Architecture Beyond Criticism Expert Jud

8/15/2019 Architecture Beyond Criticism Expert Jud

1/55

ARCHITECTURE

BEYOND CRITICISMExpert judgement and performance evaluation

WOLFGANG F. E. PREISER,AARON T. DAVIS,

ASHRAF M. SALAMA AND ANDREA HARDY

EDITED BY


2/55

ARCHITECTURE BEYOND CRITICISM

For the rst time, this book demonstrates that the two paradigms of architectural criticism andperformance evaluation can not only co-exist but complement each other in the assessmentof built works.

As architecture takes more principled stances worldwide, from environmental sustainabilityto social, cultural, and economic activism, this book examines the roles of perceived and meas-ured quality in architecture. By exploring in tandem both subjective traditional architecturalcriticism and environmental design and performance evaluation and its objective evaluationcriteria, the book argues that both methodologies and outcomes can achieve a comprehensive

assessment of quality in architecture.Curated by a global editorial team, the book includes:

Contributions from international architects and critics based in the UK, USA, Brazil,•France, Qatar, Egypt, New Zealand, China, Japan and GermanyGlobal case studies which illustrate both perspectives addressed by the book and com-•parative analyses of the ndingsA six part organization which includes introductions and conclusions from the editors, to•help guide the reader and further illuminate the contributions.

By presenting a systematic approach to assessing building performance, design professionals

will learn how to improve building design and performance with major stakeholders in mind,especially end users/occupants.Editors Preiser, Davis, Salama and Hardy represent an aggregate of cutting edge architectural

practice, consulting, research and lecturing on a global basis. They have a collective publicationrecord of 25 books with major publishing houses in the world. Senior editor Wolf Preiser haschaired national committees in the US, among others, for the National Academy of Sciences;Aaron Davis has become an expert in consulting on the design of building façades; AshrafSalama is editor of two international professional journals; and Andrea Hardy is an Architect-in-Training exploring the concepts of developing the public realm in growing desert cities.

9780415725323pre_pi xxxiv.indd i9780415725323pre_pi-xxxiv.indd i 9/6/2014 6:24:17 PM9/6/2014 6:24:17 PM


3/559780415725323pre_pi xxxiv.indd ii9780415725323pre_pi-xxxiv.indd ii 9/6/2014 6:24:17 PM9/6/2014 6:24:17 PM


4/55

ARCHITECTUREBEYOND CRITICISMExpert Judgment and PerformanceEvaluation

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

9780415725323pre_pi xxxiv.indd iii9780415725323pre_pi-xxxiv.indd iii 9/6/2014 6:24:17 PM9/6/2014 6:24:17 PM


5/55


6/55

CONTENTS

List of gures viiiList of tables xivNotes on the editors xvNotes on contributors xviiPreface xxvii

Acknowledgments xxixForeword: Nigel Oseland xxx

PART IIntroduction 1

1 Introduction 3Wolfgang F. E. Preiser, Aaron T. Davis, Ashraf M. Salama, and Andrea Hardy

PART IIEvolution and role of architectural criticism 21

2 Identity crisis: estrangement in the evolution of architectural criticism 23 Aaron T. Davis

3 The role of editors as critics 37Michael J. Crosbie

4 Is curating the new criticism? 46Pedro Gadanho

9780415725323pre_pi xxxiv.indd v9780415725323pre_pi-xxxiv.indd v 9/6/2014 6:24:18 PM9/6/2014 6:24:18 PM


7/55

vi Contents

5 Architectural criticism and radicalism in Brazil 53 José T. Lira

6 Super cial material similitude 66Galia Solomonoff

7 The performance of buildings, architects, and critics 75Thomas Fisher

Re ections on Part II: Daniel S. Friedman 83

PART IIIPlurality of perspectives on criticism in architecture 89

8 Media coverage and users’ reactions: Al Azhar Park in Cairore-examined 91

Ashraf M. Salama

9 The in uence of the “milieu” on architectural criticism 104Yann Nussaume

10 Architectural criticism and building performance evaluation inGermany 111Ursula Baus and Ulrich Schramm

11 An analytical critique of Cairene urban conservation projects 121Remah Y. Gharib

12 Buildings and their use: the dog that didn’t bark 128Frank Duffy

13 Oblique alternatives: architectural advancement through performance 133Paul Knox

Re ections on Part III: Daniel S. Friedman 140

PART IVHistorical review and types of building performance evaluation 145

14 Historical review of building performance evaluation 147Wolfgang F. E. Preiser and Andrea E. Hardy

15 Building performance evaluation in the UK: so many false dawns 160Bill Bordass and Adrian Leaman

9780415725323pre_pi xxxiv.indd vi9780415725323pre_pi-xxxiv.indd vi 9/6/2014 6:24:18 PM9/6/2014 6:24:18 PM


8/55

Contents vii

16 Mid-occupancy urbanism in Shanghai: the current state of the site ofExpo 2010 171Clare 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 globalperspective 193Chris Watson

Re ections on Part IV: Daniel S. Friedman 200

PART VArchitectural 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 architecturalcritique 217Brenda C. Scheer

21 The socio-cultural context of architectural criticism and evaluation 224Yasser Mahgoub

22 Quality assessments in health care environments 232Dina Battisto, Deborah Franqui, and Clayton Boenecke

23 Building performance evaluations and universal design 244Korydon H. Smith

24 Regenerative design: rede ning the limits of architectural judgment 252Elizabeth Walsh and Steven A. Moore

Re ections on Part V: Daniel S. Friedman 265

PART VIEpilogue 269

25 Talking the talk: about architecture 271Ike Ijeh

Index 278

9780415725323pre_pi xxxiv.indd vii9780415725323pre_pi-xxxiv.indd vii 9/6/2014 6:24:18 PM9/6/2014 6:24:18 PM


9/55


10/55

List of gures ix

3.2 Cover of the January 1955 issue of Architectural Forum 41Source : photo by author.

3.3 Progressive Architecture ’s April 1994 issue. 42Source : photo by author.3.4 Cover of 35th AnnualP/A Awards issue, January 1988 43Source : photo by author.

4.1 9+1 Ways of Being Political exhibition at MoMA in 2012 50Source : author.

5.1 Candido Portinari,Desbravamento da Mata (Entry Into the Forest),mural painting, 316 × 431 cm, Library of Congress, Washington,DC, USA, 1941 56Source : Projeto Portinari.

5.2 Candido Portinari,Descoberta do Ouro (Discovery of Gold), muralpainting, 394 × 463 cm, Library of Congress, Washington, DC,USA, 1941 57Source : Projeto Portinari.

5.3 Oscar Niemeyer, Dance Hall in Pampulha, Belo Horizonte,Brazil, 1940–1943 58Source : photograph by Gustabo Neves da Rocha Filho. FAU-USP’sLibrary. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/deed.pt_BR

5.4 Oscar Nimeyer, Casino in Pampulha, Belo Horizonte, Brazil,1940–1943 58Source : photograph by Eduardo Kneese de Mello. FAU-USP’sLibrary. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/deed.pt_BR

5.5 João Vilanova Artigas and Carlos Cascaldi, Faculty of Architectureand Urbanism at the University of São Paulo, São Paulo,Brazil, 1961–1969 60Source : SEF-USP.

5.6 João Vilanova Artigas and Carlos Cascaldi, Faculty of Architectureand Urbanism at the University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil,1961–1969 61Source : photograph by Raul Garcez. FAU-USP’s Library.

5.7 João Vilanova Artigas and Carlos Cascaldi, Faculty of Architectureand Urbanism at the University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil,1961–1969 62Source : photograph Eduardo Kneese de Mello. FAU-USP’s Library.http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/deed.pt_BR

6.1 Dia:Beacon entrance, with Walter De Maria’sEqual Areas , 1977.Stainless steel on ground, 2003 68Source : David Joseph.

6.2 Galia Solomonoff,Defective Brick , 2000, at Artist Space 69Source : Lily Wang.

6.3 Galia Solomonoff,Defective Brick , 2000, at Artist Space 70Source : Lily Wang.

9780415725323pre_pi xxxiv.indd ix9780415725323pre_pi-xxxiv.indd ix 9/6/2014 6:24:18 PM9/6/2014 6:24:18 PM


11/55

x List of gures

6.4 Galia Solomonoff, with Columbia University students. BOB,The Pavilion installation, 2011 70Source : Alex Guerrero.

6.5 Galia Solomonoff, with Columbia University students. BOB,The Pavilion installation, 2011 71Source : Alex Guerrero.

6.6 Galia Solomonoff, Solomonoff Architecture Studio. The Pavilioninterior, 2011 71Source : Galia Solomonoff.

7.1 Architecture is less … 76Source : author.

7.2 The performance cycle 78Source : author.

7.3 Performance characters 79Source : author.

7.4 Performance roles 81Source : author.

8.1 View of Al Azhar Park to the north 92Source : photographer: Gary Otte; Aga Khan Trust for Culture, Geneva.

8.2 View to the north of the park through the main spine 93Source : author.

8.3 View to lakeside café through the lake 93Source : author.

8.4 Front view of hilltop restaurant showing outdoor terraces and the

Mamluk architectural motifs adapted to create a contemporaryimage in harmony with the context 94Source : author.

9.1 Azuma House by Tadao Ando in Osaka: (a) street façade; (b) oorplan level 1; (c) oor plan level 2; (d) oor plan level 3 107

10.1 Development of the policy for energy-effi cient and sustainablebuildings in Germany 114Source : diagram by U. Schramm based on http://www.enev-online.de and http://www.nachhaltiges bauen.de

10.2 Example of an energy performance certi cate, based on the realenergy consumption of a residential building during occupancy,indicating a benchmark of 124.3 kWh/m2a 115Source : U. Schramm with energy consultant U. Schreiner.

10.3 Federal Environment Agency, Dessau, 2005 DGNB-Certi cate:“Gold,” RIBA award, Deutscher Architekturpreis: HighCommendation 116Source : Wikipedia Commons, February 28, 2014.

10.4 Demolition works and protest demonstration at the north wing ofStuttgart’s 100-year-old train station 118Source : Wikipedia Commons, February 28, 2014.

9780415725323pre_pi xxxiv.indd x9780415725323pre_pi-xxxiv.indd x 9/6/2014 6:24:18 PM9/6/2014 6:24:18 PM


12/55

List of gures xi

11.1 Examples of Egyptian architecture magazine covers – AlamEl-Benaa andMedina Magazine 123Source : author.

13.1 41 Cooper Square at the Cooper Union designed by ThomMayne of Morphosis 137Source : author.

14.1 An in-house approach to the use of post-occupancy evaluations 150Source : Andrea Hardy.

14.2 Key components of a post-occupancy evaluation 151Source : Andrea Hardy.

14.3 Categories for post-occupancy evaluations, simpler indicative tomore complex diagnostic POE 151Source : Andrea Hardy.

14.4 In-house and external in uences through the use of post-occupancy evaluations 153Source : Andrea Hardy.

14.5 People in uence buildings and buildings in uence people 155Source : Andrea Hardy.

14.6 POEs allow for a more direct interaction and in uences betweenclients, occupants, and buildings 155Source : Andrea Hardy.

14.7 Each examination room has a unique view – some of the sky,others the parking lot 156Source : buildipedia.com, April 6, 2014; Credit: Iwan Baan.

14.8 Imagine having to wash windows after a sand storm 156Source : buildipedia.com, April 6, 2014; Credit: GehryPartners LLP.

15.1 The cover illustration fromFlying Blind (Bordass 2001) 164Source : Louis Hellman.

16.1 Footprint of buildings during Expo 2010 Shanghai China 172Source : Clare Jacobson.

16.2 Footprint of buildings on July 12, 2013 173Source : Clare Jacobson.

16.3 Site map of ve zones during Expo 2010 Shanghai China 175Source : Clare Jacobson.

16.4 Site map of future use of ve zones, as de ned by the ExpoShanghai Group, March 2013 175Source : Clare Jacobson.

16.5 National pavilions in Pudong during Expo 2010 and during thesummer of 2013 177Source : Clare Jacobson.


9780415725323pre_pi xxxiv.indd xi9780415725323pre_pi-xxxiv.indd xi 9/6/2014 6:24:18 PM9/6/2014 6:24:18 PM


13/55

xii List of gures


17.1 A picture book on the journey of Marron Sister and AcornBrother 185Source : Akikazu Kato.

17.2 Ward plan of Katta Public General Hospital ( oor level 3) 187Source : courtesy of Taro Ashihara Architects.

17.3 Single-bed room versus multi-bed room 188Source : Shiho Mori.

17.4 Suggestion to make two inconsistent ideas possible in Japan 189Source : Shiho Mori.

17.5 Ideal type of relations between privacy and communication 189Source : Shiho Mori.

17.6 Example of adjusting interpersonal relationship 190Source : Shiho Mori.

17.7 Schematic sketch of all single room inpatient ward 190Source : Akikazu Kato.

19.1 Evaluative map of Knoxville by residents 213Source : author.

19.2 Evaluative map of Chattanooga by visitors 213Source : author.

19.3 Adjective checklist for qualities the new headquartersshould convey 214Source : author.20.1 Form-based codes, Columbia Pike, VA 220Source : photo by Brett VA, licensed under CCx3.0.

20.2 Form-based codes architecture 222Source : photo by D. Scheer.

21.1 Researcher and informant dialogue 229Source : author.

21.2 Profession, criticism, and evaluation dialogue 229Source : author.

22.1 Quality improvement POE levels 234Source : Dina Battisto and Sonya Albury-Crandall.

22.2 POE components informed by MHS world-class principles 235Source : Dina Battisto and Sonya Albury-Crandall.

22.3 Simpli ed performance concept to connect outcomes to facilitydesign 236Source : Dina Battisto and Deborah Franqui.

22.4 POE performance framework 237Source : Dina Battisto, Deborah Franqui, and Mason Couvillion.

22.5 POE phases and data collection tools 239Source : Dina Battisto, Deborah Franqui, and Mason Couvillion.

9780415725323pre_pi xxxiv.indd xii9780415725323pre_pi-xxxiv.indd xii 9/6/2014 6:24:18 PM9/6/2014 6:24:18 PM


14/55

List of gures xiii

22.6 Example of metrics for access and way nding 239Source : Dina Battisto and Deborah Franqui.

22.7 Example of data collection tools and metrics for access andway nding 240Source : Dina Battisto and Deborah Franqui.

23.1 Illustration of discriminatory design practice 245Source : photo by Korydon Smith.

23.2 Illustration of universal design practice 246Source : photo by Korydon Smith.

23.3 Conceptual diagram of the complementary paradigms ofuniversal design 249Source : Korydon Smith.

24.1 The Interrelated Concepts of Regenerative Design . From BeyondLEED, exhibition at the University of Texas at Austin, Fall 2012.Elizabeth Walsh, designer, produced through http://www.wordle.net 253

24.2 Public conversation as a driver of changing social, ecological, andmaterial conditions 256

24.3 Greensburg Regenerative Design Dialogue 258Source : BNIM, © BNIM.

24.4 Greensburg Regenerative Rebuild, LEED-Platinum high school 259Source : BNIM, © Assassi.

24.5 Regenerative tourism at Playa Viva 260Source : courtesy of Playa Viva; photo by Randolph Langenbach.

24.6 Participatory process for the Potty Project 260Source : Julia King.24.7 A decentralized sewerage system in the making 261Source : Julia King.

25.1 Example of Eisenman’s use of sloping windows and ground planesat the Greater Columbus Convention Center 272Source : Mark Olson.

25.2 The shattered building style of Libeskind’s addition atthe Royal Ontario Museum compared to the frenzied work ofGehry at MIT’s Stata Center 274Source : Wikipedia.

25.3 The shattered building style of Libeskind’s addition atthe Royal Ontario Museum compared to the frenzied work ofGehry at MIT’s Stata Center 275Source : Wikipedia.

9780415725323pre_pi xxxiv.indd xiii9780415725323pre_pi-xxxiv.indd xiii 9/6/2014 6:24:18 PM9/6/2014 6:24:18 PM


15/55

TABLES

1.1 Milestones in the evolution of habitability research 71.2 Space: toward a new paradigm and taxonomy 11

A1.1 Core bibliography 172.1 Major phases in the evolution of architectural criticism in the

United States and its European antecedents in aesthetic criticism 328.1 Categories of concepts/terms utilized in the content analysis of

media coverage of Al Azhar Park 968.2 Compelling titles used by the media to project and depict Al

Azhar Park 978.3 Reasons for users’ ratings of the park design as excellent or good 998.4 Activities people perform when visiting the park 101

14.1 Milestones in the evolution of POE/BPE 14815.1 Elements of a new professionalism: ten points developed

with the Edge 16819.1 Salient physical characteristics of environments 21019.2 Strengths and weakness of various modes of presentation 21019.3 Items for use in assessing salient aspects of emotional appraisals 211

9780415725323pre_pi xxxiv.indd xiv9780415725323pre_pi-xxxiv.indd xiv 9/6/2014 6:24:18 PM9/6/2014 6:24:18 PM


16/55

NOTES ON THE EDITORS

Wolfgang F. E. Preiser , University of Cincinnati and Arizona State University, holds aPhD in Man–Environment Relations from Penn State, and several architecture degrees fromVirginia Tech, Karlsruhe Tech (Germany), and Vienna Tech (Austria). He has over 40 years ofexperience in teaching, research, and consulting in the evaluation and programming of envir-onments, including health care facilities, public housing, public libraries, cross-cultural anduniversal design, as well as design research in general.

He has published 18 books and over 130 chapters, monographs and articles. His mostrecent books include:Enhancing Building Performance (Wiley, 2012);Universal Design Handbook

(McGraw-Hill, 2010); andDesigning for Designers: Lessons Learned From Schools of Architecture (Fairchild, 2007). Preiser has lectured worldwide at 69 venues and conferences in the UnitedStates and Canada, as well as 86 overseas. He has served on national committees with theAmerican Institute of Architects, the Building Research Board of the National Academy ofSciences, and the National Institute for Disability Rehabilitation Research.

Preiser has received many awards, including: two Progressive Architecture Awards; twoProfessional Fellowships from the National Endowment for the Arts; The Career Award fromthe 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 inLondon and New York, and Rafael Vinoly Architects in New York and Cleveland, Ohio. Davisis currently a Partner at PRE-OFFICE.

Aaron has served as a guest cr itic at Columbia University, the University of Cincinnati, andThe 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 , andThe International Journal of Architecture Research.

Ashraf M. Salama , PhD, FRSA, FHEA is a licensed architect in Egypt, and received hisBSc, MSc, and PhD from Al Azhar University, Egypt and North Carolina State University,

9780415725323pre_pi xxxiv.indd xv9780415725323pre_pi-xxxiv.indd xv 9/6/2014 6:24:18 PM9/6/2014 6:24:18 PM


17/55

xvi Notes on the editors

Raleigh, North Carolina, USA. He is Professor and Chair of Department of Architecture atthe University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK. Dr. Salama has written over 100 articles and papersin 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 StudioPedagogy: Horizons for the Future (Urban International Press, 2007);Transformative Pedagogy in

Architecture and Urbanism (Umbau-Verlag, 2009); andDemystifying Doha: On Architecture andUrbanism in an Emerging City (Ashgate, 2013). He is currently working on a book entitledSpatial Design Education (Ashgate, 2015). Professor Salama was the recipient of the rst awardof the International Architecture Design Studio, University of Montreal, Canada, 1990, and in1998 he won the Paul Chemetove Prize for his project on Architecture and the Eradicationof 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 organ-ized by the IAHH – the International Association for Humane Habitat – Mumbai, India in2006–2007. In 2012, he served as a jury member in the international limited competitionfor 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 inArchitecture from Arizona State University (2012). Her undergraduate degree in “ArchitecturalEngineering 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, andstudying public architecture through Arizona State University in Buenos Aires, Argentina,Hardy is currently working at Creo Architects in Phoenix and is working towards getting herarchitectural license.

While at Arizona State University, Hardy was a member of the American Institute ofArchitecture Students, served one term as Secretary for the American Institute of ArchitectureStudents, was a teaching assistant for a design studio and history class, received multiple schol-arships, and participated in non-academic activities such as volunteer work for Habitat forHumanity and working on multiple design competitions.

9780415725323pre_pi xxxiv.indd xvi9780415725323pre_pi-xxxiv.indd xvi 9/6/2014 6:24:18 PM9/6/2014 6:24:18 PM


18/55

NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS

Dina Battisto , PhD, is Associate Professor in the School of Architecture at Clemson Universitywhere she teaches in the Architecture + Health Program and leads the Built Environment andHealth concentration area in the PhD program. She conducts environmental research with agoal 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 externalresearch funding since 2008. In addition, she has won numerous national design awards, ishighly recruited to speak at conference venues, and is widely published.

Ursula Baus studied art history, philosophy, classical archaeology, as well as architecture, inStuttgart, Germany and Paris, France. Her studies culminated in her doctorate in architecturalhistory in Stuttgart in 1999. For over two decades, she has been working as publisher, rst aseditor of an architectural magazine and subsequently as independent critic and researcher inarchitecture. Until 2011, she taught architectural theory and criticism at several universities,published textbooks on a variety of topics, and lectured both nationally and internationally. In2004, she co-founded the partnership “frei04 publizistik,” for both national and internationalarchitectural publications. Until 2012, she served as vice-president of the advisory board forthe Bundesstiftung Baukultur (Federal Foundation for Architectural Culture). Since 2010, shehas been a scienti c advisor to the IBA Basel 2020 (International Building Exhibition). Sheserves 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 por-tal www.german-architects.com until 2013. Currently, she is owner of a new internet portalfor architectural criticism.

Clayton Boenecke , MHA, serves as the Chief, Portfolio Management, in the Defense HealthAgency. Clay leads a team of civilian health care planners and collaborates with colleaguesfrom the army, navy, and air force to identify the most important medical facility investmentsfor the Department of Defense. Clay actively supports EBD principles and research and theirinclusion in military medical facility construction and renovation. Clay is a Fellow of theHealth Facilities Institute and member of ASHE.

9780415725323pre_pi xxxiv.indd xvii9780415725323pre_pi-xxxiv.indd xvii 9/6/2014 6:24:18 PM9/6/2014 6:24:18 PM


19/55

xviii Notes on contributors

Bill Bordass , William Bordass Associates and the Usable Buildings Trust, is a scientist whomoved to the designers RMJM London, going on to lead its building services and energygroups. 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 thepublished PROBE series of post-occupancy evaluations. With co-author Adrian Leaman, hehelped to set up the Usable Buildings Trust charity which seeks to make building performanceevaluation 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 Doctorof 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 aseditor-in-chief ofFaith & Form , a quarterly interfaith journal on religious art and architecture.He is also a frequent contributor toOculus magazine, Architectural Record , and writes about

architecture and design for theHartford Courant . He is the author of more than 20 books onarchitecture, including ve books for children. Dr. Crosbie is a Professor of Architecture andChair 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 adjunctprofessor at Roger Williams University and Catholic University. He has lectured and servedas a visiting critic at architecture schools in North America and abroad, among them theUniversity of California (Berkeley), the University of Pennsylvania, Yale University, and theMoscow Architectural Institute. Dr. Crosbie has practiced with Centerbrook Architects andSteven Winter Associates, is a registered architect in the State of Connecticut, and is a memberof the College of Fellows of the American Institute of Architects.

Frank Duffy trained as an architect at the Architectural Association School in London from1959 to 1964. He became interested in offi ce design in the fourth year when his class wasgiven the brief to design an offi ce building that, unlike briefs for more socially committedprojects, was extremely abbreviated. Coincidentally, his imagination was stimulated by a novelform of offi ce planning in Germany calledBuerolandschaft , or offi ce landscaping, based onstudies of internal patterns of communication. In 1967 Duffy went to the USA as a HarknessFellow, rst to Berkeley then to Princeton, where the focus of his doctoral research was thestudy of how several sociological dimensions, complexity of hierarchical structures, as wellas the frequency and intensity of internal interactions related to varying degrees of differ-entiation and openness in offi ce layouts.In 1971 Duffy returned to London, initially work-ing 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 manyresearch studies, most notably the ORBIT series on the impact of information technologyon the workplace.Duffy has been much involved in professional politics, serving as Presidentof 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 theQueen.

Thomas Fisher is a Professor in the School of Architecture and Dean of the College of Designat the University of Minnesota. A graduate of Cornell University in Architecture and Case

9780415725323pre_pi xxxiv.indd xviii9780415725323pre_pi-xxxiv.indd xviii 9/6/2014 6:24:18 PM9/6/2014 6:24:18 PM


20/55

Notes on contributors xix

Western Reserve University in Intellectual History, he was recognized in 2005 as the fthmost published writer about architecture in the United States. He has written seven books, 47book chapters or introductions, and over 325 articles in professional journals and major publi-

cations. Named a top-25 design educator four times by Design Intelligence, he has lectured at36 universities and over 150 professional and public meetings in the US.He has written exten-sively about architectural design, practice, and ethics. His books includeIn 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 ProfessionalPractice (Princeton Architectural Press, 2010), two monographs on the work of architect DavidSalmela (Minnesota, 2005, 2011), a book on the work of Lake Flato (Rockport, 2005), and abook on system design entitledDesigning to Avoid Disaster: The Nature of Fracture-Critical Design (Routledge, 2013). He has also co-edited a book with Wolfgang Preiser and Jack Nasar enti-tled Designing for Designers: Lessons Learned from Schools of Architecture (Fairchild, 2007). Somerecent chapters he has written include one on the history of ethics education in ArchitectureSchool: Three Centuries of Educating Architects in North America (MIT, 2012) and one on ethics forthe next edition ofThe Architects Handbook of Professional Practice (AIA, 2013).

Deborah Franqui , AIA, is currently a PhD candidate in the Planning, Design and BuiltEnvironment PhD Program in the College of Architecture, Arts and Humanities at ClemsonUniversity. Her experience as a licensed architect and owner of SPACES architects in PuertoRico focused on the programming, planning, design, and construction management of work-place environments. Her recent experience has focused on developing pathways to assess theperformance 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 ofBuilt Environments at the University of Washington, director of the School of Architecture atthe University of Illinois at Chicago, and director of the School of Architecture and InteriorDesign at the University of Cincinnati. Friedman lectures and writes on professional edu-cation, public architecture, ethics, and contemporary theory. He earned advanced degreesin architecture at the University of Pennsylvania, where he completed his doctoral disserta-tion on the history and design of the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in La Jolla. He waselevated to the AIA College of Fellows in 2001.

Pedro Gadanho is the Curator of Contemporary Architecture in the Department ofArchitecture 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 inart and architecture and PhD in architecture and mass media. He is the author of Arquiteturaem Público , and recipient of the FAD Prize for Thought and Criticism in 2012. He was theeditor ofBEYOND bookazine, writes the Shrapnel Contemporary blog, and contributesregularly to international publications. He curated Meta ux at the 2004 Venice ArchitectureBiennale and exhibitions such as Post.Rotterdam, Space Invaders, and Pancho Guedes, AnAlternative Modernist. He was also a chief curator of ExperimentaDesign between 2001and 2003. Amongst exhibition layouts, galleries, and refurbishments, his designs included theEllipse Foundation in Lisbon, and the widely published Orange House, in Carreço, FamilyHome, in Oporto, and GMG House, in Torres Vedras.

9780415725323pre_pi xxxiv.indd xix9780415725323pre_pi-xxxiv.indd xix 9/6/2014 6:24:18 PM9/6/2014 6:24:18 PM


21/55

xx Notes on contributors

Remah Y. Gharib received his PhD in Architecture and Urban Design from the Universityof Nottingham, where he developed his knowledge of revitalization of historic quarters. Hisresearch focuses on aspects of public policy formulation and implementation. Prior to receiv-

ing his PhD, he earned his Master’s within the eld of managing historic cities. He received hisBachelor in Architectural Engineering from Misr International University in Cairo. Dr. Gharibis currently coordinating the Urban Design and Architecture in Muslim Societies program atHamad Bin Khalifa University and teaching four courses at the Master’s level. He published inseveral refereed journals, participated in international peer-reviewed conferences, and is cur-rently a collaborating editor for theInternational Journal of Architectural Research-Archnet .

Ike Ijeh is a practicing architect and is architecture critic forBuilding andBD magazines, twoof 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 BlackstoneArchitects and is a specialist on London’s architecture, planning, and public spaces.At Building

andBD 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 awardsand the Carbuncle Cup, the irreverent annual prize for the UK’s worst building.ThroughLondon Architecture Walks Ike has pursued his aim of making architecture more accessible tothe public and has hosted acclaimed walks and presentations for a wide range of lay and pro-fessional audiences.Blackstone Architects specializes in residential, community work as well asacademic research in the UK and abroad. Previously Ike has been employed by some of theUK’s foremost architectural practices including Foster + Partners where he worked on thesuccessful part-pedestrianization of London’s Trafalgar Square.He has also prepared extensivemasterplans for major mixed-use urban regeneration projects and has worked on the designof 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 Historic BuildingsTrust and contributor to the St Giles Regeneration Forum. He is also preparing a manuscriptfor a book on new public spaces in London.

Clare Jacobson is a Shanghai-based design writer and editor. She is the author of the bookNew Museums in China (Princeton Architectural Press, 2013) and co-author ofKarlssonwilkerInc.’s Tell Me Why: The First 24 Months of a New York Design Company (Princeton ArchitecturalPress, 2003). Jacobson is a contributing editor to Architectural Record , and her articles havealso appeared inEngineering News Record , Randian , Architectural Review Asia Pacic , Landscape

Architecture , and other magazines. As editor and editorial director at Princeton ArchitecturalPress for 21 years, she originated, acquired, and developed more than 120 books on architec-

ture, graphic design, landscape architecture, photography, and visual culture. She has a BArtsand 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 architec-tural planning and facility management. Previous positions include faculty member of othernational universities, and licensed architect at Kume Architects. He received his doctoratein Engineering from Nagoya University. He has published a number of books and refereedpapers, and presented at various international symposiums. Also, he planned and designed anumber of architecture works mostly in the health care eld including those winning prizes as

9780415725323pre_pi xxxiv.indd xx9780415725323pre_pi-xxxiv.indd xx 9/6/2014 6:24:18 PM9/6/2014 6:24:18 PM


22/55


23/55

xxii Notes on contributors

presented papers in several international and regional conferences. He is a member of manyconferences and journal scienti c committees/editorial boards.

Steven A. Moore is Bartlett Cocke Regents Professor of Architecture and Planning at theUniversity of Texas at Austin where he teaches design and interdisciplinary courses relatedto the philosophy, history, and application of sustainable technology. He is Director of theGraduate Program in Sustainable Design and Co-founder of the University of Texas Centerfor Sustainable Development. Moore is a Fellow of the National Endowment for the Arts, aLoeb Fellow of the Harvard Graduate School of Design, and the recipient of an IndividualScholar Award from the National Science Foundation. He is the author of many articles andbook chapters and six books on the topic of sustainable architecture and urbanism. Moore’smost recent book, co-authored with Barbara B. Wilson, isQuestioning Architectural Judgment:The Problem of Codes in the United States (Routledge, 2014)

Shiho Mori is Assistant Professor of Architecture at Mie University Graduate School ofEngineering, 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 presentedat international congresses, and worked as a lecturer in training courses for facility directors ofnursing homes. Her previous position was the planner of a housing equipment offi ce. Usingthe experience of her previous post, she is participating in several projects, from detachedhouses 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 Schooland editor of Journal of Planning Literature . He has published more than 80 scholarly articles onmeaning, cognition, fear, crime, and spatial behavior in relation to the environment. Nasar served as

architectural critic forThe Columbus Dispatch and guest critic forLandscape Architecture . His booksincludeEnvironmental Aesthetics: Theory, Research, & Applications (Cambridge, 1988);The EvaluativeImage 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) (OhioState University Press, 2007); andDesigning for Designers: Lessons Learned from Schools of Architecture (with W. F. E. Preiser, and T. Fisher) (Fairchild, 2007). An invited lecturer around the world, Nasarhas received the EDRA Career Achievement Award, Lumley Award for Excellence in Researchat Ohio State, Ethel Chattel Fellowship from University of Sydney, and the Distinguished AlumniAward 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 Supérieure d’architecture de Paris LaVillette in Paris. He is an architect and the author, editor, or co-editor of publications onarchitecture and landscape, such asTadao And ô (Hazan/Birkaüser/Jaca, 2009);Toyo Itô: D étailsde structures lé gères (Le Moniteur, 2003);Construire en Chine (Le Moniteur, 2005);La MaisonIndividuelle (Le Moniteur, 2006);La Maison individuelle vers des paysages soutenables? (La Villette,2012); andTeaching Landscape in Architecture (La Villette, 2009). He was also one of the organ-izers of the international conference “Landscape and Imagination” on 2–4 May 2013, theproceedings 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 xxii9780415725323pre_pi-xxxiv.indd xxii 9/6/2014 6:24:18 PM9/6/2014 6:24:18 PM


24/55

Notes on contributors xxiii

Nigel Oseland is a workplace strategist, change manager, environmental psychologist, andauthor with ten years’ research and 15 years’ consulting experience. Nigel is an internationallyrecognized expert in occupant feedback methods, performance and productivity, agile work-

ing, environmental conditions, and the psychology of the workplace.Nigel established hisown consulting practice, Workplace Unlimited, several years ago. His approach to workplaceconsulting is to apply his knowledge, obtained through both academic research and prac-tical experience. He advises occupiers on how to rede ne their workstyles to provide space-effi cient and cost-effective workplaces that enhance business performance. Nigel specializesin workplace strategies that improve collaboration, enhance creativity, facilitate concentration,meet psychological needs, respond to changing organizational structure, and deliver max-imum value. Nigel mostly focuses on his consulting practice but occasionally carries out cli-ent funded research projects, for example on behalf of the British Council for Offi ces, Offi ceProductivity Network, the MOD, and Herman Miller. He is also the Chair of the WorkplaceConsulting Organization and co-founder of the Offi ce Productivity Network. He continues

to write articles and guidance, present regularly at international conferences, and organizes theannual Workplace Trends and the Learning Environments conferences. He was the lead authorof the BCO’sGuide to POE .

Brenda C. Scheer , AIA, FAICP, is a Professor at the College of Architecture + Planning at theUniversity of Utah, where she was dean for 11 years. She is a nationally recognized authorityon urban design and the development of cities. She was a Loeb Fellow at the Harvard GraduateSchool of Design, and is a registered architect and planner. As dean, she made environmentaland civic concerns her hallmark, creating an innovative metropolitan planning program andemphasizing community and environmental engagement. Professor Scheer serves on multiplecivic boards, including Envision Utah. She has served on the editorial boards of the Journalof the American Planning Association , Housing Policy Debate , andUrban Morphology . Scheer is theauthor 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 mul-tiple journal articles on the role of urban design in urban policy.

Ulrich Schramm is Professor in the Department of Architecture and Civil Engineering at theUniversity of Applied Sciences in Bielefeld, Germany. His appointment includes teaching andresearch responsibilities in the eld of facility programming and building performance evalu-ation. He received his Doctorate in Architecture from the University of Stuttgart and a post-doctoral 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) consortiumhave been presented at EDRA and IAPS conferences since 1995 and published in several art-icles and book chapters.

Korydon H. Smith is Associate Professor in the Department of Architecture at the Universityat Buffalo, where he teaches undergraduate and graduate courses in architectural design andconducts 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 theUniversal Design Handbook , 2nd edn. (McGraw-Hill, 2010), and editor ofIntroducing ArchitecturalTheory: Debating a Discipline (Routledge, 2012). Smith holds an Ed.D. in higher education

9780415725323pre_pi xxxiv.indd xxiii9780415725323pre_pi-xxxiv.indd xxiii 9/6/2014 6:24:18 PM9/6/2014 6:24:18 PM


25/55

xxiv Notes on contributors

leadership from the University of Arkansas and a professional M.Arch. with a concentration inarchitectural theory and design from the University at Buffalo.

Galia Solomonoff is the founder and director of Solomonoff Architecture Studio. She receivedher Master’s in Architecture from Columbia University, and was awarded the McKim Prize forExcellence in Design. Prior to founding SAS, Solomonoff founded OpenOffi ce. She has taughtat Princeton University, The Cooper Union, Yale, and currently is a Professor of ArchitecturalPractice at Columbia University.Solomonoff is the recipient of several design awards, and artgrants. Her work appeared inThe New York Times , The New Yorker , W , ARTNews , Artforum , andDomus . New York Magazine called Dia: Beacon, which Solomonoff designed, “one of today’smost compelling museums,” and named Solomonoff part of the Next Wave of Designers in2009. Solomonoff collaborated in several books including:Latin American Architecture: Six Voices (Texas A&M Press, 2000) andPost Ductility: Metals in Architecture and Engineering (PrincetonArchitectural Press, 2012); and is working on “Documenting Latin American Architecture”, a

documentary and book project. Her writing aims at the recognition of Latin American archi-tecture’s cultural relevance and the advancement of architecture as a discipline signi cant toeveryone.

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 involvedin the development of a campus master plan and town-hood management and also the assetmanagement of public facilities. His previous positions include professors at various univer-sities and was a licensed architect at INA Architects. He has published a number of books andrefereed 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 Programand the Indoor Environmental Sciences and Engineering Program at the University of Texas atAustin. Her dissertation research investigates how the design of low-income home renovationprograms might enhance capacity for environmental justice, sustainability, and resilience incentrally located, gentrifying neighborhoods. Walsh is the co-founder of the Holly NeighborsHelping Neighbors program, a neighborhood, volunteer-based green home renovation pro-gram. As the Vice Chair of the Austin Housing Repair Coalition, Walsh works with a group of17 public, non-pro t, and private organizations dedicated to improving the health and envir-onmental performance of low-income housing through home repair. Walsh also serves on theLiving Environments in Natural, Social and Economic Systems (LENSES) Working Groupwith 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 servicesto government, commercial, and private clients in Australasia and Europe from small simplealterations to large complex campuses. He has conducted approximately 180 POEs of schools,universities, courts, police stations, military and correction facilities, offi ces, museums, retail,private, social and institutional housing, and Sydney Opera House facilities.He has contrib-uted to the development of the POE method in New Zealand since 1984. His use of POE hasbeen developed into a model whereby robust and systematic POE techniques are applied indifferent ways at various stages in the building life-cycle. Brie ng (programming) incorporates

9780415725323pre_pi xxxiv.indd xxiv9780415725323pre_pi-xxxiv.indd xxiv 9/6/2014 6:24:18 PM9/6/2014 6:24:18 PM


26/55

Notes on contributors xxv

evaluation methodology, then sketch designs are assessed by interest groups using their ownperformance criteria. A POE allows stakeholders to negotiate design and use. Lastly, proposedbuildings are reviewed in terms of occupant experience in similar buildings that have been

evaluated.Chris Watson has evaluated buildings in Scotland, England, Portugal, Australia, andNew Zealand. He contributed to OECD Programme on Education Buildings conferencesand publications on evaluating education facilities including a Lisbon demonstration of evalu-ation. Internationally, he has published and presented at conferences of industry and designresearch organizations. He co-editedEnhancing 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 xxv9780415725323pre_pi-xxxiv.indd xxv 9/6/2014 6:24:18 PM9/6/2014 6:24:18 PM


27/55


28/55

PREFACE

The idea for this book originated with co-editors Wolf Preiser and Aaron Davis when theywere discussing trends in emerging practices in architecture. Davis had been compiling atwo-volumeConversations with Architects series, comprised of interviews of notable architectsre ecting on the founding, guiding principles, and economic strategies of their practices dur-ing the recession. Preiser had published six books on post-occupancy evaluation/buildingperformance evaluation and sought to bridge the gap between that eld and architecturalcriticism, as we know it in major newspapers like theNew 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 theeditorial team. Salama had published books six books on architectural and urban pedagogyand his latest book is entitledDemystifying Doha: On Architecture and Urbanism in an EmergingCity , and so it was important that he take part, which eventually led to the inclusion ofarchitectural writings from the Middle East. Andrea Hardy was originally brought on as anEditorial Assistant through grants awarded by Arizona State University. As Hardy continuedher work on the book structure, writing, research and illustrations for the book, she was theninvited 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 respon-sive and unbiased discourse on these two paradigms. This is taking place by acknowledgingand 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, con-temporary architectural criticism appears to be in a continuous search for a role that seriouslycontributes to informing the architect directly or indirectly and consequently affect the workhe or she produces. On the other hand, building performance evaluation seems to have devel-oped into a mature area of research and an integral component of architecture in the academyas well as in professional practice.

The book aims to reveal the history and evolution of both architectural criticism andbuilding performance evaluation while chronicling their elds. The book contains six sections,sequenced to introduce what are disparate elds of investigation. Through theoretical discus-sions, journalistic contributions, and empirical ndings and case study investigations, these

9780415725323pre_pi xxxiv.indd xxvii9780415725323pre_pi-xxxiv.indd xxvii 9/6/2014 6:24:18 PM9/6/2014 6:24:18 PM


29/55

xxviii Preface

sections cover the world in various regions from the Americans to the Middle East and fromEurope to Australasia. The challenge of instigating a new paradigm is demonstrated throughcomprehensive 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 mostcorners of the globe are represented, offers the reader a cross-cultural perspective and anopportunity to know more about different contexts and how both criticism and performanceevaluation are understood and practiced. The interdisciplinary nature of the book is re ectedin the diversity of its contributors – academics with different specializations, such as curators,critics, and professional architects – who all contribute insights that give the reader glimpses ofthe two paradigms from various perspectives including art and aesthetics, architecture, urbandesign, and environmental psychology. The book is also characterized by being intergenera-tional in the sense that it includes thoughtful writings from academics and practitioners with

little experience in the eld and theoretical underpinnings, analytical interpretations, and caseexamples written by prominent professionals in academic and professional realms. The preced-ing three features make this contribution appealing to students of architecture, academics, crit-ics, building industry professionals, and those who make decisions about the built environmentor have an in uence on shaping it. Additionally, the book will serve as a point of reference forthe general public when trying to understand what architects do today by speaking about theirexperience in their elds in their own voice.

9780415725323pre_pi xxxiv.indd xxviii9780415725323pre_pi-xxxiv.indd xxviii 9/6/2014 6:24:18 PM9/6/2014 6:24:18 PM


30/55

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Our editorial team, although spread out geographically between Arizona (Wolf Preiser andAndrea Hardy), New York City (Aaron Davis) and Qatar (Ashraf Salama), worked extremelywell together in bringing this book project to a successful conclusion.

This book would not have been written and edited without working in teaching and con-ducting research in various contexts, while experiencing the multifaceted nature of the builtenvironment in those contexts. Many people have contributed directly or indirectly to thisbook. We are indebted to our current and former colleagues and students alike who through-out 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 havemade this contribution unique. Their collaborative endeavors in meeting stringent deadlinesand in following well-tested guidelines are much appreciated. The result is a book that reachesacross the boundaries of culture and regions, re ected in the way in which it was developedand 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 assistingus in developing the original book proposal, and throughout the three draft rounds to readythe manuscript for publication. Joanna North guided us through the copy editing process, andZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ 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 throughrounds of correcting and editing manuscripts, communicating with authors from around theglobe, and at last, putting nal touches to the present book. We owe our colleagues and fam-ilies special thanks for their support and patience during times when the demands of the workoften interfered with personal obligations and professional responsibilities.

9780415725323pre_pi xxxiv.indd xxix9780415725323pre_pi-xxxiv.indd xxix 9/6/2014 6:24:18 PM9/6/2014 6:24:18 PM


31/55

FOREWORD

Nigel Oseland

As an environmental psychologist my interests lie in how the built environment affects people’sbehaviour, attitudes, comfort and performance. Le Corbusier famously claimed ‘une maisonest une machine-à-habiter’, that is, ‘a house is a machine for living in’, so to me it logicallyfollows that ‘an offi ce is a machine for working in’ (Le Corbusier 1924). I rmly believe thatthe core objective of the offi ce building is, and has always been, to facilitate the business of theoccupier. The analogy extends to other buildings, other workplaces such as museums, thea-tres, factories and schools. Their primary purpose is to enable the activities of the occupyingorganization. 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 usedin POEs include indices related to organizational and occupant performance, workersatisfaction and productivity, as well as the measures of building performance.

In POE we adopt a systematic and rigorous approach to test whether the building supportsthe 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 thebuilding aesthetically appealing or not is more akin to treating the building as a sculpture, asart, 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 andmetaphysical, of all things human and all things superhuman, of all true manifestations

9780415725323pre_pi xxxiv.indd xxx9780415725323pre_pi-xxxiv.indd xxx 9/6/2014 6:24:18 PM9/6/2014 6:24:18 PM


32/55

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 u-enced byDe Architectura Libri Decem (c. 27BC ). This historic book by Roman architect Vitruviusidenti ed three elements necessary for a well-designed building: rmitas , utilitas andvenustas , i.e.rmness, utility and delight. Firmness relates to the building’s structural integrity and the basicrequirement of shelter. Utility (or commodity) refers to the realm of POE; it relates to provid-ing spaces and mechanical systems to meet the functional needs of its occupants. Finally, delightrelates 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 qual-ity of the building as well as its functionality – this is more in line with Building PerformanceEvaluation (BPE). I concur that how the building contributes to ‘placemaking’, i.e. creating goodpublic 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 pre-cedence over its form. I also believe a good building evaluation considers the views of allstakeholders, usually occupants and occasionally visitors. So, like Elizabeth Walsh and StevenMoore 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 Offi ces (BCO), consider building performance in termsof the three Es: Effi ciency, Effectiveness and Expression (CABE and BCO 2005). Effi ciencyrefers to space and cost effi ciencies whereas effectiveness relates to how the building effect-ively 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 theoccupying organization. Since the early skyscrapers, businesses have commissioned their ownuniquely identi able buildings, and prior to the credit crunch these symbolic buildings werebecoming increasingly popular. It could be argued that an expressive building supports thebusiness by acting as an advert or perhaps by motivating the workforce by being associatedwith a successful company. Like Aaron Davis in Chapter 2, I would rather that buildings areevaluated 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 AndreaHardy in Chapter 14, the stark reality is that buildings are rarely evaluated. We are more likelyto hear a subjective critique of the building aesthetic than see a full systematic evaluation ofthe building’s functionality. In his in uential reportRethinking 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 lit-tle systematic research on what the end-user actually wants, nor do they seek to raisecustomers’ aspirations and educate them to become more discerning. The industry hasno objective process for auditing client satisfaction.

There are very few industries that do not actively seek customer feedback with a view toimproving their service or product in order to gain commercial advantage. It seems that

9780415725323pre_pi xxxiv.indd xxxi9780415725323pre_pi-xxxiv.indd xxxi 9/6/2014 6:24:18 PM9/6/2014 6:24:18 PM


33/55

xxxii Foreword

architecture and construction are one of those industries. As Bill Bordass and Adrian Leamanpoint 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 fearsof 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 – spacesand systems put together in new ways, with potentially unpredictable outcomes’. Whilst weshould not sti e creativity and originality in building design, we do need to ensure that thedesign works and mistakes are not repeated in future buildings. Bordass and Leaman providea recent example of the consequences of a lack of feedback and unmonitored building proto-types: ‘the UK’s recent Building Schools for the Future programme, where eye-catching archi-tectural 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’sPlan of Work includes a Stage 7, ‘In Use’ which

includes POE and a review of project performance. Unfortunately, even when POEs areconducted and candid customer feedback obtained, it tends to be the positive aspects of theevaluation that are shared. Occupiers, architects and interior designers are less likely to high-light their mistakes or share those ever so important lessons learned.

Over the last few years austerity measures have meant that the design and use of the offi cespace is fundamentally driven by cost. The offi ce is considered by many within the propertyindustry, and across broader business, to be a cost burden. It is perceived as an overhead ratherthan as a means of improving business performance, an investment with potentially lucrativereturns. So offi ce layout and design has been very much focused on space effi ciency, increasingoccupational densities and reducing property costs. When buildings are formally evaluated thefocus 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. Toget the most out of our workforce we provide them with the best technology, training, busi-ness processes and management; we provide them with an organizational infrastructure thatsupports their needs. The workplace is a core component of that infrastructure; it’s a tool forthe job, and should be treated so. We should therefore consider our offi ce buildings in terms ofthe return on investment of our people rather than as a cost burden to the business. ThereforeI think, and I hope for the sake of the economy, that the focus of the future offi ce will shiftaway 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 inprevious years. They may be employed by a global organization, or a recently merged busi-

nesses, and work across several of their locations. They may be expected to spend more timeon client sites than in their own offi ces. It is likely that they are also working on the movebetween these locations. Likewise organizations may be recruiting from a wider geographicalpool to acquire the best talent, allowing occasional home-working and exible working. Theworkplace therefore stretches beyond the con nes of the offi ce building. We need to under-stand 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 sometime. 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 xxxii9780415725323pre_pi-xxxiv.indd xxxii 9/6/2014 6:24:19 PM9/6/2014 6:24:19 PM


34/55

Foreword xxxiii

entertainment, research and information technology.Business Week magazine reported ‘theknowledge economy as we know it is being eclipsed by something new – call it the creativityeconomy … the game is changing, it isn’t just about math and science anymore, it’s about cre-

ativity, imagination, and, above all, innovation’ (Nussbaum 2005). The more creative organiza-tions recognize that business is shifting towards this new economic age. These organizationsunderstand the value of an idea and will be seeking to attract and retain innovative people andcapitalize on their ideas. Going forward, the measure of success of a building will shift awayfrom effi ciency and focus on effectiveness. We will need to better understand how our offi cespaces are facilitating innovation and creativity, how they foster collaboration but also offerconcentration, how they attract and retain the best people, and how they lead to improvedbusiness.

There has been a debate raging in the press recently around open plan offi ce design. TheUKs leading newspapers as well asBusiness Week reported that ‘we can’t get anything done inan 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 theWikipedia entry onopen plan offi ces which states:

A systematic survey of research upon the effects of open plan offi ces found frequentnegative effects in some traditional workplaces: high levels of noise, stress, con ict, highblood pressure and a high staff turnover … Most people prefer closed offi ces … thereis a dearth of studies con rming positive impacts on productivity from open plan offi cedesigns.

The attack on open plan is predominantly the consequence of a study of absenteeism inDanish workers and a recent re-analysis of a survey of US offi ce workers. Personally I believe

that open plan is a sound design concept, but it is the interpretation and implementation ofit that is poor and often results in high density, overcrowded, noisy and unimaginative workenvironments. The important point is that we need to test whether our workplaces actuallyfacilitate innovation and collaboration, required to underpin the new economic age, or ifthey merely create distraction and disruption. We also need to understand the roles and psy-chological 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 com-mentators on workplace design have pointed out that we have four generations working inthe workplace. There has been much discussion on how to design offi ces to accommodateGeneration 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 ofwhom have to retire at a later age. Consideration must be given to basic design factors suchas lighting and noise levels as well as privacy and access. Again good occupant feedback isrequired to assess whether our buildings support all generations.

Of course, good buildings will outlive the occupants and most certainly outlast the occu-pancy of many organizations. Our offi ce buildings therefore need to be suffi ciently exibleand adaptable to accommodate different businesses and even change function to, say, accom-modation or retail. Carl Elefante is credited for saying ‘the greenest building is the one that isalready built’ (Elefante 2007). Adaptive reuse plays an important role in sustainability, but againthe functionality of such buildings requires testing.

9780415725323pre_pi xxxiv.indd xxxiii9780415725323pre_pi-xxxiv.indd xxxiii 9/6/2014 6:24:19 PM9/6/2014 6:24:19 PM


35/55

xxxiv Foreword

In the opening chapter, Wolfgang Preiser explains that this book aims to establish a dia-logue between perceived and measured quality in architecture, to address the juxtapositionbetween criticism and performance evaluation. In an ever changing world where build-

ings must respond to new technologies, new economic markets and a new workforce, bothapproaches have value. The important point is that buildings are subjected to evaluation andthe lessons learned from those evaluations are communicated and shared throughout ourindustry. Only by sharing feedback and evaluations can we continuously improve the qualityof our buildings.

ReferencesBennett, 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-done-in-an-open-plan-offi ce

CABE and BCO (2005) The Impact of Offi ce Design on Business Performance . London: Commission forArchitecture & the Built Environment and the British Council for Offi ces.

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.htmPreiser, Wolfgang F. E. and Jacqueline C. Vischer (eds) (2005) Assessing Building Performance . Burlington,

MA: Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann.Sullivan, Louis H. (1896) ‘The Tall Offi ce Building Artistically Considered’. Lippincott’s Magazine,

March: 403–9.Vitruvius, Pollio (c. 27 BC ) De Architectura Libri Decem .

9780415725323pre_pi xxxiv.indd xxxiv9780415725323pre_pi-xxxiv.indd xxxiv 9/6/2014 6:24:19 PM9/6/2014 6:24:19 PM


36/55

PART I

Introduction

9780415725323c01_p1 20.indd 19780415725323c01_p1-20.indd 1 9/6/2014 4:49:53 PM9/6/2014 4:49:53 PM


37/559780415725323c01_p1 20.indd 29780415725323c01_p1-20.indd 2 9/6/2014 4:49:54 PM9/6/2014 4:49:54 PM


38/55

1INTRODUCTION

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

Synopsis

This book aims to establish a dialogue between perceived and measured quality in architecturein two ways: rst by recognizing and illuminating commonalities between the two; secondby nding areas within the ontological frameworks of each capable of supporting the differ-ences. The “habitability framework” presented later in this chapter is one such structure to beexpounded upon that shows how aesthetic and the performative aspects can in some caseseven complement each other. With few exceptions, architectural criticism has been carried outby and large by “expert critics” employing subjective methods of assessment focused primarilyon the aesthetic properties of buildings; rightly so, the understanding of buildings as composedformal objects traces back to the beginnings of the profession. In contrast, traditional environ-mental design evaluation uses objective criteria and methods of measuring the performanceof buildings, using metrics focused on health, safety, functionality, psychological, social, andcultural satisfaction of the building occupants. The development of criticism in architectureover time admittedly did not keep pace with the technological improvements and innovationsradically changing the way buildings were being conceived of and built. In other words, asthe facility to understand buildings from the design-side evolved, criticism based in the samescienti c inquiry did not also evolve as a clear discipline with its own boundaries. Whetherthis is because critics identify primarily as journalists and are not typically building profes-sionals is up for discussion, especially since there is an increasing need of the combination ofevaluation, journalist, and criticism, as shown in Figure 1.1. Nevertheless, the technologicaldevelopments in the production of buildings, the rise of “big data,” optimization, focus groups,and the use of commissioning and building performance evaluations (BPE) are increasinglyincluded as part of the project delivery method and life-cycle analysis. These requirements ofbuilding performance, and the time lag between their regulation and integration, only exacer-bate the schism between professional practice, discourse, and pedagogy. Architectural practicehas the responsibility to engage criticism more directly and intelligently than the mere supplyof marketing images. The academy is tasked with providing a creative environment in whichcreativity can ourish within the bounds of technical reality. The discourse and criticism must



39/55

4 Part I: Introduction

mediate between the two by providing an educational platform of technical innovation vis- à-vis the history of the built environment, but also present the aspirational qualities that makearchitecture 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 thana built environment rooted in the manifold de nitions of quality, or permanence, of account-ability 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 criti-cism is judgment as an “act of intelligence performed upon the matter of direct perceptionin the interest of a more adequate perception” (Dewey 1934). This underscores the subjective

Building performance evalution

Journalism

CriticismIncreasing architectural analysis,description, understanding ofcontext, history andoverall architectural

knowledge andeducation

FIGURE 1.1 Increasing architectural analysis, description, understanding of context, history, andoverall architectural knowledge and educationSource : Andrea Hardy.

CriticismBuilding

performanceevaluations

Goal ofarchitectural

education

FIGURE 1.2 The need for the academy to enlarge the overlap of criticism and performance evalu-ations in architectural educationSource : Andrea Hardy.



40/55


41/55


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 PerformanceProcess Model” (Preiser and Vischer 2005).

Elements of the habitability framework

Starting in the 1960s, habitability research referred to the US Navy, NASA, and US ArmyCorps of Engineers’ efforts (Shibley 1974; Meere and Grieco 1997; Kitmacher 2002; Riolaand de Arboleya 2006; Howe and Sherwood 2009; Harrison 2010) to improve the qualityof environments and respective person–environment relationships, for example in shipboardhabitability research. A working de nition for the term habitability is offered by the edi-tors: “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 ofhabitability 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, habitabilityis the quality of the designed and built environment.

A philosophical base and a set of objectives for environmental design with adequate habit-ability include the following considerations, according to the editors: “Habitability de nes thedegree 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 abso-lute but a relativistic concept, subject to different interpretations in different cultures and indifferent 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 aspace station, for human occupancy” (Lantrip 1986). A future-oriented, evolutionary approachto environmental design should consider worldwide equitable resource allocation, in the inter-est of long-term survival. In simpler terms, habitability directly relates to the popular topic ofsustainability. By analyzing all scales ranging from small-scale dwellings to much larger urbanservice structures of the building sector (Casalset al. 2009), the variety of research then informsdesign of the humanistic needs of “comfort, exibility, control, and informational quality as a‘Habitability Index’” (Mahdavi 1998: 24). Habitability further implies the objective of minim-izing adverse effects of the environment on its users, e.g. discomfort, stress, distraction, ineffi -ciency, sickness, as well as injury and death through accidents, radiation, toxic substances, etc.

The “habitability framework” relates buildings and settings to occupants and their respect-

ive 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 evaluationin any type of building or setting. The habitability framework further permits concepts con-cerning person–environment relationships to be “plugged in” where appropriate. In a matrix-like fashion the habitability framework serves systematically to relate pertinent informationand elements in person–environment relationships in the kinds of applications already men-tioned. The framework can be transformed into a checklist format to permit systematic hand-ling in step-by-step or procedural fashion in information gathering and analysis concerningperson–environment relationships. The framework elements are presented in hierarchies from



42/55


43/55


Year Author(s) Building type(s) Contribution to the eld

2010 Harrison Space architecture Discusses how the collaborationbetween architects andpsychologists can help with thedesign of building environmentsand space architecture.

2010 Preiser and Smith Universal design Contains policies and guidelines formaking buildings, infrastructure,products, and the internetaccessible to all without regard toany disabilities.

2012 Steinfeld and Maisel Universal design Explores the bene ts universaldesign has on various aspects ofbuildings and consumer products,including social interaction andusefulness.

Source : Authors.

TABLE 1.1 (cont .)

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 fromthe proximate environment. Each higher-order scale of the environment is comprised ofaggregates of units at lower scales. Thus, the built environment is addressed using the follow-ing hierarchy of scales:

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

Building+

Setting

Occupants

Workspaceroom

building

Occupant Needs

Health+safetyfunctional performancepsychological comfort

+ satisfaction

Organizationgroup

individual

FIGURE 1.3 The habitability frameworkSource : Hunter Byrnes.



44/55


45/55


It is at the psychological comfort and satisfaction level of habitability that most con-

cepts dealing with person–environment relationships can be identi ed, categorized, andapplied. It is also true that at this level more qualitative than quantitative data exist, a fact thatshould not obviate the importance of analyzing the effects of the physical environment onits occupants.

Spatial characteristics such as those manipulated by environmental designers, for example,include aspects of location, dimensions, proportions, distributions, and orientation. These serveto further such phenomena as communication, expression of status and sociopetality versussociofugality. 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, asthe work of Dewey and Humber (1966) implies, there is a complex interaction of a variety

Person-Environment Research

Architectural process research

Habitability

Researchon facility

prototypes

Measur

Date post:	05-Jul-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	hoshyar-qadir-rasul
View:	220 times
Download:	0 times

Architecture Beyond Criticism Expert Jud

Documents