural Theory: Debating a Discipline   (Routledge, 2012). Smith holds an Ed.D. in higher education

9780415725323pre_pi-xxxiv.indd xxiii

9/6/2014 6:24:18 PM

xxiv

Notes on contributors

leadership from the University of Arkansas and a professional M.Arch. with a concentration in architectural theory and design from the University at Buffalo. Galia Solomonoff is the founder and director of Solomonoff Architecture Studio. She received

her Master’s in Architecture from Columbia University, and was awarded the McKim Prize for Excellence in Design. Prior to founding SAS, Solomonoff founded OpenOffi ce. She has taught at Princeton University, The Cooper Union, Yale, and currently is a Professor of Architectural Practice at Columbia University.Solomonoff is the recipient of several design awards, and art grants. Her work appeared in The New York Times , The New Yorker , W , ARTNews, Artforum, and Domus. New York Magazine   called Dia: Beacon, which Solomonoff designed, “one of today’s most compelling museums,” and named Solomonoff part of the Next Wave of Designers in 2009. Solomonoff collaborated in several books including: Latin American Architecture: Six Voices (Texas A&M Press, 2000) and Post Ductility: Metals in Architecture and Engineering   (Princeton Architectural Press, 2012); and is working on “Documenting Latin American Architecture”, a documentary and book project. Her writing aims at the recognition of Latin American architecture’s cultural relevance and the advancement of architecture as a discipline signi�cant to everyone. Gen Taniguchi is Presidential Advisor on Facility Management at Nagoya University, Japan,

Head of Facility Management Offi ce, and Professor of Architecture. He is currently involved in the development of a campus master plan and town-hood management and also the asset management of public facilities. His previous positions include professors at various universities and was a licensed architect at INA Architects. He has published a number of books and refereed papers, and has planned and designed a number of hospitals and welfare facilities. Elizabeth Walsh is a doctoral candidate in the Community and Regional Planning Program

and the Indoor Environmental Sciences and Engineering Program at the University of Texas at Austin. Her dissertation research investigates how the design of low-income home renovation programs might enhance capacity for environmental justice, sustainability, and resilience in centrally located, gentrifying neighborhoods.Walsh is the co-founder of the Holly Neighbors Helping Neighbors program, a neighborhood, volunteer-based green home renovation program. As the Vice Chair of the Austin Housing Repair Coalition,Walsh works with a group of 17 public, non-pro�t, and private organizations dedicated to improving the health and environmental performance of low-income housing through home repair.Walsh also serves on the Living Environments in Natural, Social and Economic Systems (LENSES) Working Group with the Institute for the Built Environment at Colorado State University and leads LENSES pilot projects related to park planning efforts in Austin. Chris Watson is Director of C Watson Consultancy Limited providing architectural services

to government, commercial, and private clients in Australasia and Europe from small simple alterations to large complex campuses. He has conducted approximately 180 POEs of schools, universities, courts, police stations, military and correction facilities, offices, museums, retail, private, social and institutional housing, and Sydney Opera House facilities.He has contributed to the development of the POE method in New Zealand since 1984. His use of POE has been developed into a model whereby robust and systematic POE techniques are applied in different ways at various stages in the building life-cycle. Brie�ng (programming) incorporates

9780415725323pre_pi-xxxiv.indd xxiv

9/6/2014 6:24:18 PM

Notes on contributors

xxv

evaluation methodology, then sketch designs are assessed by interest groups using their own performance criteria. A POE allows stakeholders to negotiate design and use. Lastly, proposed buildings are reviewed in terms of occupant experience in similar buildings that have been evaluated.Chris Watson has evaluated buildings in Scotland, England, Portugal, Australia, and New Zealand. He contributed to OECD Programme on Education Buildings conferences and publications on evaluating education facilities including a Lisbon demonstration of evaluation. Internationally, he has published and presented at conferences of industry and design research organizations. He co-edited Enhancing Building Performance  (Wiley-Blackwell, 2012). He has described his work to architecture and environmental psychology students in Asia, Europe, North America, the Middle East, and Oceania.

9780415725323pre_pi-xxxiv.indd xxv

9/6/2014 6:24:18 PM

9780415725323pre_pi-xxxiv.indd xxvi

9/6/2014 6:24:18 PM

PREFACE

The idea for this book originated with co-editors Wolf Preiser and Aaron Davis when they were discussing trends in emerging practices in architecture. Davis had been compiling a two-volume Conversations with Architects series, comprised of interviews of notable architects re�ecting on the founding, guiding principles, and economic strategies of their practices during the recession. Preiser had published six books on post-occupancy evaluation/building performance evaluation and sought to bridge the gap between that �eld and architectural criticism, as we know it in major newspapers like the New York Times , the Wall Street Journal  and architectural magazines. Previous collaborations with co-editor Ashraf Salama, editor of the International Journal for Architectural Research (IJAR ), led to an invitation for him to join the editorial team. Salama had published books six books on architectural and urban pedagogy and his latest book is entitled Demystifying Doha: On Architecture and Urbanism in an Emerging City, and so it was important that he take part, which eventually led to the inclusion of architectural writings from the Middle East. Andrea Hardy was originally brought on as an Editorial Assistant through grants awarded by Arizona State University. As Hardy continued her work on the book structure, writing, research and illustrations for the book, she was then invited to contribute as co-author in Chapters 1 and 14, and also as co-Editor. Interrogating perceived and measured quality in architecture this book establishes a responsive and unbiased discourse on these two paradigms. This is taking place by acknowledging and revealing commonalities between the two and by instituting areas within the ontological agendas of each capable of supporting the differences. Nonetheless, one the one hand, contemporary architectural criticism appears to be in a continuous search for a role that seriously contributes to informing the architect directly or indirectly and consequently affect the work he or she produces. On the other hand, building performance evaluation seems to have developed into a mature area of research and an integral component of architecture in the academy as well as in professional practice. The book aims to reveal the history and evolution of both architectural criticism and building performance evaluation while chronicling their �elds.The book contains six sections, sequenced to introduce what are disparate �elds of investigation.Through theoretical discussions, journalistic contributions, and empirical �ndings and case study investigations, these

9780415725323pre_pi-xxxiv.indd xxvii

9/6/2014 6:24:18 PM

xxviii 

Preface

sections cover the world in various regions from the Americans to the Middle East and from Europe to Australasia. The challenge of instigating a new paradigm is demonstrated through comprehensive but diverse approaches to building performance evaluation as a complement to traditional architectural cr iticism. Three unique features, typically not found in similar contr ibutions, characterize this book: international, interdisciplinary, and intergenerational. The international coverage, where most corners of the globe are represented, offers the reader a cross-cultural perspective and an opportunity to know more about different contexts and how both criticism and perfor mance evaluation are understood and practiced. The interdisciplinary nature of the book is re�ected in the diversity of its contr ibutors – academics with different specializations, such as curators, critics, and professional architects – who all contribute insights that g ive the reader glimpses of the two paradigms from various perspectives including art and aesthetics, architecture, urban design, and environmental psychology. The book is also characterized by being intergenerational in the sense that it includes thoughtful writings from academics and practitioners with little experience in the �eld and theoretical underpinnings, analytical interpretations, and case examples written by prominent professionals in academic and professional realms. The preceding three features make this contribution appealing to students of architecture, academics, critics, building industry professionals, and those who make decisions about the built environment or have an in�uence on shaping it. Additionally, the book will serve as a point of reference for the general public when trying to understand what architects do today by speaking about their experience in their �elds in their own voice.

9780415725323pre_pi-xxxiv.indd xxviii

9/6/2014 6:24:18 PM

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Our editorial team, although spread out geographically between Arizona (Wolf Preiser and Andrea Hardy), New York City (Aaron Davis) and Qatar (Ashraf Salama), worked extremely well together in bringing this book project to a successful conclusion. This book would not have been written and edited without working in teaching and conducting research in various contexts, while experiencing the multifaceted nature of the built environment in those contexts. Many people have contributed directly or indirectly to this book. We are indebted to our current and former colleagues and students alike who throughout the years have contributed to our visions and views on examining different aspects of assessing a wide spectrum of building types, settings, and spaces. We thank our authors whose pro�les in terms of experience and cultural background have made this contribution unique. Their collaborative endeavors in meeting stringent deadlines and in following well-tested guidelines are much appreciated.The result is a book that reaches across the boundaries of culture and regions, re�ected in the way in which it was developed and in the way in which it accommodates a diverse array of thoughts and visions. Thanks are due to our editors at Routledge, Jennifer Birtill and Trudy Varcianna, in assisting us in developing the original book proposal, and throughout the three draft rounds to ready the manuscript for publication. Joanna North guided us through the copy editing process, and ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ through the page proof phase of the project. Lastly, we thank our spouses and signi�cant others for enduring many lonely hours and days, while we were going through the very labor-intensive task of working our way through rounds of correcting and editing manuscripts, communicating with authors from around the globe, and at last, putting �nal touches to the present book. We owe our colleagues and families special thanks for their support and patience dur ing times when the demands of the work often interfered with personal obligations and professional responsibilities.

9780415725323pre_pi-xxxiv.indd xxix

9/6/2014 6:24:18 PM

FOREWORD Nigel Oseland

As an environmental psychologist my interests lie in how the built environment affects people’s behaviour, attitudes, comfort and performance. Le Corbusier famously claimed ‘une maison est une machine-à-habiter’, that is, ‘a house is a machine for living in’, so to me it logically follows that ‘an office is a machine for working in’ (Le Corbusier 1924). I �rmly believe that the core objective of the offi ce building is, and has always been, to facilitate the business of the occupier. The analogy extends to other buildings, other workplaces such as museums, theatres, factories and schools. Their primary purpose is to enable the activities of the occupying organization. How the building looks, its aesthetic appeal, its relationship to its surroundings, its iconic status and so on, I consider secondary functions. My viewpoint corresponds directly with advocates of Post-Occupancy Evaluation (POE); for example Preiser and Vischer (2005) explain that POE: addresses the needs, activities, and goals of the people and organizations using a facility, including maintenance, building operations, and design-related questions. Measures used in POEs include indices related to organizational and occupant performance, worker satisfaction and productivity, as well as the measures of building performance. In POE we adopt a systematic and rigorous approach to test whether the building supports the objectives of the occupying organization, assess whether it is �t for purpose, and whether it achieves its primary purpose. As we are essentially testing the functionality of the building, we can develop objective evaluation metrics. In contrast, a review of whether we �nd the building aesthetically appealing or not is more akin to treating the building as a sculpture, as art, and as such is wholly subjective. As an advocate of POE, I clearly subscribe to the design concept of ‘form follows function’. Louis Sullivan coined the phrase in the late nineteenth century (1896): It is the pervading law of all things organic and inorganic, of all things physical and metaphysical, of all things human and all things superhuman, of all true manifestations

9780415725323pre_pi-xxxiv.indd xxx

9/6/2014 6:24:18 PM

Foreword

xxxi

of the head, of the heart, of the soul, that the life is recognizable in its expression, that  form ever follows function. This is the law. Whilst Sullivan’s concept extends way beyond architecture, he freely admitted he was in�uenced by De Architectura Libri Decem (c.27 BC ). This historic book by Roman architect Vitruvius identi�ed three elements necessary for a well-designed building:  firmitas, utilitas and venustas, i.e. �rmness, utility and delight. Firmness relates to the building’s structural integrity and the basic requirement of shelter. Utility (or commodity) refers to the realm of POE; it relates to providing spaces and mechanical systems to meet the functional needs of its occupants. Finally, delight relates to the aesthetic quality, style, proportion and visual beauty of the building. So it seems that, for completeness, a wider appraisal of buildings might include a review of the aesthetic quality of the building as well as its functionality – this is more in line with Building Performance Evaluation (BPE). I concur that how the building contributes to ‘placemaking’, i.e. creating good public spaces that promote people’s happiness and well-being, is a worthy purpose. However, I maintain that in terms of the success of the building its function takes precedence over its form. I also believe a good building evaluation considers the views of all stakeholders, usually occupants and occasionally visitors. So, like Elizabeth Walsh and Steven Moore in Chapter 24, I would prefer that this broader evaluation, including aesthetic quality, considers the views and experience of all stakeholders such as neighbours and passers-by, i.e. public opinion, rather than be based on a single, personal, subjective critique. UK professional bodies, such as the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (CABE) and the British Council for Offices (BCO), consider building performance in terms of the three Es: Efficiency, Effectiveness and Expression (CABE and BCO 2005). Effi ciency refers to space and cost effi ciencies whereas effectiveness relates to how the building effectively supports the occupying business. The �rst two Es are covered under a standard POE or BPE, but the expression refers to how well the building re�ects the brand and values of the occupying organization. Since the early skyscrapers, businesses have commissioned their own uniquely identi�able buildings, and prior to the credit crunch these symbolic buildings were becoming increasingly popular. It could be argued that an expressive building supports the business by acting as an advert or perhaps by motivating the workforce by being associated with a successful company. Like Aaron Davis in Chapter 2, I would rather that buildings are evaluated against more relevant criteria than how they are used as a marketing campaign. Despite the many bene�ts of POE and BPE outlined by Wolfgang Preiser and Andrea Hardy in Chapter 14, the stark reality is that buildings are rarely evaluated. We are more likely to hear a subjective critique of the building aesthetic than see a full systematic evaluation of the building’s functionality. In his in�uential report Rethinking Construction, Sir John Egan (1998) commented on the state of the UK construction industry and noted that: the construction industry tends not to think about the customer … Companies do little systematic research on what the end-user actually wants, nor do they seek to raise customers’ aspirations and educate them to become more discerning. The industry has no objective process for auditing client satisfaction. There are very few industries that do not actively seek customer feedback with a view to improving their service or product in order to gain commercial advantage. It seems that

9780415725323pre_pi-xxxiv.indd xxxi

9/6/2014 6:24:18 PM

xxxii 

Foreword

architecture and construction are one of those industries. As Bill Bordass and Adrian Leaman point out in Chapter 15, whilst the Royal Institute of British Architects’ (RIBA) Plan of Work originally included a Stage M on ‘Feedback’, it was soon dropped and not referred to. Actively not seeking feedback on architecture is most probably rooted in exaggerated fears of litigation. But the downside to lack of evaluation and customer feedback is, as Ian Cooper (2001) puts it: ‘without a feedback loop every building, to some extent is a prototype – spaces and systems put together in new ways, with potentially unpredictable outcomes’. Whilst we should not sti�e creativity and originality in building design, we do need to ensure that the design works and mistakes are not repeated in future buildings. Bordass and Leaman provide a recent example of the consequences of a lack of feedback and unmonitored building prototypes: ‘the UK’s recent Building Schools for the Future programme, where eye-catching architectural design (and sometimes banal contractor-design) has too often trumped functionality, with poor environmental performance and high capital and running costs’. Fortunately, the latest version of RIBA’s Plan of Work includes a Stage 7, ‘In Use’ which includes POE and a review of project performance. Unfortunately, even when POEs are conducted and candid customer feedback obtained, it tends to be the positive aspects of the evaluation that are shared. Occupiers, architects and interior designers are less likely to highlight their mistakes or share those ever so important lessons learned. Over the last few years auster ity measures have meant that the design and use of the offi ce space is fundamentally dr iven by cost. The office is considered by many within the property industry, and across broader business, to be a cost burden. It is perceived as an overhead rather than as a means of improving business perfor mance, an investment with potentially lucrative returns. So office layout and design has been very much focused on space efficiency, increasing occupational densities and reducing property costs. When buildings are formally evaluated the focus is predominantly on measuring cost and space with little regard for how the building impacts individual or business performance. Nevertheless, the key asset and most expensive element of any organization is its people. To get the most out of our workforce we provide them with the best technology, training, business processes and management; we provide them with an organizational infrastructure that supports their needs. The workplace is a core component of that infrastructure; it’s a tool for the job, and should be treated so.We should therefore consider our offi ce buildings in ter ms of the return on investment of our people rather than as a cost burden to the business. Therefore I think, and I hope for the sake of the economy, that the focus of the future office will shift away from property costs to people investment – property is a people business. The number of �exible workers is increasing and our workforce is more mobile than in previous years. They may be employed by a global organization, or a recently merged businesses, and work across several of their locations. They may be expected to spend more time on client sites than in their own offi ces. It is likely that they are also working on the move between these locations. Likewise organizations may be recruiting from a wider geographical pool to acquire the best talent, allowing occasional home-working and �exible working. The workplace therefore stretches beyond the con�nes of the offi ce building. We need to understand how this broader workplace, and corresponding infrastructure, supports the business. Some economists believe that there is an emerging creative and innovative economy. Indeed, the notion of a quaternary economic sector of industry has been discussed for some time. It builds upon the tertiary economic sector of knowledge work, the service industries, and principally concerns intellectual activities such as handling information, providing advice,

9780415725323pre_pi-xxxiv.indd xxxii

9/6/2014 6:24:19 PM

Foreword

xxxiii

entertainment, research and information technology. Business Week magazine reported ‘the knowledge economy as we know it is being eclipsed by something new – call it the creativity economy … the game is changing, it isn’t just about math and science anymore, it’s about creativity, imagination, and, above all, innovation’ (Nussbaum 2005). The more creative organizations recognize that business is shifting towards this new economic age. These organizations understand the value of an idea and will be seeking to attract and retain innovative people and capitalize on their ideas. Going forward, the measure of success of a building will shift away from effi ciency and focus on effectiveness. We will need to better understand how our office spaces are facilitating innovation and creativity, how they foster collaboration but also offer concentration, how they attract and retain the best people, and how they lead to improved business. There has been a debate raging in the press recently around open plan offi ce design. The UKs leading newspapers as well as Business Week reported that ‘we can’t get anything done in an open-plan offi ce’ as it affects our concentration, our performance and our health (Bennett 2013). These news items are all pretty damning but not as damming as the Wikipedia entry on open plan offi ces which states: A systematic survey of research upon the effects of open plan offices found frequent negative effects in some traditional workplaces: high levels of noise, stress, con�ict, high blood pressure and a high staff tur nover … Most people prefer closed offices … there is a dearth of studies con�rming positive impacts on productivity from open plan office designs. The attack on open plan is predominantly the consequence of a study of absenteeism in Danish workers and a recent re-analysis of a survey of US office workers. Personally I believe that open plan is a sound design concept, but it is the interpretation and implementation of it that is poor and often results in high density, overcrowded, noisy and unimaginative work environments. The important point is that we need to test whether our workplaces actually facilitate innovation and collaboration, required to underpin the new economic age, or if they merely create distraction and disruption. We also need to understand the roles and psychological make-up of our workforce, and recognize that many will require spaces for quiet, concentration and solitude. In Chapter 23 Korydon Smith explains the importance of universal design. Many commentators on workplace design have pointed out that we have four generations working in the workplace. There has been much discussion on how to design offi ces to accommodate Generation Y – digital natives that are more independent and ambitious but team orientated. We also need to ensure we create spaces that accommodate the older generations, many of whom have to retire at a later age. Consideration must be given to basic design factors such as lighting and noise levels as well as privacy and access. Again good occupant feedback is required to assess whether our buildings support all generations. Of course, good buildings will outlive the occupants and most certainly outlast the occupancy of many organizations. Our offi ce buildings therefore need to be suffi ciently �exible and adaptable to accommodate different businesses and even change function to, say, accommodation or retail. Carl Elefante is credited for saying ‘the greenest building is the one that is already built’ (Elefante 2007). Adaptive reuse plays an important role in sustainability, but again the functionality of such buildings requires testing.

9780415725323pre_pi-xxxiv.indd xxxiii

9/6/2014 6:24:19 PM

xxxiv 

Foreword

In the opening chapter, Wolfgang Preiser explains that this book aims to establish a dialogue between perceived and measured quality in architecture, to address the juxtaposition between criticism and performance evaluation. In an ever changing world where buildings must respond to new technologies, new economic markets and a new workforce, both approaches have value. The important point is that buildings are subjected to evaluation and the lessons learned from those evaluations are communicated and shared throughout our industry. Only by sharing feedback and evaluations can we continuously improve the quality of our buildings. References Bennett, Drake (2013) ‘Why We Can’t Get Anything Done in an Open-Plan Offi ce’. Business Week, 10 October. http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-10-10/why-we-cant-get-anything-donein-an-open-plan-office CABE and BCO (2005) The Impact of Office Design on Business Performance . London: Commission for Architecture & the Built Environment and the Br itish Council for Offices . Cooper, Ian (2001) ‘Post-Occupancy Evaluation – Where Are You?’ Building Research & Information 29(2): 158–63. Egan, Sir John (1998) Rethinking Construction: Report of the Construction Task Force . London: HMSO. Elefante, Carl (2007) ‘The Greenest Building Is … One That Is Already Built’ . Forum Journal  21(4): 26–38. Le Corbusier (1924) Vers une Architecture . Paris: G. Crès et Cie. Nussbaum, Bruce (2005) ‘Get creative! How to build innovative companies’. Business Week , 1 August. http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_31/b3945401.htm Preiser, Wolfgang F. E. and Jacqueline C. Vischer (eds) (2005)  Assessing Building Performance . Burlington, MA: Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann. Sullivan, Louis H. (1896) ‘The Tall Office Building Artistically Considered’. Lippincott’s Magazine, March: 403–9. Vitruvius, Pollio (c.27 B C ) De Architectura Libri Decem.

9780415725323pre_pi-xxxiv.indd xxxiv

9/6/2014 6:24:19 PM

PART I

Introduction

9780415725323c01_p1-20.indd 1

9/6/2014 4:49:53 PM

9780415725323c01_p1-20.indd 2

9/6/2014 4:49:54 PM

1 INTRODUCTION Wolfgang F. E. Preiser , Aaron T. Davis , Ashraf M. Salama, and Andrea Hardy

Synopsis

This book aims to establish a dialogue between perceived and measured quality in architecture in two ways: �rst by recognizing and illuminating commonalities between the two; second by �nding areas within the ontological frameworks of each capable of supporting the differences. The “habitability framework” presented later in this chapter is one such structure to be expounded upon that shows how aesthetic and the performative aspects can in some cases even complement each other.With few exceptions, architectural criticism has been carried out by and large by “expert critics” employing subjective methods of assessment focused primarily on the aesthetic properties of buildings; rightly so, the understanding of buildings as composed formal objects traces back to the beginnings of the profession. In contrast, traditional environmental design evaluation uses objective criteria and methods of measuring the performance of buildings, using metrics focused on health, safety, functionality, psychological, social, and cultural satisfaction of the building occupants. The development of criticism in architecture over time admittedly did not keep pace with the technological improvements and innovations radically changing the way buildings were being conceived of and built. In other words, as the facility to understand buildings from the design-side evolved, criticism based in the same scienti�c inquiry did not also evolve as a clear discipline with its own boundaries. Whether this is because critics identify primarily as journalists and are not typically building professionals is up for discussion, especially since there is an increasing need of the combination of evaluation, journalist, and criticism, as shown in Figure 1.1. Nevertheless, the technological developments in the production of buildings, the rise of “big data,” optimization, focus groups, and the use of commissioning and building performance evaluations (BPE) are increasingly included as part of the project delivery method and life-cycle analysis. These requirements of building performance, and the time lag between their regulation and integration, only exacerbate the schism between professional practice, discourse, and pedagogy. Architectural practice has the responsibility to engage criticism more directly and intelligently than the mere supply of marketing images. The academy is tasked with providing a creative environment in which creativity can �ourish within the bounds of technical reality. The discourse and criticism must

9780415725323c01_p1-20.indd 3

9/6/2014 4:49:54 PM

4

Part I: Introduction Increasing architectural analysis, description, understanding of context, history and overall architectural knowledge and education

Criticism

Journalism

Building performance evalution

Increasing architectural analysis, description, understanding of context, history, and overall architectural knowledge and education Source : Andrea Hardy. FIGURE 1.1

Criticism

Goal of architectural education

Building performance evaluations

The need for the academy to enlarge the overlap of criticism and performance evaluations in architectural education Source : Andrea Hardy. FIGURE 1.2

mediate between the two by providing an educational platform of technical innovation visà-vis the history of the built environment, but also present the aspirational qualities that make architecture unique to a given time and place, as shown in Figure 1.2. In a market saturated with unreal images and the tin-ringing of sycophantic praise, nothing less is demanded than a built environment rooted in the manifold de�nitions of quality, or permanence, of accountability in the face of slick rhetoric; an Architecture Beyond Criticism. Juxtaposing criticism and performance evaluation

Criticism is de�ned as the “the art of judging the qualities and values of an aesthetic object” (Sharp 1989). In his classical writing  Art as Experience   (1934), John Dewey states that criticism is judgment as an “act of intelligence performed upon the matter of direct perception in the interest of a more adequate perception” (Dewey 1934). This underscores the subjective

9780415725323c01_p1-20.indd 4

9/6/2014 4:49:54 PM

Introduction

5

nature of criticism as the dialogue between a perceiver and a thing-perceived. Sharp argues for this personal interpretation and notes that most criticism is written for popular or specialist consumption (Sharp 1989). However, he attempts to elevate the status of criticism by introducing objectivity as the ultimate goal, and responsibility, of the critic. In Sharp’s words, “the importance of objectivity has to be stressed. A lot is demanded of the critic in the judicious administration of this goal. It has to be allied to good sense and clear judgment, to sagacity and it must be in the hands of someone who can hold their own against the spread of mediocre mass cultural values” (Sharp, 1984). The objectivity of the “clear judgment and sagacity” of an individual is debatable; if no criteria are available for comparison, it seems that merely the attempt would suffi ce. How would these criteria be established, however, if not by consensus, in part, from the “mediocre mass cultural values” (i.e. the audience criticism is supposed to be insulated from but also consumed by)? Furthermore, true objectivity of criticism in the traditional architectural model would be to presume that Architecture with a capital “A” has been unadulterated by the race to broad-base mediocrity in popular culture; a claim that, surveying the pseudo-diversity amalgam of style and rhetoric available today, is comically untenable. Unlike contemporary criticism in architecture, which tends toward style, a signi�cant segment of building performance evaluations (Preiser and Schramm 1997; Preiser and Vischer 2005; Mallory-Hill, Preiser, and Watson, 2012) has evolved after  the fact, from Post-Occupancy Evaluations, or POE studies. These are regarded as a branch of environment-behavior studies and they are conducted on a building or a portion of a built environment for different purposes. In some cases, they are performed to solve problems that might occur in buildings after they are occupied. In other cases, results are used to improve speci�c spaces within a built environment through continued users’ feedback, including that of sustainability of the building, and “the need of thorough analysis of the building sector in order to understand its situation in relationship to the social demand for sustainability” (Casals et al . 2009). Other reasons for conducting performance evaluation include documenting successes and failures of performance in order to justify requests for renovations, additions, or new construction. An important feature in the major ity of performance evaluation studies (both measured and perceived) is that it involves systematic investigation of opinions, perceptions, and viewpoints about built environments in use, and from the perspective of those who use them. However, in all cases, POEs respond to the habitability of a building, “designing while acknowledging and understanding human needs and thus designing for more meaningful and richer life experiences” (Rowley-Balas 2006).The habitability of a programmed, designed, and evaluated building can lead to the question, “Are designers and architects really asking the right questions?” (Rowley-Balas 2006). This question and the subject of habitability is one of the main links between building aesthetics and building analysis.Who is it designed for, how does it perform as an integrated system, and then how is it used? The answers to the above questions lie in an integrative conceptual framework presented in the following section on “Elements of the habitability framework.” The term “habitability” means that the designed and built environment is intended for human habitation, with different levels of priority and performance regarding human needs. For example, King Hammurabi reminded builders that if people were harmed by buildings, those who were responsible for their construction were to be put to death (Preiser 2003).Vitruvius coined the famous words “�rmness, commodity and delight”, which equate to three expected and basic levels of performance in buildings (Mallory-Hill, Preiser, and Watson 2012 ).When seen from this perspective, aesthetic performance falls within the category of “delight,” namely the psychological,

9780415725323c01_p1-20.indd 5

9/6/2014 4:49:54 PM

6

Part I: Introduction

social, and cultural appropriateness and satisfaction of the building occupants. In other words, architectural criticism in this integrated worldview is subsumed in the domain of “delight” with its three constituent parts and categories. How is the integrated framework used? It applies to the entire building delivery and life-cycle, as outlined in the “Building Performance Process Model” (Preiser and Vischer 2005). Elements of the habitability framework

Starting in the 1960s, habitability research referred to the US Navy, NASA, and US Army Corps of Engineers’ efforts (Shibley 1974; Meere and Grieco 1997; Kitmacher 2002; Riola and de Arboleya 2006; Howe and Sherwood 2009; Harrison 2010) to improve the quality of environments and respective person–environment relationships, for example in shipboard habitability research. A working de�nition for the term habitability is offered by the editors: “Habitability refers to those qualitative and quantitative aspects of the built environment which support human activities in terms of individual and communal goals.” A chronology of habitability is presented in Table 1.1. The term “habitability” is derived from the original meaning of the word “habitat,” i.e. the species’ natural home that is comfortable and �t for human use. In essence, then, habitability is the quality of the designed and built environment. A philosophical base and a set of objectives for environmental design with adequate habitability include the following considerations, according to the editors: “Habitability de�nes the degree of �t between individuals or groups and their environment, both natural and man-made, in terms of an ecologically sound and humane, built environment.” Habitability is not an absolute but a relativistic concept, subject to different interpretations in different cultures and in different occupations. As the term was used historically by the US Navy, NASA, and the US Army Corps of Engineers, it references the spatial “volume and ‘�tness’ of a habitat, such as a space station, for human occupancy” (Lantrip 1986). A future-or iented, evolutionary approach to environmental design should consider worldwide equitable resource allocation, in the interest of long-term survival. In simpler terms, habitability directly relates to the popular topic of sustainability. By analyzing all scales ranging from small-scale dwellings to much larger urban service structures of the building sector (Casals et al. 2009), the variety of research then informs design of the humanistic needs of “comfort, �exibility, control, and informational quality as a ‘Habitability Index’” (Mahdavi 1998: 24). Habitability further implies the objective of minimizing adverse effects of the environment on its users, e.g. discomfort, stress, distraction, inefficiency, sickness, as well as injury and death through accidents, radiation, toxic substances, etc. The “habitability framework” relates buildings and settings to occupants and their respective needs versus the environment. This framework does not claim to be a theory of person– environment relationships. Rather, it represents a conceptual, process-oriented approach, which accommodates social science concepts in applications such as performance evaluation in any type of building or setting. The habitability framework further permits concepts concerning person–environment relationships to be “plugged in” where appropriate. In a matrixlike fashion the habitability framework serves systematically to relate pertinent information and elements in person–environment relationships in the kinds of applications already mentioned. The framework can be transformed into a checklist format to permit systematic handling in step-by-step or procedural fashion in information gathering and analysis concerning person–environment relationships.The framework elements are presented in hierarchies from

9780415725323c01_p1-20.indd 6

9/6/2014 4:49:55 PM

Introduction

7

TABLE 1.1

Milestones in the evolution of habitability research

Year

Author(s)

Building type(s)

Contribution to the field

1963

Celentano, Amorelli, and Freeman

Space habitats, space architecture, surrounding environment

1974

Shibley

Military construction and installations

1983

Preiser

Greater context of built environment

1986

Lantrip

Space stations, space habitats

1997

Meere and Grieco

Naval ship design and habitability

1998

Mahdavi

Greater context of built environment

2002

Kitmacher

Space habitats, space modules

2006

Riola and de Arboleya

Ship design, high speed vessel habitability

2009

Bluyssen, Bayon, and Hamilton

Interior environments

2009

Casals, Arcas, and Cuchí

Global habitability/ sustainability

2009

Howe and Sherwood

Space architecture, space stations, extraterrestrial bases

Examines the criteria and factors that contribute to the habitability index and requirements in relationship to space habitats and the built environment. Military research with the Army Corps of Engineers to improve and identify building systems of military construction and models of quality environment design. Examines the history and elements of the habitability framework and its relationship with the interaction between human behavior and the built environment. Examines and explains the ergonomics and design of space habitats around the various activities performed within the tight constraints of space stations. Illuminates the �aws and solutions to the living conditions aboard US naval ships. How surrounding environment affects a person’s built environment and then how they in turn affect the surrounding systems. Examines the development and design of habitable space modules. Researches how the external forces and operability of a ship affect the comfort of the crew and passengers aboard, especially those on high-speed vessels. Examines the human requirements for a healthy and comfortable indoor environment. Proposes habitability on a global scale as the only viable form of sustainability. Provides a comprehensive guide to the design of various forms of space architecture, focusing on human habitability.

9780415725323c01_p1-20.indd 7

9/6/2014 4:49:55 PM

8

Part I: Introduction

TABLE 1.1 (cont .)

Year

Author(s)

Building type(s)

Contribution to the field

2010

Harrison

Space architecture

2010

Preiser and Smith

Universal design

2012

Steinfeld and Maisel

Universal design

Discusses how the collaboration between architects and psychologists can help with the design of building environments and space architecture. Contains policies and guidelines for making buildings, infrastructure, products, and the internet accessible to all without regard to any disabilities. Explores the bene�ts universal design has on various aspects of buildings and consumer products, including social interaction and usefulness.

Source : Authors.

Building + Setting

Workspace room building

Organization group individual

Occupants

Occupant Needs

Health+safety functional performance psychological comfort + satisfaction

The habitability framework Source : Hunter Byrnes. FIGURE 1.3

smaller to larger scales or numbers, or from lower to higher levels of abstraction, respectively (see Figure 1.3). Habitability framework elements are building/settings, occupants, and occupant needs. The physical environment is dealt with on a setting-by-setting basis, and it is built up in scale from the proximate environment. Each higher-order scale of the environment is comprised of aggregates of units at lower scales. Thus, the built environment is addressed using the following hierarchy of scales: • •

region: an assembly of communities at the geographic scale community: an assembly of city blocks or neighborhoods

9780415725323c01_p1-20.indd 8

9/6/2014 4:49:55 PM

Introduction

• • • •

9

facility: a complex of buildings such as a military base, a campus, etc building: an assembly of rooms or spaces room: an assembly of work stations or activity/behavior settings activity setting: the proximate environment in which behavior occurs, e.g. a workstation.

The work station-proximate environment scale can be equated with behavior settings (Barker 1968) or archetypal places as described by Spivack (1973). These are places that accommodate needs and activities, which are generic and applicable to most populations. Since environmental design relates behavior to space and time, Spivack’s categories of basic places and people types appear to be appropriate for adaptation in the proposed habitability framework. Archetypal places are designated to provide for shelter, sleep, mating, grooming, feeding, excretion, storage, territory, play, routing, meeting, competition, and work. For each setting, each occupant group and its respective habitability level, a pertinent sensory environment and its quality performance criteria are devised, e.g. for the acoustic, luminous, gustatory, olfactory, visual, tactile, thermal, and gravitational environments. Included is the effect of radiation on the health and well-being of people, from both short-term and long-term perspectives. Occupants of settings are differentiated according to life-cycle phases and special requirements they may have in the use of the environment, based on physical or mental impairments, for example, or cultural heritage and other differences. Life- cycle stages as described by Spivack (1973) include infancy, childhood, adolescence, courting-mating, reproduction/ childcare, middle life, and ageing. For example, disabilities of the elderly and handicapped may consist of impaired vision, as well as physical and mental handicaps. Fine differentiations are made within some of the life-cycle phases where warranted, e.g. concerning developmental phases of children and their special environmental needs. Occupant needs in the built environment are conceived of as so-called habitability levels. Grossly analogous to the human needs hierarchy (Maslow 1948 ) of self-actualization, love, esteem, safety, and physiological needs, a three-level breakdown of habitability levels re�ecting occupant needs in the physical environment has been devised. This breakdown also parallels the three basic requirements buildings should meet according to Vitruvius: �rmness, commodity, and delight. The habitability levels refer to the following elements: • • •

health and safety level • preventing accidents and injury, disease, vandalism, etc. in the built environment functional and task performance level • providing conditions conductive to the efficient performance of a job; for the proper functioning of living environments, adequate amount of space, etc. psychological comfort and satisfaction level: • providing environmental conditions conducive to territorial integrity; speech and visual privacy; access to valued resources; expression of individuality; status; identity, cultural �t, etc.

Behavioral science research specializing in person–environment relationships provides data for potential use in guidance literature at all three levels of habitability, including research applications into human factors and concerns of environmental psychology. Figure 1.4 depicts the elements and phases of such habitability research.

9780415725323c01_p1-20.indd 9

9/6/2014 4:49:55 PM

10

Part I: Introduction Person-Environment Research

Research Measurement Habitability on facility technology information prototypes system

Architectural process research

Performance criteria

Planning Programming Design Design evaluation Construction Facility evaluation

Habitability

Habitability research Source : Hunter Byrnes. FIGURE 1.4

It is at the psychological comfort and satisfaction level of habitability that most concepts dealing with person–environment relationships can be identi�ed, categorized, and applied. It is also true that at this level more qualitative than quantitative data exist, a fact that should not obviate the importance of analyzing the effects of the physical environment on its occupants. Spatial characteristics such as those manipulated by environmental designers, for example, include aspects of location, dimensions, proportions, distributions, and orientation.These serve to further such phenomena as communication, expression of status and sociopetality versus sociofugality.They are summarized in Table 1.2 (see also appendix Table A1.1). Occupants’ needs are not always easy to separate into neat levels and categories. Further, as the work of Dewey and Humber (1966) implies, there is a complex interaction of a variety

9780415725323c01_p1-20.indd 10

9/6/2014 4:49:55 PM

Introduction

TABLE 1.2

Space: toward a new paradigm and taxonomy

Spatial/human behavioral concept

1

2 3

4 5

6 7

11

Design concept

Territorial space

Iwamoto (2004) Fuller (2011)

Dominance hierarchy; status expression Personal space Privacy; maintenance of integrity of individuals Space boundaries

Size and location of spaces

Territorial defense; social order, security Proxemic space Communication; access to valued resources Spatial density Crowding; distribution of resources

Barrier; gates; signage

Spatial scale Functionality in relationship to relative size Sociofugal vs. sociopetal space

Relevant articles

Iwamoto (2004) Walls, enclosures; white noise Iwamoto (2004) Foster (1989) Blum (2012) Signals: audio, smell, tactile, visual Ozaki and Lewis (2006) Cultural relativity of space, e.g. office size in sq. ft. in  Japan vs. the US Oldrup (2009) High- vs. low-rise; Innerurban vs. suburban Stauskis and Eckhart (2011) Traganou, Architecture  Di Masso (2012)

Dispersion or attraction of people; Layout and connector control variants, e.g. ring vs. tree Source : Authors.

of forces at work on occupants, their attributes, and those of the environment. According to their framework, interacting processes and forces in the human organism are grouped into four categories: • • • •

Biological heritage includes a person’s given cognitive and emotional characteristics, motor and sensory potentials, biogenic impulses, health, race, sex, somatotype, and stature. Environment is constituted by the physical (geographic, geological, and meteorological), the biological (human and non-human), and cultural (material and non-material) factors which impinge upon people. Acquired personal attributes refer to people’s covert attitudes, beliefs, knowledge, concepts and skills, and overt motor habits, such as speaking, writing, walking, and idiosyncratic mannerisms. Social-psychological processes considered essential in interactions with the human and non-human environment (Dewey and Humber 1966) seek to facilitate accommodation, communication, compensation, learning projection, role-playing, and rationalization. Furthermore, they address the visual-aesthetic quality of the designed and built environment.

9780415725323c01_p1-20.indd 11

9/6/2014 4:49:55 PM

12

Part I: Introduction

Interacting forces in person–environment relationships in Dewey and Humber’s (1966) work and the habitability framework presented here correspond in the following ways: • • • •

Dewey and Humber’s “interacting forces” refer to the above “habitability framework” (Preiser 1983). “Environment” refers to “buildings and settings.” “Biological heritage/acquired personal attributes” refers to “occupant types in buildings.” “Social-psychological processes” refer to “occupant needs and relational concepts in buildings.”

The reason for citing various researchers’ theoretical frameworks in their context is to demonstrate that certain consistencies and overlaps exist concerning categories in what are very complex interactions between people and environments (Pastalan 1974). This is true despite apparently disparate terminologies. For example, there is no agreement on the use of the terms “users,” “occupants,” and “people types,” or concerning the term “user needs,” etc. The development of a concise and clear terminology and framework with regard to building types and characteristics and occupant types and their needs is of prime importance for the future evolution of the design and behavior �eld. Further, the need exists to operationalize relational concepts for purposes of applications in programming, design, and evaluation. A conceptual approach towards linking human behavior and physical environment

This section presents the background, rationale, and elements of the habitability framework which links human behavior to various aspects of the physical environment. The conceptual framework is accompanied by examples of applications, including human needs and behaviorbased performance evaluations. The emergence of the �eld of person–environment relations dates back to the mid-1960s. To date, no general agreement exists as to the proper name for this �eld which has been called environmental psychology, architectural psychology, ecological psychology, socio-physical technology, person–environment relations, man–environment relations, etc., depending upon which discipline or agency is the sponsor of activity. The personal choice of the editors is to use the term “person–environment research” to signify its relevance and utility to architecture and planning, and to a lesser degree to the idiosyncrasies of the social sciences. Manifestations of the �eld of person–environment research abound. There are numerous  journals, textbooks, conference proceedings, and topical books (Preiser 1978) primarily aimed at consumption by academic persons. New job opportunities have opened up in research, education, and consulting, especially with government agencies and large cor porations. Has the profession of architecture taken notice of the developing person–environment research? The answer is not yet affirmative. Few enlightened architects avail themselves of research and even fewer from behavioral science-related research, possibly for the good reason that most of the information generated by this �eld is not easily accessible or able to be used directly by architects. On the other hand, some of the observations below may point to more positive developments in the future. It is hoped that the applications of behavioral science in architecture and environmental design will improve the quality of our everyday environment in the long run.

9780415725323c01_p1-20.indd 12

9/6/2014 4:49:55 PM

Introduction

13

AMO D C

E R

S I

T

I I

C

G I

S

N

I N V E S T I G AT I O N

M

P E R F O R M A N C E

The mirrored balance of OMA and AMO �rms Source : Andrea Hardy. FIGURE 1.5

An example of an offi ce that has found a balance between design and research is the Offi ce for Metropolitan Architecture (OMA), with its counterpart AMO. It may seem counterintuitive to separate the design portion of their work, OMA, from the research and perfor mance-based work of AMO, but these two companies complement each other and AMO supports OMA as a think tank and research-based operation. Their mirrored structure is shown in Figure 1.5. From the editors’ perspective, some quali�cations for the design and behavior �eld are in order: emphasis in this �eld is on interrelationships, rather than cause–effect relationships, between environmental in�uences and people.Thus, architectural deter minism is ruled out. The systems approach appears appropriate for this �eld, linking in holistic fashion diverse phenomena which in�uence commonly found and understood relationships between people and their surroundings, including the human social environment. The systems theoretical approach proposed by J. G. Miller (Miller 1966) appears particularly appropriate in this context. Like any other living species (plants and animals) humans are thought of as organisms that are seeking equilibrium with a dynamic, ever-changing environment. The interactive nature of relationships between people and their surroundings is also recognized in that line of research that studies the impact of human actions on the physical environment, both manmade and natural (Jain 1974). Key observations regarding contextual changes

Socio-political changes in context and developments, environmental crises, and the failures of purely technological approaches to solve human–environment problems provide the justi�cation for behavioral science response and input into the environmental design disciplines.This input is needed in selected areas of applications described below. As a result, the general level of awareness has been raised among the public and in the relevant professions during the past �ve decades. Highly differentiated viewpoints are emerging in �elds of environmental design including architecture and planning. In response to failures of “universal architecture” as propagated by the Bauhaus movement, it is necessary to permit further differentiation in the built environment. This is the key to solving problems in the future. Differentiations include the recognition that there are different user types, each with special requirements in the built environment. Also, there are different types of places, each setting with speci�c requirements. “Cultural niches” are required to accommodate sub-cultural and group differences, which are constantly proliferating. For example, when buildings or housing for Navajo Indians are planned, minimum standards and HUD guidelines and codes should be variable to respond to local/cultural conditions.

9780415725323c01_p1-20.indd 13

9/6/2014 4:49:55 PM

14

Part I: Introduction

Effectiveness review

Market/  needs analysis

Planning

Recycling

 

Programming

Building performance

Program review

Design

Feedforward into next building cycle PostOccupancy Evaluation

Occupancy

Construction

Design review

Commissioning

Building delivery and life-cycle: performance evaluation Source : Amber Adams-Hill. FIGURE 1.6

Complexities in the building delivery process are constantly increasing, especially regarding information content and the formats of documents used in the programming and design of buildings today.The ever more cumbersome and lengthy building delivery process (Figure 1.6) takes �ve years for large cor porations and governments agencies engaged in building. Life-cycle cost and the rising cost of energy need to be considered in building concept development through an understanding of macro- and micro-climatic conditions and how they relate to the governing codes and standards. Adaptive reuse and recycling of buildings have also become more important considerations in recent years as the “green building” movement points out that the most environmentally sustainable building is the one that is already built. Furthermore, access for persons with disabilities (Preiser and Smith 2010; Steinfeld and Maisel 2012) has been legislated as a requirement in new construction, as well as in existing buildings of certain federally supported institutions. User participation in planning and design is now a major challenge in this context, and the argument can be made that building energy requirements share the same imperative. In that regard, advances in research methodology are also emerging (Federal Construction Council 2001). Identi�cation of problems in the built environment, as well as quantitative and qualitative assessments, etc., are being carried out (Preiser and Wang 2008). A methodology of particular relevance to this book is the “balanced scorecard approach to post-occupancy evaluation” (Heerwagen 2001). Furthermore, Nasar in Chapter 19 elaborates on ways of measuring aesthetic quality as perceived by various stakeholders in buildings. The originally called “post-occupancy evaluation” (POE) has evolved into “building performance evaluation” (BPE), which seeks to obtain feedback for design criter ia and guidance literature, as well as information systems and holistic building perfor mance. It may also serve as the basis for possible litigation and testimony in court in case of architectural malpractice.

9780415725323c01_p1-20.indd 14

9/6/2014 4:49:55 PM

Introduction

15

Environmental impact assessments have been legislated to raise the level of accountability to the public and to ensure compatibility of land uses and built forms. Covenants and regulatory devices have resulted, including those dealing with emergency egress procedures, etc., for which building operators, managers, and users require operating procedures. Very much like automobile operating manuals, training manuals, materials, and courses may be devised for buildings in the future. Public and environmental education needs to be reinforced. The general public needs information about the mitigation of hazards to life, for use in natural disasters and in those caused by humans. Long-term environmental education is being developed for dissemination by universities, the schools, and the public media. What is more, conceptual and theoretical innovations and advances are on the horizon. Future prospects

Since the mid-1960s the architectural and environmental design community has been discussing the value of both criticism and evaluation studies. Continuously, while not so confrontationally, fundamental disagreements have been noted but remain unresolved. Many theorists and critics do not seem to appreciate the value of objective evaluation studies and instead tend to favor traditional criticism, and the leeway of interpretation, over evaluation; researchers and scholars do not seem to place enough value on criticism precisely because of its lack of objectivity and anecdotal presentation, and because of how easily it can be in�uenced by politics and culture (Figure 1.7). Critics therefore merely provide hypotheses to, at best, push the boundaries of a given discipline or, at worst, to promote a cultural, stylistic, or economic market position. To posit that these are avoidable entirely is an exercise in self-delusion; the critic or theorist does not work in a vacuum. Similarly, the researcher, too, must understand that it is not enough merely to present data if there is no synthesis to a larger critical arc; what good is a data set with no interpretation or extrapolation in service of an improvement to the status quo? It remains as abstract and impotent as the empty criticism. Therefore, it is the position of this book that both criticism and performance evaluation research have recognized skill sets of value to the evolution of architectural practice, but as yet have no common means of communication that will allow a synthesis of the two.The combination and collaboration of criticism and evaluation generates greater habitability in designs while also bridging “the gap between different �elds and methodologies, integrating new approaches to exiting problems – all within the framework of promoting more humane and habitable environments” (Rowley-Balas 2006 ). While performance evaluations may in�uence the quality of future decisions at the technical level involving physical and socio-behavioral aspects, criticism may in�uence decision-making at the political level, involving an educated public and greater institutional awareness. What is at stake here is not the fate of either approach; there will always be markets for all kinds of cr iticism, and demands for mere data-driven design. What is at stake is an opportunity to unite the perceived and the real in a way that is rarely attempted, and even less frequently done well. What is at stake is an unbiased discussion about the development of architectural practice at a global scale, essential to a uni�ed understanding of the role of the built environment on this planet. What is at stake is the promise of a profession training professionals, with a combined expertise beyond the printed, projected, or displayed image of an imagined reality. What is at stake is the ability to create that reality. As such, this book is unprecedented and a unique contribution to the �eld.

9780415725323c01_p1-20.indd 15

9/6/2014 4:49:56 PM

16

Part I: Introduction

Architectural criticism

Politics

Aesthetics

Sociology

Culture

Elements of architectural criticism Source : Andrea Hardy. FIGURE 1.7

Book structure and content

This book is structured to elucidate the history and evolution of both architectural criticism and building performance evaluation, and the history and evolution of these �elds are chronicled.The book contains six sections, sequenced to introduce what are disparate �elds of investigation: I: Introduction; II: Evolution and role of architectural criticism; III: Plurality of perspectives on criticism in architecture; IV: Historical review and types of building performance evaluation;V:Architectural analysis within building performance evaluation;VI: Epilogue. The sections that follow cover the world in various regions, through both theoretical and  journalistic contributions, but also a variety of case study examples. The regions covered are: the Americas; Europe; the Middle East; and Australasia. Lastly, the challenge of creating a new paradigm is exempli�ed through inclusive yet diverse approaches to building performance evaluation as a complement to traditional architectural criticism. This introductory section sets the stage for the discussions and thrust of the book and involves a critical argument on juxtaposing the two paradigms of criticism and performance evaluation. It introduces the habitability framework, which aims to cross the boundaries of both while addressing the missing component in criticism exempli�ed by people needs. Part II includes six chapters that offer highlights on the evolution, nature, and role of criticism in architecture. In the context of the Americas, issues that pertain to identity crisis, curating, radicalism, and materiality are explored. The role of editors of architectural and design magazines as critics, and the performance of buildings, architects, and critics are debated. With a more global perspective, Part III contains six chapters. It critically demonstrates different perceptions and standpoints, which are unveiled to manifest the plurality in conceiving, perceiving, and experiencing architectural criticism in the context of Egypt, France, Germany, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Issues relevant to media, milieu, usability, performance, and the way in which they in�uence criticism and evaluation are investigated. While some chapters attempt to induce generalities through positional interpretations, reviews, and analyses of media and literature to elucidate key characteristics of criticism, others attempt to deduce particularities regarding the contribution of each paradigm through reference to empirical evaluation studies. Part IV contains �ve chapters and offers a historical review of building performance evaluation while underscoring different types of building performance evaluations. An in-depth analysis is undertaken too of the evolution of Post Occupancy Evaluation – POE – into a more comprehensive �eld of investigation about buildings, environments, settings, and their use, i.e. Building Performance Evaluation – BPE. Types of performance studies are explored in various contexts including China, Japan, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States. They all aim to discern the unique nature and bene�ts that could be gained through the establishment of links between the two paradigms. Part V contains six chapters offering

9780415725323c01_p1-20.indd 16

9/6/2014 4:49:56 PM

Introduction

TABLE A1.1 Core

17

bibliography

Source

Description

1

Fuller (2011)

2

Iwamoto (2004)

3

Foster (1989)

4

Blum (2012)

5

Ozaki and Lewis (2006)

6

Oldrup (2009)

7

Stauskis and Eckardt (2011)

Hierarchy of in�uences on space between people, animals, and machines, and also, how space is in�uenced by our cyber existence. The experimentation, in three projects, of thresholds and how they de�ne, in�uence, and work into our personal space as we move through space. Comparison of form and function through the analysis of spaces and people’s relationships with space. How personal media in�uence our spatial experiences and how digital media have the potential to interact with spatial dynamics. How a house form creates boundaries and de�nes spaces and the differences between Japanese and British homes. The history of research for both urban and suburban environments and how our culture of consumption is affecting the relationship between these two spaces and the spaces within them. The social and political in�uences on space, which then in�uence the people, but also how the people in�uence space as a representation of the culture and politics.

a closer look at some architectural analyses and investigations that recount potential mechanisms that link criticism to building performance evaluation in education, research, and practice. Issues related to visual aesthetics, form-based codes, environmental quality, socio-cultural contexts, universal design, and regenerative design, are explored to foster a more responsive approach that challenges traditional notions and assumptions about criticism in architecture. The Epilogue involves a discussion that invigorates the message of the book about the need for the integration of the two. References Barker, R. G. (1968) Ecological Psychology: Concepts and Methods for Studying the Environment of Human Behavior . Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Blum, A. (2012) “Here But Not Here.” Metropolis, April. Bluyssen, P. M., R. Bayon, and K. Hamilton (2009) The Indoor Environment Handbook: How to Make Buildings Healthy and Comfortable . London: Earthscan. Casals, M., J. Arcas, and A. Cuchí (2009) “Habitability, the Scale of Sustainability.” In CISBAT, CISBAT 2009: Renewables in Changing Climate – Proceedings . Lausanne: École polytechnique fédérale de Lausanne, pp. 409–14. Dewey, J. (1934) Art as Experience . New York: Berkley Publishing Group. Dewey, S. and J. Humber (1966) An Introduction to Social Psychology. New York: Macmillan. Di Masso, A. (2012) “Grounding Citizenship: Toward a Political Psychology of Public Space .” Political Psychology 33(1): 123 –43. Federal Construction Council (2001) Learning From Our Buildings: A State-of-the-Practice Summary of PostOccupancy Evaluation. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Foster, S. M. (1989) “Analysis of Spatial Patterns in Buildings (Access Analysis) as an Insight into Social Structure: Examples from the Scottish Atlantic Iron Age.” Antiquity 63(238): 40 –50.

9780415725323c01_p1-20.indd 17

9/6/2014 4:49:57 PM

18

Part I: Introduction

Fuller, S. (2011) “Designs for Life in Humanity 2.0.”  Architectural Review , October 31. Harrison, A. A. (2010) “Humanizing Outer Space: Architecture, Habitability, and Behavioral Health .”  Acta Astronautica 66: 890–96, Dept. of Psychology, University of California , USA. Heerwagen, J. (2001) “A Balanced Scorecard Approach to Post-Occupancy Evaluation: Using the Tools of Business to Evaluate Facilities.” In Federal Construction Council, Learning From Our Buildings: A State-of-the-Practice Summary of Post-Occupancy Evaluation. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, pp. 79–87. Howe, A. S. and B. Sherwood (2009) Out of This World: The New Field of Space Architecture . Reston, VA: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. Iwamoto, L. (2004) “Translations: Fabricating Space.” Journal of Architectural Education 58(1): 35 –38.  Jain, R. K. (1974) Handbook for Environmental Impact Analysis. Champaign, IL: Department of the Army, Construction Engineering Research Laboratory. Kitmacher, G. H. (2002) “Design of the Space Station Habitable Modules.” The Architecture of Space: A Multi-Disciplined Approach. The 53rd International Astronautical Congress, The World Space Congress, IAC-02-IAA.8.2.04. Lantrip, D. B. (1986) “Isokin: A Quantitative Model of the Kinesthetic Aspects of Spatial Habitability.” Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting  30(1): 33–37. Mahdavi, A. (1998) “Steps to a General Theory of Habitability.” Human Ecology Review  5(1): 23 –30. Mallory-Hill, S., W. F. E. Preiser, and C. G.Watson (2012) Enhancing Building Performance . London: WileyBlackwell. Maslow, H. (1948) “A Theory of Human Motivation.” Psychological Review  50(4): 370–96. Meere, E. P. and L. Grieco (1997) “Ship Habitability: Preparing for the 21st Century.” Naval Engineers  Journal  109(6): 21–27. Miller, J. G. (1966) “Towards a General Theory for the Behavioral Sciences.”  American Psychologist  10: 513–31. Oldrup, H. H. (2009) “Suburban Socialities: Between Everyday Life and Urban Leisure Space in the Metropolitan Region.” Home Cultures 6(3): 311 –32. Ozaki, R. and J. R. Lewis (2006) “Boundaries and the Meaning of Social Space: A Study of Japanese House Plans.” Society and Space  24: 91 –104. Pastalan, L. A. (1974). Man Environment Reference: Environmental Abstracts. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. Preiser, W. F. E. (1975) “Programming for Habitability.” Proceedings of the 1974 symposium, co-sponsored by the US Army CERL-FHA, the American Institute of Architects, and the Department of Architecture. Champaign, IL: University of Illinois, Department of Architecture, March. Preiser, W. F. E. (ed.) (1978) Facility Programming: Methods and Applications . New York: McGraw-Hill. Preiser, W. F. E. (1983) “The Habitability Framework: A Conceptual Approach Towards Linking Human Behavior and Physical Environment.” Design Studies 4(2): 84 –91. Preiser, W. W. E. (2003) Improving Building Performance .Washington, DC: National Council of Architectural Registration Boards (NCARB). Preiser, W. F. E. and U. Schramm (1997) “Building Performance Evaluation.” In D.Watson, M. J. Crosbie, and J. H. Callender (eds), Time-Saver Standards for Architectural Design Data (7th edn). New York: McGraw-Hill, pp. 233–38. Preiser, W. F. E. and K. Smith (2010) Universal Design Handbook (2nd edn). New York: McGraw-Hill. Preiser, W. F. E. and J. C. Vischer (eds) (2005)  Assessing Building Performance . Burlington, MA: Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann. Preiser, W. F. E. and X. Wang (2008) “Quantitative (GIS) and Qualitative (BPE) Assessments of Library Performance.” International Journal of Architectural Research 2(1). Riola, J. M. and M. G. de Arboleya (2006) “Habitability and Personal Space in Seakeeping Behaviour.”  Journal of Maritime Research 3(1): 41 –54. Rowley-Balas, S. (2006) Pioneering Habitability: The Work of Wolfgang F. E. Preiser . Montreal: University of Montreal Press.

9780415725323c01_p1-20.indd 18

9/6/2014 4:49:57 PM

Introduction

19

Sharp, D. (1984) “The New Role of the Architect, Historian, and Critic in the World of Ideas.” Keynote Address, National Conference, National Conference of Architectural Historians in Australia, University of Adelaide, August 12 (published in Architectural History Papers: Australia and New Zealand , 1984, pp. 11–23). Sharp, D. (1989) “Criticism in Architecture.” Proceedings of the Regional Seminar of the Aga Khan Award for  Architecture . Concept Media Ltd, Singapore, pp. 8–15. Shibley, R. (1974) “Toward a Military Construction Model for Quality Architectural Design: A Long Range Corps of Engineers Architectural Research Plan.”  Journal of Architectural Education  26(4): 86–89. Spivack, M. (1973) “Archetypal Place.” In EDRA 4: Proceedings of the 4th Annual Environmental Design Research Association Conference , ed. W. F. E. Preiser. Stroudsburg, PA: Dowden, Hutchinson, and Ross, vol. 1. Stauskis, G. and F. Eckardt (2011) “Empowering Public Spaces as Catalysers of Social Interactions in urban Communities.” Town Planning and Architecture  35(2): 117 –28. Steinfeld, E. and J. Maisel (2012) Universal Design: Designing Inclusive Environments . Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.

9780415725323c01_p1-20.indd 19

9/6/2014 4:49:57 PM