ARCHITECTURE BEYOND CRITICISM

For the first 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 principled stances worldwide, from environmental sustainabil-
ity 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 architec-
tural criticism and environmental design and performance evaluation along with its objective
evaluation criteria, 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 Germany
• Global case studies which illustrate both perspectives addressed by the book and com-
parative analyses of the findings
• A 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 Wolfgang F. E. Preiser, Aaron T. Davis, Ashraf M. Salama, and Andrea
Hardy represent an aggregate 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 around the world. Senior editor Wolfgang F. E. Preiser has chaired
national committees in the US, among others, for the National Academy of Sciences; Aaron
T. Davis is an architect and building enclosure specialist and serves on the editorial board for
the International Journal of Architectural History and Criticism; Ashraf M. Salama 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.
This page intentionally left blank
ARCHITECTURE
BEYOND CRITICISM
Expert Judgment and Performance
Evaluation

Wolfgang F. E. Preiser, Aaron T. Davis,

Ashraf M. Salama, and Andrea Hardy
First published 2015
by Routledge
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN
and by Routledge
711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business
© 2015 Wolfgang F. E. Preiser, Aaron T. Davis, Ashraf M. Salama, and Andrea Hardy
The right of the editors to be identified as the authors 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 form or by
any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying
and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from
the publishers.
Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used
only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe.
British Library Cataloguing in Publication data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
Library of Congress Cataloguing in Publication data
Architecture beyond criticism : expert judgment and performance evaluation / [edited by]
Wolfgang F. E. Preiser, Aaron T. Davis, Ashraf M. Salama, and Andrea Hardy.
pages cm
Includes bibliographical references and index.
1. Architectural criticism. 2. Architectural design. 3. Buildings–Performance. I. Preiser,
Wolfgang F. E., editor. II. Davis, Aaron T., editor. III. Salama, Ashraf M. A., editor. IV. Hardy,
Andrea, editor.
NA2599.5.A727 2014
720.1–dc23
2014024378

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
CONTENTS

List of figures viii

List of tables xiv
Notes on the editors xv
Notes on contributors xvii
Preface xxvii
Acknowledgments xxix
Foreword: Nigel Oseland xxx

PART I
Introduction 1

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

PART II
Evolution 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 37

Michael J. Crosbie

4 Is curating the new criticism? 46

Pedro Gadanho
vi Contents

5 Architectural criticism and radicalism in Brazil 53

José T. Lira

6 Superficial material similitude 66

Galia Solomonoff

7 The performance of buildings, architects, and critics 75

Thomas Fisher

Reflections on Part II: Daniel S. Friedman 83

PART III
Plurality of perspectives on criticism in architecture 89

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

re-examined 91
Ashraf M. Salama

9 The influence 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 Urban conservation projects of Cairo: a critique of the local literature 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

Reflections 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 Hardy

15 Building performance evaluation in the UK: so many false dawns 160

Bill Bordass and Adrian Leaman
 Contents vii

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

Expo 2010 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

Reflections on Part IV: Daniel S. Friedman 200

PART V
Architectural analysis within building performance evaluation 205

19 Using scientific 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 performance

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: redefining the limits of architectural judgment 252

Elizabeth A.Walsh and Steven A. Moore

Reflections on Part V: Daniel S. Friedman 265

PART VI
Epilogue 269

25 Talking the talk: about architecture 271

Ike Ijeh

Index 278
FIGURES

1.1 Increasing architectural analysis, description, understanding of

context, history, and overall architectural knowledge and education 4
Source: Andrea Hardy.
1.2 The need for the academy to enlarge the overlap of criticism and
performance evaluations in architectural education 4
Source: Andrea Hardy.
1.3 The habitability framework 8
Source: Hunter Byrnes.
1.4 Habitability research 10
Source: Hunter Byrnes.
1.5 The mirrored balance of OMA and AMO firms 13
Source: Timothy Palmer.
1.6 Building delivery and life-cycle: performance evaluation 14
Source: Amber Adams-Hill.
1.7 Elements of architectural criticism 16
Source: Andrea Hardy.
2.1 Excerpt from Diderot’s Encyclopédie, ou dictionnaire raisonné des
sciences, des arts et des métiers showing the structure and machinery
involved in sugar production 25
Source: public domain image.
2.2 Kazimir Malevich’s “Modern Buildings” (1924) 28
Source: public domain image.
2.3 The Cincinnati Contemporary Art Center by Zaha Hadid 29
Source: photo by Sarah Le Clerc.
2.4 OMA’s CCTV Tower, headquarters of China Central Television 30
Source: public domain image.
3.1 Contents page of the January 1910 edition of Architectural Record 38
Source: author.
 List of figures ix

3.2 Cover of the January 1955 issue of Architectural Forum 41

Source: author.
3.3 Progressive Architecture’s April 1994 issue. 42
Source: author.
3.4 Cover of 35th Annual P/A Awards issue, January 1988 43
Source: author.
4.1 9+1 Ways of Being Political exhibition at MoMA in 2012 50
Source: author.
5.1 Candido Portinari, Desbravamento da Mata (Entry Into the Forest),
mural painting, 316 × 431 cm, Library of Congress, Washington,
DC, USA, 1941 56
Source: Projeto Portinari.
5.2 Candido Portinari, Descoberta do Ouro (Discovery of Gold), mural
painting, 394 × 463 cm, Library of Congress, Washington, DC,
USA, 1941 57
Source: Projeto Portinari.
5.3 Oscar Niemeyer, Dance Hall in Pampulha, Belo Horizonte,
Brazil, 1940–1943 58
Source: photo by Gustabo Neves da Rocha Filho. FAU-USP’s
Library. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/deed.pt_BR
5.4 Oscar Niemeyer, Casino in Pampulha, Belo Horizonte, Brazil,
1940–1943 58
Source: photo by Eduardo Kneese de Mello. FAU-USP’s Library.
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/deed.pt_BR
5.5 João Vilanova Artigas and Carlos Cascaldi, Faculty of Architecture
and Urbanism at the University of São Paulo, São Paulo,
Brazil, 1961–1969 60
Source: SEF-USP.
5.6 João Vilanova Artigas and Carlos Cascaldi, Faculty of Architecture
and Urbanism at the University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil,
1961–1969 61
Source: photo by Raul Garcez. FAU-USP’s Library.
5.7 João Vilanova Artigas and Carlos Cascaldi, Faculty of Architecture
and Urbanism at the University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil,
1961–1969 62
Source: photo by 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’s Equal Areas, 1977.
Stainless steel on ground, 2003 68
Source: David Joseph.
6.2 Galia Solomonoff , Defective Brick, 2000, at Artist Space 69
Source: Lily Wang.
6.3 Galia Solomonoff , Defective Brick, 2000, at Artist Space 70
Source: Lily Wang.
x List of figures

6.4 Galia Solomonoff , with Columbia University students. BOB,

The Pavilion installation, 2011 70
Source: Alex Guerrero.
6.5 Galia Solomonoff , with Columbia University students. BOB,
The Pavilion installation, 2011 71
Source: Alex Guerrero.
6.6 Galia Solomonoff , Solomonoff Architecture Studio. The Pavilion
interior, 2011 71
Source: Galia Solomonoff .
7.1 Architecture is less … 76
Source: author.
7.2 The performance cycle 78
Source: author.
7.3 Performance characters 79
Source: author.
7.4 Performance roles 81
Source: author.
8.1 View of Al Azhar Park to the north 92
Source: photo by Gary Otte, Aga Khan Trust for Culture, Geneva.
8.2 View to the north of the park through the main spine 93
Source: author.
8.3 View to lakeside café through the lake 93
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 94
Source: author.
8.5 Categories of concepts/terms utilized in the content analysis of
media coverage of Al Azhar Park 96
Source: author.
9.1 Azuma House by Tadao Ando in Osaka: (a) floor plan level 1;
(b) floor plan level 2; (c) cross section; (d) isometric 107
Source: Tadao Ando.
10.1 Development of the policy for energy-efficient and sustainable
buildings in Germany 114
Source: diagram by U. Schramm based on http://www.enev-
online.de and http://www.nachhaltiges bauen.de
10.2 Example of an energy performance certificate, based on the real
energy consumption of a residential building during occupancy,
indicating a benchmark of 124.3 kWh/m2a 115
Source: U. Schramm with energy consultant U. Schreiner.
10.3 Federal Environment Agency, Dessau, 2005 DGNB-Certificate:
“Gold,” RIBA award, Deutscher Architekturpreis: High
Commendation 116
Source: Wikipedia Commons, February 28, 2014.
 List of figures xi

10.4 Demolition works and protest demonstration at the north wing of

Stuttgart’s 100-year-old train station 118
Source: Wikipedia Commons, February 28, 2014.
11.1 Examples of Egyptian architecture magazine covers – Alam
El-Benaa and Medina Magazine 123
Source: author.
13.1 41 Cooper Square at the Cooper Union designed by Thom
Mayne of Morphosis 137
Source: author.
14.1 An in-house approach to the use of post-occupancy evaluations 150
Source: Andrea Hardy.
14.2 Key components of a post-occupancy evaluation 151
Source: Andrea Hardy.
14.3 Categories for post-occupancy evaluations from simpler indicative
to more complex diagnostic POE 151
Source: Andrea Hardy.
14.4 In-house and external influences through the use of post-
occupancy evaluations 153
Source: Andrea Hardy.
14.5 People influence buildings and buildings influence people 155
Source: Andrea Hardy.
14.6 POEs/BPEs allow for a more direct interaction and influences
between clients, occupants, and buildings 155
Source: Andrea Hardy.
14.7 Each examination room has a unique view – some of the sky,
others the parking lot 156
Source: buildipedia.com, April 6, 2014; Credit: Iwan Baan.
14.8 Imagine having to wash windows after a sand storm 156
Source: buildipedia.com, April 6, 2014; Credit: Gehry
Partners LLP.
15.1 The cover illustration from Flying Blind (Bordass 2001) 164
Source: Louis Hellman.
15.2 Elements of a new professionalism: ten points developed
with the Edge 168
Source: Adapted from Building Research & Information (2013:
Table 1, p. 6).
16.1 Footprint of buildings during Expo 2010 Shanghai China 172
Source: Clare Jacobson.
16.2 Footprint of buildings on July 12, 2013 173
Source: Clare Jacobson.
16.3 Site map of five zones during Expo 2010 Shanghai China 175
Source: Clare Jacobson.
16.4 Site map of future use of five zones, as defined by the Expo
Shanghai Group, March 2013 175
Source: Clare Jacobson.
xii List of figures

16.5 Italy Pavilion during Expo 2010 (top) and with a new
information center for reuse in the Shanghai Italian Center during
the summer of 2013 (bottom) 177
Source: Clare Jacobson.
16.6 Angola Pavilion during Expo 2010 (top) and redecorated and
reused as part of the Chocolate Happy Land theme park during
the summer of 2013 (bottom) 178
Source: Clare Jacobson.
16.7 Portugal Pavilion during Expo 2010 (top) and extant but unused
during the summer of 2013 (bottom) 179
Source: Clare Jacobson.
17.1 A picture book on the journey of Marron Sister and Acorn Brother 185
Source: Akikazu Kato.
17.2 Ward plan of Katta Public General Hospital (floor level 3) 187
Source: courtesy of Taro Ashihara Architects.
17.3 Single rooms with multi-bed room arrangement 188
Source: Shiho Mori.
17.4 Suggestion to make two inconsistent ideas possible in Japan 189
Source: Shiho Mori.
17.5 Ideal type of relations between privacy and communication 189
Source: Shiho Mori.
17.6 Example of adjusting interpersonal relationships 190
Source: Shiho Mori.
17.7 Schematic sketch of an inpatient ward with all single rooms 190
Source: Akikazu Kato.
19.1 Salient physical characteristics of environments 210
Source: author.
19.2 Evaluative map of Knoxville by residents 213
Source: author.
19.3 Evaluative map of Chattanooga by visitors 213
Source: author.
19.4 Adjective checklist for qualities the new headquarters should convey 214
Source: author.
20.1 Form-based codes, Columbia Pike,VA 220
Source: photo by Brett VA, licensed under CCx3.0.
20.2 Form-based codes architecture 222
Source: photo by D. Scheer.
21.1 Researcher and informant dialogue 229
Source: author.
21.2 Profession, criticism, and evaluation dialogue 229
Source: author.
22.1 Quality improvement POE levels 234
Source: Dina Battisto and Sonya Albury-Crandall.
22.2 POE components informed by MHS world-class principles 235
Source: Dina Battisto and Sonya Albury-Crandall.
 List of figures xiii

22.3 Simplified performance concept to connect outcomes to facility design 236

Source: Dina Battisto and Deborah Franqui.
22.4 POE performance framework 237
Source: Dina Battisto, Deborah Franqui, and Mason Couvillion.
22.5 POE phases and data collection tools 239
Source: Dina Battisto, Deborah Franqui, and Mason Couvillion.
22.6 Example of metrics for access and wayfinding 239
Source: Dina Battisto and Deborah Franqui.
22.7 Example of data collection tools and metrics for access and wayfinding 240
Source: Dina Battisto and Deborah Franqui.
23.1 Illustration of discriminatory design practice 245
Source: photo by Korydon Smith.
23.2 Illustration of universal design practice 246
Source: photo by Korydon Smith.
23.3 Conceptual diagram of the complementary paradigms of
universal design 249
Source: Korydon Smith.
24.1 The Interrelated Concepts of Regenerative Design. From Beyond
LEED, exhibition at the University of Texas at Austin, Fall 2012. 253
Source: Elizabeth Walsh, designer, produced through
http://www.wordle.net
24.2 Public conversation as a driver of changing social, ecological, and
material conditions 256
Source: author.
24.3 Greensburg Regenerative Design Dialogue 258
Source: BNIM, © BNIM.
24.4 Greensburg Regenerative Rebuild, LEED-Platinum high school 259
Source: BNIM, © Assassi.
24.5 Regenerative tourism at Playa Viva 260
Source: courtesy of Playa Viva; photo by Randolph Langenbach.
24.6 Participatory process for the Potty Project 260
Source: Julia King.
24.7 A decentralized sewerage system in the making 261
Source: Julia King.
25.1 Example of Eisenman’s use of sloping windows and ground planes
at the Greater Columbus Convention Center 272
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 in Figure 25.3 274
Source: Wikipedia, May 19, 2014.
25.3 The shattered building style of Libeskind’s addition at
the Royal Ontario Museum in Figure 25.2 compared to the
frenzied work of Gehry at MIT’s Stata Center 275
Source: Wikipedia, May 19, 2014.
TABLES

1.1 Milestones in the evolution of habitability research 7

1.2 Space: toward a new paradigm and taxonomy 11
1.3 Core bibliography 11
2.1 Major phases in the evolution of architectural criticism in the
United States and its European antecedents in aesthetic criticism 32
8.1 Compelling titles used by the media to project and depict Al
Azhar Park 97
8.2 Reasons for users’ ratings of the park design as excellent or good 99
8.3 Activities people perform when visiting the park 101
14.1 Milestones in the evolution of POE/BPE 148
19.1 Strengths and weakness of various modes of presentation 210
19.2 Items for use in assessing salient aspects of emotional appraisals 211
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 experi-
ence 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 T. 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.
Davis has served as a guest critic 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. He 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,
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. Salama has written 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). Salama was the recipient of the first 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. 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 offices 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 working on multiple design
competitions.
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, 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, first 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 scientific 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 por-
tal 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. Boenecke leads a team of civilian health care planners and collaborates with col-
leagues from the army, navy, and air force to identify the most important medical facility
investments for the Department of Defense. Boenecke actively supports EBD principles and
research and their inclusion in military medical facility construction and renovation. Boenecke
is a Fellow of the Health Facilities Institute and member of ASHE.
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 their 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 performance
evaluation a routine activity for design and building teams and their clients.

Michael J. Crosbie, PhD, FAIA, has made significant contributions in the fields of archi-
tectural 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 and Architectural Record, and
writes about architecture and design for the Hartford Courant. He is the author of more than
20 books on architecture, including five books for children. Crosbie is a professor of archi-
tecture 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. 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 brief 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 office 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, first to Berkeley and 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 differenti-
ation and openness in office layouts. In 1971 Duffy returned to London, initially working on a
series of office 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 stud-
ies, most notably the ORBIT series on the impact of information technology on the work-
place. 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
Western Reserve University in Intellectual History, he was recognized in 2005 as the fifth
 Notes on contributors xix

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 pub-
lications. 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 work-
place environments. Her recent experience 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 edu-
cation, public architecture, ethics, and contemporary theory. He earned advanced degrees
in 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 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 Metaflux 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.
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 historic quarters. His
research focuses on aspects of public policy formulation and implementation. Prior to receiv-
ing his PhD, he earned his Master’s within the field of managing historic cities. He received
his Bachelor in architectural engineering from Misr International University in Cairo. 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 has published
in several refereed journals and participated in international 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. Ijeh also founded London Architecture Walks,
London’s original architectural guided walks company. He is a senior partner at Blackstone
Architects and is a specialist on London’s architecture, planning, and public spaces. At Building
and BD magazines Ijeh 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 Ijeh 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 pro-
fessional audiences. Blackstone Architects specializes in residential, community work as well as
academic research in the UK and abroad. Previously Ijeh 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. Ijeh is an inaugural member of
the Hackney Design Review Panel and has been a trustee of the Hackney Historic Buildings
Trust and contributor to the St Giles Regeneration Forum. He is also preparing a manuscript
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 architec-
ture, 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 fields of architec-
tural 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 field including those winning prizes
 Notes on contributors xxi

such as the 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
findings about building performance and to influencing the industry, its clients, building man-
agers, 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, his-
toriography, and criticism of architecture, planning, and housing, and acted as full advisor in
the Master’s and PhD programs at FAU-USP. He has been a research affiliate of the Brazilian
National Council of Research (CNPq) since 1999 and in 2009 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 else-
where. 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 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 posi-
tions 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 found-
ing member in 1980 of “The Egyptian Designers” architectural firm 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
xxii Notes on contributors

and presented papers in several international and regional conferences. He is a member of

many conferences and journal scientific 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 carries out consulting on master plans in medical and welfare facil-
ities, to focus on the relation between management and 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 as the planner of universally designed housing and
equipment, such as modular bathrooms and system kitchens. 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 Supérieure 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 légères (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 organ-
izers 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),
 Notes on contributors xxiii

Landscape & Imagination:Towards a New Baseline for Education in a Changing World (UNISCAPE,
Florence/Baldecchi & Vivaldi, Pontedera, 2013).

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

author with ten years’ research and 15 years’ consulting experience. Oseland is an inter-
nationally recognized expert in occupant feedback methods, performance and productiv-
ity, agile working, environmental conditions, and the psychology of the workplace. Oseland
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 redefine their workstyles to pro-
vide space-efficient and cost-effective workplaces that enhance business performance. Oseland
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, presents 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 author-
ity on urban design and the development of cities. She was a Loeb Fellow at the Harvard
Graduate School of Design, and is a registered architect and planner. As dean at Utah, she
made environmental and civic concerns her hallmark, creating an innovative metropolitan
planning program and emphasizing community and environmental engagement. 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 field 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) consortium
have 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 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:
xxiv Notes on contributors

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
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 OpenOffice.
She has taught at Princeton University, The Cooper Union, and Yale, and currently is a pro-
fessor 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 has 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 recogni-
tion of Latin American architecture’s cultural relevance and the advancement of architecture
as a discipline significant to everyone.

Gen Taniguchi is Presidential Advisor on Facility Management at Nagoya University, Japan,

Head of Facility Management Office, and Professor of Architecture. He is currently involved
in the development of a campus master plan and town-scape management and also the asset
management of public facilities. His previous positions include professorships at various uni-
versities and he 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 pro-
gram. As the Vice Chair of the Austin Housing Repair Coalition,Walsh works with a group of
17 public, non-profit, and private organizations dedicated to improving the health and envir-
onmental 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,
 Notes on contributors xxv

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
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. 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.
This page intentionally left blank
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 with notable archi-
tects reflecting 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 field 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 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 architec-
tural 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 respon-
sive and unbiased discourse on these two paradigms. It does this by acknowledging and reveal-
ing commonalities between the two and by instituting areas within the ontological agendas
of each capable of supporting the differences. Nonetheless, on 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 affects 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 fields. The book contains six sec-
tions, sequenced to introduce what are disparate fields of investigation. Through theoretical
discussions, journalistic contributions, empirical findings, and case study investigations, these
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 criticism.
Three unique characteristics, typically not found in similar contributions, are evident
throughout 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 criti-
cism and performance evaluation are understood and practiced.The interdisciplinary nature of
the book is reflected in the diversity of its contributors – academics with different specializa-
tions, such as curators, critics, and professional architects – who all contribute insights that give
the reader glimpses of the two paradigms from various perspectives including art and aesthet-
ics, 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 field and theoretical underpinnings, analytical
interpretations, and case examples written by prominent professionals in academic and pro-
fessional 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 influence 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 fields in their own voices.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Our editorial team, although spread out geographically between Arizona (Wolf Preiser and
Andrea Hardy), New York City (Aaron Davis), and Glasgow, Scotland (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 con-
ducting 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 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 profiles 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, reflected 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, Fran Ford, 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 David Campbell through the page proof phase of the project.
Lastly, we thank our spouses and significant 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 final 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 work
often interfered with personal obligations and professional responsibilities.
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 firmly believe that
the core objective of the office building is, and has always been, to facilitate the business of the
occupier. 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 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 fit 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 find 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
 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 influ-
enced by De Architectura Libri Decem (c.27 BC ). This historic book by Roman architect Vitruvius
identified three elements necessary for a well-designed building: firmitas, utilitas and venustas, i.e.
firmness, 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 provid-
ing 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 qual-
ity 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 pre-
cedence 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). Efficiency
refers to space and cost efficiencies whereas effectiveness relates to how the building effect-
ively supports the occupying business. The first two Es are covered under a standard POE or
BPE, but the expression refers to how well the building reflects the brand and values of the
occupying organization. Since the early skyscrapers, businesses have commissioned their own
uniquely identifiable 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 benefits 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 influential 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 lit-
tle 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
xxxii Foreword

architecture and construction is 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 stifle 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 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’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 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 office
space is fundamentally driven 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 performance, 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 as such.We should therefore consider our office buildings in
terms 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 flexible workers is increasing and our workforce is more mobile than in
previous years.They may be employed by a global organization, or recently merged businesses,
and work across several of their locations. They may be expected to spend more time on cli-
ent sites than in their own offices. 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 flexible working. The work-
place therefore stretches beyond the confines of the office 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,
 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 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 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 efficiency 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 office design. The
UK’s leading newspapers as well as Business Week reported that ‘we can’t get anything done in
an open-plan office’ as it affects our concentration, our performance and our health (Bennett
2013). These news items are all pretty damning but not as damning as the Wikipedia entry on
open plan offices 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, conflict, high
blood pressure and a high staff turnover … Most people prefer closed offices … there
is a dearth of studies confirming 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 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 in
the workplace. There has been much discussion on how to design offices 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 occu-
pancy of many organizations. Our office buildings therefore need to be sufficiently flexible
and adaptable to accommodate different businesses and even change function to, say, accom-
modation of 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.
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 juxtaposition
between criticism and performance evaluation. In an ever changing world where build-
ings 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, D. (2013) ‘Why We Can’t Get Anything Done in an Open-Plan Office’. Business Week, 10
October. http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-10-10/why-we-cant-get-anything-done-
in-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 British Council for Offices.
Cooper, I. (2001) ‘Post-Occupancy Evaluation – Where Are You?’ Building Research & Information 29(2):
158–63.
Egan, Sir J. (1998) Rethinking Construction: Report of the Construction Task Force. London: HMSO.
Elefante, C. (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, B. (2005) ‘Get creative! How to build innovative companies’. Business Week, 1 August. http://
www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_31/b3945401.htm
Preiser, W. F. E. and J. C. Vischer (eds) (2005) Assessing Building Performance. Burlington, MA: Elsevier
Butterworth-Heinemann.
Sullivan, L. H. (1896) ‘The Tall Office Building Artistically Considered’. Lippincott’s Magazine, March:
403–9.
Vitruvius, Pollio (c.27 BC ) De Architectura Libri Decem.
PART I

Introduction
This page intentionally left blank
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: first by recognizing and illuminating commonalities between the two; second
by finding 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 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 environ-
mental design evaluation uses objective criteria and methods of measuring the performance of
buildings, using metrics focused on health, safety, security, 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 sci-
entific 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 for the combination of evaluation,
journalism, and criticism, as shown in Figure 1.1. Nevertheless, the technological develop-
ments 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 with the mere supply
of marketing images. The academy is tasked with providing a creative environment in which
creativity can flourish within the bounds of technical reality.The discourse and criticism must
4 W. F. E. Preiser, A. T. Davis, A. M. Salama, and A. Hardy

Increasing architectural analysis, Criticism

description, understanding of
context, history, and
overall architectural
knowledge and
education

Journalism

Building performance evalution

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

Goal of
architectural
Building
education
Criticism performance
evaluations

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

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 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 definitions of quality, or permanence, of account-
ability in the face of slick rhetoric; an Architecture Beyond Criticism.

Juxtaposing criticism and performance evaluation

Criticism is defined 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 perception
in the interest of a more adequate perception” (Dewey 1934). This underscores the subjective
 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 intro-
ducing 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 suffice. 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 trad-
itional architectural model would be to presume that Architecture with a capital “A” has been
unadulterated by the race to broad-based 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 significant seg-
ment 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 stud-
ies 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 specific 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 majority 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 experi-
ences” (Rowley-Balas 2006).The habitability of a programmed, designed, and evaluated build-
ing 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 differ-
ent 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
“firmness, commodity and delight,” which equate to three expected and basic levels of per-
formance in buildings (Mallory-Hill, Preiser, and Watson 2012).When seen from this perspec-
tive, aesthetic performance falls within the category of “delight,” namely the psychological,
6 W. F. E. Preiser, A. T. Davis, A. M. Salama, and A. Hardy

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 definition 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 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 fit 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 habit-
ability include the following considerations, according to the editors: “Habitability defines the
degree of fit 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 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 ‘fitness’ of a habitat, such as a
space station, for human occupancy” (Lantrip 1986). A future-oriented, evolutionary approach
to 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 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, flexibility, 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 evaluation
in 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 information
and 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 concerning
person–environment relationships. The framework elements are presented in hierarchies from
 Introduction 7

TABLE 1.1 Milestones in the evolution of habitability research

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

1963 Celentano, Space habitats, space Examines the criteria and factors
Amorelli, and Freeman architecture, that contribute to the habitability
surrounding index and requirements in
environment relationship to space habitats and
the built environment.
1974 Shibley Military construction and Military research with the Army
installations Corps of Engineers to improve
and identify building systems of
military construction and models
of quality environment design.
1983 Preiser Greater context of built Examines the history and
environment elements of the habitability
framework and its relationship
with the interaction between
human behavior and the built
environment.
1986 Lantrip Space stations, space Examines and explains the
habitats ergonomics and design of space
habitats around the various
activities performed within the
tight constraints of space stations.
1997 Meere and Grieco Naval ship design and Illuminates the flaws and solutions
habitability to the living conditions aboard
US naval ships.
1998 Mahdavi Greater context of built How surrounding environment
environment affects a person’s built
environment and then how they
in turn affect the surrounding
systems.
2002 Kitmacher Space habitats, space Examines the development
modules and design of habitable space
modules.
2006 Riola and de Arboleya Ship design, high speed Researches how the external forces
vessel habitability and operability of a ship affect
the comfort of the crew and
passengers aboard, especially
those on high-speed vessels.
2009 Bluyssen, Bayon, and Interior environments Examines the human requirements
Hamilton for a healthy and comfortable
indoor environment.
2009 Casals, Arcas, and Cuchí Global habitability/ Proposes habitability on a global
sustainability scale as the only viable form of
sustainability.
2009 Howe and Sherwood Space architecture, space Provides a comprehensive guide to
stations, extraterrestrial the design of various forms of
bases space architecture, focusing on
human habitability.
8 W. F. E. Preiser, A. T. Davis, A. M. Salama, and A. Hardy

TABLE 1.1 (cont.)

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

2010 Harrison Space architecture Discusses how the collaboration
between architects and
psychologists can help with the
design of building environments
and space architecture.
2010 Preiser and Smith Universal design Contains policies and guidelines for
making buildings, infrastructure,
products, and the internet
accessible to all without regard to
any disabilities.
2012 Steinfeld and Maisel Universal design Explores the benefits universal
design has on various aspects of
buildings and consumer products,
including social interaction and
usefulness.
Source: authors.

Building Workspace
+ room
Setting building

Organization
Occupants group
individual

Health+safety
functional performance
Occupant needs psychological comfort
+ satisfaction

FIGURE 1.3 The habitability framework

Source: Hunter Byrnes.

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 follow-
ing hierarchy of scales:

• region: an assembly of communities at the geographic scale

• community: an assembly of city blocks or neighborhoods
 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 accommo-
date needs and activities, which are generic and applicable to most populations. Since envir-
onmental 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, excre-
tion, storage, territory, play, routing, meeting, competition, and work.
For each setting, each occupant group and its respective habitability level, a pertinent sen-
sory environment and its quality performance criteria are devised, e.g. for the acoustic, lumi-
nous, 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 require-
ments they may have in the use of the environment, based on physical or mental impair-
ments, 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 reflecting
occupant needs in the physical environment has been devised. This breakdown also parallels
the three basic requirements buildings should meet according to Vitruvius: firmness, commod-
ity, 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 conducive 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 fit, 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 applica-
tions into human factors and concerns of environmental psychology. Figure 1.4 depicts the
elements and phases of such habitability research.
10 W. F. E. Preiser, A. T. Davis, A. M. Salama, and A. Hardy

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

FIGURE 1.4 Habitability research

Source: Hunter Byrnes.

It is at the psychological comfort and satisfaction level of habitability that most con-
cepts dealing with person–environment relationships can be identified, 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 Tables 1.2 and 1.3).
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
 Introduction 11

TABLE 1.2 Space: toward a new paradigm and taxonomy

Spatial/human behavioral concept Design concept Relevant articles

1 Territorial space Iwamoto (2004)

Fuller (2011)
Dominance hierarchy; status Size and location of spaces
expression
2 Personal space Iwamoto (2004)
Privacy; maintenance of Walls, enclosures; white noise
integrity of individuals
3 Space boundaries Iwamoto (2004)
Foster (1989)
Territorial defense; social Barrier; gates; signage
order, security
4 Proxemic space Blum (2012)
Communication; access to Signals: audio, smell, tactile, visual
valued resources
5 Spatial density Ozaki and Lewis (2006)
Crowding; distribution of Cultural relativity of space, e.g. office
resources size in sq. ft. in Japan vs. the US
6 Spatial scale Oldrup (2009)
Functionality in relationship High- vs. low-rise;
to relative size inner-urban vs. suburban
7 Sociofugal vs. sociopetal Stauskis and Eckhart (2011)
space Traganou, Architecture
Di Masso (2012)
Dispersion or attraction of Layout and connector variants,
people; control e.g. ring vs. tree
Source: authors.

TABLE 1.3 Core bibliography

Source Description

1 Fuller (2011) Hierarchy of influences on space between people, animals, and machines, and
also, how space is influenced by our cyber existence.
2 Iwamoto (2004) The experimentation, in three projects, of thresholds and how they define,
influence, and work into our personal space as we move through space.
3 Foster (1989) Comparison of form and function through the analysis of spaces and
people’s relationships with space.
4 Blum (2012) How personal media influence our spatial experiences and how digital
media have the potential to interact with spatial dynamics.
5 Ozaki and Lewis How a house form creates boundaries and defines spaces and the
(2006) differences between Japanese and British homes.
6 Oldrup (2009) 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.
7 Stauskis and The social and political influences on space, which then influence the
Eckardt (2011) people, but also how the people influence space as a representation of
the culture and politics.
Source: authors.
12 W. F. E. Preiser, A. T. Davis, A. M. Salama, and A. Hardy

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, con-
cepts and skills, and overt motor habits, such as speaking, writing, walking, and idiosyn-
cratic mannerisms.
• Social-psychological processes considered essential in interactions with the human and
non-human environment (Dewey and Humber 1966) seek to facilitate accommoda-
tion, communication, compensation, learning projection, role-playing, and rationaliza-
tion. Furthermore, they address the visual-aesthetic quality of the designed and built
environment.

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 dem-
onstrate 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 field. 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 behavior-
based performance evaluations.
 Introduction 13

OMA AMO
D E S I G N I N V E S T I G AT I O N
C R I T I C I S M PERFORMANCE

FIGURE 1.5 The mirrored balance of OMA and AMO firms

Source: Timothy Palmer.

The emergence of the field of person–environment relations dates back to the mid-1960s.
To date, no general agreement exists as to the proper name for this field 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 field 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 corporations.
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 of behavioral science-related research, possibly for the good reason that
most of the information generated by this field 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.
An example of an office that has found a balance between design and research is the Office 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 performance-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 qualifications for the design and behavior field are
in order: emphasis in this field is on interrelationships, rather than cause–effect relationships,
between environmental influences and people. Thus, architectural determinism is ruled out.
The systems approach appears appropriate for this field, linking in holistic fashion diverse
phenomena which influence 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 con-
text. 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 man-
made and natural (Jain 1974).
14 W. F. E. Preiser, A. T. Davis, A. M. Salama, and A. Hardy

Effectiveness
review

Market/ Program
needs review
analysis Planning Programming

Building
Recycling Design
performance
Feed forward
into next
building cycle
Post- Occupancy Construction
Design
Occupancy
review
Evaluation

Commissioning

FIGURE 1.6 Building delivery and life-cycle: performance evaluation

Source: Amber Adams-Hill.

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 justification
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 five decades.
Highly differentiated viewpoints are emerging in fields of environmental design includ-
ing architecture and planning. In response to failures of “universal architecture” as propa-
gated 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 specific 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.
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 five years for large corporations 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
 Introduction 15

have also become more important considerations in recent years as the “green building” move-
ment 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). Identification 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 evalu-
ation” (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 per-
formance evaluation” (BPE), which seeks to obtain feedback for design criteria and guidance
literature, as well as information systems and holistic building performance. It may also serve
as the basis for possible litigation and testimony in court in case of architectural malpractice.
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 regula-
tory 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 discuss-
ing the value of both criticism and evaluation studies. Continuously, while not so confronta-
tionally, 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 object-
ivity and anecdotal presentation, and because of how easily it can be influenced by politics and
culture (Figure 1.7). Critics therefore merely provide hypotheses to, at best, push the boundar-
ies of a given discipline or, at worst, 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
16 W. F. E. Preiser, A. T. Davis, A. M. Salama, and A. Hardy

Architectural criticism

Politics Aesthetics Sociology Culture

FIGURE 1.7 Elements of architectural criticism

Source: Andrea Hardy.

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 fields
and methodologies, integrating new approaches to existing problems – all within the frame-
work of promoting more humane and habitable environments” (Rowley-Balas 2006). While
performance evaluations may influence the quality of future decisions at the technical level
involving physical and socio-behavioral aspects, criticism may influence 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 criticism, 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 unified understanding of the role of the built environ-
ment 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 field.

Book structure and content

This book is structured to elucidate the history and evolution of both architectural criti-
cism and building performance evaluation, and the history and evolution of these fields are
chronicled.The book contains six sections, sequenced to introduce what are disparate fields 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 perform-
ance 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 exemplified 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 exemplified by people needs. Part
II includes six chapters that offer highlights on the evolution, nature, and role of criticism in
 Introduction 17

architecture. In the context of the Americas, issues that pertain to identity crisis, curating, radic-
alism, 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 experi-
encing 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 influence criticism and evaluation are investigated.While some chapters attempt to
induce generalities through positional interpretations, reviews, and analyses of media and litera-
ture to elucidate key characteristics of criticism, others attempt to deduce particularities regard-
ing the contribution of each paradigm through reference to empirical evaluation studies.
Part IV contains five chapters and offers a historical review of building performance evalu-
ation 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 field 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 benefits that could be gained through
the establishment of links between the two paradigms. Part V contains six chapters offering
a closer look at some architectural analyses and investigations that recount potential mecha-
nisms that link criticism to building performance evaluation in education, research, and prac-
tice. 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 Post-
Occupancy 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.
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.
18 W. F. E. Preiser, A. T. Davis, A. M. Salama, and A. Hardy

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 (eds) (2012) Enhancing Building Performance. London:
Wiley-Blackwell.
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. (ed.) (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.
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).
 Introduction 19

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.
This page intentionally left blank
PART II

Evolution and role of architectural

criticism
This page intentionally left blank
2
IDENTITY CRISIS
Estrangement in the evolution of architectural criticism

Aaron T. Davis

Introduction
Criticism as it relates to art and architecture reflects the prevailing cultural and philosophical
attitudes of its time.These attitudes have a direct effect on public perception of the built envir-
onment and they convey the accepted social ethos surrounding art as a creative act; as a form
of physical and conceptual production. Perceptions change with access to new technology
and experiences, however, constantly redefining the criteria by which we impart judgment.
Formally, early criticism was simply an examination of difference and therefore “regionalized,”
isolated due to the expense, difficulty, or even danger of traveling the great distances necessary
to construct a milieu of experiences, people, and cultures. Because of this, the perceptions
between different regions in artistic discourse tended to be slower and confined to more afflu-
ent social strata. Stylistically, criticism was often disseminated in manifesto and graphic form;
one need only think of the effect on early modern architects when Frank Lloyd Wright’s
Wasmuth portfolio was published in Germany, or the profound influence the dissemination
of Suprematist art and manifestos as the Russian avant-garde made its westward push into
Europe. These images allowed for greater breadth of consumption, and opened up the philo-
sophical questions surrounding beauty and function to a broader audience. In criticism today,
the distances having been made infinitesimally small because of the internet and relatively
cheap, fast transportation, the physical barriers to communication are essentially gone, leaving
the philosophical imperatives of evaluating experience and value.

Background
This commitment, however, is tied to the attention spans of the viewers and their ability to
parse empirical worth from the cacophony of media options and cultural histories that act as
tools of estrangement. The individual identity of the producer, the critic, and the consumer
are all conflated into a non-hierarchical din of information. What emerges is an inverse rela-
tionship between depth of insight and prolificacy of opinions: if all one needs is a Wi-Fi con-
nection to reach the world, under the protection of digital anonymity there is minimal risk in
24 A. T. Davis

“publishing” every impulse, interest, or conceit. Criticism, in its intended form, is a reasoned
and thoughtful examination of a subject within an arc of an historical and philosophical con-
text. It suffers under the intoxicating and immediate access to these impulses.The goal, then, is
to regain a sense of substantive cultural relevance for criticism as a discourse without minim-
izing it to cheap, one-directional sound bites and visual provocations: the creation of art and
architecture aspires to much more than that. “Architecture beyond criticism,” as we currently
understand it, uses the building as a tool to reintroduce feedback into the profession, to reveal
the contemporary social ethos, the imbued history of aesthetics, and thus provides a tool
through which we can understand the continuing promise of space as a medium.

Rejecting the academy and the new divinity

In the eighteenth century, Denis Diderot established himself amongst the French elite as an
aesthetic critic of the Salon and its imposed social order (Diderot 1765). His insights oscillated
largely between rote description and personal anecdotes, using the artwork as a rhetorical surface
upon which to project romantic notions and his own personality, and as a venue through which
to exercise his thoughts about beauty, perception, and humanity. Diderot disseminated his work
over great distances and thus relied on his telling to invest the reader with the feeling of having
seen the work.While this method was necessary, his criticism removed the work from any sort of
canon or positioning criteria that would lend it significance within a greater discourse or a larger
populace at the time. Far from objectionable, this radical break with the established academic
standards of painting allowed the individual artist to enter into discussion, and to set the tone for
the elevation of both artwork and artist that we see in the modern era (Moscavici 2010).
The emergence of this line of thought could also be seen as resulting from the rapid
weakening of the Church as the lone voice of authority and its being supplanted by empir-
ical inquiry as an alternative avenue to understanding the world. The focus on man’s ability to
demystify existence was itself quickly becoming a form of spiritual discovery. Jean-Paul Sartre,
writing in the twentieth century, elucidated this struggle:

the notion of God is suppressed, but not, for all that, the idea that essence is prior to
existence … Man possesses a human nature; that “human nature,” which is the concep-
tion of human being, is found in every man; which means that each man is a particular
example of a universal conception, the conception of Man … Here again, the essence
of man precedes that historic existence which we confront in experience.
(Sartre 1956)

In other words, the universal ideals of creative beauty, the essence, always precede experience
of the physical world. As a condition fundamental to all people, the understanding and expli-
cation of experience, and any real or perceived meaning derived from it, is then the new fron-
tier for critical thought. Criticism thus can also be seen as the subjective struggle for meaning
within an epoch.
The eighteenth-century critic was therefore set as a quasi-cultural priest, preaching the
meaning of a creative act still understood at that time as intrinsically linked to a set of uni-
versal morals bestowed upon man by the divine. Diderot even went so far as to publish the
Encyclopédie, ou dictionnaire raisonné des sciences, des arts et des métiers, one of the first general
encyclopedias used to educate the reader on a vast number of topics, including the mechanical
processes of object creation (Figure 2.1).
 Estrangement in the evolution of architectural criticism 25

POLICY
POLICY
POLICY
FIGURE 2.1 Excerpt from Diderot’s Encyclopédie, ou dictionnaire raisonné des sciences, des arts et des
métiers showing the structure and machinery involved in sugar production
Source: public domain image.

The critic, and Diderot’s voice by extension, was therefore essential to defining the very
terms by which the ability to “appreciate” art would come to be judged, not only in pro-
moting Enlightenment ideals and philosophical discourse, but also tacitly as a signifier of
social class and an attempt to increase understanding of the world more broadly. As Claudia
Moscavici points out:

True to the spirit of the Enlightenment, when the philosophes touched upon every
subject that the human mind could grasp, Diderot is one of the few and most engaging
modern writers to examine the question of artistic value from a dual perspective, that
26 A. T. Davis

of philosopher and art critic. His Salons help us think about our own responses to art:
particularly to the art of his times, since standards of value and what is considered art
have changed beyond recognition since the eighteenth century.
(Moscavici, 2010)

Here the modern critic is born, equal parts performance artist, reborn mystic, huckster, divine
interpreter, politician, and orator.

The poetics of egalitarian urbanism

If the critic of the eighteenth century struggled with the poetics of beauty and universal truth
in art, the critic of the early twentieth century shifted more towards the pragmatics of living
in the new urban environs. To do this, the work of Lewis Mumford attempted to bridge the
divide between the specialist knowledge of architects, planners, and the public.

If we are to create balanced human beings, capable of entering into world-wide co-
operation with all other men of good will – and that is the supreme task of our gener-
ation, and the foundation of all its other potential achievements – we must give as much
weight to the arousal of the emotions and to the expression of moral and esthetic values
as we now give to science, to invention, to practical organization. One without the
other is impotent. And values do not come ready-made: they are achieved by a resolute
attempt to square the facts of one’s own experience with the historic patterns formed in
the past by those who devoted their whole lives to achieving and expressing values …
Virtue is not a chemical product, as Taine once described it: it is a historic product, like
language and literature; and this means that if we cease to care about it, cease to cultivate
it, cease to transmit its funded values, a large part of it will become meaningless, like a
dead language to which we have lost the key. That, I submit, is what has happened in
our own lifetime.
(Mumford 1938)

Amongst his oeuvre are numerous accounts and critiques of the City and its inhabitants
that found resonance in the pages of The New Yorker, Architectural Record, and Architecture
magazines. What distinguishes his work at The New Yorker is that it is presented in a forum
non-specific to the disciplines themselves. In other words, the existence of the architec-
ture and urbanism discussion outside of a devoted periodical gave access to a general pub-
lic that otherwise might not have any exposure to writing of its kind. By the late 1950s,
Mumford’s work opened the possibility that the city and its buildings could be legible, and
that every inhabitant could learn to read the language and develop opinions, tastes, and
convictions about their surroundings. Meaning, set loose in the time of Diderot, was now
potentially a matter of education and democratic consensus rather than an existential crisis
of one’s own.
Thomas Fisher, who revolved his own studies around Mumford, further explains how
broad an audience Mumford wanted his theories and criticism to reach: “We do not need less
criticism; we need better criticism: criticism that engages the broadest public possible in what
our field has to say about the world’s most pressing problems.” Fisher explains that Mumford
believed in the idea that architecture is a mirror for its surrounding culture(s). Criticism,
 Estrangement in the evolution of architectural criticism 27

therefore, needs to be accessible for those people to better understand their built environment
(Fisher 2009).
These ideas of broadening the audience for architectural criticism, “meta-criticism,” are
also supported and challenged by George Baird. He is skeptical of writing for a larger audience
because he believes the subtlety and power of the original message is diluted to reach all ears
equally. This then leads to a “star system,” which he describes as “commentary in the popular
press, which purports to be about architecture but is actually a form of exposé of the person-
alities of architects who are famous.” Baird challenges the significance by drawing a distinction
between criticism and connoisseurship, description and analysis, in the end, rather than comparing
them, concluding that they are actually complementary and make for more persuasive criti-
cism and analysis (Baird 2009).

The expansion of architectural space

With the appointment of Ada Louise Huxtable as the critic at the New York Times in the early
1960s, the public mind was further engaged, but now more directly mediated by the critic.
Combining the anointed role of the Enlightenment with the egalitarian ethos of Mumford,
Huxtable states, “The Critic has to stand between the Artist and the User and be objective
and fair.” This extension of Mumford’s humanism is tempered by the re-inclusion of art-
historical references proliferating during this period. In these new discussions of sight and
experience, the modern conception of perception was theorized and explored in the visual
and spatial arts. Such developments were essential to explaining the increasingly spatial and
architectural elements and assertions being made by fine art. The intermingling of disciplin-
ary language changed how both were discussed, forcing critics to develop an ability to stand
in both worlds simultaneously (Greenberg 1961; Merleau-Ponty 1964; Rosenberg 1964;
Sontag 1966; Judd 1965).
As the discussion of art from a critical standpoint started to branch out from the picture
plane, it conjectured that the presence of art as a physical object actually had the ability to cre-
ate space. Once this barrier of perception was crossed into the realm of inhabitation, position,
and movement, the analysis of art and its history lent itself as a foundation for the critique of
modern architecture. Complicating the issue, however, these foundations increasingly rejected
notions of any existential narrative, preferring to provide strict formal analyses in the absence
of a recognizable subject. Gone was the pure interpretation of Diderot, and the legible com-
munity of Mumford. What remained was the metaphorical lone figure in the city, surrounded
by objects that defied agreeable description, or at worst, were constantly being “trespassed”
against by the uninitiated: the inhabitant of the modern aesthetic world was alone, and meaning
was now as abstract as the works (Figures 2.2 and 2.3).
From the isolation, criticism and formal analyses reacted by elevating artists and architects
to celebrity status as a means to cope, a circling of the wagons around cults of personality.
Iconography and fashion dominated, reducing the role of criticism from a tool of under-
standing to a market force assigning speculative value to where you were and what you were
viewing. Huxtable said, “I have never joined architectural groupies of any persuasion. As an
architectural historian, I have not bought into anyone’s belief systems, including modernism’s
most admirable and often faulty illusions. I have a built-in skepticism of dogma” (Huxtable
2008). Huxtable’s situating insight is understanding that the role of the critic is not to chase
fashion, challenging the New York Times reader while providing an historical and technological
28 A. T. Davis

FIGURE 2.2 Kazimir Malevich’s “Modern Buildings” (1924)

Source: public domain image.

context that educates, allowing the reader to understand why a work deserves critique, and by
extension, their time.
Following Huxtable, Paul Goldberger assumed the role of critic at the New York Times,
reminding the readership that in light of the establishing of bubble economies, technological
innovation, and sound bite punditry at all levels of popular culture, architecture cannot, and
should not, be reduced to an image.

But of course no building can be viewed solely through the lens of aesthetics anyway, or
at least it should not. Architecture criticism is aesthetics and it is politics and it is soci-
ology and it is culture, and if you do not accept the notion that all of these things are
intimately intertwined, then you fail to understand what has to be the foundation of all
writing about design, which is that every object has an aesthetic presence and a social
one at the same time, or, to put it another way, every object is both a physical thing and
a political thing, and it has to be understood and criticized as both. It is not one or the
other, but both, all the time.
(Goldberger 2003)

Pop-populism
Goldberger’s departure, viewed in retrospect, provides insight into the nature of evaluative
methods for architecture and urbanism during the early twenty-first century. If Huxtable
and Goldberger were “statesmen,” their successor, Nicolai Ouroussoff, embodies perfectly the
blind optimism and self-congratulatory style-chasing of the huckster, or worse, the shill. In
place of the educating and humanist bent of the earlier critics, we find in Ouroussoff an
enthusiastic fan of architecture as-such, tapped to speak for those he wishes to impress. Much
 Estrangement in the evolution of architectural criticism 29

FIGURE 2.3 The Cincinnati Contemporary Art Center by Zaha Hadid. A Malevich devotee, Hadid
translates the abstraction directly as pure form without human referent.
Source: photo by Sarah Le Clerc.

in the same way that the art criticism of Greenberg, Fried, et al. became divisive in the late
1960s because of personal preference and championing of individual artists, Ouroussoff has
his favorites (or they have him) and is content to provide critique in the same vein as Diderot;
the ramifications and position of a work are abandoned for a florid description of the building
itself. However, Ouroussoff does not exhibit the probing questions of experience pursued by
Diderot. Just as the tough socio-economic, political, or global implications of a given pro-
ject are broached, Ourousoff pulls back as if not wanting to embarrass his captive celebrity.
On the 2011 opening of CCTV, the massive example par excellence of spectacle architecture
(Figure 2.4), Ourossoff wrote:

After Rem Koolhaas, the project’s architect – along with his former Beijing partner, Ole
Scheeren – unveiled the design in 2003 he was pilloried by Western journalists for glori-
fying a propaganda organ of the Chinese government. Several years later a fire at the site
nearly burned down a neighboring building, also designed by Mr. Koolhaas, landing the
director of the project and 19 others in prison for negligence and significantly delaying
construction.
30 A. T. Davis

FIGURE 2.4 OMA’s CCTV Tower, headquarters of China Central Television

Source: public domain image.

And then there’s something about the building’s appearance that seems to unsettle
people. Just when things got back on track after the fire, a Chinese critic published an art-
icle saying that the building’s contorted form, which frames an enormous void at its cen-
ter, was modeled on a pornographic image of a naked woman on her hands and knees.
The piece ignited a storm of negative press, forcing Mr. Koolhaas to issue a denial.
Yet for all that, the CCTV headquarters may be the greatest work of architecture
built in this century. Mr. Koolhaas, of the Office for Metropolitan Architecture, has
always been interested in making buildings that expose the conflicting energies at work
in society, and the CCTV building is the ultimate expression of that aim, beginning
with the slippery symbolism of its exterior. At moments monumental and combative,
at others strangely elusive, almost retiring, it is one of the most beguiling and powerful
works I’ve seen in a lifetime of looking at architecture.
(Ourousoff 2011)

Ouroussoff ’s commentary demands that we take a position on the possibility of autonomy in

architecture. He acknowledges in CCTV what other critics have bemoaned as a monument to
an oppressive governments propaganda; in spite of this, he not only gives CCTV a “pass”, but
doubts the next 90 years will produce anything better. Ouroussoff ’s hyperbole mirrors the state
of contemporary architecture culture that marvels only that something new exists, neglecting to
interrogate whether it is actually needed, or looking closer at the real “cost” of its production.

Backlash to pre-packaged experience

Perhaps the most outspoken, if underappreciated, voice in contemporary architecture criti-
cism is that of historian Hal Foster. Foster, a PhD candidate under Rosalind Krauss at the City
University of New York, attempts with his work to pointedly and aggressively dismantle the
imagistic culture around us. Framing his work is the belief that the virtue of historic discourse
 Estrangement in the evolution of architectural criticism 31

has been rendered impotent by the contemporary preoccupation with spectacle over qual-
ity of experience (Hughes 2002). His most recent work, The Art-Architecture Complex (Foster
2011), attempts to further explicate the crisis of contemporary perception by examining the
work of well-known architects and drawing a distinction between affective and actual experi-
ences. The affective experience, present in contemporary art and architecture practice, is col-
lateral damage from the cult of personality surrounding famous practitioners. It short-circuits
the responsibility of the viewer/user by providing a mediated experience force-fed as meaning
through “criticism” marketing material, social media, and other vehicles of opinion parading
as fact. The actual experience comes from the legibility of certain design languages and strat-
egies that are present and repeated throughout the works of architects Norman Foster, Renzo
Piano, Richard Rogers, and others (Foster 2011) who have come to define the prevailing glo-
bal “brand” of contemporary modernism.
This broad overview of criticism (see Table 2.1) points at the underlying conflict that, in
its unresolved state, allows the triumph of temporary style over critical substance; this is the
contemporary architectural identity crisis. In a culture where individuals and buildings are
famous-for-being-famous, simply behaving poorly or outrageously is sufficient to be consid-
ered “critical.” Scrutiny is dismissed as cynicism, and the critics are forced to tread lightly, play-
ing politician. The vacuum left by true critique that allows for a phenomenon like the “star
system,” both in architecture and in modern culture, we see manifest in the ironic emptiness of
the modern city. More and more notable buildings are being erected worldwide, but increas-
ingly they are being built for a quick profit and sold to affluent individuals who act simply as
collectors, acquiring architecture the way others might acquire fine art. The result is neigh-
borhoods with minimal space availability but surprisingly little occupancy. Critics follow suit.
The developments along the West Side Highway in New York City’s Chelsea neighborhood,
lauded in preconstruction press, and plagued by architectural failures, is a fine example of this
paradox; the dark windows in the Perry Street Towers or the dripping rust, leaking windows,
and shrinking gaskets of 100 11th Avenue illustrate the superficiality of our critical eyes, and
the urban failure of luxury developments.
Endemic to “signature” work, this discord is equally troubling when considering their effect
on the larger urban environment. In “The City that Never Was,” Christopher Marcinkoski and
Javier Arpa comment:

One of the most overlooked aspects of the ongoing global economic crisis is the con-
tributing role that the urban design disciplines – architecture, landscape architecture,
city planning and civil engineering, among others – have played in the shaping and
production of this situation. Beyond discussions of banks, mortgage-backed securities,
collateralized debt obligations, derivatives, credit default swaps and “too big to fail,”
there is a clear body of evidence of design’s complicity – whether intentional or not – in
the production of this moment in history. In particular, the recent proliferation globally
of incomplete, unoccupied and abandoned urban settlement can be directly linked to a
widespread disciplinary reliance on inflexible, singular formats of settlement and easily
replicable urban spatial products that characterize contemporary urban design prac-
tice. The geographer David Harvey, among others, has pointed out that this current
economic crisis can in fact be characterized as an urban crisis in its social effects on a
population, but also in the many ways it has emerged from the ongoing investment in
and construction of new urban settlement.
(Marcinkoski and Arpa 2012)
32 A. T. Davis

TABLE 2.1 Major phases in the evolution of architectural criticism in the United States and its
European antecedents in aesthetic criticism

Year Author(s) Work(s) Contribution to the Field

1765 Diderot Salon of 1765 & Notes on Art/aesthetic criticism

Painting
1930s–1950s Mumford Criticism at The New Architecture and urbanism
Yorker magazine criticism
1938 Lewis Mumford The Culture of Cities Manifesto on the urban effect on
contemporary life
1939 Greenberg “Avant-Garde and Art/aesthetic criticism vis-à-vis
Kitsch” contemporary culture
1956 Sartre “Existentialism is a Art/aesthetic criticism
Humanism”
1961 Greenberg Art and Culture Art/aesthetic criticism vis-à-vis
contemporary culture
1963–1982, 2008 Huxtable On Architecture: Collected Elevation of architecture/
Reflections on a Century architectural criticism to a
of Change political, educational force
1964 Merleau-Ponty “Eye and Mind” Theorizing of perception and its
role in aesthetic judgment
1964 Rosenberg “Action Painting: Crisis Art/aesthetic criticism
and Distortion”
1965 Judd “Specific Objects” Creates a separate categorization
from painting and sculpture,
whose descriptive
quality resembles architecture
1966 Sontag “Against Interpretation” Critique and distinction of
content and aesthetics
1967 LeWitt “Paragraphs on Description of conceptural art
Conceptual Art” mimics architecture
1972 Steinberg “Other Criteria” Expands and theorizes the role of
the critic
1975 Alloway “The Use and Limits of Expands and theorizes the role of
Art Criticism” criticism
1975 Mumford Architecture as a Home Anthology of architecture/
for Man: Essays for urbanism criticism
Architectural Record
1975 Rosenberg “Criticism and Its Draws distinctions between
Premises” history and criticism
1977 Kuspit “Art Criticism:Where’s Compartmentalizes criticism by
the Depth?” medium and typology
1978 Attoe Architecture and Critical Categorizes critique into
Imagination three main types: normative,
interpretive, and descriptive
1978 Schapiro “The Nature of Abstract Assessment of value and
Art” autonomy in the visual arts
1979 Krauss “Sculpture in the Discusses two types of modern
Expanded Field” sculpture, “Architecture” and
“Not Architecture”
 Estrangement in the evolution of architectural criticism 33

TABLE 2.1 (cont.)

Year Author(s) Work(s) Contribution to the Field

1984–1997 Goldberger Architecture and Pulitzer Prize for criticism;
urbanism criticism at initiates critique of criticism
the New York Times
1987 Fried et al. “Theories of Art After Mediating between the spatial
Minimalism and Pop” demands of minimalism and
the surface demands of pop
1988 Kuspit The New Subjectivism: Art Criticism of the postmodern
in the 1980s period reflecting a struggle for
individual identity in a time of
pluralism
1989 Huxtable Kicked A Building Lately? Compilation of criticism
formalizing the performance
aspects of building
1993 Crowther “Postmodernism in Examining the value of a
The Visual Arts: A postmodern critical method
Question of Ends”
1995 Brenson “Resisting the Criticizing critics and criticism
Dangerous Journey:
The Crisis in
Journalistic Criticism”
1997 Danto After the End of Art: Examines the disjointed value of
Contemporary Art and criticism relative to the speed
the Pale of History of contemporary culture
1998 Carrier “Danto and His Critics: Criticism of critics and a search
Art After the End of for a way forward for art
Art History”
1998 Carroll “The End of Art?” Criticism of critics and a search
for a way forward for art
1998a Fried “Art and Objecthood” Critique of minimalism and its
perception-driven foundations
1998b Fried “Shape as Form: Frank Fine art examined as a producer/
Stella’s Irregular contributor of architectural
Polygons” space
1998 Kelley “Essentialism and Discusses schism between
Historicism in Danto’s essentialism and historicism
Philosophy of Art” in modern criticism and the
visual arts
2000 Kuspit Redeeming Art: Critical Further explication of art/
Reveries aesthetic criticism’s identity
crisis relating to modernity
2003 Foster Design and Crime (and Systematically links our
Other Diatribes) perceptions of value and
architecture to a manipulated
perception of capital and
branding
2003 Goldberger “Architecture Criticism: Outlines peripherally the failure
Does It Matter?” of contemporary criticism
34 A. T. Davis

TABLE 2.1 (cont.)

Year Author(s) Work(s) Contribution to the Field

2004–2011 Ouroussof Architecture and Embodies the difficulty of
urbanism criticism at criticism, global in scope, in the
the New York Times technological age
2004 Kuspit The End of Art Art/aesthetic criticism
2009 Baird “Thoughts on the Analyzing criticism in
Current State architecture by showing the
of Criticism in need for analysis, not only
Architecture” popular descriptions
2009 Findley “Reporter/Journalist/ Compares the three types of
Critic” architectural criticism and
what they entail: reporting,
journalism, and criticism
2009 Fisher “Making Criticism More Fisher compares his own studies
Critical” to those of Lewis Mumford to
explain the need for broader
audiences within architectural
criticism
2011 Foster The Art-Architecture Examines how our perceptions
Complex are often projected affects of
buildings rather than authentic
physiological stimulations
2011 Ivy “Still Standing:The Asking the question “What
Architect in 2011” Now?” in this new economy
by replacing the image of
a building with one of an
architect
2011 Parsons “Fact and Function What is the function of a building
in Architectural and who determines it?
Criticism”
2012 Marcinkoski “The City That Never Architecture and urbanism after
and Arpa Was” the economic collapse
Source: author.

Conclusion
The role of art, architecture, and criticism has evolved from the experience of thoughtful
objects or insightful prose into contemporary tools of identity-making. Now is the time to
push back. Architecture After Criticism, and Critics After Criticism, must have the constitu-
tion and the courage to address the built environment as a locus for interaction rather than a
backdrop for a marketing campaign. Accepting this, the only reasonable form of production is
built work that raises and addresses questions that challenge our epoch rather than provide illu-
sory lifestyle images of improbable futures. Architecture After Criticism will focus on people
as inhabitants rather than consumers.
New forms of practice are emerging already that assert greater control and authority over
the process of architectural production, and the socialization of media has collapsed time and
space so that regional practices can be studied by wider audiences, traditional methods of
 Estrangement in the evolution of architectural criticism 35

construction can be viewed next to the latest innovations, and intelligent discourse can be
heard louder than ever before. Criticality in the practice of art and architecture will of course
evolve along with the built work, and it is the responsibility of this and future generations to
produce thoughtful work worthy of critique.

References
Alloway, L. (1975) “The Use and Limits of Art Criticism.” In Topics in American Art Since 1945. New York:
W. W. Norton.
Attoe, W. (1978) Architecture and Critical Imagination. Chichester: John Wiley.
Baird, G. (2009) “Thoughts on the Current State of Criticism in Architecture.” Journal of Architectural
Education 62(3): 5.
Brenson, M. (1995) “Resisting the Dangerous Journey:The Crisis in Journalistic Criticism.” Andy Warhol
Foundation for the Visual Arts. Paper number 4.
Carrier, D. (1998) “Danto and His Critics: Art After the End of Art History.” History and Theory V
37(4): 1–16.
Carroll, N. (1998) “The End of Art?”, History and Theory V 37(4): 17–29.
Crowther, P. (1993) “Postmodernism in The Visual Arts: A Question of Ends.” In Critical Aesthetics and
Postmodernism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 179–96.
Danto, A. C. (1997) After the End of Art: Contemporary Art and the Pale of History. Princeton: Princeton
University Press.
Diderot, D. (1765) Salon of 1765 and Notes on Painting. New Haven:Yale University Press.
Findley, L. (2009) “Reporter/Journalist/Critic.” Journal of Architectural Education 62(3): 12–13.
Fisher, T. (2009) “Making Criticism More Critical.” Journal of Architectural Education 62(3): 14–15.
Foster, H. (2003) Design and Crime (and Other Diatribes). New York:Verso.
Foster, H. (2011) The Art-Architecture Complex. New York:Verso.
Fried, M. (1998a) “Art and Objecthood.” In Art and Objecthood. Chicago and London: University of
Chicago Press, pp. 148–72.
Fried, M. (1998b) “Shape as Form: Frank Stella’s Irregular Polygons.” In Art and Objecthood. Chicago and
London: University of Chicago Press, pp. 77–99.
Fried, M., R. Krauss, and B. H. D. Buchloh (1987) “Theories of Art After Minimalism and Pop.” In H.
Foster (ed.), Discussions in Contemporary Culture: Number One. Seattle: Bay Press.
Goldberger, P. (2003) “Architecture Criticism: Does it Matter?” Lecture at Butler University,
Indianapolis.
Goldberger, P. (2011) Why Architecture Matters. New Haven:Yale University Press.
Greenberg, C. (1939) “Avant Garde and Kitsch.” Partisan Review 6(5): 34–49.
Greenberg, C. (1961) Art and Culture. Boston: Beacon Press.
Hughes, G. (2002) “Hal Foster (1955–).” In D. Costello and J. Vickery (eds), Art: Key Contemporary
Thinkers. Oxford and New York: Berg, pp. 79–82.
Huxtable, A. (1989) Kicked A Building Lately? Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Huxtable, A. (2008) On Architecture: Collected Reflections on a Century of Change. New York: Walker.
Ivy, R. (2011) “Still Standing: The Architect in 2011.” Architectural Record 199(1): 21.
Judd, D. (1965) “Specific Objects.” Arts Yearbook 8. New York.
Kelley, M. (1998) “Essentialism and Historicism in Danto’s Philosophy of Art.” History and Theory V 37(4):
30–43.
Krauss, R. E. (1979) “Sculpture in the Expanded Field.” October 8: 30–44.
Kuspit, D. (1977) “Art Criticism: Where’s the Depth?” Artforum 16 1: 38–41.
Kuspit, D. (1988) The New Subjectivism: Art in the 1980s. New York: Da Capo Press.
Kuspit, D. (2000) Redeeming Art: Critical Reveries. New York: Allworth Press.
Kuspit, D. (2004) The End of Art. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
LeWitt, S. (1967) “Paragraphs on Conceptual Art.” Artforum 5 5–6: 79–83.
36 A. T. Davis

Marcinkoski, C. and J. Arpa (2012) “The City That Never Was.” The Architecture League of New York.
October. http://archleague.org/2012/10/urbanization-after-the-bubble/
Merleau-Ponty, M. (1964) “Eye and Mind.” In The Primacy of Perception, ed. J. M. Edie. Evanston, IL:
Northwestern University Press, pp. 159–90.
Moscavici, C. (2010) “Diderot’s Salons: Art Criticism of Greuze, Chardin, Boucher and Fragonard.”
Romanticism and Postromanticism (excerpt). December. http://fineartebooks.wordpress.com/2010/12/
17/diderots-salons-art-criticism-of-greuze-chardin-boucher-and-fragonard/
Mumford, L. (1938) The Culture of Cities. Boston: Mariner Books.
Mumford, L. (1975) Architecture as a Home for Man: Essays for Architectural Record, ed. J. M. Davern. New
York: Architectural Record Books.
Mumford, L. (1998) Sidewalk Critic: Lewis Mumford’s Writings on New York, ed. R. Wojtowicz. New York:
Princeton Architectural Press.
Mumford, L. (2007) Mumford on Modern Art in the 1930s, ed. R. Wojtowicz. Berkeley, Los Angeles, and
London: University of California Press.
Ouroussoff, N. (2011) “Koolhaas, Delirious in Beijing.” New York Times, July 13.
Parsons, G. (2011) “Fact and Function in Architectural Criticism.” The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism
69(1): 21–29.
Rosenberg, H. (1964) “Action Painting: Crisis and Distortion.” In The Anxious Object: Art Today and Its
Audience. London: Thames and Hudson, pp. 39–47.
Rosenberg, H. (1975) “Criticism and Its Premises.” In Art on the Edge: Creators and Situations. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, pp. 135–52.
Sartre, J. (1956) “Existentialism is a Humanism.” in W. Kaufman (ed.), Existentialism from Dostoyevsky to
Sartre. New York: Meridian Books.
Schapiro, M. (1978) “The Nature of Abstract Art.” In Modern Art: 19th and 20th Centuries – Selected Papers.
New York: Braziller.
Sontag, S. (1966) “Against Interpretation.” In Against Interpretation and Other Essays. New York: Dell,
pp. 13–23.
Steinberg, L. (1972) “Other Criteria.” In Other Criteria: Confrontations with Twentieth-Century Art. New
York: Oxford University Press, pp. 55–93.
3
THE ROLE OF EDITORS AS CRITICS
Michael J. Crosbie

Introduction
Architecture criticism in the US has a long history, stretching back to the mid-1800s. In the
1960s and 1970s there was a boom in criticism for public consumption, as many newspapers
instituted regular coverage of architecture, planning, and design. Professional magazines pro-
vided coverage of architecture but with less critical analysis than that found in daily news-
papers. The number of architecture critics expanded through the end of the century, with
nearly 40 writing on a regular basis at that time. In the past dozen years the number of critics
has contracted as daily newspapers have cut staff , merged with other publications, or folded
entirely. The irony is that, in the interim, the number of critics whose writings are available
online has expanded, as criticism is now more available through list-serves, tweets, and blogs.
While the number of professional critics shrinks, the availability of architectural commen-
tary grows, with many amateurs entering the field. Today the professional architecture critic
operates far less as a gatekeeper and an arbiter of taste. There is a growing trend of criticism
and commentary focusing less on architecture style and more on the quality of urban life and
sustainability. More lay people feel empowered to assess architecture that affects them directly,
and we might now be moving toward a time when there are more “citizen critics” engaged
with the built environment. Architecture writer Wayne Attoe offers a framework for archi-
tecture criticism that takes its practice out of the realm of the professional writer and allows
architecture criticism to flourish in a number of guises. Attoe’s framework might encourage
more citizen critics to flourish.

Evolution of architecture criticism

Architecture criticism in the US traces its formal beginnings to the work of Montgomery
Schuyler, who is considered one of the earliest and finest writers of architecture criticism
in the US. In 1865 he joined The World newspaper; 18 years later he moved to the New York
Times, and enjoyed a prolific career contributing to other publications such as Harper’s maga-
zine. Schuyler also wrote for Architectural Record (see Figure 3.1) where his biting criticism was
38 M. J. Crosbie

jjk Vol.XXVII. No. 1 JANUARY, 1910 . Whole No. 136 //)a

m ' AN
T H AL
E ' 11
P a rc h it e c I
k T V RANA AL
L
jp R E C O R D "
I ’ C O N T E N T S ’l

THE W ORK
AN AL
M ESSRS. CARRERE & H A STIN G S
. ILLUSTRATED

NOTES AND COMMENTS (Illustrated) 121

Public A ppreciation—Com m ercial A rchitecture and U tilitarian
^Clients—W h at C ity B uilds—M u ral Paintings in the W e st—
Boston’s N ew M useum of Fine A rts—Pittsburgh Has an Ideal
—St. John’ s Chapel, N ew Y o rk —T h e Boston Exposition—P lea
for Harmonious B uilding—Les A rchitectes des C athedrales Goth-
iques—Southern Pennsylvania Chapter A m erican Institute of
A rchitects.

PUBLISHED BY .
THE ARCHITECTURAL RECORD COMPANY

AN AL
P r e s i d e n t , Ol in t o n W . S w e e t T r e a s u r e r , P . W . D odoe

G e o lP M g r . f } E - W - D e s m 0 N I) S e c re ta ry , F . T . M il l e b
11-13 East Twenty-fourth Street, Manhattan
Telephone, 4430 Madison Square

Subscription (Yearly) $3.00 Published Monthly

AN AL
Copyright, 1909, b y u The A r c h it e c t u r a l R ec o rd Company.’ A ll rig h ts reserved.
Entered M ay 22,1902, a£ second-class m atter, Post Office a t N ew York, N.Y.. .ct of Congress of March 3d,

FIGURE 3.1 Contents page of the January 1910 edition of Architectural Record, one of the leading
architectural publications of the late nineteenth/early twentieth century
Source: author.

unleashed in a series of columns called “Architectural Aberrations,” in which he took archi-

tects to task for pathetic design work. In 1930, the architectural historian and writer Talbot
Hamlin lamented that, in comparison to the “bold days” of Schuyler, contemporary architec-
ture criticism had become vapid (Hamlin 1930).
Just about the time Hamlin wrote his critique of criticism in the American Architect journal,
Lewis Mumford started writing his “Skyline” column for The New Yorker, which he continued
for more than 30 years. Mumford was not trained as an architect but he was extremely well
 The role of editors as critics 39

read and reflective, influenced by the work of Scottish planner Patrick Geddes. He wrote with
passion about architecture, planning, and design as an expression of social values, contributing
to the quality of life. His focus was civic, but also private in the sense that he made connec-
tions between the ways that society built and how those ways affected individual lives. After
Mumford, the “Skyline” column carried the criticism of other writers such as Brendan Gill
and Paul Goldberger. But the absence of Mumford’s voice in the 1960s created a vacuum of
commentary about the quality of the urban environment at a time when the public’s aware-
ness was heightened to what was happening to cities through urban renewal. The fledgling
preservation movement in the 1960s raised that consciousness as well. At that moment, archi-
tecture criticism in a variety of daily newspapers blossomed. One of the first architecture crit-
ics to address the general public, and do so on a daily basis cutting across class and locale, was
Ada Louise Huxtable, who became the full-time architecture critic for the New York Times in
1963 and continued to write for the paper until 1982. By 2001, a study of the work of archi-
tecture critics by the Columbia School of Journalism included critics from 37 newspapers
around the country.
Today we live in a much different world of architecture criticism than we did just a decade
ago. While there are far fewer newspapers with dedicated architecture critics, and far fewer
newspapers, paradoxically the access to reportage, criticism, and opinion about architecture
and the built environment seems more abundant and widespread. For example, the amount
of writing about architecture and design available online appears to have only grown over the
past decade. Kristen Richards, the founder and editor of ArchNewsNow (ANN), a daily com-
pilation of writing around the globe about the built environment, notes that while the num-
ber of dedicated architecture critics at daily newspapers has decreased, that has not slowed the
number of articles that she reviews for ANN each day. Richards says that there are currently
about a dozen dedicated architecture critics at newspapers in the US who write about archi-
tecture on a regular basis (Richards 2013).

Criticism: what’s the point?

What exactly is the point of architecture criticism? What good is the critic, and does archi-
tecture criticism really make a difference? The answers to such questions really depend on the
outlet of criticism and the audience.

“I don’t think criticism matters very much,” wrote the man who today is considered
the “dean” of American architecture critics, Paul Goldberger. Goldberger qualifies this
view by adding that it doesn’t matter in the way that many critics and architects want it
to matter: it doesn’t change the world, it doesn’t even change the nature of architecture
all that much. He draws parallels to theater criticism, noting that if a drama critic pans
a Broadway show it could very well close. “Nobody tears down a building if the archi-
tecture critic doesn’t like it” (Goldberger). Even Goldberger’s nemesis, Michael Sorkin,
who wrote about architecture for the Village Voice in the 1980s, says: “I flatly refuse to
acknowledge having had any impact at all in the real world.”
(Stephens 1998)

Goldberger’s fellow scribes, when asked in the Columbia study of architecture critics if
their writing matters, sort of agreed with him. While more than three-quarters of the critics
40 M. J. Crosbie

surveyed felt that their writing had some impact on architecture in the region, more than half
said that architects and developers don’t consider their opinions when designing new projects
(Szántó et al. 2001). Many architecture writers see their role as an “informant” rather than as
a “judge,” educating the public on what the architect or the client was trying to achieve in a
project. Critics in the study also saw their writing as an “early warning system” to alert the
community to new projects coming down the pike, helping the public to be critical and to
take action (Szántó et al. 2001).
But other critics express a missionary spirit about what they do, and whether it matters.
“The highest goal of the critic ought to be to make people think,” notes critic Martin Filler,
who wrote about architecture for a number of years at House & Garden. “To make people
think about their environment and to participate more actively – by joining a community
planning board, picketing to save a landmark, trying to change zoning laws, or establishing a
historic district – that’s what I think a critic should do” (Sikes 1985). Joseph Rykwert writes
that he has “always believed that the critic must be a fighter. To do so they must have a base
from which to operate, not only the obvious one of a newspaper, periodical, radio or televi-
sion programme, or blog which will make their views public but, more intimately, a clearly
articulated notion of what they think society must expect of its builders” (Rykwert 2012).
Blair Kamin of the Chicago Tribune echoes Filler and Rykwert in reflecting on the writing
of Allen Temko, who wrote about architecture for the San Francisco Chronicle for more than
30 years. Kamin describes how Temko would get out in front of projects in the planning stage
before the damage could be done. “This sort of preemptive strike – not waiting for mistakes to
happen, but going after them before it was too late – had an enormous impact. It resulted not
simply in better bridges, but in better architecture, better historic preservation, better water-
front and coastal protection,” notes Kamin. “As Temko showed, confronting bad plans head
on – and doing it on your home turf, week after week, year after year – is the ultimate test of
a critic’s mettle” (Kamin 2006).

The hidden hand in criticism

Critiques of the state of architecture criticism focus almost exclusively on the work of the
critics, and rarely consider the powers behind the publication that shape the critique. Editors,
of course, can have a significant role in setting the topics that are covered and how they are
covered. The extent of that power can vary widely, depending on the publication and the
intended audience of the criticism. Architecture critics at newspapers and general interest
magazines complain that editors don’t understand architecture enough. The irony is that as
the most public art, architecture is probably the least understood by the general public, with
editors not too far behind; they often lack knowledge or even interest. In search of “the hook,”
editors often want to know if the building is part of a trend, or if there is some other general
interest angle to justify running a story. Editors and the publications they work for often don’t
know why they are doing a story (Stephens 1998).The result is that editors at newspapers and
general interest magazines will sometimes gravitate toward covering architectural celebrities
with profiles of star architects: talking about the personality instead of the work.
If editors of general interest publications might care too little about architecture, one
might argue that editors of professional architecture publications are prone to caring too
much. Competition within the field, especially in the days of exclusively print journals such
as Architecture, Architectural Forum (see Figure 3.2), Architecture Plus, Architectural Record, and
 The role of editors as critics 41

January 1 9 S 5

fie*.
N/\ f
$1. A COPY architectural FORUM the magazine of building
*(,'7
F7Y

M an hattan’s blockbuster A preview of the 42-story Socony-Vacuum building and the story of
the people who are shaping it (p. 86)

The arcade m akes a com eback Chicago uses it to widen congested streets;
in New York City Woolworth uses it to connect Macy's and Gimbels (t

O ffice o f m e rit An elegant headquarters for the eye of CBS (p. 135)

US building abroad
ANAN
Plastics
ALAL
AN AL
and a forward look at promising m w applications (p. 120)

As ambassador to the world, the industry is building everything from radio towers
to new towns-including good will (below and p. 98)

FIGURE 3.2 Cover of the January 1955 issue of Architectural Forum, one of several professional jour-
nals that rose to prominence in the mid-twentieth century
Source: author.

Progressive Architecture could be fierce, with publishers and editors vying for market share. This
led to unethical journalistic practices, such as promising architects glossy covers, greater page
counts for articles, the choice of writer, even review of the text before publication, in exchange
for exclusive coverage. Genuine criticism in the professional press was and continues to be
virtually impossible under these conditions, and the professional architecture press suffered,
and continues to suffer for it.
The multitude of sources of information on new architecture today makes the exclusivity
of professional journals crazier than ever, but old habits die hard. Professional journals seem
edgier and more willing to take risks today, and I believe that the reason for this is partly to
differentiate themselves in a field populated by online publications, bloggers, tweeters, and
42 M. J. Crosbie

M
AN AL
Progressive A rchitecture I April 1994

Also in this issue:

The Work of Glenn Murcutt H

Industrial Incubators
Acoustical Design with CMU H
Critique: Middleton Inn H

AIA : W o rth th e P r ic e o f A d r r ^ is s io n ?

FIGURE 3.3 In the early 1990s, Progressive Architecture regularly took on critical topics in the profes-
sion, such as the conduct of the American Institute of Architects in P/A’s April 1994 issue
Source: author.

the like. Progressive Architecture (P/A) magazine was an early adopter of this approach, radically
changing in 1992 the way architecture was presented and critiqued. (The author was an edi-
tor at P/A from 1992 to 1996.) Under the leadership of Tom Fisher, who became Executive
Editor that year, sharing editorial direction with John Morris Dixon, P/A took what I believe
to be a bold direction in not only publishing tougher critiques but also addressing issues in the
profession that had been off limits: gender, exploitation of interns, the misconduct of the AIA
(see Figure 3.3), licensing practices, architecture education, design awards programs, etc. The
focus became more “investigative,” producing articles that dug into the issues, targeting some
of the profession’s sacred cows. At that time, advertisers grew wary of this approach, and rev-
enue declined to a point where P/A had to cease publication. So much for the life and death
of architecture criticism and P/A. However, the P/A Awards program (see Figure 3.4) contin-
ued after the magazine folded, becoming a part of Architecture magazine, and now published by
Architect.The Awards, which began in 1953, continue as a form of architecture criticism, in that
 The role of editors as critics 43

Progressive Architecture J A N U A R Y 1 9 8 8

AN ALAN
ANAL
3 5 T H
ALA N N U A L P / A A W A R D S

FIGURE 3.4 Cover of 35th Annual P/A Awards issue, January 1988. The P/A Awards program has
at times prompted heated discussion about design directions and trends within the profession.
Source: author.

a jury of peers selects award-winners that reflect the best of new, unbuilt work in architectural
design as well as urban design (at one time there was a category for architectural research).
The fact that the entries are unbuilt permits the jury to suggest directions for future design
investigation that it deems worthy.

What happens next?

We are at a point where the nature of architecture criticism is changing from one that has been
practiced by professional critics writing for publications that are essentially “gatekeepers” and
formers of public opinion about buildings, to one where architecture criticism is more diffuse,
44 M. J. Crosbie

egalitarian, accessible, democratic, chaotic, opinionated, potentially misinformed, and maybe

consequential. What I am describing, of course, is a landscape of discussion about architecture
that looks very much like other realms: politics, sports, art, and movies. Commentary in every
one of these fields, and many more, is undergoing a great leveling. There is simply too much
free information out there in the ether for anyone to act as an arbiter of taste. Let’s just con-
sider architects’ own websites, the potential of which as publishing vehicles has barely been
explored. The critic has lost the gatekeeper job and the infidels are pouring over the walls.
Where we go from here is anyone’s educated guess, but I believe that the way we commu-
nicate and share information today has the potential to make every one of us an architecture
critic.This does not mean that the quality of that criticism will be worth it, but there are many
free things on the internet that fascinate. And there are more ways today to learn how to be a
critic, if you want to be. We already see signs of this in the wealth of travel blogs and posts on
TripAdvisor about the architecture of the places where people vacation.There certainly seems
to be an interest.
Wayne Attoe’s book Architecture and Critical Imagination seems to have the mission to trans-
form each of us into a critic. Attoe’s approach, however, is far more inclusive. While Lange’s
(2012) conception of architecture criticism remains locked within the confines of a “review”
produced by the architecture critic who writes it, Attoe asserts that architecture criticism is
happening all the time, by everyone, if we chose to recognize it as such. He explains that in
researching his book on architecture criticism, what surfaced was “an almost sinful appreci-
ation of all forms of response to the built environment and a willingness to say that if every-
thing is criticism then the most one should expect of a critic is that the media he employs be
suited to the ends pursued.” Attoe notes that his “tolerance” for what he is willing to include as
legitimate criticism “was the product of a particular point of view, namely that virtually every-
thing people do in and about the built environment is a form of criticism.” All of us, architects
and non-architects, engage in criticism much of the time, an “ongoing collection of diverse
behaviors,” as Attoe so aptly describes it (Attoe 1978).
Such a view of criticism is liberating in the extreme. While it challenges our conception
of the architecture critic as someone with specialized knowledge and experience as the only
one anointed to pass judgment on works of architecture, it seems to be much more in line
with the way people actually react to architecture – by embracing it or running from it. This
recognition is evident in a variety of “critiques,” everything from post-occupancy evalua-
tions (see Parts III and IV of this book) and the work of Holly White, who documented the
life of urban spaces with his concealed eight-millimeter camera, to YouTube videos today of
people interacting with the built world around them. The number of these “citizen critics,” as
Alexandra Lange refers to them, continues to grow (Lange 2012).
This form of interpretation of criticism demands an inclusive framework for criticism.
Attoe provides an excellent one, categorizing the methods of criticism as: “Normative,” using
an outside standard for judgment; “Interpretive,” seeking to make the reader see the build-
ing as the writer does; and “Descriptive,” focusing on factual information in as “objective” a
way as possible (Attoe 1978). This is a comprehensive framework for understanding the crit-
ical nature of many of our interactions with the built environment. Who knew that building
inspectors were architecture critics? But they are, interpreting the building codes as a form of
“Normative” criticism. Photographers work as critics using the “Interpretive” method when
they capture the special qualities of an old building or a traditional neighborhood threatened
by demolition. The Historic American Buildings Survey was instituted in 1933 as a form of
 The role of editors as critics 45

“Descriptive” criticism, although it was never referred to in that way, documenting much of
America’s architectural heritage.
Since 1982 I have taught a course, “Writing About Architecture,” at several architecture
programs in the US that is formulated in terms of Attoe’s categories of criticism. Students
readily apprehend the usefulness of Attoe’s framework in that it allows them to critique the
built environment using a variety of means beyond the written word. The point of the course
is not to create new architecture critics in the formal sense, but to make the students more
critical of the built world and to encourage them to articulate an architectural point of view,
a philosophy of critique, which they can then use as a lens to assess architecture – their own
and that of others. They are the front line of citizen critics.

Conclusion
The field of architecture criticism in the US, more than a century old, shows resilience even as
the number of professional full-time critics writing in daily newspapers has declined, and the
once-plentiful number of professional architecture magazines has dwindled. Criticism avail-
able on the internet has expanded, as has the availability of architectural viewpoints, expressed
by professionals and amateurs alike. The challenge is to provide citizen critics with a frame-
work to critique the built environment, to become engaged with promoting better buildings,
neighborhoods, and cities. We have entered a period when the architecture critic needs to
take a more activist role in educating the public to be more effective citizen critics. The result
may be engaged amateurs who are more fully invested in demanding better architecture in the
future, and articulating the possibilities in satisfying that desire.

References
Attoe, W. (1978) Architecture and Critical Imagination. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Goldberger, P. (2013) “Architecture Criticism: Does it Matter?” October 16. http://www.paulgold-
berger.com/lectures/architecture-criticism-does-it-matter
Hamlin, T. (1930) “Criticism Might Help Architecture, Let’s Try It.” American Architect 41: 90.
Kamin, B. (2006) “Battling for Better Architecture: The Argument for Activist Criticism.” Architectural
Record 41: 43, 45.
Lange, A. (2012) Writing About Architecture. New York: Princeton Architectural Press.
Richards, K. (2013) Personal interview, November 13.
Rykwert, J. (2012) “Does Architectural Criticism Matter?” The Architects’ Journal, September 20: 60–62.
Sikes, G. (1985) “Critics on Criticism.” Metropolis, November: 28–31, 39–41.
Stephens, S. (1998) “Assessing the State of Architectural Criticism in Today’s Press.” Architectural Record,
March: 64–69, 194.
Szántó, A., E. Fredericksen, and R. Rinaldi (2001) The Architecture Critic: A Survey of Newspaper Architecture
Critics in America. New York: Columbia University, National Arts Journalism Program.
4
IS CURATING THE NEW CRITICISM?
Pedro Gadanho

Introduction
The aim of this chapter is that of clarifying the terms in which the activity of curating archi-
tecture can be understood as a positive and “operative” continuation of criticism – “criticism”
not being a mere professional endeavor connected to the subject of architecture, but indeed an
autonomous “critical project.” If such a “critical project” is driven by a motivation to “repos-
ition architecture” – as Rem Koolhaas once suggested of his own misunderstood activity as an
architect and architectural thinker (Koolhaas, quoted in Foster 2001) – curating architecture
should then be investigated and re-presented as an activity that, in its genetic code, contains
the germ and the impulse to create such a “repositioning.”
Curating architecture – i.e. organizing exhibitions and creating cultural programs by which
architectural production can be made the subject of debate, and thereby made accessible to lar-
ger audiences within an expanded cultural arena – is therefore presented as a complementary
means by which criticism can remain both relevant and impactful.
The question in the title of this chapter further suggests the need to remain self-critical.
The inquiry must also respond to the imperative of identifying and exposing the traps and
difficulties that besiege the assumption that curating architecture can indeed promise or com-
prise a “critical project.” As such, the personal experience of the author becomes a filter and
platform from which certain constraints may be identified, and contrasted to the optimism
that wants to see curating as a potential instrument for a much-needed renewal of critical
thinking in architecture.

Background
The notion that exhibition-making can substitute for more traditional approaches to archi-
tectural criticism has generated some degree of debate following an interview given by
the author, which was published in issue 958 of Domus magazine (Varnelis 2012). Given
the author’s recent appointment as Curator at the Museum of Modern Art (MoMA), in
New York, the sentence “curating is the new criticism” was taken out of context, in typical
 Is curating the new criticism? 47

media fashion, and made into the eye-catching title of the interview. The sentence thus
performed as both sound bite and a provocation directed at the status quo of current archi-
tectural criticism. While the implicit provocation of such a statement was to some degree
intentional – namely as a wake-up call regarding what has been generally sensed as a crisis
in critical writing about architecture – the statement’s broader intentions remained largely
misunderstood. It must be stated that the primary intent of “curating is the new criticism”
was to be understood in the sense of the famous aphorism by Carl von Clausewitz, “war is
the continuation of politics by other means.” In that regard, rather than suggesting that the
possibility of architectural criticism is gone, wounded, or simply made hostage by a prag-
matic, post-critical turn – and thus in need of some sort of substitution – “curating is the
new criticism,” or more precisely the idea behind it, merely posits that, in the face of the
apparently diminishing impact of critical writing, there may be other tools by which a crit-
ical project can be pursued in consideration of today’s architectural production – namely
through the activity of curating architecture.
As argued in a previous article published in Abitare magazine (Gadanho 2010) the activity
of curating – i.e. the organization of exhibitions and cultural programs by which architectural
production is made the subject of debate for larger audiences – can be seen as a possibility
to engage new formats of communication with the public, at a moment when writing itself
seems to submerge under the logic of an image-driven, attention-deprived culture. As sug-
gested in the article, the exhibition value described by Walter Benjamin could become a subver-
sive vessel for a critical project that, precisely, recurs to the instruments of the “enemy” – i.e.
the predominance of a culture of superficial consumption – so as to continue a battle for rele-
vance in face of this same condition.While this strategy would suggest a risk of falling hostage
to the attraction of the “spectacle” – of which one must remain obviously aware – it certainly
posited that, rather than being considered passive, the audience was also called upon to discern
the critical messages that would be imbedded in a predominantly visual discourse.
Considering a persisting adversity toward critical discourse, felt in the architectural field as
in the cultural field at large, “curating architecture” was thus interrogated and pushed beyond
its traditional limits. More than a practice of conservation and study of objects in institutional
contexts, curating architecture was presented as a practice offering potential for new critical
possibilities, namely in terms of its active, propositional role toward the reception of contem-
porary architectural production by a broader audience.
The premise remained, in any case, that either in its academic or journalistic incarnations,
criticism had, over the past years, mislaid the ability to originate and maintain truly influential
debates, for the players in the field and those outside it. This premise certainly represents the
author’s belief that criticism has lost its weight (if really it ever had any) particularly when it
comes to displaying a capacity to evince change in the course of architectural production, and,
at the least, modulate and amplify its impact vis-à-vis the wider social spectrum.
However, this position also presents an essential, if polemical optimism. The proposal that
a “critical project” can be reinvented and continued by new means – means beyond that
of a conventional, discursive written medium – eventually posits a challenging idea: against
influential authors such as Manfredo Tafuri, criticism should again be considered “operative”
(Tafuri 1968). That is, criticism should again aim to go beyond exegesis and interpretation.
Further, echoing Benjamin’s characterization of the “cultural producer” (Benjamin 1934),
criticism should, by any means available, offer critical and entrenched positions on architec-
tural production and its wider social role.
48 P. Gadanho

The rise of architectural exhibitions as inducers of change

Given the limited scope of this chapter, one cannot embark on an extensive description of
how exhibition-making justifies, in its history, the claim that curating can assume and continue
a “critical project” in architecture. Nevertheless, some examples may illustrate how architec-
tural exhibitions have, in given moments, provided an unexpected medium through which an
inflection was produced in the diffusion, self-reflection, and critical progression of architecture
culture.
In this sense, we must start by stating that architecture exhibition-making is historically
driven by a celebratory impulse, which is potentially contrary to a need to provide critical per-
spectives or in-depth reflection about ongoing conditions. World’s Fairs, nineteenth-century
Beaux-Arts displays, and the first monographic displays of architects, are known as mainly the
vessels for the celebration of collective or individual achievements. Although these may have
brought ideas of progress and transformation to the public, they were hardly vehicles of con-
scious “critical projects” invested in questioning the course of history.
Pre-modern architectural exhibitions may have certainly served purposes of critical com-
parison, namely when they publicly disclosed the results of architectural competitions pro-
moted by diverse authorities. However, it was not until the advent of the Modern Movement
that exhibitions were consciously addressed as a means of cultural production – changing both
public consciousness and the interests of the discipline.
In this sense, the first successful example of “activist” architectural curating appeared under
a uniquely ideal condition, one seldom pursued during the twentieth century.When Mies van
der Rohe led the construction of the Weissenhof Siedlung in Stuttgart, 1927 – an “exhibition”
entailing the construction of a neighborhood comprised of modern buildings by selected
architects – the “critical project” of Modernity was simultaneously tested and brought to a
broad audience in pure architectural form. The city served as a laboratory for new models
in architecture, but also for the “operative” promotion of a concept of Modernity that was
offered as an alternative to prevailing historical paradigms.
Another exhibition that surfaced as crucially “operative” followed shortly after, in 1932,
even if constrained to a more traditional exhibition format based in architectural representa-
tions: Modern Architecture: International Exhibition at the MoMA. Organized by Henry-Russell
Hitchcock and Philip Johnson, the show pursued the “critical project” through prescribing
a new architectural language and “style” for the future. The question remains as to whether
the exhibition proved definitive in establishing the International Style’s historical status, or
whether it merely took advantage of an inevitable momentum that was already essentially
defined. In any case, in its definition of the terms in which the Modern Movement should be
considered, in its use of the museum platform and subsequent tours as ways to reach broader
audiences, and in its lasting critical impact, the MoMA show remains as an historical example
of how an exhibition can effectively alter the public perception of architectural practice. As
an inaugural project of the first department ever dedicated to architecture in an international
museum, the show and some of its follow-ups guaranteed, for better or worse, the reception
and establishment of a renewed paradigm of what architecture should signify within society.
It would take another three decades for the production of architectural exhibitions to again
reveal such a willingness to scrutinize and induce change. Even so, by the end of the 1960s
and the early 1970s, when architecture curating started to reflect important alterations in the
field of art curating, the impact of new critical projects never again achieved the broad social
impact that the initial MoMA show attained.
 Is curating the new criticism? 49

Although exhibitions such as the 1968 Milano Architecture Triennale triggered import-
ant political and disciplinary reactions by way of the exhibition medium – which certainly
anticipate and inform current trends in the critical understanding of curatorial practice – their
impact was circumscribed to the architectural field. As it occurred in the art field, there was a
critical call to reconnect architecture with its political and social broader context. Nevertheless,
the reaction in the architectural arena led precisely to the opposite tendency: a movement
toward disciplinary introspection, a withdrawal from contemporary history, and a durable
resistance to “operative criticism” that, ultimately, led to the demise of, and impossibility of,
any kind of “critical project.”

Curating architecture as a critical practice

During the 1980s, the rise of a new economical conservatism went hand in hand with a
cultural turn that, at least in certain sectors, was profoundly regressive. As Hal Foster has per-
ceptively outlined (Foster 1985), postmodernism became entrenched into two opposing fac-
tions. Faced with the impossibility of superstructural change, one faction adopted an apolitical
return to historicism and disciplinary autonomy. Another faction, however, reacted to such
regression by critically imploding the borders of disciplines.While both positions shared com-
mon traits, such as the opposition to the cultural project of Modernism, they presented very
diverse visual and spatial languages.
It is in this moment that, again at MoMA, an architecture exhibition emerges as an example
of how curating can be instrumental in defining lasting critical positions for architecture.
Organized by Philip Johnson and Mark Wigley in 1988, Deconstructivist Architecture defined
a clear new stance vis-à-vis the postmodern, historicist language that, from 1980 onwards,
had dominated upcoming referential events such as the newly established Venice Architecture
Biennale.
While we cannot dive into historical minutiae, there are good reasons to evoke this par-
ticular exhibition in the context of this chapter. In its proposal of a new “-ism,” this show not
only reconnected to MoMA’s own tradition of “operative criticism” as delineated above, but
also inaugurated a contemporary perspective of how an architecture exhibition could entail
and allow for a critical discourse in a contemporary context. By assuming the clear endorse-
ment of an alternative architectural language in the face of the prevailing stylistic trend, in
its attempt to map a theoretical turn in architectural practice, in its prescient identification of
the protagonists of the coming architectural landscape – even if that eventually opened the
way to the future, equivocal status quo of what we today call “starchitecture” – the exhibition
touched, at the moment of its making, upon some of the key aspects by which curating can
be seen as a critical practice.
As architecture curating started to expand into new platforms and new modes of operation,
the show remains as the last relevant example of how the institutional setting of the museum
could serve as the basis for a fully critical curatorial stance. MoMA itself entered a period in
which celebratory monographs alternated with thematic shows that fell short of defining
major cultural changes. An increasing number of museum institutions cultivated architec-
ture exhibitions, but have not necessarily promoted a critical approach to the field’s alter-
ations. Institutions of different scales, such as the CAPC in Bordeaux or the Centre Georges
Pompidou in Paris, just to mention France, have certainly promoted relevant thematic exhi-
bitions. Montreal’s Centre for Canadian Architecture, particularly under the direction of
Mirko Zardini, has also established a reputation for exploring new critical topics related to the
50 P. Gadanho

FIGURE 4.1 9+1 Ways of Being Political exhibition at MoMA in 2012

Source: author.

architectural field. The feeling remains, however, that these efforts failed to generate a large
critical impact inside or outside the architectural field – a condition that is a necessary condi-
tion for establishing a relevant “critical project.”
Indeed, the locus of architecture curating as critical practice seems to have moved else-
where, sustained by a booming and diversifying cultural activity in the domain of architecture,
by the take-off of biennial and triennial events as important moments of assessment for the
architectural field, and even by increasing interactions and cross-pollination with contempor-
ary practices of art curating. And while the new expanded field of architecture curating may
appear atomized as a consequence of the boom and dispersion in cultural activity, it may also
be defended that it is the sum of many smaller efforts that may now contribute to critical
change in the perceptions and appraisals of architecture practice. As opposed to the previ-
ous centrality of a limited number of exhibition-making institutions, architecture curating
starts to emulate the diversity and abundance of available positions typical of the art world.
Independent of their location in institutional contexts or the field at large, curators are slowly
re-emerging as individual figures with autonomous critical projects.
This evolution contributes to a renewed understanding of the critical potentialities of
architecture curating, while echoing a crucial evolution of the very notion of curating. Even if
there are precedents, and some of them precisely arose in the architectural realm, a new, spe-
cific notion of curating has emerged over the last 50 years; a notion that contests the traditional
view of the curator as one who specializes in the conservation of objects in collections, and
the related activity of their correct display. As an apparent result of the cultural and political
unrest of the late 1960s, exhibition-making has surfaced as a means to construct worldviews –
and one which gained spectacular relevance, particularly in the art field. Curating became an
 Is curating the new criticism? 51

author-based practice rather than a merely organizational one, and with this subtle alteration
comes also the possibility for other, more subjective critical projects.
As a result, just as an architectural critic rebuilds his or her views on architecture with each
new writing task, exhibition-making now offers a rich and complex medium in which to
pursue and express these same views. Given the evolution of the notion of curating described
above, a personal critical project may today evolve through the media of exhibitions or other
cultural endeavors, recurring to successive themes and subjects so as to continue a coherent
critical reflection on architectural production. Beyond the mere display of a given production,
the medium of the exhibition is already embodied with a tradition that allows for critical
arguments to assume center stage.
Exploring this evolution of criticism in my own practice has led to embracing the investi-
gation of non-linear Modernism in a monographic show such as Pancho Guedes, An Alternative
Modernist (as a freelancer working in a museum context, in Basel, 2007); or the questioning
of ongoing urban transformations while mapping local young architectural talent, on a group
show such as Silo Concepts (as the programmer of an independent biennale, in Lisbon, 2003); or
the reinterpretation of political stances in architecture while exercising an aesthetical selection
from a major institutional collection, in a thematic show such as 9+1 Ways of Being Political (as
a curator at the MoMA, New York, in 2012) (Figure 4.1).
Nonetheless, even if the possibilities for cultural endeavors have enormously expanded,
the practice of curating is still strongly dependent on opportunity – and this implies that we
should also consider and evaluate the potential limitations of any critical project that may want
to return to curating as its privileged vehicle.

Conclusion: constraints to curating as critical project

In spite of the optimism with which a critical approach to architecture curating has been
outlined here, one must also question what the constraints to this practice are. As it is, while
the practice of writing offers considerable autonomy, curating is much more constrained by
numerous dependencies – which naturally limit or inhibit the ability to pursue a critical pro-
ject through the media of exhibition-making.
Even if, in general, architectural criticism is dwindling because of its dependence on an eco-
nomic system that is itself increasingly fragile – that of the traditional print media, even if imbed-
ded in an academic context – one can counter that written criticism can always be pursued
with only minimal means. While, in the extreme, this may also be true of exhibitions, the latter
will normally require more comprehensive means to attain their goals. The more ambitious
the articulation of contents to convey a certain argument, the more the economic dependency
becomes problematic. Particularly in situations in which cultural creation is dependent on the
maintenance of audiences, if not driven by convoluted production mechanisms (as nowadays
occurs with most cultural institutions), curatorial independence may ultimately be affected, and
with it the necessary ability to combine popular appeal with critical content.
And while institutional agendas may not necessarily agree with individual critical endeav-
ors, another constraint to the capability of curating to be “the new criticism” will relate to the
permanence of a traditional perception that exhibition-making must submit to practice. If even
in written criticism this tendency may penalize the architectural critic, the celebratory charac-
ter of exhibitions still stands in the way of most critical reinterpretations, especially when one
is to make sense of the meaning of contemporary production created by living practitioners.
52 P. Gadanho

In spite of the nuances, these are nevertheless only the typical challenges that any critical
project will confront in a situation in which uncritical consumption has become the norm.
In this context, and beyond the individual willingness to pursue a critical project, exhibition-
making precisely highlights the need to question a passive reception. As a continuation of
criticism, curatorial practice ultimately suggests that, contrary to a silent or specialized read-
ing – and the limited disciplinary debate that ensues from it – the audience is itself to be
involved in the display of critical discourse. And exhibitions and other cultural actions may just
be the right vehicles to achieve such a goal.

References
Benjamin, W. (1934) “The Author as Producer.” Reprinted in New Left Review 1(62) (July–August
1970).
Foster, H. (1985) “Postmodernism: A Preface.” In H. Foster (ed.), Postmodern Culture. London: Pluto Press,
pp. vii–xiv.
Foster, H. (2001) “Bigness.” London Review of Books 23(23): 16.
Gadanho, P. (2010) “Curating Architecture as Critical Practice.” Abitare 506 (September). Milan: RCS
Mediagroup.
Tafuri, M. (1968) Theories and History of Architecture. New York: Harper & Row.
Varnelis, K. (2012) “Pedro Gadanho: Curating is The New Criticism.” Domus (May). Milan: Editoriale
Domus.
5
ARCHITECTURAL CRITICISM AND
RADICALISM IN BRAZIL
José T. Lira

Introduction
Architectural criticism in Brazil has been deeply rooted in the quest for cultural identity as
well as in the various responses to the calls for development and emancipating causes. Since
the mid-twentieth century, many Brazilian critics have raised radical agendas to understand
the emergence, decline, or persistence of architectural modernism in view of modernization.
In the 1950s Mario Pedrosa and in the 1970s Sergio Ferro were two important exponents
of a radical strand in contemporary architectural criticism in Brazil. Advancing the limits of
revolutionary discourse, each in their own way, they seem to have extracted from the dramatic
local experience some productive results for the re-evaluation of architecture, modernity, and
criticism.

Background
In 1957, while Brasilia was being built, architect Silvio de Vasconcelos (1916–79) published an
article entitled “Art and Architectural Criticism” in the magazine AD Arquitetura e Decoração.
The lack of a critical approach to architecture in Brazil concerned him. Such lack derived from
several sources, including the autodidactic origins of local architectural critics, their perplexity
in the face of a sudden burst of modern architecture in Brazil, and their immediate affiliation
to its strong demands for legitimacy. For Vasconcelos, a certain consensus among critics and
practitioners seemed to have been achieved, but in such a narrow way that “any unbiased or
dispassionate analysis, any attempt to specify bright or less favorable results, became reckless,
an offense, a position against art itself, a proof of mental or emotional disability” (Vasconcelos
1957). This attitude had supposedly played an important role in the early rejection of both
architectural styles and harsh functionalism. But it was time then – he thought – to move away
from such a dogmatic viewpoint, which deprived Brazilian contemporary architecture of a
more thorough examination. Criticism should neither mean self-justification, nor limit itself
to merely visual kinds of appreciation. To Vasconcelos, architecture was not merely concerned
with visible aspects but with experiences and spatial organizations that enhance lifestyles.
54 J. T. Lira

It is notable that this cry for independent criticism emerged at a moment when Modernism
had spread nationwide, establishing itself as a major Brazilian cultural product. Indeed, since
the 1940s, Brazilian modern architecture had gained international acclaim as a creative alter-
native to the rigid standards of the Modern Movement. From Brazil to the US, from Europe
and across Latin America, critics, curators, editors, and historians were fascinated with its
regional wisdom, formal inventiveness, and technical audacity (Martins 1999; Liernur 1999;
Cappello 2006; Tinem 2006). In addition, some of its more sophisticated works had entered
the international canon to mold a Brazilian input to the Modern Movement as a whole,
shaping a coherent narrative about its origins and development, its diffusion as well as its
subsequent decay a few years after the completion of Brasilia (Goodwin 1943; Costa 1952;
Mindlin 1956; Bruand 1971; Santos 1977; Lemos 1979; Forty and Andreolli 2004).
The 1950s also coincided with the first substantial restrictions to Brazilian architectural
formalism, initially affecting local self-esteem, and eventually stimulating new responses. In
Rio de Janeiro, which emerged as the epicenter of Brazil’s modern architecture, such attitudes
reflected a relative intellectual and institutional drive for rationalization, following the cri-
tique launched in 1953 by Max Bill against its baroque and frivolous aspects (Nobre 2008). In
São Paulo, a number of periodicals – like AD itself, which espoused Concrete Art after 1955;
Habitat, directed from 1950 to 1954 by Lina Bo and Pietro Maria Bardi; and Acrópole, which
increasingly assumed a local avant-garde slant on techno-social discourses – took a rather
different perspective on the national debate, later christened São Paulo’s School of Brutalism
(Zein 2005; Junqueira 2009; Dedecca 2012). Even Oscar Niemeyer, who in 1958 acknowl-
edged his skepticism about the social role of architecture, admitted “to have taken to adopt an
excessive tendency for originality” in many of his early projects despite the sense of economy
and logic they required (Niemeyer 1958), a position which, in spite of his own will, would
tend to stimulate self-critical attitudes among younger generations.

A critical bias
In spite of Vasconcelos’s evaluation (1957), and an undeniable hegemony of pro-modern and
national representations, it does seem that a new critical milieu was emerging in the country
by that time. And it was neither always unbiased, nor dispassionate. It was partly composed of
an early generation of professional art critics, such as Mario Pedrosa (1900–81), Geraldo Ferraz
(1905–79), Mario Barata (1921–2007), and Flavio Motta (1923–), attracted to the architec-
tural debate, which had acquired recent importance in the Brazilian cultural landscape. In
other parts, it was formed by practitioners, of whom some were strongly rooted in the field
as major players such as Lucio Costa (1902–98), Oscar Niemeyer (1907–2012), Lina Bo Bardi
(1914–92), and João Vilanova Artigas (1915–85); others were younger or less renowned archi-
tects, who had shifted into more specialized careers as architectural theorists, historians, or
preservationists, like Vasconcelos himself, Edgar Graeff (1921–90), Carlos Lemos (1925–), and
Sergio Ferro (1938–).
To review the entire history of architectural criticism in Brazil would be an impossible
task in this chapter. Its various theoretical foundations and diverse poetic, cultural, and polit-
ical agendas, the productive networks, and the unique individual itineraries it relied upon are
multifaceted. My objective, through an outline of a couple of exemplary individual perspec-
tives, is simply to address a certain bias which seems to have played a creative role in Brazilian
architectural criticism throughout the twentieth century: its trend toward radicalism. I hope
 Architectural criticism and radicalism in Brazil 55

that reconnecting some local critical challenges to Brazil’s modern architecture debate from
the 1950s onwards may help illuminate a few new ways to address the international contem-
porary milieu of architectural criticism.
By a radical bias I refer to a general set of ideas and attitudes that reject the conservative
mentality and political behavior prevailing in Brazil. Such radicalism would eventually shape a
peculiar tradition, intensely responsive to the pressing socio-cultural problems and their cor-
responding aesthetic dilemmas, tending to view them as a whole at the scale of the nation or
even at a larger global scale of modernity. Strongly rooted in the urban enlightened middle
classes, this radical tradition in criticism has often endeavored to identify with the issues raised
by the working class, and at times has assumed a revolutionary stance. But if the radical critic
is mainly an insurgent, and “his thought can advance to really transformative levels, it may
also retreat to conservative ones” (Candido 1995). For it is usually aimed at feasible changes
in the underdeveloped Brazilian society, which is full of oligarchic remains and has often
experienced military interference. It is important to highlight this touch of ambiguity that
permeates the radical sense of commitment because it is potentially open to accommodating
contradicting narratives in Brazil.

Abstraction and revolution

In his article, Silvio de Vasconcelos refers to Mario Pedrosa’s approach to the topic of architec-
tural criticism. Different from Vasconcelos, though, Pedrosa – as an art critic – had reiterated
his dislike for functionalism in architecture, praising the maverick virtues of Brazilian modern
architects who had “sent the functional diet to hell.” For Pedrosa, it was time to overcome the
established “narrow kind of architectural criticism” in order to reach “its specific task, which
is aesthetic appreciation” (Pedrosa 1957a).
Since 1944, when Pedrosa published his first articles on Alexander Calder’s (1898–1976)
solo retrospective held at the Museum of Modern Art (MoMA) the year before, he had
embarked on a radical path toward abstract art and aesthetic criticism (Pedrosa 1944). From
then on, the main issues of the period began to emerge in his writings: the autonomy of art,
relations between art and technology and art and utopia, links between visuality and percep-
tion, debates on abstraction versus realism, integration or synthesis of the arts, etc. It is telling
that he started his career as a critic in 1933 with an essay on “Käthe Kollwitz and the Social
Tendencies in Art,” where he proposed a kind of “proletarian art” able to convert the emo-
tional and collective life of the proletariat into a subject of visual perception (Pedrosa 1933).
Indeed, Pedrosa’s prolific collaboration in several newspapers throughout his life wavered
between art and politics. In 1942, in the face of Candido Portinari’s (1903–62) murals for the
Library of Congress in Washington, DC, recently painted with themes drawn from Brazilian
history, Pedrosa disregarded their gravely nationalist representations. Absorbed in a sophisti-
cated visual analysis of the series, he advocated for aesthetic categories of judgment in clear
reaction to the approach of Socialist Realism (Pedrosa 1947). “Through processes immune to
any recipe, he [Portinari] tends to what one might call de-mythologizing of icons, images and
landscapes. Evading external contingencies of time and place, national or not, he multiplies the
geometric signals in a sort of anxiety for abstraction” (Pedrosa 1943) (Figures 5.1 and 5.2).
Aesthetic value and social commitment could thus be reconciled “in the field of artistic
‘procedures’” (Arantes 1991). The problems then posed to the concept of art by Calder also
seemed to respond to his specific platform on abstraction: the idea of the unfinished work, the
56 J. T. Lira

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

issues of suspension, surprise, and of spatial stimuli, the problems of organizing movement and
contrast, of variable relations of forms in space. “Disembodied of any convention or external
function,” Calder’s works avoided any realistic suggestion (Pedrosa 1944). Nevertheless they
were intimately integrated into collective life. Their prosaic character did not avoid the direct
contact of the people, supposed to move, touch, and push the artist’s Estabiles and Mobiles.They
occupied public squares and gardens with “unseen things, of suggested worlds and unknown
animals, of new fables, dreams, and imaginations, of reanimating silences.”They evoked “motifs
of remote geological eras or omens of things yet to exist” in such a way that one could label
it “a democratic art because it can be made of anything, fit anywhere, in the service of any
condition, noble, rare or unusual,” for it revitalized and transformed “the everyday lives and the
sad environment in which the large brutalized masses vegetate” (Pedrosa 1944).
As such, revolutionary art could never be seen as cultural nutrition to sustain a mass revo-
lution. Its function was not to compete with mass communications, but to specify and isolate
unperceived angles of an ever-changing visual realm. It was therefore only a path to a “revolu-
tion in sensibility” (Pedrosa 1952).The role of the critic would then be to question if an archi-
tectural work embodied certain aesthetic impulses (Pedrosa 1957b), or else “to simply and
immediately perceive architecture as such” (Pedrosa 1957c). To do so, the radical critic could
not avoid being “partial, passionate nor political.” In a Baudelairian way, he should search for
a point of view that opened up more horizons (Pedrosa 1957d).
By the 1950s Pedrosa had definitely reached one of the most active and influential posi-
tions in the Brazilian art world, heading important art movements, lecturing and publish-
ing intensely, spreading established and supporting emerging art theories, counseling young
 Architectural criticism and radicalism in Brazil 57

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

artists, curating some of the most remarkable exhibitions of the time, and becoming a leading
name in the International Association of Art Critics in Brazil (Arantes 1995). In a lecture
given in Paris in 1953 he addressed the overall modern architectural production in Brazil.
Highlighting the “revolutionary state of mind,” Pedrosa related its militant dogmatism to the
belief in the democratic virtues of mass production. As for Brazilian architecture, “the new
builders” seemed to rely too much “upon the power of dictators to implement their ideas.” It
had of course remarkable aesthetic qualities: the inventive design of the brise-soleil, for instance,
controlling light and heat as well as animating façades through pictorial and graphic effects; the
lightness of structural solutions and unusual combination of materials; the imaginative articu-
lation of surfaces, volumes, and spaces; the integration of interior space, the outdoors, and the
landscape; the games of free forms, even at the expense of the program; and its new sense of
monumentality (Figures 5.3 and 5.4). Nevertheless there was a clear contradiction between
its social ideals and the concerns for power representation and self-promotion. Its luxurious
forms precisely derived from such original trade with dictatorship (Pedrosa 1953). Like an
“island” or an “oasis” in the vastness of the country, they reinforced the gap between intentions
and potentialities in modern architecture in Brazil.
FIGURE 5.3 Oscar Niemeyer, Dance Hall in Pampulha, Belo Horizonte, Brazil, 1940–1943
Source: photo by Gustabo Neves da Rocha Filho. FAU-USP’s Library. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/
by-nc/3.0/deed.pt_BR

FIGURE 5.4 Oscar Niemeyer, Casino in Pampulha, Belo Horizonte, Brazil, 1940–1943
Source: photo by Eduardo Kneese de Mello. FAU-USP’s Library. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/
deed.pt_BR
 Architectural criticism and radicalism in Brazil 59

Brasilia would later emerge as a synthesis of the utopian dimension of this creative will, “a
transition from utopia to planning” (Pedrosa 1958), “a hypothesis of reconstructing a whole
country” (Pedrosa 1959). And precisely therein rested much of its hybrid and uncertain char-
acter, programmatically vague and somewhat anachronistic as the last of the modern cities in
the world, reminiscent of a tradition of colonial settlements (Pedrosa 1957e). If Brasilia paves
the way to an ideal city as a true work of art, if it has created a physical and spiritual prospect
for the whole of Brazil, only on the day it becomes “the real capital of a new country,” will
it actually correspond to the highest economic, social, ethical, and cultural levels it aspires to.
And then,

from the top of this platform the regional will be subsumed in the national, the national
in the international, and the nation’s inequalities will be dismantled. A new Brazil
will have its own messages, its own voices, its own modes, and its own art as well, all
perfectly intelligible to any other messages within the semiological system of global
communication.
(Pedrosa 1973)

By 1973, when this last article was published, the city had been taken over by the military
regime and Pedrosa was living in Chile as a political exile, accused by the Brazilian govern-
ment of having vilified the nation.

Material work and liberation

By the end of the 1950s, Sergio Ferro was studying architecture at the University of São Paulo.
In 1963, he co-authored with his colleague Rodrigo Lefèvre an article called “Initial Proposal
for a Debate: Possibilities for Action.” The title manifests a critical approach to practice, emer-
ging from the dilemmas posed to architecture in an underdeveloped country, which was
booming economically since the end of World War II, and which had recently inaugurated its
new capital. For them, any architectural action in Brazil inevitably faced a “situation in con-
flict” between the expansion of productive forces and the vital needs of the people. In spite
of aesthetic or technical qualities achieved by any work of architecture, major contradictions
were constantly undermining its social relevance. As such, any contemporary achievement
in design work should always be evaluated in light of the larger processes of production, the
division of labor, alienation, and commodification within the building process (Ferro and
Lefèvre 1963). The established idea of architecture as a luxury item, and of criticism as a kind
of evaluation foreign to the real needs of producers and consumers, expressed the degree of
gentrification to which the professional practice had surrendered (Ferro et al. 1965).
Sergio Ferro belongs to a generation of architects created by the critique of Brasilia and of its
corresponding development ideology, which would lead him to a break with modern architec-
ture.This break in Brazil was particularly clear within the Faculty of Architecture and Urbanism
at the University of São Paulo (FAU-USP) by the end of the 1960s and staged through the con-
frontation over the relationship between architectural practice and social change (Arantes 2002;
Koury 2003; Williams 2009). On one hand, there was architect and professor Vilanova Artigas,
one of the main leaders of modern architecture in Brazil, leading the immediately preceding
generation at FAU. He advocated for the ability of a professional elite to deliver revolutionary
solutions, and posited the need to see design as a compromise between intentions and means
60 J. T. Lira

FIGURE 5.5 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.

(Artigas 1967). On the other hand were his young disciples Ferro, Lefèvre, and Flávio Império,
who belonged to the so-called Nova Arquitetura group, and who had just begun to teach at
the school. Disregarding professional niceties at a moment when Brazil had been taken over by
a military regime, they criticized the prevailing commitment of architecture to a conservative
kind of modernization in Brazil. According to Ferro, this commitment had clear impacts on the
processes of construction. The despotic command of design intensified the huge complex of
forces that seemed to increasingly submit millions of workers to exploitation and inefficiency
on the building sites (Ferro 1967) (Figures 5.5, 5.6, 5.7).
This general hypothesis about the break between design and building referred to the entire
history of visual perspective from its invention in the Renaissance to its applications in the
first machine age. But Ferro’s approach would lead to the critique of Brazilian contemporary
architecture as well as his own group’s work:

The new architects, raised within this tradition (of Niemeyer and Artigas) to which the
primary concern was the large collective needs, have been feeling, approximately since
 Architectural criticism and radicalism in Brazil 61

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

1960, a widening gap between their broad training and expectations, and the narrowness
of their professional tasks. … Hence this kind of hillbilly Brutalism (as opposed to the
aestheticist European Brutalism), its forced “didactization” of construction procedures,
its excessive constructive rationalization, its “economism” which generates ultra-dense
spaces, [is] rarely justified by objective requirements, etc.
(Ferro 1967)

Such an approach owed a lot to a wider Brazilian and Latin American debate on devel-
opment and underdevelopment, seen as part of an uneven development of world capitalism,
which inspired many artists and intellectuals of the period to take sides with the working classes
(Arantes 2004). Ferro would interpret that tendency by shifting the focus of architectural ana-
lysis from design achievements to the “relations of production” in the building realm. Critical
work should thus focus on the huge gap between the local “mannerist elite of architects,” aes-
thetically updated and liberating, and the gigantic unskilled workforce, crushed by some of the
most violent conditions of production and excluded from all the benefits of modernization.
62 J. T. Lira

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

In 1976, Ferro started to publish parts of the book that soon would turn him into one
of the most pervasive – and inconvenient – Brazilian architectural theorists. O Canteiro e o
Desenho (The Building Site and Design), first published as a book in 1979, is not an account
of Brazilian architecture. Drawing from Marx’s theory of “fetishism” (Marx 1995), the author
refers to modernity at large to grapple with the manufacturing condition of the architectural
object and the schism between thinking and making, duty and power. He refers to the impact
of a book edited a few years prior by Andre Gorz, The Critique of the Division of Labor, as a
pathway to the study of “commodity’s fetishism,” forgetfulness and foreclosure (Ferro 2011).
“If design sets itself as an instant mobile of production, and if it prints in it its symbolic script,
it is because it materializes separation and reifies disruption” (Ferro 1977). It is thus

an indispensable tool for despotic direction. To speak about design, as we know it now,
connotes dependence and despotism. Because it was made what it is through the separ-
ation of reason from concretion, and through the violent disruption of production. …
Design is thus one of the embodiments of the heteronomy of the building site. It is an
obligatory path for the extraction of surplus value and cannot be separated from any other
kind of drawing for production.
(Ferro 1982)

There was no other way to decipher the farce of architecture except by referring to its mater-
ial making and to its role on the production of space as “exchange value.”
The book was published while Ferro was in France, where he was sent into exile for having
joined the armed resistance to dictatorship. Indeed, in 1973 he joined the architecture school
 Architectural criticism and radicalism in Brazil 63

at the University of Grenoble, founding an experimental laboratory around the concept of a

“constructive idea” (Ferro 1994). In a work published much later, the author clarifies his own
methodological alternative. For him, architecture was always marked by the complexities and
tensions within its production and should be seen as a whole, involving material investment,
architectural schemes and projects, execution, reception, use, and management. Any analysis
of a piece of architecture should thus not focus on the object alone, but on its constructive
genesis within the realm of a political economy (Ferro 1996).
More recently Ferro has reconnected to the Brazilian architectural milieu, where many of
his ideas have been either received enthusiastically or harshly refused. For some, Ferro’s focus
on the basic contradictions of work relations has had a paralyzing effect on design practice.
For others, as a practitioner, he has been understood as a source of experimental architecture,
while, as a critical theorist, he could be seen as having paved the way to new readings of archi-
tecture able to deny the oppressive tendencies of modern production.

Conclusion
No questions remain about the persistence of radical representations in Brazil, still now rather
potent in the regional architectural system, as well as operative in architect’s collective mem-
ory, imagery, and aspirations. They have varied in terms of objects, categories, strategies, and
discourses, and eventually surrendered to the limits of their own historical material and the-
oretical choices. It is interesting, though, to realize how much this radical bias has contributed
to the understanding of modern architecture as a global force.
Both Mario Pedrosa and Sergio Ferro were strongly influenced by their local backgrounds
and had to deal with contemporary economic, political, and ideological dilemmas in Brazil: cul-
tural closure and creativity, modernization and authoritarianism, development and underdevel-
opment. But in light of the discipline, their approaches to architecture seem the most innovative
and refreshing. Indeed, their connection to the international states of mind concerning criti-
cism and design has often been forgotten. In Pedrosa’s case: the fatigue with functionalism, the
appeal to new kinds of monumentality and publicity, the concept of modernity as an unfin-
ished, movable, and always surprising project. In Ferro’s case: the contemporary investigation of
critical, reflexive, theoretical, empirical, communitarian, or non-designed architecture.
In fact, Pedrosa’s insistence on the aesthetic power and public relevance of architecture, and
Ferro’s obsession with the material relations in which architecture is inevitably engaged, seem
to have illuminated areas usually neglected by the majority of contemporary architectural
criticism.Their approaches thus are relevant for the understanding of architectural production
not only in a developing country like Brazil, but anywhere where art and labor have devel-
oped in modern terms.This cosmopolitan output from a locally grounded perspective, despite
its specific contingencies and obstacles, is possibly where a great contribution to the expansion
of critical horizons in architecture may still be found.

References
Arantes, O. B. F. (1991) Mário Pedrosa: itinerário crítico. São Paulo: Editora Página Aberta.
Arantes, O. B. F. (1995) “Dados biográficos (cronologia).” In M. Pedrosa, Política das artes. São Paulo:
Editora da Universidade de São Paulo, pp. 349–63.
Arantes, P. F. (2002) Arquitetura Nova: Sérgio Ferro, Flávio Império e Rodrigo Lefèvre, de Artigas aos mutirões.
São Paulo: Editora 34.
64 J. T. Lira

Arantes, P. F. (2004) “Reinventing the Building Site.” In A. Forty and E. Andreolli (eds), Brazil’s Modern
Architecture. London: Phaidon, pp. 170–201.
Artigas, J. B. V. (1967) “O Desenho.” In Artigas, Caminhos da Arquitetura. São Paulo: Cosac Naify, 2004,
pp. 108–18.
Bruand, Y. (1971) “L’Architecture contemporaine au Brésil.” Paris: Université Paris IV (PhD
dissertation).
Candido, A. (1995) “Radicalismos.” In Candido, Vários Escritos. São Paulo: Duas Cidades.
Cappello, M. B. C. (2006) “Arquitetura em Revista: arquitetura moderna no Brasil e sua recepção nas
revistas francesas, inglesas e italianas (1945–1960).” São Paulo: Universidade de São Paulo (PhD
thesis).
Costa, L. (1952) Arquitetura Brasileira. Rio de Janeiro: Ministério da Educação e Saúde.
Dedecca, P. G. (2012) “Sociabilidade, Cr ítica e Posição: o meio arquitetônico, as revistas especializadas e
o debate do moderno em São Paulo (1945–1965).” São Paulo: Universidade de São Paulo (Master’s
dissertation).
Ferro, S. (1967) “Arquitetura nova.” In Ferro, Arquitetura e trabalho livre. São Paulo: Cosac Naify, 2006, pp.
47–58.
Ferro, S. (1977) “II – O Desenho.” Almanaque 3: 74–101.
Ferro, S. (1982) O Canteiro e o Desenho, 2nd edn. São Paulo: Projeto.
Ferro, S. (1994) “Programa para polo de ensino, pesquisa e experimentação da construção.” In Ferro,
Arquitetura e trabalho livre. São Paulo: Cosac Naify, 2006, pp. 222–32.
Ferro, S. (1996) “Questões de método.” In Ferro, Arquitetura e trabalho livre. São Paulo: Cosac Naify, 2006,
pp. 233–40.
Ferro, S. (2010) A história da arquitetura vista do canteiro: três aulas de Sérgio Ferro. São Paulo, FAU-USP.
Ferro, S. (2011) “História da arquitetura e projeto da história, entrevista a Felipe Contier.” Designio 11–12:
113–26.
Ferro, S. and R. Lefèvre (1963) “Proposta inicial para um debate: possibilidades de atuação.” In Ferro,
Arquitetura e trabalho livre. São Paulo: Cosac Naify, 2006, pp. 33–36.
Ferro, S., R. Lefèvre, and F. Império (1965) “Arquitetura experimental.” In Ferro, Arquitetura e trabalho
livre. São Paulo: Cosac Naify, 2006, pp. 37–44.
Forty, A. and E. Andreolli (eds) (2004) Brazil’s Modern Architecture. London: Phaidon.
Goodwin, P. (1943) Brazil Builds: Architecture New and Old, 1652–1942. New York: Museum of
Modern Art.
Junqueira, M. (2009) “Poéticas da razão e construção: conversa de paulista.” São Paulo: Universidade de
São Paulo (PhD dissertation).
Koury, A. P. (2003) Grupo Arquitetura Nova: Flávio Império, Rodrigo Lefèvre e Sergio Ferro. São Paulo:
Romano Guerra/EDUSP/FAPESP.
Lemos, C. (1979) Arquitetura Brasileira. São Paulo: Melhoramentos/EDUSP.
Liernur, J. F. (1999) “The South American Way.” Block 4: 23–41.
Martins, C. A. F. (1999) “Hay algo de irracional …” Block 4: 8–22.
Marx, K. (1995) “Commodities.” In Marx, Capital: A Critique of political Economy.Volume I, Book I, Part
I. Marx/Engels Internet Archive.
Mindlin, H. (1956) Modern Architecture in Brazil. Rio de Janeiro/Amsterdam: Colibri.
Niemeyer, O. (1958) “Depoimento.” Módulo 9: 3–6.
Nobre, A. L. (2008) “Fios Cortantes: projeto e produto, arquitetura e design no Rio de Janeiro (1950–
1970).” Rio de Janeiro: Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio de Janeiro (PhD dissertation).
Pedrosa, M. (1933) “As tendências sociais da arte e Käthe Kollwitz.” In Pedrosa, Política das artes: textos
escolhidos I. São Paulo: Editora da Universidade de São Paulo, 1995, pp. 35–56.
Pedrosa, M. (1943) “Portinari: de Brodósqui aos murais de Washington.” In Pedrosa, Dos Murais de Portinari
aos Espaços de Brasília. São Paulo: Perspectiva, 1981, pp. 7–25.
Pedrosa, M. (1944) “Calder, escultor de cata-ventos.” In Pedrosa, Modernidade cá e lá: textos escolhidos IV.
São Paulo: Editora da Universidade de São Paulo, 2000, pp. 51–66.
 Architectural criticism and radicalism in Brazil 65

Pedrosa, M. (1947) “Pela independência da arte.” In Pedrosa, Política das artes: textos escolhidos I. São Paulo:
Editora da Universidade de São Paulo, 1995, pp. 67–68.
Pedrosa, M. (1952) “Arte e revolução.” In Pedrosa, Política das artes: textos escolhidos I. São Paulo: Editora
da Universidade de São Paulo, 1995 pp. 95–98.
Pedrosa, M. (1953) “A arquitetura moderna no Brasil.” In Pedrosa, Dos Murais de Portinari aos Espaços de
Brasília. São Paulo: Perspectiva, 1981, pp. 255–64.
Pedrosa, M. (1957a) “Arquitetura e cr ítica de arte I.” In Pedrosa, Dos Murais de Portinari aos Espaços de
Brasília. São Paulo: Perspectiva, 1981, pp. 269–71.
Pedrosa, M. (1957b) “A critica de arte na arquitetura.” In Pedrosa, Dos Murais de Portinari aos Espaços de
Brasília. São Paulo: Perspectiva, 1981, pp. 273–75.
Pedrosa, M. (1957c) “Arquitetura e cr ítica de arte II.” In Pedrosa, Dos Murais de Portinari aos Espaços de
Brasília. São Paulo: Perspectiva, 1981, pp. 277–79.
Pedrosa, M. (1957d) “O ponto de vista do critico.” In Pedrosa, Política das artes: textos escolhidos I. São
Paulo: Editora da Universidade de São Paulo, 1995, pp. 161–64.
Pedrosa, M. (1957) “Reflexões em torno da nova capital.” In Pedrosa, Dos Murais de Portinari aos Espaços
de Brasília. São Paulo: Perspectiva, 1981, pp. 303–16.
Pedrosa, M. (1958) “Utopia – obra de arte.” In Pedrosa, Dos Murais de Portinari aos Espaços de Brasília. São
Paulo: Perspectiva, 1981, pp. 317–19.
Pedrosa, M. (1959) “Introdução à arquitetura brasileira II.” In Pedrosa, Dos Murais de Portinari aos Espaços
de Brasília. São Paulo: Perspectiva, 1981, pp. 329–35.
Pedrosa, M. (1973) “A bienal de cá para lá.” In Pedrosa, Política das artes: textos escolhidos I. São Paulo:
Editora da Universidade de São Paulo, 1995, pp. 217–84.
Santos, P. (1977) Quatro Séculos de Arquitetura. Rio de Janeiro:Valença.
Tinem, N. (2006) O Alvo do Olhar Estrangeiro: o Brasil na historiografia da arquitetura moderna, ed. João
Pessoa. Universidade Federal da Paraíba.
Vasconcelos, S. de (1957) “Critica de arte e arquitetura.” AD Arquitetura e Decoração 24.
Williams, R. J. (2009) Brazil (Modern Architectures in History). London: Reaktion Books.
Zein, R. V. (2005) “A arquitetura da escola paulista brutalista 1953–1973.” Porto Alegre: Universidade
Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (PhD dissertation).
6
SUPERFICIAL MATERIAL SIMILITUDE
Galia Solomonoff

Introduction
This chapter explores architecture through the lens of material manipulation.We see architec-
ture through the lens of materiality, both visual and tactile.When the brain receives conflicting
signals – the eyes show a world that is still, for example, and the body through the equilibrium
sensors located in our ears senses the conflicting signals of a moving environment – it results
in one feeling nauseated, seasick. This discordance causes the mind to send to the whole body
a general alarm signal: stop all activities, this can be damaging! And in particular it halts the
most complex of all our activities: the digestion process.
My argument here is that the body is equipped to sense and compile contradictory infor-
mation received by its many sensors. If spatial signs are sensed to be incongruent, I argue,
the trained eye feels a sense of discomfort – or pleasure – a sense that something is not the
way it is supposed to be. Since much of the architecture we know of today is communicated
via visuals, privileging the eye – glossy magazines, the Web, PowerPoint lectures, and clients’
rendered presentations – the photographic, the 3D render, and the diagrammatic representa-
tion have taken precedent over the “real” first-hand experience of architectural space. When
visiting architecture, one engages much more than the visual sense. Aspects of climate, atmos-
phere, and sound, for example, determine our impression of space and time. Limiting our
decision-making in architecture to how it looks, is like buying tomatoes on the Web; there is
a 50 percent chance that it tastes as good as it looks. Guiding our critique of architecture to
constant references to how something looks is forgetting how important the other senses are
to determining how something feels and how much time and place determine our choices of
space and material.

Materials
Three-year-old children playing with water and sand develop a sense of weight and volume.
It looks like play, but real equivalences are being studied. Would that amount of water fill that
given bucket, would that amount of pressed sand come out of the bucket with a simple tilt
 Superficial material similitude 67

or require pounding, how much does this bucket weigh, can I lift this bucket if the content is
water, what about if the same bucket is filled with sand? Over that crucial experimental stage,
we develop a sense of weight and volume that will serve us to gauge the world we encoun-
ter. It connects us with matter and makes us able to assess materials and create expectations
accordingly. Later, when we encounter a three-foot cube that looks made of stainless steel we
won’t attempt to lift it; if the same volume looks inflated by air we may kick it gently and
expect it to rise up; when certain surfaces don’t match our expectations of weight or depth we
feel confused, or some of us, delighted. Architects – or sculptors; I argue here as an architect
yet I understand this as common turf – manage expectations of volume and weight at every
turn. Manipulating these expectations carefully and calibrating them to spatial effects is the
key to tectonic beauty.
With digitalization and industrial production, the manipulation of architectural materials
has achieved a greater range. Stone can be cut ultra thin, a superfine coat of impervious plas-
tic can be applied as a shield to almost any leather or wood, the fibers of paper and glass can
be layered to create a flexible material of great strength. One can shave marble so thinly that
a high-rolling room in Las Vegas can seem superficially similar to an ancient Roman marble
temple – same size, same surface, yet a fraction of the marble used. The material appears the
same, the surface may look the same, it may photograph equally well – yet it is not the same.
The joints, depth, and weight, when accessible to examination, tell a different story for each.
Over time, we have developed material groupings and techniques of assemblages that per-
form certain functions and deliver specific effects. Masonry is the oldest tectonic group-
ing. The oldest discovered bricks, made from shaped mud, dating to before 7,500 B C , were
found in the upper Tigris region and in southeast Anatolia. Other more recent findings, dated
between 7,000 and 6,395 BC , come from Jericho, Catal Hüyük, and the ancient Indus Valley.
Over 10,000 years we have developed an acute and varied ability to pile bricks and stone on
top of one another.These techniques vary throughout the world, yet it is a common and trans-
national tectonic language that we architects have learned to deploy.
Material groupings engender their own details, their own traces. Like many of the archi-
tects I admire, I believe that the materials one uses, the techniques one employs, the details one
assembles, determine the architectural form one realizes.There is a way of building with bricks
true to their physical properties and history of implementation; I refer to this as the “right
way”; and a wrong way of merely pretending to use them, using them as image or artifice.

Proportions
At Dia:Beacon, there are two equal doors, not one, leading into a masonry enclosure. The
doors are narrow for a museum entrance, just 36 inches each and separated by a 12 by 12 inch
concrete square column in between them. The sunlight from the north-facing skylights hits
you after a short walk and at this point a look of confusion often settles upon the face of the
first-time visitor. They are presented with two equally enormous rooms, empty except for 12
sets of almost identical stainless steel circles and square pairs of profiles set on the floor: Walter
De Maria’s Equal Areas, 1977 (Figure 6.1).
This piece features a progression of equal area pairs of a square and a circle. Each pair is an
inch longer than the next, ranging from 6 feet to 7 feet, and the area of each circle matches
the area of the square sitting next to it. Walter De Maria presents the clearest – if dry – phe-
nomenological event in the museum. It is a mathematical proposition. Many feel “it does not
68 G. Solomonoff

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

feel like art,” “it lacks sensuality”; many are not fans of the work. Equal Area was shown first at
an abandoned grocery store at 19 Waverly Place in Greenwich Village in 1977.
Then Thomas B. Hess wrote:

The closeness of the dimensions sharpens your eye for distinctions, just as a long rest
in music alerts you to the faintest sounds. Once you grasp De Maria’s serial theme, you
can try to visualize the 6-foot square nesting with machine precision inside the 6-foot
10-inch one. When this most obvious of interrelationships is clarified, your eye scans
the floor for more subtle ones.You begin to watch circles being squared – the dream of
Pythagoras. You approach the mystery of pi, eternally uneven standard that somehow
finds resolution among de Maria’s steel propositions … There’s a hint of fatality – of
inevitabilities.

Of course proportions can be understood as visual relations yet the De Maria floor piece asserts
that the body in its totality can more fully assess proportions as it relates time and space.
 Superficial material similitude 69

FIGURE 6.2 Galia Solomonoff, Defective Brick, 2000, at Artist Space

Source: Lily Wang.

Techniques
Normally, in architectural production, the architect draws and others execute. In Defective
Brick, a group project I led in 1999, colleagues and students built a 10 by 12 by 14 foot instal-
lation in Artist Space, a Gallery in Soho (Figures 6.2 and 6.3).
The project room was populated with “defective bricks” made from Hydrocal – a plasti-
cized compound of gypsum that cures with water – layered together with vacuum-formed
styrene bricks, using silicone as mortar and aluminum tubes as reinforcement.
Defective Brick was risky. When one builds things, rather than drawing things for others to
build, one becomes aware that we do not build what we want; we only approximate what we
want by building what we can. The point of engaging architects in places such as Artist Space
or Storefront or PS1 is not to transform architecture into sculpture or art, but to allow dif-
ferent experimental techniques and mechanisms to surface in which architects become com-
fortable with building and risking a more improvised or even ridiculed outcome. It engages a
vulnerable aspect of the making process.
BOB was a full-scale experimental pavilion produced with colleagues and students in the
summer of 2011, at Columbia University, GSAPP. It was developed to provide a communal
outdoor space. The outcome was an inflatable plastic white cloud above a public bathroom
and forum, sited on the Columbia University campus (Figures 6.4 and 6.5).
Historically, the pavilion has been a place to instrumentalize, deploy, or promote a specific
cultural, corporate, or national idea or desire. Its simplicity and temporality allow pavilions to
be statement ready structures, able to do or say one thing, rather than accommodate a variety of
purposes over time. Because of their temporary nature also, pavilions are often considered an
70 G. Solomonoff

FIGURE 6.3 Galia Solomonoff, Defective Brick, 2000, at Artist Space

Source: Lily Wang.

FIGURE 6.4 Galia Solomonoff , with Columbia University students. BOB, The Pavilion installa-
tion, 2011
Source: Alex Guerrero.

architect’s opportunity to explore autonomous ideas through building (Figure 6.6). BOB was
an opportunity to discuss public needs and to extend the discussion to the thinly separated
public, corporate, and educational territories.
The inclusion of a toilet was due to the constant omission of public bathrooms in the plan-
ning of urban monuments. For example, the 9/11 Memorial, which opened in 2011 in New
FIGURE 6.5 Galia Solomonoff , with Columbia University students. BOB, The Pavilion installa-
tion, 2011
Source: Alex Guerrero.

FIGURE 6.6 Galia Solomonoff, Solomonoff Architecture Studio. The Pavilion interior, 2011
Source: Galia Solomonoff.
72 G. Solomonoff

York and cost $700 million in public funds (Caruso and Porter 2012), includes no toilets. Our
mantra was adapted from Carl Andre, “A society that does not provide public bathrooms does
not deserve public art” (Andre 1990). By deploying a public bathroom in an academic court-
yard, we acknowledged the gap between lofty cultural aspirations and mundane biological
needs. The scarcity of public bathrooms suggests a broader condition of our society and one
that is relevant to architecture. We, as a group, are invested in projecting a dignified image of
ourselves at the cost of our real needs.When engaging architecture, we architects and architec-
ture critics seem reluctant to provide or account for the real conditions, and ready to construct
and promote photograph-ready images rather than dealing with the messiness of matter and
the less visual needs of the body.
Few projects are realized as they are designed. Experimentation and risk are two sides
of the same coin; one cannot experiment without risk. Often, the powers that be are risk
averse. Columbia’s facilities department reviewed our proposal early in the semester and
expressed approval of the scheme. But in April 2011 when construction was well under way,
they informed us that the composting toilet was no longer permitted. Whether the goal is
art, architecture, or politics, to expand the limit of the known and find new solutions requires
active material engagement and risk-taking to translate the line drawn on the screen to the
mortar drip in the field.

Methods
A disproportionate amount of attention is imparted to the initial phases of architectural work
such as pre-design, schematic design, and design development. My practice is positioned to
engage the proximity and richness in the later phases: construction documents and construc-
tion administration. In New York and in most global centers, architectural tasks are often
divided into two firms; one is assigned the role of design architect, the other the role of
executive architect. The design architect is responsible for setting the parameters, communi-
cating the architectural ideas and strategy to the clients and powers that be, and producing the
architectural work of the schematic and design development phases. This intensely creative
work is then passed on to an executive architectural team that produces the extensive con-
struction documents, most details and specifications, and determines who follows the project
through permitting and construction administration until completion. The division of design
and executive architect is commonly agreed to be beneficial to both teams: the design team
can move on to a new and exciting project quickly and the executive has a long-term engage-
ment, steady work, and larger portion of the fees.The executive firm is commonly understood
as “more corporate” while the design firm is often understood as “more artistic.”
My opinion is that through this fractured method the collective of the architectural profes-
sion gives up a crucial aspect of control and ultimately power. Further, this division distances
the architects from the architecture they produce and allows outside parties to interfere and
arbitrate the relationships crucial to the integrity of the built work. By bifurcating the archi-
tectural responsibilities into teams, i.e. design architect and executive architect, the holders
of capital produce a built environment less engaged with process, matter, and social entities
through fracturing the continuity of thought, creativity, and intent.
The rationale for separating design architects and executive architects is this: by dividing
the tasks between design and executive architect it allows the design architect more per-
ceived freedom, and a quicker turn-around in decision-making, resulting in design firms being
more agile at handling multiple buildings in several continents with a young staff. While this
 Superficial material similitude 73

certainly has a degree of efficiency relating to design quantity, it sacrifices the tenor and depth
of the work and the ability to respond to the needs of local users and social purposes, as well
as erroneously absolving the design architect from engaging in technical realities critical to the
success of the plan. This practice also favors the “diagramatization” of architecture. Diagrams
are useful yet reductive: decisions such as massing and qualities of urban flow get determined
in a fraction of the time really needed to access their lasting effects, and are often finalized
without ever observing conditions “on the ground.” Diagrams are less useful for nuanced
decisions such as material groupings, pattern layering, and transitions from inside to outside,
articulations of light and air and detailing, and life-cycle of the building. For this set of intri-
cate decisions, measured drawings, full-size mock ups, and compiled specification sets are the
preferred medium.The detail part of the architecture process, construction documents, is con-
sidered slow, uninventive, and tedious. I argue the change in pace is a necessary counterpart of
a deeper engagement. By slowing down, the architect acquires a deep engagement with the
material and methods needed to deliver calibrated spaces attuned to their geographical and
climatic settings, and responsive to their users and cultural settings.
Seeing a project all the way through from schematic design to construction administration
is no doubt time consuming. The average length of time of a medium-size project is about
four years.Yet I argue this engagement yields a significantly different result, one that is rarely,
if ever, addressed in the public discussions and criticism of projects. Architectural criticism is
more inclined to show “Design Architects’” initial renderings, sketches and final produced pic-
tures thus forsaking the reality of the project’s resonance, performance, final detail assemblages
or casual pictures, which tend to be the domain of the “Executive Architects.”

Economy
The macro-economic world where architects operate exposes direct correlations in the rise
of architecture and design as a profession, price escalation in real estate, and the emergence
of cities like Dubai (itself already synonymous with rampant, unchecked growth; one even
hears other cities described as “The Dubai of China,” or “The future Dubai of the African
continent”). While architectural practice is certainly not responsible for globalization, it is
undoubtedly instrumental and relevant. There is no corporate stability, state ascendance, or
securitization without the built counterpart. Bricks and gold are the constant collateral of
credit, printed, and magnetic money.
How does the macro-economy affect us, architects? How do global trade, international
advertising, and transnational real estate funds affect our conceptions of architecture and tec-
tonic resolution? There are generational shifts within the profession. Younger architects are
more aware of the power of architects to affect the politics of capital, and the role of money
in structuring relations between power and the built environment.
At Columbia University we ask students to exercise control over the materials deployed,
devise ways of describing the actions performed, use systems of measurement and represen-
tation, and challenge the relationships between objects, bodies, space, and atmosphere; this is
a good start but insufficient. The studio’s dictum and desire is that by the end of their studies,
students are well versed in the common language we architects share; they understand both its
research and propositional modes. This common language allows us, both young and experi-
enced architects, to frame our divergences and to formulate individual expressions of form and
thought in the physical world. We use this language of measurable drawings to explore, test,
deploy, and build but also resist preconceived notions. The aim is to arm architects to bridge
74 G. Solomonoff

the gap between theory and fieldwork, between drawing and directing a building team, and
between public discourse and bureaucratic approvals.
“I have always thought that between morality, in the widest sense of the term, and econ-
omy, there is, or there should be, a common purpose, or basic coincidence. Economy is respect
for the neighbor; … respect for the gifts received,” said Eladio Dieste in an interview I con-
ducted at his studio in Montevideo in 1994 (Dieste 1994). He was concerned with what he
called cosmic economy, a profound ethical and practical connection between resources and
economy. “I have never thought that an element, responding to its theoretical and mechanical
context, could ever be ugly.” He viewed the waste of resources with disdain and strived to cre-
ate forms that adapted to the laws of matter with a sense of religious and cosmic austerity.
If architects, specially the new generations, would engage in the discussion of power struc-
tures and the role of design in the broader societal context, then we would be in a better
position to assert our larger potential in the transformation of our cities and environments. If
we stop privileging the visual and image-making which lends itself too easily to a superficial
position of architects as urban beauticians, then we could embark on a deeper relation with
the economic structures and the material culture that supports it.We have a common language
and tools to participate in contemporary political and aesthetic discussions and supplant nov-
elties and superficial fashionable image-making.

Conclusion
Materials and methods are determinants to culture and the production of form. Materials
dictate to a great extent what gets built and the normative methods of how something gets
built. Original methods like Dieste’s (Dieste 1994) defy what a material can do and deliver
forms that are unusually beautiful and extraordinarily plastic for a given place. The expansion
of spatial possibilities and the delivery of expressive forms are mostly possible when a new
method of arranging material arises. Method – more than material – is the territory that
expands expression; originality is achieved when one, as individual or group, has control and
can extract precision of new techniques. In a sense, expression is the excessive quality of a
given method asserted on a given material grouping.
Refuting the separation between theory and practice, developing a practice that is inclusive
of critical ideas, social theories, and aesthetic concepts is in a way its own form of “criticism
from within.” There is no reason for us, middle career architects, to accept a lesser form of
practice. We have the expertise to teach, write, and build. We have the tools to communicate
and engage the place where we live fully.There is no reason, economic or otherwise, to accept
the premise that architecture is weak or dependent on the powers that be, as architecture as
symbol and reality crystallizes most of the aspirations of any social group. The buildings we
build are the best consequence of the people we are.

References
Andre, C. (1990) “Interview: Journal of Contemporary Art.” http://www.jca-online.com/carlandre.html
Caruso, D. and D. Porter (2012) “World Trade Center Memorial Magnificent, But at a Steep Price.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/09/world-trade-center-memorial-2012_n_1868462.
html
Dieste, E. (1994) Personal communication: interview.
7
THE PERFORMANCE OF BUILDINGS,
ARCHITECTS, AND CRITICS
Thomas Fisher

Introduction
Buildings have to perform, accommodating the needs of inhabitants and accomplishing fun-
damental tasks like keeping out the rain or holding in the heat or cooling. Likewise, the archi-
tects who design buildings and the critics who assess them have to perform, meeting their
professional responsibilities in the case of architects as well as garnering the attention of their
audience in the case of critics. These various roles can seem at odds with each other. Some
architects in the Howard Roark mold and some critics in Oscar Wilde fashion act as if con-
cerns about the performance of a building are beneath them. At the same time, some experts
in building performance sound like philistines when they dismiss the aesthetic concerns of
architects and critics as a waste of time. Those polarized positions misunderstand what unites
all three: their performance.
That misunderstanding stems, in part, from a tradition of seeing architecture as a visual
art. That tradition has led architects and critics to focus on the form, space, and materials of a
building, often assuming that it functions in the same way that artists and art critics assume that
a painter knows how to apply paint correctly and so nothing needs to be said about it. That
assumption changes, though, in light of the technological advances and increased complexity
of buildings, causing us to view architecture not as a visual, but instead as a performing art
(Figure 7.1). As in a theatrical, musical, or dance performance, the work of everyone involved
in it matters: the performers, but also the director, set designer, sound engineer, costume crew,
and so on. Like the performing arts, architecture also relies on the work of a project team – not
just the architects, but the consultants, contractors, clients, inspectors – all of whose perform-
ance matters to the end result. And like the performing arts, architecture creates an experience
for all who engage in it, and its success or failure at least in part depends on that.
Including architecture in the performing arts seems timely, as thinking about what con-
stitutes performance has greatly expanded over the last several decades. The field of “per-
formance studies” emerged in the 1970s, combining the traditional performing arts with
social sciences like anthropology, sociology, and political science, and its practitioners study
everything from religious rituals to community celebrations to political protests to workplace
76 T. Fisher

Architecture is less:
a static visual art we see than... a dynamic performing art we enact.

AN* «“AL
H ' .' r

FIGURE 7.1 Architecture is less …

Source: author.

protocols as performances (Turner, 1986; Schechner 1988, 2002; Carlson 1996). The literature
in performance studies almost never mentions architecture except as the backdrop to these
other kinds of performances, and so plenty of opportunity exists for the architectural discip-
line to join this conversation.
A few have recognized that opportunity. Books like Architecture: A Performing Art (Andrews
1991) and Performative Architecture: Beyond Instrumentality (Kolarevic and Malkawi 2005) have
connected architecture and performance, although they range from an explication of one
architect’s own buildings to a diverse collection of essays based on a conference.
The performance and movement of users has also informed theories of space in popu-
lar architectural discourse, most notably in Bernard Tschumi’s Manhattan Transcripts (Tschumi
1995). In general, though, architecture has remained disconnected from the discipline of per-
formance studies, which makes almost no reference to our field in its literature or core con-
cepts. In this chapter, I hope to make that connection by drawing on concepts developed in
performance studies to understand how we might design, evaluate, and critique buildings in
new and more integrated ways.

Architecture as performance
What changes when we conceive of architecture as a performing rather than a visual art? It
shifts our attention away from thinking of a building as an aesthetic object created by an archi-
tect toward inquiring into how it came to be, how many people engage with it, and how it
changes over time, much as we would the performance of a play or musical piece. The role of
the building evaluator and critic changes as well. A building becomes not something to look
at and judge, like a painting, but instead something to experience and assess on its own and in
comparison with other work, as we might a drama.
Perhaps the greatest change comes in valuing the work of everyone involved in archi-
tecture. Viewing architecture as a visual art has led to an over-emphasis on the work of the
design architect, with very little if any attention paid to the large teams of people who design,
detail, and construct a building and not enough attention paid to how the building performs
after completion in terms of its operation and inhabitation. Unlike most of the visual arts,
the performing arts remain a collective and collaborative activity that has a life long after the
playwright, composer, and choreographer have completed their work, with the continual
 The performance of buildings, architects, and critics 77

reinterpretation of its meaning and purpose by those who perform and experience it. The
same holds true for architecture, which of all the arts remains one of the most collaborative
and most expensive, with all of the people involved in it deserving of recognition and their
work, worthy of assessment.
Not everyone plays the same role in the performance of architecture. Architects remain
the instigators of work and the ones who orchestrate its design and construction much as a
conductor or director would do. The inhabitants of a building play a role similar to that of
the audience in a performance, experiencing the production over and over and responding
to it in subtle ways and altering it in the process. And the evaluators and critics of a building,
like those in the performing arts, serve to capture those responses and assess the meaning of
what they have seen and heard, benchmarking that against other performances and situating
the work in the history of the field, to current thinking in the discipline, and to the ideas and
values of a culture or community.
Performance studies has identified several ways of thinking about what it means to perform,
each of which has something to offer architecture. I will look at three of these conceptual frame-
works, and connect them to the design, evaluation, and criticism of buildings (Bell 2008).

Mimicking, making, and moving

Aristotle viewed performance as a kind of mimesis or mimicking of life, which we experience
in order to better understand ourselves (Aristotle 1952; Goffman 1959). In modern times, the-
orists like the anthropologist Victor Turner have argued that performance involves “poiesis,”
the Greek word for making, in the sense that we make or enact our culture as we perform
(Turner 1982). Others like the ethnographer Dwight Conquergood have likened perform-
ance to “kinesis,” the Greek word for moving, arguing that when we perform, we challenge
cultural norms and move culture forward in the process (Conquergood 1992).
Those ideas about performance have also played out in architecture (Figure 7.2). Most
architects prior to the twentieth century, for example, largely engaged in a kind of mimesis,
mimicking the styles of previous buildings in incremental and evolutionary ways. Over the last
century, poiesis and kinesis came to characterize architecture much more, with the modern
emphasis on the making of architecture and on architecture showing how it was made, as well
as on originality of architecture, moving the field forward by breaking with the past.
Architectural education has followed a similar path. Most students begin with imitation
(mimesis), referencing the work of those who have come before them and to some degree
mimicking the ways of thinking and speaking that characterize the discipline. As students
become more proficient, they begin to make more original contributions to a field (poiesis)
and in some cases, make a discovery or frame an argument that moves the entire field forward
(kinesis).
That same framework also applies to the roles that architects, critics, and building evalua-
tors play. Those who evaluate the performance of buildings do so through a kind of mimesis:
gathering data about an extant building, comparing those findings to established benchmarks,
and assessing them in terms of the existing literature. They do not mimic, but they do adhere
closely to what we know in order to understand a new situation. And while they are not
mimes, they do attend to the subtle ways in which bodies inhabit and interpret space.
The designers of buildings perform a kind of poiesis. Even when influenced by the past or
an existing context, architects almost always make something new: physically, in the form of a
78 T. Fisher

The Performance Cycle

AN
AN
AN AL

AL
AL
I

I
2.

Thesis, the inspiration, leads to ... Mimesis, riffing on the original, which leads to .

Poiesis, simplifying it, which leads to ... Kinesis, creating something uncannily new.
AN

AN AL
ANAL

jl
Ef
<

ii
%M :
f
1
AL

i| -
-5 5
I I s
FIGURE 7.2 The performance cycle
Source: author.

new building or renovation, and culturally, reflecting their own ideas as well as those of clients
and communities. Like the ancient poets who first engaged in poiesis, architects obviously play
a central role in the making of architecture, but rarely do they fully understand the meaning
of what they have made.
That role falls to the critics, who operate through kinesis: assessing where the field is mov-
ing, what has helped or not helped it move forward, what constitutes a move backward, and
what all of this movement means. Critics, in that sense, serve as intellectual kinesiologists,
studying the movement not of bodies, but of minds, not just the thinking of individual crea-
tors, but also the collective mind of the discipline and the larger culture.
Like actors in a play, the architect, critic, and building evaluator have complementary roles
to play in the performance of architecture. One does not trump the other nor can one occur
without the other, any more than a play can run without all of its characters interacting on an
equal footing. All three roles – mimesis, poiesis, and kinesis – contribute to successful perform-
ance, and that remains as true for architecture as for theater, music, and dance.

Enabling, knowing, and judging

A performer needs to have the ability, knowledge, and judgment to perform and here, too,
performance studies has something to offer architecture. The ability to perform goes beyond
talent and technique of the performer; it includes the ability of people to attend a perform-
ance. In that sense, a performance constitutes a community of all of the people involved in it –
the performers and audience as well as everyone else responsible for some aspect of putting it
on. And in the process, a performance can create a group identity or challenge assumptions of
the community of people involved (Bell 2008). A building does the same. The ability of those
who design and construct it remains just one part of an ongoing process in which the building
enables – or inhibits – others from performing their duties as they live and work.
 The performance of buildings, architects, and critics 79

Performance Characters

AN AL
ANAL
AN AL
|

ALAL
Poser: superior to the audience

AN
|

AL
|E A p

AN
1

AL
b |

AN
sb [-[ a O u/

D U C fv

AN
tE C O ft-A T eo SH£C>

Ironist: at the same level as the audience Buffoon: inferior to the audience

FIGURE 7.3 Performance characters

Source: author.

Performance also involves a way of knowing, a way of learning about others and also about
ourselves. This notion of performance suggests that we understand some things only through
their enactment, “in and through the body,” as Elizabeth Bell puts it, and through the careful
observation of bodies in space. Architecture performs in this way as well. It creates the spaces
within which bodies move, relationships occur, and interactions of all sorts happen among
people. A building offers not only the setting within which people perform, but also a reflec-
tion of how we enact our daily lives.
Finally, performance offers a critical perspective as well. Every performance, in some way,
comments upon the world around us and a good performance should leave us questioning
our assumptions and imagining new ways of being in the world. Good architecture should
do the same. A building never offers a neutral background to the dance of life; every decision
made about a building involves a critical assessment of a situation and even when a building
makes an attempt at complete anonymity, that in itself serves as a critique of those buildings
that don’t.
Architecture always engages all three modes of performance. It enables the people who
make or inhabit it, it reveals things about ourselves in the process, and it forces us to make a
judgment about it, positively or negatively. Still, different players in an architectural perform-
ance may emphasize one mode or another.
The designer of a building typically serves an enabling role, creating the spaces within
which the relationships, identities, and cultures of people play out. The evaluator of architec-
ture, in contrast, often takes the knowing role, concentrating on what we understand about
a building through careful observation and precise measurement of its performance. And the
critic, in turn, plays the critical role, raising questions about what a building means, about the
assumptions behind it, and about what it suggests about the larger world of ideas or things.
The ancient Greeks distilled those three roles into stock characters: the poser who acts
superior to the audience, the ironist at the same level as the audience, and the buffoon inferior
to the audience (Aristotle 1952) (Figure 7.3).
80 T. Fisher

In Greek comedy, the ironist typically deflates the poser’s ego, while the buffoon makes
witty asides to the audience. And that same comedy sometimes plays out in architecture, as the
evaluator’s data about a building may deflate overblown claims of its designer, while the critic
makes comments on the side. This can create tension among the three character types, but as
the Greeks knew, they all play a key role in a successful performance.

Explaining, revealing, and story telling

We go to performances for essentially three reasons, to engage in some sort of story, told
through words, music, and/or movement that explains or reveals something important about
the world. The sociologist Paul DiMaggio has categorized theory in a way that also applies
to performance. We have “narrative” performances that tell us how the world works, “cover-
ing” performances that explain what the world is, and “enlightenment” performances that
help us see the world in a new way (DiMaggio 1995). DiMaggio argues for hybridizing
these types and that advice applies to architecture as well. Every building, to some extent,
results from a narrative about a situation that reflects what clients or communities face at
present and that reveals what they hope for the future. And every actor in the architectural
performance – the architect, critic, and building evaluator – have to do this as well, telling
some sort of story about what a building is and what it will enable those who inhabit it to
do or become.
And yet, here too, everyone in an architectural performance has his or her own part to play
(Figure 7.4). The architect has to tell a story about past work in terms of the present com-
mission as well as construct a narrative about how a new design responds to what those who
commissioned it wanted.The evaluator of a building, once completed, has to cover as many of
the facts about it in order to assess its performance and explain to others what the data show.
Finally, the critic has to enlighten others about a building in some way, convincing an audience
why it matters and helping people see not just a building, but also the world around them in
a new way, fresh with possibility.
Every performance, like every theory, says DiMaggio, is a “social construction after the fact,”
a way of understanding or justifying what has happened or what we have done (DiMaggio
1995). That remains true of architecture too. Architects respond in intuitive as well as rational
ways to a client’s needs and building’s program and site, and often the story about how and
why a design evolved becomes an after-the-fact rationalization of decisions, the larger mean-
ing of which the architects may not fully understand. A different “after-the-fact” quality per-
tains to the building evaluator and critic as well. Both have to respond to what already exists,
the social and physical construction of architecture. And both have to construct a story after
the fact to explain what they have found or what they see there, whether it be an explanation
about why a building does not work as intended or an argument about why a building does
not live up to its aspirations.
If a performance requires all three activities – story telling, explaining, and revealing – the
last of the three, though, distinguishes good work from great.We all like a good story and value
a clear explanation, but art at its best reveals something fundamental that we haven’t yet real-
ized or something new that we haven’t thought of before. We seek out performances in hopes
of finding such revelation, which helps explain why people will go to extraordinary lengths to
visit great buildings. Such structures continue to enlighten us in some way.
 The performance of buildings, architects, and critics 81

Perform ance Roles

The Designer: Constructs the narrative

The Evaluator: assesses the facts The Critic: reveals the unseen
FIGURE 7.4 Performance roles
Source: author.

A new role for the critic

From that perspective, there exists a hierarchy among the three players we have followed in an
architectural performance.While the visual arts have traditionally privileged the architect over
all others, the performing arts suggest a different sorting of roles. The playwright and com-
poser, like the architect, play the key role of providing the material that gets performed and as
with a theatrical script or a musical score, the architect’s design becomes the basis for all the
other action. Likewise, as with a director or conductor, the orchestrator of a building – the
person who understands how it all goes together – also plays an essential role. That analytical
function, be it of a contractor prior to a building’s completion or a performance evaluator
afterward, makes the work a reality and makes it last.
Still, in the performing arts, the interpreters of the work – the actors, musicians, and danc-
ers – tend to get the most attention. They become the “stars” that audiences relate to, in part
because the audience members see themselves in or resonate with the performers. In archi-
tecture, that interpretive role remains largely unfilled. “Star” architects have tended to fill that
vacuum as interpreters of their own work, even though, as the work’s creators, they often don’t
fully understand its larger meaning.
This suggests, instead, a new role for the critic, not as someone who just tells a story about
a building or just explains what it might mean, but also someone whose interpretations of a
building reveal something new about the world around us and about others and ourselves.
Such critics have existed in architecture: Jane Jacobs almost single-handedly stopped modern
urban renewal and Robert Venturi turned austere modernism on its head (Jacobs 1961;Venturi
1966). But we need many more such critics willing and able to do the same, interpreting the
82 T. Fisher

architectural world in some revealing or enlightening way … as I have tried, successfully or

not, to do here.

References
Andrews, J. (1991) Architecture: A Performing Art. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Aristotle (1952) Poetics, trans. Ingram Bywater. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Bell, E. (2008) Theories of Performance. London: Sage.
Carlson, M. (1996) Performance: A Critical Introduction. New York: Routledge.
Conquergood, D. (1992) “Ethnography, Rhetoric, and Performance.” Quarterly Journal of Speech 78:
80–123.
DiMaggio, P. (1995) “Comments on ‘What Theory is Not.’” ASQ 40: 391–97.
Goffman, E. (1959) The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. New York: Anchor Books.
Jacobs, J. (1961) The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York: Random House.
Kolarevic, B. and A. Malkawi (2005) Performative Architecture: Beyond Instrumentality. New York:
Routledge.
Schechner, R. (1988) Performance Theory. New York: Routledge.
Schechner, R. (2002) Performance Studies: An Introduction. New York: Routledge.
Tschumi, B. (1995) The Manhattan Transcripts: Theoretical Projects. New York: St. Martin’s Press/Academy
Editions.
Turner,V. (1982) From Ritual to Theatre. New York: PAJ Publications.
Turner,V. (1986) The Anthropology of Performance. New York: PAJ Publications.
Venturi, R. (1966) Complexity and Contradiction in Architecture. New York: Museum of Modern Art Press.
REFLECTIONS ON PART II
Daniel S. Friedman

Following Part I (Introduction), in its exploration of the intellectual history and milestones
of modern architectural criticism, the authors of Part II begin to set the stage for this book’s
review of emerging methods of inquiry that take “architecture beyond criticism.” In itself,
this theme opens up a broad space for fresh interpretation. Lurking beneath each chapter is
an historical tension between science and hermeneutics. Aesthetic interpretation of building
form and empirical assessment of building performance seem like two incompatible traditions
of thought. The question of their convergence could not come at a better time, since the
entire industry, theory included, is shifting rapidly toward orientation to objective evidence
and data. The chapters, both in the previous Part I and the Parts III–V that follow, try to sort
out whether empirical evidence has a place in cultural criticism; whether cultural criticism
can effectively engage the technical complexity of environmental systems, both human and
natural; and whether between them there could not be emerging opportunities for authentic
hybridity, for an improved and integrated or synthetic approach, such as the habitability frame-
work proposed in Chapter 1, among others described in this volume. Allow me to call the
convergence of these two distinct vocabularies – one empirical, the other hermeneutical –
“built environment criticism.”
Can criticism properly understood accommodate these two estranged intellectual tradi-
tions, separated since the mid-twentieth century by what C. P. Snow described as “a gulf of
mutual incomprehension” (Snow 1959)? To be sure, the role of the critic is distinct from that
of the architect or scientist, different also from the constellation of agents and actors who
produce, operate, and occupy buildings. Likewise, the role of the critic is different from that
of the scholar for whom architecture and its variegated contexts are targets of design inquiry
and research. A critic’s job, Ezra Pound declares, is to “make a personal statement, in re meas-
urements he himself has made … KRINO, to pick out for oneself, to choose. That’s what the word
means” (Pound 1934). Dictionaries agree: a critic is “a person who judges the merits of literary
or artistic works, especially one who does so professionally”; as Pound notes, it comes from
the Greek word krinein, to judge or decide (Oxford English Dictionary 2014). In this context
judgment is not juridical, but it often involves moral, ethical, and aesthetic pronouncements,
sometimes based on objective evidence, but most of the time based on informed opinion.
84 D. S. Friedman

Architecture ≈ classical music

Part of the challenge of assessing architectural criticism’s proper role and subject is to stabil-
ize what it is we’re talking about when we talk about architecture. Into this question Tom
Fisher introduces a novel swerve that deserves more exercise (Fisher, Chapter 7). His argument
for architecture as a performing art puts me in mind of a prescient comment issued by the
novelist William Gibson during a presentation at Peter Eisenman’s 1990 Anyone conference.
This was the first of eleven such conferences Eisenman hosted in the run-up to the new mil-
lennium: “If the people who are currently building nanotechnology and virtual reality have
their way with us, I think that what we think of today as architecture will be considered as
something like classical music … I don’t think architecture will even be an issue if technology
runs the course that it’s currently setting for itself ” (Gibson 1991). In the two decades since
Gibson offered these remarks, virtual technologies – parametric design, geographic infor-
mation systems, building information modeling, and product life-cycle management, among
other developments – have transformed architecture and the building industry. Suppose in its
slowness to adapt to these seismic changes, architecture is indeed heading the way of classical
music. What are some of the implications of this analogy?
Gibson, who coined the term “cyberspace,” issued this prediction before a small, select
audience of the world’s leading avant-garde thinkers. Gibson seemed to infer that high archi-
tecture – physical, permanent, heavy, expensive, arcane, and self-referential – might further
reduce to the kind of connoisseurship Aaron Davis references in his Chapter 2. Gibson’s ana-
logy questions high architecture’s relevance, not its integrity, since so long as there is an elite
workforce capable of producing and performing classical music, there will always be a small
but persistent audience willing to pay to listen to it. Classical music will always count, no
matter how small the audience is, likewise highbrow architecture. Wealthy individuals, cor-
porations, cultural institutions, governments, well-resourced arbiters of fashion, and collectors
of fine art will always seek some measure of what David Remnick calls “wildness” – “too far
enough” (Remnick 2012).
With that said, let’s take Gibson’s analogy at face value – let’s say architecture in fact “goes
the way of classical music.” The United States has 117 orchestras with budgets in excess of
$2.5 million. This number suggests that the country supports fewer than 12,000 full-time
payroll positions to support public demand for the live and recorded performance of classical
music, roughly 11 percent of the total number of registered US architects. If architecture goes
the way of classical music, assuming comparable rates of attrition, by extrapolation the need
for intern architects would reduce from 5,000 per year, the current rate, to roughly 440. If
Gibson’s prophecy comes to pass, the market would require about five schools of architec-
ture, down from the current roster of 130 accredited programs. Surviving schools might then
assume the role of elite music conservatories, supplying the pipeline for the dozen or so large
offices we’ll need to sustain design and produce what Michael J. Lewis calls “swagger building”
(Lewis 2002). Needless to say, a reduction in demand of this magnitude might also influence
the structure of state regulation.
If such a future leads to the diminution of licensed practice, we therefore might also witness
a shift back to vocational training to supply the construction and real estate industries with
digital modelers, much the way musicians who train in high school and college supply the mar-
ket for the much broader and robust popular music industry. These recharacterized programs
might become lesser departments of architecture, operating like today’s lesser departments
 Reflections on Part II 85

of music, servicing majors who contemplate careers in commercial as distinct from cultural
production, in service to real estate developers and contractors. Programs in building informa-
tion management might likewise proliferate, the twenty-first-century equivalent of “drafting,”
delivering to the market a skilled workforce able to manage the virtual modeling platforms
that enjoy increasingly wide use in the construction industry. Strictly speaking, building infor-
mation management needs no regulation, so long as there are professional engineers nearby to
oversee building systems, technology, structure, and safety.
If virtual reality has its way, Gibson seems to say, economic forces will either shrink or trans-
form the demand for architectural services, further diminishing the profession’s authority and
relevance, further shrinking its public intelligibility, further limiting the number of architects
who achieve the status and recognition with which we associate success, and further confin-
ing its value to the appetites and budgets of wealthy patronage and philanthropy. As for the
rest of the tiny percentage of buildings in the developed world designed by licensed architects,
much like commercial songs and soundtracks, they will pass by borne on the wide currents of
popular culture, forgettable because trivial. That said, classical music, like art and theater, will
still need its few famous critics.
There is not a little merit in Gibson’s prediction, as far as it goes. Twenty-five years later,
the profession still lionizes Pritzker laureates and still covets scarce magazine covers, despite
the fact that so few architects can expect to see their efforts ever published. Moreover, the
global, hyper-democratic space of teletechnology and social media generates and disgorges
novelty at a rate that almost precludes lasting recognition. Celebrity still depends on older,
slower media – books, magazines, newspapers – which increasingly favor photography and
graphics over text, since fewer and fewer members of the profession and the general public
read reflectively. Even without industry data to support these trends, the audience for high-
style architecture – like the audience for high art and classical music – represents a minuscule
fraction of the number of people on this planet who might benefit from architectural know-
ledge – who, for example, still lack safe, habitable dwellings, workplaces, and neighborhoods,
such as the 60 percent of the planet (4.8 billion people) who suffer inadequate sanitation, or
the 30 percent (2.5 billion people) who lack any sanitation whatsoever (Hensman 2013).
Despite such discouraging ratios, design fame remains the pinnacle of achievement in both
the education and practice of architecture.The aforementioned Pritzker Prize and the American
Institute of Architects’ Gold Medal recognize achievement in building design and building
design alone. Not surprisingly, most of architectural criticism, and most academic studio crit-
ics, reward objects and their appearance over what Fisher characterizes as their “performance,”
though this is a far more appropriate program of evaluation, since in theater and film more
people enjoy high recognition for “back of house” technical achievements. The problem is not
design in itself; great design will always generate what Stan Allen calls “difference that makes a
difference” (Allen 2009).The problem is rather the peculiar way the schools and the profession
bind design into practices that habituate criteria for success. About the worst thing you can say
about a student of architecture is that he or she isn’t a very good designer, and we see no rush
to challenge the values on which critics base anointment and dismissal.

Architecture ≈ design
So what’s partially at stake in the discourse on the future of architectural criticism is the future
of the profession. Increasingly, architectural educators argue that we should recast professional
86 D. S. Friedman

education as a foundation for alternative careers in design outside conventional practice and
licensure. These educators envision architecture as part of a much larger field of “good design,”
spanning the full spectrum of scales, from typefaces to territories. Few advocates argue this
perspective more forcefully than Paola Antonelli, curator of art and design at the Museum of
Modern Art. Antonelli’s assessment of design’s relationship to government and policy greatly
extends its boundaries. She calls for “design applied not as a mere aesthetic or functional tool
but as a conceptual method, based on scenarios that keep human beings in focus, with the
means consequently allotted in elegant, economic, and organic ways to achieve the imagined
goals.” She reminds us that design helped shape empires, dictatorships, and democracies. Her
argument suggests that design reasoning applies to social as well as physical morphologies and
processes, which by extension expands the integrative properties of architectural problem-
solving beyond building form to any number of formal and political problems. Professional and
post-professional curricula therefore can serve as the basis for alternative career paths that opti-
mize architecture’s unique understanding of design methodology in fields outside traditional
practice, such as marketing, organizational theory, and business management (Antonelli 2011).
Antonelli’s vision offers architecture new horizons of opportunity at a moment of profound
technological and economic reorganization. However, the ultimate cost of this expansion may
be the protected status of the title “architect,” which though greatly respected within this
enlarged domain of practice may eventually pull loose from its weakened professional moor-
ings, leaving what remains of licensure to burnish the identities of culturati and connoisseurs,
the one-half-of-one percent wealthy enough to commission mansions, skyscrapers, museums,
and symphony halls, with or without concern for design that improves health, reduces carbon,
or adapts to changes in program or climate.
With that said, evidence suggests the beginnings of a shift in architectural criticism toward
interdisciplinary perspectives.Take for example Places, an august print journal founded in 1983
by MIT architecture faculty, which in 2010 migrated to a website founded by the Design
Observer Group, a consortium led by the socially progressive graphic designers Michael
Beirut, William Drentell, and Jessica Helfand (Places 2014). The editorial diversification of
Places augurs the diffusion of architectural criticism into Antonelli’s expanded field, alongside
unregulated design disciplines – for example, graphic, product, and urban design – that prac-
tice at both smaller and larger scales. For its part, science has similarly introduced new, hybrid-
ized media for a new kind of integrative criticism, best demonstrated in the success of Places’
counterpart, a digital magazine called SEED – catchphrase “science is culture” – that features
both short-form criticism covering science’s intersection with an exhilaratingly diverse index
of 68 topic areas, blending science, engineering, policy, art, design, and economics within a
single, coherent discourse (SEED 2014). Taken together as two examples of true intellec-
tual hybridity, the editorial content of Places and SEED bridges the gulf between design and
science. This gap earns further analysis in the parts and chapters that follow, where authors
explore the commensurability of criticism and evaluation in our broadened engagement with
environments whose boundaries expand beyond architecture in both directions, from the scale
of hospital rooms and furniture to the scale of urban parks and cities.

References
Allen, S. (2009) Practice: Architecture Technique + Representation. New York: Routledge.
Antonelli, P. (2011) “We Have Only Begun to Tap into Design’s Real Potential to Serve as a Tool for
Policymaking, Governance, and Social Agendas. When Used Correctly, It Can Integrate Innovation
 Reflections on Part II 87

into People’s Lives.” SEED Magazine, February 1. http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/on_

governing_by_design/ [accessed January 1, 2014].
Gibson, W. (1991) “Text(v)oid.” In Anyone. New York: Rizolli, pp. 162–63.
Hensmen, C. (2013) Keynote presentation. AIA Seattle Data-Driven Design Forum, December 10.
Lewis, M. J. (2002) “The ‘Look-at-Me’ Strut of a Swagger Building.” The New York Times, January 6.
Places (2014) http://places.designobserver.com
Pound, E. (1934) ABC of Reading. London: Routledge.
Remnick, D. (2012) “David Remnick on Bob Dylan.” Radio Silence (radio broadcast, September 4).
http://vimeo.com/48856703 [accessed December 24, 2013].
SEED (2014) http://seedmagazine.com
Snow, C. P. (1959) The Two Cultures: And a Second Look. The Rede Lecture, 1959. New York: Cambridge
University Press, 1964.
This page intentionally left blank
PART III

Plurality of perspectives on
criticism in architecture
This page intentionally left blank
8
MEDIA COVERAGE AND USERS’
REACTIONS
Al Azhar Park in Cairo re-examined

Ashraf M. Salama

Introduction
This chapter examines the hypothesis that projects celebrated in the public or specialized media are
not necessarily meeting users’ expectations or satisfying their needs. This premise is derived from the
contemporary design discourse that emphasizes that influential publications foster the image
of architecture as art and only art (Nasar 1986; Sanoff 1991; Salama 1995). They present the
formal aspects of the work of star architects where the creation of the built environment is
seen within geometric abstract and artistic terms. It is possible to assert that in the media
typically very little attention is given to users’ feedback or behaviour, needs or expectations.
Furthermore, it is widely acknowledged that a considerable portion of the general and archi-
tectural media still adopt the view of architecture as art; thereby the media content is expected
to be supportive of this view. Stemming from this argument, the purpose of this chapter is
to examine whether the intensive media coverage of Al Azhar Park, a massive project that is
portrayed as a new green lung for Cairo, as a sustainable urban development project indicates
its success from the users’ perspective.
A multilayered methodology was devised in a manner that involves the implementation
of two investigation mechanisms. The first is a preliminary content analysis of a total of 64
online and printed publications that covered the project in reporting, descriptive, as well as
analytical terms. The objective of this procedure is to discern the way in which the project
was portrayed in the media and what aspects were most praised. The second mechanism is a
survey that involves users’ reactions to park design, nature of activities, and management issues.
Responses from 184 users were analysed while relating aspects celebrated in the media to
users’ feedback. By developing knowledge on how the users and visitors of Al Azhar Park per-
ceive the project and how the spatial qualities meet their needs, an in-depth insight into the
understanding of the merits of the project is developed. In addition, assessing different aspects
of the park may reveal specific shortcomings, which could eventually lead to recommending
ways of improvement.
92 A. M. Salama

FIGURE 8.1 View of Al Azhar Park to the north

Source: photo by Gary Otte, Aga Khan Trust for Culture, Geneva.

Spatial quality and key design features of the park

Spatial quality involves physical, symbolic, behavioural, and experiential aspects (Rapoport 1970).
Thus, selected physical features of the project at the micro, meso, and macro levels are intro-
duced to underscore some of these aspects. The park was conceived to include: main spine
(palm colonnade); formal gardens; hilltop lookout kiosk; hilltop restaurants; children’s structured
play area; children’s amphitheatre and stage; lookout plaza; water cascade and stream; and lake
(Figure 8.1). These elements are missing from most public spaces in Cairo and consequently
the behavioural and experiential aspects underlying spatial quality (Salama 2008). Relating its
visitors to Cairene heritage, the park was strategically planned, by Sites International, to pro-
vide an exceptional panorama of prominent monuments. From the hilltop restaurant in the
northern section of the park towards Cairo Citadel runs a linear main spine that ends at the
southern section of the development at a man-made lake and a lakeside café (Figure 8.2),
which provides scenic views to mosques and minarets. Branching from the main spine are
many smooth and flat areas of lawn, fountains, and flowering trees and plants (AKTC 2001).
Dramatically situated adjacent to the lake is the lakeside café, designed by the French archi-
tect Serge Santelli, overlooking eye-catching views (Figure 8.3). It offers a remarkable balance
FIGURE 8.2 View to the north of the park through the main spine
Source: author.

FIGURE 8.3 View to lakeside café through the lake

Source: author.
94 A. M. Salama

FIGURE 8.4 Front view of hilltop restaurant showing outdoor terraces and the Mamluk architec-
tural motifs adapted to create a contemporary image in harmony with the context
Source: author.

between contemporary style and principles of Islamic gardens. Such principles include the
prevalence of symmetrical forms, the use of water features, the commonness of shaded areas,
and wooden screens (Mashrabiya).These features are manifestations that the park enjoys unique
symbolic qualities and that it was conceptualized as a series of areas and enclosed zones along
the central passage system. The hilltop restaurant is located in the north, designed by local
architects Ramy Al Dahhan and Soheir Farid to simulate conventional Mamluk architectural
motifs and themes. It encompasses large indoor and outdoor open spaces on different ground
levels (Figure 8.4) that include an external terrace, internal banquet hall, a gallery space, and
a manzara (roofed overlook porch). Further north is a small amphitheatre with a stage which
serves the park’s musical programme and nearby services were created on the western side
facing a major round twelfth-century tower. Adding to the experiential quality of the park, sev-
eral other features include car-free zones where visitors may be transported within the park
by a small rubber-tyre train, while its operations team uses electric vehicles (i.e. golf carts). In
addition, tree lighting and lighting of the water elements are used with the intention to pro-
vide sufficient lighting, thus allowing the public to visit until midnight. Usable green spaces
were maximized to take up to 10,000 persons on any given day (AKTC 2001).
While the preceding analysis concerns itself with the micro level, at the meso level the
redevelopment of Darb Al Ahmar district and the restoration of the Ayyubid wall and other
landmark buildings are important manifestations. The clearance of the slum upon which the
park was built was part of a socio-economic drive, intended to improve the overall condition
of the surrounding district. Buildings of historical value and homes were renovated. After
surveying the area’s residents, a list of priorities as viewed by the community was developed
and included training programmes, sanitation, housing rehabilitation and renovation, micro-
 Media coverage and users’ reactions 95

finance, employment, and health care. At the macro level, Al Azhar Park’s profile is much
appreciated by the larger city.

Media coverage of Al Azhar Park scrutinized

In examining the media coverage of Al Azhar Park project a number of procedures were con-
ducted. First, all the available articles were collected, together with clippings or announcements
from a wide variety of sources including printed and online published texts of newspapers,
magazines for public consumption, and specialized trade architectural and design magazines
for professionals. A total of 64 articles, written in English and published during the period
between 2002 and 2005, were identified for investigation. Second, a ‘content analysis’ proced-
ure was conducted to examine the selected articles involving the following steps:

• Reading through all the articles to get a preliminary sense of the range of concepts or
issues involved.
• Repeating the previous step while citing all the major issues to identify and establish cat-
egories of concepts and terms and their underlying meanings.
• Conducting a search in order to determine frequency of concepts or terms where the
written text would match the established categories. It is noted that the underlying con-
cepts or terms that represent essentially the same issues are cited under the same heading
or category.
• Transforming the categories of ideas or concepts into numerical values.

The concepts or terms identified to perform the investigation included:

• Redevelopment, which includes meanings that pertain to revitalization, rehabilitation,

and restoration.
• Slum Clearance, which encompasses meanings related to soil, garbage, and poverty.
• Cairo’s Past, which involves terms such as Islamic Heritage, or reference to specific
historical eras.
• Recreational Space, which refers to words or phrases that include fresh air, pollution,
greenery, green space, and oasis.
• Socio-Economic Development, which refers to community related issues including com-
munity involvement, employment, and loans.

The results convey that the project was portrayed as a ‘Redevelopment’ project where the total
frequency of this category appears to be the highest among other established categories as it
was mentioned 24 times in the 64 articles and clippings examined.This includes aspects related
to rehabilitation, restoration, and such like. The project was also portrayed as a ‘Recreational
Space’ offering opportunities for the surrounding community and Cairene society at large to
perform public activities in a green environment they had missed for decades. The frequency
of ‘Recreational Space’ appears as the second category among others where associated issues
were stated 19 times. The categories of ‘Slum Clearance’ and ‘Cairo’s Past’ appear to be equally
mentioned where the issues and underlying meanings related to them were stated 16 times
for each.The ‘Socio-Economic Development’ category occupies the lowest frequency as its under-
lying issues were stated only 9 times in 64 articles.
Frequency of concepts

Redevelopment which includes meanings that pertain to revitalization, rehabilitation, and 24

restoration
Spring 2004 Not specified CAIRO BLOOMS World Monuments 39–45
ICON
Ex.1 The challenge was to revitalize this heritage in ways that turned traditional notions about cultural
monuments on their head – that rather than being a drain on resources, they could be a stimulus
for social and economic development.
01.05.2004 Philip Jodidio CAIRO’S FIVE The Art Newspaper pp. 26
CENTURIES OF
Ex.2 RUBBISH
Apart from the restoration of a large section of the Ayyubid Wall, the AKTC has also undertaken
extensive renovation and social work in neighboring Darb Al Ahmer.
Slum Clearance which includes meanings related to soil, garbage, and poverty 16
11.11.2004 Not specified MONUMENT TO http://www.weekly. n/a
FANCY ahram.org.eg
Ex.1
… the 500-year-old heap of debris proved quite a challenge, requiring excavation of a total of
1.5 million cubic meters of rubble and soil – the equivalent of 80,000 truck loads.
20.10.2004 Nicolai A VISION OF International Herald n/a
Ouroussoff GREEN IN Tribune
Ex.2 CAIRO
Built over a mountain of debris that had served as the city’s garbage dump for centuries, it also
replaces one of Cairo’s most trenchant symbols of poverty and decay.
Cairo’s Past which involves terms such Islamic Heritage, or reference to specific historical eras 16
22.08.2002 Nevine El-Aref ISLAMIC CAIRO Al Ahram n/a
REBIRTH
Ex.1 … the Ministry, in collaboration with the Aga Khan Trust for Culture, launched a program to
preserve part of Cairo’s Islamic heritage and save this distinguished Ayyubid architecture from
destruction.
01.04.2004 Jacky Tuinstra EGYPT’S NEWEST Egypt Today 62–63
JEWEL
Ex.2 “The [Ayyubid] wall is one of the most important Islamic finds of the modern day,” says AKTC’s
Francesco Silva, who explains that it will be a focus of an interpretive visitor’s center, which will
provide the kind of information about Islamic Cairo that tourists now lack.
Recreational Space which refers to words or phrases that include fresh air, pollution, greenery, 19
green space, and oasis
01.07.2004 Sylvia Smith DARB EL AHMAR Horus (Egypt Air pp. 24–27
PARK PROJECT In-flight)
Ex.1 IN CAIRO
More than 250 royal palms have been planted with another 100 date palms … Overall there are 300
plant types and from each of these thousands of examples will fill the park with color and fragrance.
01.11.2004 Deborah MONEY FOR Walrus n/a
Campbell NOTHING, A
RENO FOR
Ex.2
FREE
Orchards and formal gardens of native Egyptian plants are interspersed with sunken gardens that
lead to a pavilion-café perched on a small lake.

FIGURE 8.5 Categories of concepts/terms utilized in the content analysis of media coverage of Al
Azhar Park
Frequency of concepts
Socio-Economic Development which refers to community related issues including 8
community involvement, employment, loans
20.11.2003 Gretchen A NEW PUSH The Christian Science n/a
Peters TO CLEAN UP Monitor
THE WORLD’S
Ex.1
SLUMS
“This project has allowed us to save the urban fabric of this historic neighborhood,” says Mohamed
El Mikawi, the project manager. “More important, we are creating jobs and giving them a future.”
07.10.2004 Amina Khairi AL-AZHAR Al-Hayat n/a
PARK, CAIRO’S
Ex.2 GREEN LUNG
In addition to a loans program, the Foundation is undertaking a number of projects in this quarter,
which will create new working opportunities.

FIGURE 8.5 (cont.)

Source: author.

TABLE 8.1 Compelling titles used by the media to project and depict Al Azhar Park

Powerful and compelling titles

No. Date Author Article or clipping title Media title Pages

1 29.03.2005 Not specified CA IRO ’S H E A RT GET S ‘ GREEN The Egyptian 7
LU N G ’ T R A N S PLA NT Gazette
2 27.11.2004 John Daniszewski CA IRO D IG S IN TO IT S PA S T Los Angeles Times n/a
TO G IVE PA R K-S TA RV ED
R E SID E N T S A N OA S IS
3 12.03.2005 Hadani Ditmars A SH O CK O F G REEN IN Globe and Mail n/a
CO N CR E T E CA IRO
4 01.04.2003 Paul Bennett CA I RO, O N CE T HE PA RIS O F T HE Architectural Record 79–80
N ILE
5 21.09.2004 Maria Golia PA R A D ISE IS A GA RDEN, A ND The Daily Star n/a
CA IRO N OW HA S IT S OWN
6 23.10.2004 Lisa Kaaki A L A Z H A R PA R K: CA IRO ’ S Arab News n/a
GREEN JEWEL
7 11.11.2004 Not specified M O N U M E N T TO FA NCY Weekly.ahram. n/a
org.eg
8 01.04.2004 Jacky Tuinstra E G Y PT ’S N E W E S T JEWEL Egypt Today 62–63
9 07.10.2004 Amina Khairi A L- A Z H A R PA R K, CA IRO ’ S Al-Hayat n/a
G R E E N LU N G
10 Spring 2004 Not specified CA IRO BLO O M S World Monuments 39–45
ICON
11 01.01.2005 Sylvia Smith A BR E AT H O F FRES H A IR Open Skies 53–56
12 27.10.2004 Seif El-Rashidi E G Y PT ’S LA R G E S T GREEN S PACE Architectural Record n/a
13 28.03.2005 Sophie Claudet FRO M G A R BAG E DUMP TO AFP (Agence n/a
G A R D E N S O F S PLENDO R France Presse)
14 22.08.2002 Nevine El-Aref ISLA M IC CA IRO REB IRT H Al Ahram n/a
15 01.05.2004 Philip Jodidio CA IRO ’S FIV E C ENT URIES O F The Art Newspaper 26
RU BBISH

Source: author.
98 A. M. Salama

Two major aspects are important to note; the first is that the titles of some articles may refer
to a category of concepts or terms while the content of the article places emphasis on another
category; the second, which is a result of the first, is that the majority of the articles refer to
more than one category. However, the classification and quantification of categories was based
on the explicit expression of concepts and terms rather the implicit meanings that might be
left to the interpretation of the reader.
By and large, the project was presented before its completion and was depicted after its
occupancy in the media as a sustainable urban conservation intervention that translates cultural,
social, and economic needs, hopes, and aspirations into a physical reality. It was dramatically
represented as a successful project that addresses multiple issues of concern to the immediate
context of Darb Al Ahmar district of old Cairo, to the Governorate of Cairo, and to the Cairene
society. Figure 8.5 illustrates all the categories utilized in the content analysis with two examples
of articles representing each category. Prominent, catchy, compelling, and powerful article titles
were used to attract the attention of the reader to the merits of the project (Table 8.1). Fifteen
titles out of a total of 64 appear to be most attractive and involve some powerful messages.

Users’ reactions to Al Azhar Park design qualities

A questionnaire was developed to address key issues emerging from the analysis of the
media. It involved users’ reactions to park design, nature of activities, and management issues.
Questionnaire forms were distributed by the research team over five visits to the park during
the summer of 2005. Responses to closed ended questions were analysed based on simple
frequency counts, while content analysis was utilized to evaluate responses to open ended
questions. The following analysis is limited only to select key results.

Reactions to the overall planning and design of the park

Rating the overall park design in terms of ‘excellent, good, fair, or bad’ illustrates that the majority
of respondents believe that it is either excellent (61.5 per cent) or good (38.46 per cent). While
28 per cent of the respondents have not stated the reasons for selection, those who responded
mentioned one or more of the reasons as shown in Table 8.2. Notably, expressing the local cul-
ture (22 per cent) and the variety of activities (20 per cent) were the most important reasons
for rating the quality of design as excellent or good, while spaciousness (8 per cent) and views
(10 per cent) were less important.Twelve per cent of the respondents stated that the relationship
between buildings and green spaces is an influential factor for their judgement of design. While
the park serves all types of people in terms of socio-economic and cultural backgrounds, their
selections and the reasons for those selections exhibit the fact that the park is visited by enlight-
ened users who are able to comprehend the environment in which they live.When people were
asked to comment on the park as an urban intervention, and whether it has promoted cultural
awareness of Cairene heritage, and whether it has impacted the surrounding community posi-
tively, 42 per cent agree with these statements, but 18 per cent do not see the connection and
look at the project as a separate entity that does not support recreation and entertainment.

Key places from users’ perspective

Selecting the best place for users to spend their time when they visit the park, the majority of
the respondents selected both the gardens and fountains leading off from the main spine (31
 Media coverage and users’ reactions 99

TABLE 8.2 Reasons for users’ ratings of the park design as excellent or good

Reasons for users’ rating Percentage

The design brings Arabian influence and utilizes greenery very well with 22
fountains … Design is not borrowed from somewhere in Europe or America
Variety of green areas, caf és, and the availability of different types of settings 20
The design of buildings is simple and is in harmony with the landscape 12
It is a spacious and beautiful place 8
It offers nice views to the old city 10
No response 28
Source: author.

per cent) or lakeside café (20 per cent).Those who have selected gardens and fountains as their
best place stated one or more of these reasons: they are quiet and private settings, relaxing, and
peaceful. On the other hand, those who have selected the lakeside café elaborated more and
stated one or more of the following reasons: the freedom of choice to sit in a private area, or by
the lake, or closer to more noisy and vibrant spaces; the intimacy of spaces; spectacular views;
and the variety of tiling patterns.
It appears that the hilltop restaurant and the amphitheatre were the least preferred places
from the perspective of the respondents as they were selected by only 6 per cent and 4 per
cent respectively. Spending time along the main spine appears to be of equal interest with the
children’s play area where each was selected by 12 per cent of the respondents, while the green
space adjacent to major facilities was preferred by 15 per cent. In this respect, it was expected
that the children’s play area and the amphitheatre would be of more interest to the respondents
as the majority of the visitors are families with children.

Best design feature as viewed by park visitors

A number of design features were presented in the survey questionnaire, and respondents were
asked to select one best feature available within the park. It is noted that about 6 per cent did
not respond to the question. In addition, 7 per cent could not make one choice and selected
more than one design feature; therefore their response was not considered valid.
The presence of gardens and water bodies and the gardens around the main spine appear to
be the best design features as viewed by the users; each was selected by approximately 22 per
cent of the respondents.Views to cultural attractions and the presence of cafés seem to occupy
the second level of preference where each was selected as the best design feature by 16 per
cent of the respondents. The main spine itself was the least preferred design feature as only 11
per cent selected it as a best design feature.
Regarding the best feature, those who have selected gardens and water bodies, and the gar-
dens around the main spine as best design features, stated one or more of these reasons: adds
another dimension to the beauty of the park; gives the feeling that the weather is cooler and
temperature is lower during the summer; excellent treatment for Cairo’s climate; well spread
throughout the park; adds to the overall relaxing mood; offers more refreshing atmosphere.
A shared interest across the majority of respondents who have selected views to cultural
attractions as the best feature was that the park should be a major or the first place Cairo
tourists should go to; it is a perfect introduction for them to old Islamic Cairo before they get
100 A. M. Salama

closer to it. Moreover, a considerable percentage (44 per cent) stated that the dramatic scenic
view to Cairo Citadel and Mohamed Ali Mosque and its minarets was a reason for their choice.
On the other hand, those who have selected the major spine mentioned one or more of these
reasons: spending relaxing time for chatting with family and friends; and children can play in
wide green flat areas around the spine, but in close proximity to where their parents sit.

Wayfinding and signage system

Responding to the question about the way in which visitors find their way around the park,
30 per cent stated it is difficult for them to find their way and/or to know their position
within the park, while 10 per cent and 50 per cent mentioned it is very easy or easy respect-
ively.These responses relate to another question on how they value the design of signs and the
signage system as 33 per cent valued signage as ‘bad’, while 36 per cent said it was ‘fair’. Some
of the comments of those who valued signage and sign design as ‘bad’ included one or more
of the following reasons:

• The only visible sign in the lakeside café area is inside the café but there are no maps or
signs near its entrance.
• There is a need to have ‘you are here’ maps.
• Size of lettering is small compared to the size of some signs.
• Because lettering is too small we do not rely on the signs.
• The problem is at night where signs are not easily seen.
• We started to become familiar with the park after our first visit, but first time we came
we were confused.
• Signs are not well distributed in the park.
• While signs are neatly designed they do not satisfy their purpose.

Lights and lighting system

Assessing the lights and lighting system, it is noticed that ‘excellent’, ‘good’, and ‘fair’ are
equally attributed by the respondents whereby 20 per cent is given to each of these qualities.
However, 35 per cent appear not satisfied with lights as a major design aspect and have given
one or more of the following reasons:

• Lights are not good, especially near steps and water channels.
• The level of lighting in most cases, especially in lighting posts, is at the eye level which
is disturbing.
• The areas behind the lakeside café and the side of the hilltop restaurant are not well lit.
• You can see the source of lights only, not the surroundings.
• Lights block vision; you feel they are in the way of viewing the whole location.
• Some places are scary as they are completely dark.

Visiting patterns and users’ activities

The majority of the visitors come with their families (64 per cent) and fewer with friends (31
per cent).Visiting patterns appear to be very different across the year. During the autumn and
 Media coverage and users’ reactions 101

TABLE 8.3 Activities people perform when visiting the park

List of activities Frequency and percentage

Walking (along the main spine) 34 (06.71%)

Dining in hilltop restaurant 23 (04.53%)
Dining in lakeside café 56 (11.04%)
Contemplating while sitting in any open or semi-open areas 47 (09.27%)
Chatting with family and friends 91 (17.92%)
Sitting in isolation under one of the gazebos distributed throughout 32 (06.30%)
Sitting in one of the gardens off of the main spine 87 (17.10%)
Playing with children in one of the green spaces off of the main spine 72 (14.20%)
Playing with children in the children’s play area 49 (09.66%)
Attending a concert or public performance 16 (03.16%)
Total # of frequencies 507 (99.89%)
Source: author.

winter seasons 55 per cent stated that they visit the park in the afternoons during the week or
at the weekends; 24 per cent stated weekend mornings, while only 16 per cent stated weekend
nights. In the spring and summer seasons 50 per cent stated that they visit the park on either
weeknights or weekend nights, while 30 per cent visit in late afternoons during the week or
weekends, and only 9 per cent stated they visit in the week mornings. Strikingly, none of the
respondents stated that they visit the park during weekend mornings. Across the respondents,
it is evident that the majority either prefer nights or late afternoons to visit the park.
The preceding visiting patterns correspond with the results of selecting gardens and water
bodies and gardens around the main spine as the best design feature. Such patterns corrobor-
ate the results of the continuous visits to the park by the research team during the summers
of 2005, 2006, and 2007, which reveal that the park is completely vacant in the mornings and
early afternoons. Over 80 per cent of the respondents believe that the design of the park allows
for many activities that family members can perform during their visits. The majority agree
that there are special places developed to satisfy all age groups including restaurants, greenery,
and children’s play areas. Selecting three major activities performed while visiting reveals a wide
range of interests and activities that the park is accommodating as illustrated in Table 8.3.
Certain activities appear to be favoured by the respondents; these include chatting with
friends (17.92 per cent); sitting in one of the gardens off of the main spine (17.10 per cent); and
playing with children in one of the green spaces off the main spine (14.20 per cent). Dining
in the lakeside café appears to be favoured over dining in the hilltop restaurant (4.53 per cent).
These results correspond with the results of favouring views and seeing the gardens and foun-
tains around the main spine as key attractions within the park. They also indicate that the pres-
ence of the lake is a determining factor in people liking the southern portion of the park.

Management and operation

By utilizing a five-point scale, people were asked to express their degree of satisfaction with
the management and operation of the park. The majority of the respondents are either very
satisfied (29 per cent) or satisfied (53 per cent). Only 4 per cent have expressed dissatisfaction
and 8 per cent were neutral. None of the respondents stated that they were very dissatisfied.
102 A. M. Salama

Respondents commented positively on the cleanliness and neatness of the park. However, a
few (4 per cent) commented that the marble tiling in the garden areas is starting to show signs
of deterioration.
As it is known to the public that the park is managed by a private service company, users
were asked whether they support the idea of the management of the park being transferred
under the jurisdiction of Cairo Governorate in terms of management, maintenance, and oper-
ation. Eighty-seven per cent of the respondents stated that they are not advocates of this idea at
all. While this result is striking, it was expected, since some respondents introduced assertions
like: ‘the park will deteriorate with public government ownership’, ‘because typically govern-
ment facilities often deteriorate, and there are many examples of similar projects’. Some went
to the extreme and commented ‘because they will mess it up’, and ‘there is a very big chance
that the park would go back to its original use, a dump site’. These statements reflect a severe
lack of trust in the government’s ability to run and manage large public projects.

Conclusion
Undoubtedly, an examination of the media, especially that which celebrates large influential
projects, is important in order to understand the type and validity of information it conveys to
the wider audience. Scrutinizing the assumption that projects celebrated in the public or specialized
media are not necessarily meeting users’ expectations or satisfying their needs revealed both satisfactory
and critical results that were never covered in the media.
The media still give little attention to users’ behaviour and feedback on needs and expec-
tations. Nevertheless, the content analysis of the literature written to describe and praise the
project illustrates that there are attempts towards more responsiveness to real and pressing
issues including protection of the built heritage, slum clearance and environmental concerns,
and socio-economic development aspects. Despite this the media fell short in articulating
users’ feedback, cultural behaviours and attitudes, and addressing the concerns of the users. In
addition, spatial quality appears not to be a major concern including its underlying symbolic,
behavioural, and experiential aspects. Findings indicate that users’ reactions to the design features
of the park correspond with the way in which the project is celebrated in the media. To rela-
tive degrees, users expressed their satisfaction with the park environment, the available amen-
ities, and with the available opportunities to engage in a wide spectrum of activities.
The fact that most planning and design aspects of the park were satisfactory to – and in
some cases were praised by – the users is an indicator of the degree of the project’s success.
Two design features seem to fall short in meeting users’ expectations. These are the lights and
lighting system, and the signage and the wayfinding system. While these two aspects were not
well covered by the media, they were unveiled through analysing users’ feedback. In fact, the
lights and the lighting system were portrayed in the media through photographs that empha-
size the dramatic visual effects of the lights used in the park, but functional and experiential
aspects were the concern of the users. While scholars may claim that no planning or design
outcome is completely perfect and satisfies everyone, one should assert that a project of this
scale, magnitude, and amount of recognition is not expected to have these aspects as major
sources of dissatisfaction. Notably, the media have not addressed the issue of operations and
maintenance, an aspect that can only be revealed by a post-occupancy evaluation (POE, see
Chapter 14). In this respect, while users expressed satisfaction with the current operation and
 Media coverage and users’ reactions 103

maintenance, the results corroborate a severe lack of trust in the government to manage and
operate the park.
It should be noted that the method of conducting assessment studies based on attitude
surveys has a limitation since it explains behavioural or attitudinal phenomena based on what
is being stated rather than on what is actually happening. Conducting appraisals relevant to
the actual performance of the park as witnessed in users’ behaviour can further invigorate the
type of investigation employed in this study. Adopting the habitability framework outlined in
the introduction (see Chapter 1) of this book or elements of it would contribute to a better
understanding of how aesthetic and performative aspects of the park may complement each
other. By utilizing social science research tools, including behavioural and cognitive mapping
and systematic observations, deeper insights into human behaviour in and satisfaction with the
environment can be unveiled.
Corresponding with contemporary literature (Sanoff 1991; Preiser and Nasar 2008; Davis
and Preiser 2012) the investigation reveals that the habit of criticism continues to contrib-
ute to generating subjective viewpoints about the built environment. While post-occupancy
evaluation represents a dramatic departure from typical subjective discussions, it paves the
road towards the development of theory and practice. One should assert, however, that it is
not a situation of either/or; criticism and evaluation are both needed in the development of
a responsive environment while improving the quality of design decision-making at different
levels.

References
AKTC (Aga Khan Trust for Culture) (2001) The Azhar Park Project in Cairo and the Conservation and
Revitalization of Darb al-Ahmar. Geneva: AKTC-Historic Cities Support Program.
Davis, A. T. and W. F. E. Preiser (2012) ‘Architectural Criticism in Practice: From Affective to Effective
Experience’. ArchNet-IJAR: International Journal of Architectural Research 6(2): 24–42.
Nasar, J. L. (1986) ‘The Shaping of Design Values: Case Studies on the Trade Magazines’. In Proceedings
of the 17th Annual Conference of the Environmental Design Research Association. Atlanta, GA: EDRA
Publications.
Preiser,W. F. E. and J. L. Nasar (2008) ‘Assessing Building Performance: Its Evolution from Post-Occupancy
Evaluation’. ArchNet-IJAR: International Journal of Architectural Research 2(1): 84–99.
Rapoport, A. (1970) ‘The Study of Spatial Quality’. Journal of Aesthetic Education 4(4): 81–95.
Salama, A. M. (1995) New Trends in Architectural Education: Designing the Design Studio. Raleigh, NC:
Tailored Text and Unlimited Potential Publishing.
Salama, A. M. (2008) ‘Media Coverage and Users’ Reactions: Al Azhar Park in the Midst of Criticism
and Post Occupancy Evaluation’. METU Journal of the Faculty of Architecture, Middle East Technical
University, 25(1): 105–25.
Sanoff , H. (1991) Visual Research Methods in Design. New York:Van Nostrand Reinhold.
9
THE INFLUENCE OF THE “MILIEU” ON
ARCHITECTURAL CRITICISM
Yann Nussaume

Introduction
Criticism is an activity with a very broad cultural meaning whose purpose is to interpret
and provide a context. It can be understood to be a hermeneutic that reveals the origins,
relations, significances and essentials. The difficulty of passing judgement continues to
increase in today’s age of uncertainty and questioning.
(Montaner 1999)

The critical question in this chapter, is the influence of the “milieu” on criticism and build-
ing performance evaluation. We will discuss how an understanding of the milieu as a concept
is necessary to shed light on the contexts criticism seeks to explicate. In this particular case,
the concept of milieu is understood to fall within the definition proposed by the geographer
Augustin Berque:“as the relationship of a society to its environment” (Berque 1994).To define
what is meant by criticism, we refer to an article in the Encyclopaedia Universalis (Devillard and
Jannière 2007) and to an anthology of articles of criticism (Deboulet et al. 2008) in which the
authors question beyond the criticism, the critical positions as well as the role of the criticism
of architecture’s evolution.
Since the end of the 1980s, according to Hélène Jannière, criticism in specialized litera-
ture has become an “object of discussion” and, more recently, “an object of research,” both
in France and internationally (Jannière 2008). “The need to reconstruct critical tools,” when
faced with the “weakening of doctrines and reference points in architectural trends,” is perhaps
one of the reasons for this interest (Jannière 2008).
In this chapter, we shall begin by identifying the respective distinctions and fields of criti-
cism and POE/BPE (post-occupancy/building performance evaluations). Then, by underlin-
ing the need to take into consideration the reference milieus of the analysed building projects,
we shall discuss the value of developing a hermeneutic approach to criticism and evaluation.
Finally, “in today’s age of uncertainty,” we shall question whether the paradigm of sustain-
able development, adapted according to the milieus, could provide new reference points on
which criticism and evaluation could be based. This ultimately facilitates an effort to develop
 The influence of the “milieu” on architectural criticism 105

common guidelines, which are important to re-establish the absent or weakened “reference
points” mentioned by Jannière.

Architecture to envision changes for the future

What is criticism? An analysis of recent publications in France reveals the difficulty of defin-
ing it, and moreover, of specifying its origins. Valérie Devillard and Hélène Jannière, in their
article for the Encyclopaedia Universalis, noted two schools of thought with regard to the his-
toriography of criticism: one sees its beginning with the Renaissance and expressed through
theoretical investigations and treatises; and the other envisages its beginning more with the
publication of the first architectural journals towards the end of the eighteenth century, such
as “1789 in Germany,” “1800 in France,” and their chroniclers (Devillard and Jannière 2007).
In the first case, the question was whether the premises of criticism should be based on the
development of theoretical thinking and the existential distancing of mankind from its sur-
rounding world; as science supplanted religion, there was less and less mysticism surrounding
the natural world, and a more empowered feeling of man as having absolute dominion over
it. In the field of architecture, the Renaissance is viewed as a specific moment that saw the
birth of modern architecture when, similar to Man’s drawn distinctions between himself and
the world he emerged from, the Architect started self-identifying as being distinct from the
craftsman.
In the second case, by associating criticism with the development of academic and trade
journals, criticism could then be partially linked to the “crisis of the unified world as devel-
oped by classical tradition” (Montaner 1999: 126). The evolution of techniques and the dis-
covery of other cultures through journalism resulted in a multiplicity of choices and, in the
absence of standards, a move toward eclecticism. In the eighteenth century, the search for
universal values began to erode at the same time that convictions of beauty and proportion
were linked to physiological phenomena.The journals and other media provided information,
commentary, and judgment concerning these changes and directions.
The two schools of thought mentioned by Devillard and Jannière represent a foundation
for criticism. However, several authors underline the singularity of the work carried out by
the critic given that the contents are quite different from a large number of other texts and
doctrines. These cannot be assimilated with other types of writings on architecture or maga-
zine articles.
For Pierre Vago, director of the Revue Architecture d’Aujourd’hui from 1932 to 1947, criti-
cism cannot be reduced to “research” or “theoretical dissertations,” even though it demands
“the existence of judgment criteria based on reference data.” Criticism “is more than gen-
eral, historical, sociological, philosophical or aesthetic studies,” even if it requires “a deep and
wide-ranging understanding of all aspects of architecture.” Similarly, it cannot correspond to
“a subjective and superficial opinion” (Vago 1964–65). According to the position held by
Bernard Huet, chief editor of the Architecture d’Aujourd’hui magazine from 1974 to 1977, one
should not confuse “criticism and the distribution of more or less complementary informa-
tion.” According to him, “a journalist can be a critic” but “a critic should never be regarded as
a journalist” (Huet 1995).
With regard to these assertions, the citation highlighted at the beginning of this chapter by
Joseph Maria Montaner also expresses the role of criticism: “to interpret and provide a con-
text,” to offer “a hermeneutic that reveals origins, relations, significances and essentials.” Faced
106 Y. Nussaume

with an architectural project, whether or not built, the critic proposes “an analysis, explanation,
and appreciation in accordance with both general and specific data” (Vago 1964–65). To place
the context and the process leading to the development of an architectural work into perspec-
tive, the critic can base himself on the social sciences that developed considerably throughout
the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. However, the critic, in order to contextualize a work
and evaluate its meaning and interest, cannot just base himself on objective data. He assumes a
position by making judgments with regard to the architectural works that he observes. In this
sense, the POE/BPE can provide solid foundations on which to make judgments. However,
as underscored by Pierre Vago, judging the value of an architectural work requires “a general
culture and a vast historical and technical understanding.” This implies, “virtually on a day-
to-day basis, to be aware of what is being said, written, drawn, invented or constructed in the
world over a period in which everything is in constant change.” It is then necessary to have
“the capacity, in the glowing heart of this cauldron of ideas, to pick out the lines of force and
constants on which a conviction can be based” (Vago 1964–65). In this manner, the POE/
BPE make it possible to check and quantify proposals, compare performances, and to allow
architectural criticism to express changes in culture and the capacity of architectural works to
be representative of this cultural context.

Why are hermeneutic approaches to milieus necessary?

While the role of critics consists partly of evaluating the contexts of the works and their
potential for making the latter clearer, one of the difficulties lies in experiencing them in the
milieu within which they are developed, i.e. without simply projecting one’s own culture and
one’s own milieu when making judgments. In other words, to understand these milieus, it
would seem essential to take into consideration the various types of relations between soci-
eties and individuals and their surrounding world. These relations depend on the cultures, the
periods, the geographies, and the level of development of the societies.They also influence the
way societies are lived in, the way the environment is perceived, and, as a result, the architec-
tural choices that are made. The elucidation of these ties and their contribution to the design
process imply the use of a hermeneutic approach by the critic that will assist him in under-
standing the foundations of the architecture through the designer’s intentions, and the milieu
in which it is built. While some of the questions raised on an international level go beyond
national borders, the manner in which they are understood and resolved varies according to
the local milieus. At the same time, although a critic must be able to analyze a building while
taking its milieu into consideration, he should also be able to envisage its meaning while
abstracting the particular milieu.
To understand these necessities, let us for example look at the Azuma House by Tadao Ando
which was built on an approximately 3.30 m × 10 m plot in the Sumiyoshi district of Osaka
in the middle 1970s (Figure 9.1a–d).The simplicity of this building, entirely constructed from
raw concrete, with a closed façade on the street side, and forming three identically sized spaces
around a central courtyard, sent a clear message from the architect: to insure that the inhab-
itants and people in general retain links with natural elements. Despite the modesty of this
building, the force engendered by the simplicity of the layout and the architectural choices
helped his message acquire international status.
However, if one were to provide a detailed criticism of this building and go beyond a
cursory reading, it is essential to clearly understand the architect’s way of thinking and the
 The influence of the “milieu” on architectural criticism 107

YORK

YORK

YORK

YORK

FIGURE 9.1 Azuma House by Tadao Ando in Osaka: (a) floor plan level 1; (b) floor plan level 2;
(c) cross section; (d) isometric
Source: Tadao Ando.

perception of Japanese towns in the 1970s whose chaotic nature at that time was judged
to be generally negative. Faced with this urban situation and at the beginning of his career,
Tadao Ando explained that it was impossible to retain the idea that housing units face nature,
and to keep the traditional relationship that the Japanese have always maintained with their
108 Y. Nussaume

environment. His intention was to re-establish this relationship, but in a contemporary man-
ner. To achieve this, he built architectural prototypes intended to be generators of emotions,
within which inhabitants would find themselves in contact with a “nature made abstract,” the
“wind made abstract,” the “rain made abstract,” and the “sun made abstract,” all through the
architecture.
Deciphering Tadao Ando’s intention and architectural mechanisms thus requires a her-
meneutic effort from the critic who is obliged to understand the meaning that this architect
gives to the concept of nature, as well as to that of the living space, and more generally, the
architectural elements he uses. This means making reference to Japanese tradition, as well as a
clarification of the large number of influences linked to his design approach (Nussaume 1999).
For example, while Tadao Ando uses raw concrete walls, floors, and ceilings, his fundamental
desire is that they should be invisible in order to let the space express itself. To achieve this,
his finished concrete has a glossy, smooth texture that creates an effect of massiveness in the
unconscious of the inhabitants, while also offering a sense of considerable depth in the spaces
inside his buildings. That way, confronted with the environment of Japanese cities where it
now no longer seems possible to open up buildings, Tadao Ando combines the value of the
presence of the walls, while at the same time, he attempts to have them disappear.
Without this understanding of the architect’s intentions, it is impossible to make a deep
critical analysis of his works. When it comes to what he judges to be a “superficial comfort,”
with which one might agree or disagree, they undoubtedly have considerable meaning in a
Japanese environment. Carrying out this type of hermeneutic approach proves itself necessary.
It also applies to the POE/BPE that should take into consideration the milieu of the architec-
tural works.This would facilitate judging the validity of the architect’s intentions, and it would
assist the criticism by making them clearer.

Can the paradigm of sustainability provide a unified conceptual

framework and reference point for criticism?
While books and articles concerning criticism have multiplied over the past few decades, this
interest can at least be partially conceptualized as a response to the architectural and societal
situation noted at the end of the twentieth century by François Chaslin. This was the period
during which he was chief editor at Architecture d’Aujourd’hui. He noted a dual apparent phe-
nomenon:“the collapse of theoretical and philosophical bases of the federal systems that some-
how permit the establishment of a classification of architectural trends”; it was also a period
that saw the development of theories alongside the growth of a generalized, universal, and
transcontinental phenomenon of the “starchitect.” According to François Chaslin, the period
was characterized by a generalized intersubjectivity: in order to exist on the stage in the eyes
of opinion, architects (and the same applies to artists) must be exposed to the critique of their
fellow architects and even their clients. Furthermore, architects must develop their own par-
ticular approach, highlight their differences and develop an identifiable style (Chaslin 1990).
Faced with a lack of authority or a major principle on which to base his judgments, the critic
is simply left with his taste and emotions to discuss trends.
However, we might now ask ourselves if this type of situation is not beginning to radically
change. Does the increased strength of sustainable development in terms of both theory and
practice give us unique reference points from which to criticize and evaluate architectural,
urban, and even landscaping projects? For future generations to develop, we need to affirm
 The influence of the “milieu” on architectural criticism 109

the importance of public interest in the various social, ecological, economic, and cultural
concerns, thus representing new paradigms for judging architectural works. In a large num-
ber of countries, regulations and certifications (e.g. Haute Qualité Environnementale (HQE)
in France; BRE Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM) in the United Kingdom;
Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) in the United States, Deutsches
Gütesiegel Nachhaltiges Bauen (DGNB) in Germany, etc.) accompany the growing awareness
and reaction to these concerns. The measurement of a building’s environmental impact from
its design through to its completion, during its use and even its entire life-cycle forms part of
a standard evaluation process that provides the basis for making judgments. POE/BPE type
evaluations actively contribute to these measures by offering systematic analyses of construc-
tion projects.
Having said that, it might also be worthwhile to question the very concept of sustainable
development. Up to what point does it represent a hegemonic doctrine? Could it be consid-
ered to represent a risk of systemization insofar as new trends in architecture are concerned?
Faced with regulations, including energy regulations, which are increasingly restrictive, profes-
sionals are now questioning the often highly technical and expensive methods used to resolve
problems raised by sustainable development (Nussaume 2012). A call for the publication of
papers, made in 2013 by the Université de Saint-Lucas in Brussels, and called “Architecture
and Sustainability: Critical Perspectives,” raised questions concerning these sustainable devel-
opment paradigms and proposed placing this concept and its influence in perspective. It indi-
cated the need to “focus more on ‘ways’ of conceptualizing ‘sustainability’ with a ‘pluralist
imagination’ rather than to search for a universal one-size-fits-all type of sustainability notion.”
In this sense, the idea of the call for papers was to think of the theme of sustainability not as a
“static notion or a fixed ideal or a set of principles/attributes that can be simply added onto a
conventional design process, building or a city,” but rather as “an intrinsic value as a dynamic
integrative framework.”
Faced by these questionings and doubts, it is now up to the critic, using POE/BPE as a
conceptual base, to explain the directions and the choices made by the designers, without
exclusively focusing on “technical aspects,” and by also incorporating the “aesthetic dimen-
sions.”To this end, the critic needs to analyze the contexts of the solutions arrived at by archi-
tectural projects to achieve sustainable development by applying a hermeneutic approach that
takes into consideration the particular requirements of local milieus and their various social,
cultural, economic, and ecological foundations (Nussaume and Perysinaki forthcoming).

Conclusion: criticism, a directional compass for a world in

constant change
The acceleration of our understanding in fields such as social sciences and the development of
POE/BPE now allow us to better analyze contexts, and the design processes for architectural,
urban, and landscaping proposals. Nonetheless, the world continues to change and both tech-
niques and needs are constantly evolving. Consequently, faced with the transformation of ter-
ritorial contexts, the expectations of inhabitants, lifestyle concepts, and ways of regarding the
city are all subject to new paradigms. Confronted with changing problems, the role of design-
ers is to find ways in which to meet the needs of programs and assure levels of technical and
spatial requirements, as well as question their future development and find new paths gener-
ated by these changing requirements. With regard to this dynamic, the POE/BPE framework
110 Y. Nussaume

represents “safeguards,” but it is up to the critic to evaluate the proposals in accordance with
the values of the new directions proposed by the works that he judges.
The incorporation of sustainability, depending on the needs of society, is currently a key
issue which can lead toward a common direction between criticism and POE/BPE.To achieve
this, critics need to be able to estimate the values of the proposed changes, that is, to put
into perspective the proposals made by the architects concerning the paradigm of sustainable
development and to take into consideration the diversity of the milieus. If this is not done,
criticism and POE/BPE risk simply being tools leading to the homogenization of buildings
and landscapes, thereby representing undifferentiated ideas.

References
Berque, A. (ed.) (1994) Cinq propositions pour une théorie du paysage. Seyssel: Champs Vallon.
Chaslin, F. (1990) “Un état critique.” L’architecture d’Aujourd’hui 271. Reprinted in A. Deboulet, R.
Hoddé, and A. Sauvage (eds), La critique architecturale: Questions – Frontières – Desseins. Paris: Les édi-
tions de la Villette, 2008.
Deboulet, A., R. Hoddé, and A. Sauvage (eds) (2008) La critique architecturale: Questions – Frontières –
Desseins. Paris: Les éditions de la Villette.
Devillard, V. and H. Jannière (2007) “Critique architectural.” Encyclopaedia Universalis. http://www.uni-
versalis.fr/encyclopedie/critique-architecturale/ [accessed August 4, 2013].
Huet, B. (1995) “Les enjeux de la critique.” Le Visiteur 1. Reprinted in A. Deboulet, R. Hoddé, and
A. Sauvage (eds), La critique architecturale: Questions – Frontières – Desseins. Paris: Les éditions de la
Villette, 2008.
Jannière, H. (2008) “Débat sur la critique 1980–2000:Typologies, Frontières, Autonomie.” In A. Deboulet,
R. Hoddé, and A. Sauvage (eds), La critique architecturale: Questions – Frontières – Desseins. Paris: Les
éditions de la Villette.
Montaner, J. M. (1999) Extract from Arquitectura y critica. Barcelona: Editorial Gustavo Gili, coll. GG,
Basicos. Reprinted in A. Deboulet, R. Hoddé, and A. Sauvage (eds), La critique architecturale: Questions –
Frontières – Desseins. Paris: Les éditions de la Villette, 2008.
Nussaume,Y. (1999) Tadao Ando et la question du milieu. Paris: Éditions le Moniteur.
Nussaume, Y. (2012) “Pour une architecture vernaculaire ‘d’avant-garde.’” In O. Vadrot (ed.), Gilles
Perraudin. Dijon: Presses du réel.
Nussaume, Y. and A. Perysinaki (forthcoming) “Critical Perspectives on Sustainable Development:
Reading the Pillars in the Architectural Design Process of Wang Shu.” In Architecture and Sustainability:
Critical Perspectives – Generating Sustainability Concepts from an Architectural Perspective (preliminary title).
Brussels: Sint-Lucas Architecture Press.
Vago, P. (1964–65) “La critique architecturale entre carcan et utilité.” L’architecture d’Aujourd’hui 117.
Reprinted in A. Deboulet, R. Hoddé, and A. Sauvage (eds), La critique architecturale: Questions –
Frontières – Desseins. Paris: Les éditions de la Villette, 2008.
10
ARCHITECTURAL CRITICISM AND
BUILDING PERFORMANCE
EVALUATION IN GERMANY
Ursula Baus and Ulrich Schramm

Introduction
The analysis of the built environment occurs at different levels of reasoning. On one hand,
there are building standards, complex building legislation, and recently created certification
systems for sustainable building, including related assessment methods like post-occupancy
evaluations (POE). Taken together, these guarantee a very high level of building technology
in Germany. On the other hand, and from the perspective of design, things look different.
Banality, wrong buildings in the wrong places, urban misconception, neglected infrastructure
and structures that were built after World War II, are just some of the issues that need to be
addressed and thought through by an architectural criticism that is relevant for society. Here,
architectural criticism has to be seen as a propaedeutic tool for architectural theory.
The growing constraints of the economy, however, threaten the freedom of the press, too,
especially in the building sector. This problem is complicated by criticism in a context that is
constantly changing. For example, due to the growing importance of participatory planning
processes, architecture criticism increasingly targets the layperson in order to counter populist
arguments, among other things.

Architectural criticism
Architectural criticism until 1975
In a narrow sense, the history of architectural criticism goes back to the eighteenth cen-
tury, to the early days of the print media (Arnulf 2004; Fuhlrott 1975; see also Chapter 9
by Nussaume). Initially, amateurs and educated connoisseurs of architecture discussed the
beautiful and appropriate, the charming and tasteful. Starting in France, the professional dis-
course focused on the tension between tradition and modernity, and it remains connected
to cultural spheres which initially included the new profession “civil engineer” (Philipp
1996; Froschauer 2009; Schnell 2005). Later on, architectural criticism evolved methodo-
logically in separate circles of experts and laypeople. This happened after the history of art
and architecture was established methodologically as a discipline in a collective unit. Early
112 U. Baus and U. Schramm

architectural articles were published in bourgeois Germany by civil engineering author-

ities, for example the Journal für die Baukunst (Journal for the Art of Building, since 1829).
Next were journals like the Deutsche Bauzeitung (German Building Journal, since 1865) or
Der Baumeister (The Builder). Descriptions, knowledge, manifestos, criticism, and propaganda
formed a spectrum where architectural criticism emerged and evolved into a discipline. In
the twentieth century, architectural criticism came under the influence of the construction
industry, which supported an advertising clientele as the economic base for architectural
magazines and also the daily press.
The critical investigation of architecture happened in journals through a positive selection
which was not representative of the actual construction process. Professional criticism was
largely characterized by the demands of Ulrich Conrads. For decades he served as editor-in-
chief of the weekly magazine Bauwelt (World of Building), and he expressed himself in rather
strong terms (Conrads et al. 2003; Ciré and Ochs 1991; Kemp 2009; Dechau 1998).Throughout,
it has also been imperative for all critics to acquire as much as possible of the available onsite
knowledge about a building, and to put it into a larger context of everyday building activities.
These were consumed by endless and stirring debates about functionalism within the con-
struction industry.They remained largely excluded from criticism, i.e. excited exchanges about
individual projects, which in this context can hardly be described as criticism.
In the second half of the twentieth century, as the implementation of the car-friendly city
threatened old neighborhoods, criticism of architecture and urban planning in the daily press
started to concern itself with existing buildings, culminating in the architectural heritage year
in 1975 (Colquhoun 1985; Flagge 1997).

Architectural criticism in the twenty-first century

The speed with which communication shifted to the internet in the last decades has driven
journals into architecture-critical insignificance and economic ruin – a development whose
consequences cannot yet be foreseen (Baus 2012a). The real estate industry capitalizes on
architecture and urban planning which is increasingly uncontrollable by the community, and
is rarely guided by policy. Certification systems for sustainable building (see also Chapter 24
by Walsh and Moore) result in improving building quality to a certain extent, but are also
awarded to buildings that are dysfunctional, inappropriate from the perspective of urban devel-
opment, and extremely banal and ugly.
While architectural criticism could deal with paradigm shifts and problems of pluralistic
architectural philosophies (Baus 2012b), it has conflicts with the logic of the construction
industry: Even if architectural criticism clearly denounces the extensive destruction of cities
by demolition and new construction, it is in no position to deal with the interests of the real
estate industry as criticism becomes less important, not only with respect to content, but also
in the media and in reality. It is not only the internet which has the potential of engaging end
users in an efficient manner who want to and are capable of influencing the development of
their built environment using participatory methods. Laypersons know that they have a fight-
ing chance in the political context.
This development mirrors Rambow’s argument: “It is not enough to understand archi-
tecture only as an object of the ‘feuilleton’” (i.e. feature pages in the daily press) (Rambow
and Moczek 2001), a point that he made in one of the very few articles about “building
evaluation” that were published at all in the Deutsches Architektenblatt (German Architechts’
 Architectural criticism and evaluation in Germany 113

Journal). Instead of a specialized criticism within closed circles of experts long before a
building is utilized, Rambow calls for an evaluation of the building that focuses on its
functioning during occupancy. This kind of assessment respects – in many cases for the first
time – laypeople’s experience with architecture and “explains the role of architecture for a
humane environment” (Rambow and Moczek 2001). In general, this relation between man
and his (built) environment is the science area of a relatively young discipline in Germany,
called “Environmental Psychology” or, more specifically, “Architectural Psychology.” While
this discipline was underdeveloped in the 1970s compared to the US (Preiser 1972), today,
several institutes and organizations, both in the public and private sector, conduct exter-
nally funded research projects or perform building evaluation as part of their range of
services: “In contrast to architectural criticism POEs are based on empirical data, implying
more than the mere reflection of individual critics and they consider many more aspects
than only aesthetics” (Schuemer 1998). Nowadays, building performance evaluation is a
complex issue within the German construction industry that is becoming more and more
significant.

Building performance evaluation

The performance concept in the building life-cycle
In Germany – as well as in other German language areas – the scope of work and the perform-
ance of a building is traditionally well described in the form of bid documents. Aside from
the project-specific quantified codes, numerous trade-related national, European, and inter-
national codes (DIN – Deutsches Institut für Normung/German Institute for Standardization;
CEN – Europäisches Komitee für Normung/European Committee for Standardization; ISO –
International Organization for Standardization) and all kinds of building regulations (BauGB –
Baugesetzbuch/Building Code; VOB – Vergabe- und Vertragsordnung für Bauleistungen/
Procurement and Contract Procedures for BuildingWorks; EnEV – Energieeinsparverordnung/
Energy Saving Ordinance etc.) need to be met during the building delivery process. With the
advent of “facility management” in Germany in the mid-1990s, the traditional linear process
of building delivery was gradually supplanted by the building performance evaluation (BPE)
model (Preiser and Schramm 1997). It presents a holistic understanding of planning, pro-
gramming, design, construction, occupancy, and recycling, including related review loops (see
Figure 1.3, Chapter 1). Therefore, the evaluation of building performance doesn’t any longer
exclusively take place at the end of construction in the form of technical quality control or
aesthetic architectural criticism. Nowadays, a building’s performance is increasingly reviewed
throughout its entire life-cycle, phase by phase, taking both the quality of the object, and more
and more the quality of the process into consideration as well.
Good examples of this kind of quality control are the certificates of energy performance
and of sustainable building.

Energy efficiency as critical factor

A milestone in the shift from the linear building delivery process to a holistic understanding
of the building life-cycle was the oil crisis in 1973. The issue that oil is a limited resource
suddenly became obvious to the German population: Four “car-free Sundays” introduced by
114 U. Baus and U. Schramm

Content SUSTAINABILITY

<1
J 2 0 1 2 /1 3
T 2 0 0 9 /1 A r^G uidelm fe for
^ V oluntary/ Sustainable
2 0 0 6 /0 * ertific^tfon Building

AN AL
(Develof jfent Systems for (updated)
^ fc o j sustainable
2001 sustainability buildings:
Guidel/fie for
in building DGNB, BNB
^ustzunable
construction
Building

ENERGY EFFICIENCY
2013
2013

AN ALT |
5. Energy C o n s e rw /t3 W \

4.. Energy C
ConservifLaw
onservTLaw J1
>f

L Z (2 0 1 ^
2005 \ J

AN AL
"N
3. Energy Conservrltaw T^ 2009 \>1£ nriergy
e r g y Sav. Ord.

1I 22 0( J0 8
0 8v^- /^4- - E
Energy Saving Ord.
nergy Saving
\ I 2 Q jjy
^ y ^—
1 -Mandatory
W a n d a to ry Energy
E nergy Perf. Certificate
C ertificate
V 2 0 0 7 ^ " ^ ^ a n c la to r y E n e r 9 y P e r^
V2O0,M4 3- E
3- E nergy
n e r n v Saving
S a v in n Ord.
O rr i
1
1998
800 \2Q J04 3 EEnergy
3 |
ConservrCaw
2. E nergy' C o n s e rvrC a w'')
') ^ \ >\ 22q0 o
0 24 2.
2m- Energy
2 Energy Saving
Saving Ord.
Sa
1 /976 \ L q qa! / Energy
1. Energy Saving
Saving Ord.
Ord.
On
Energy C oj rnl j s ee rv
n Ae ) ' 3 jr o
3. Thermal Insul. Ord.
tl L
l _a w
a Iw 1982 3 ‘" Therm al lnsu
,nsu l- 0 r d -
^ r \\ 19
J^ 7 2. Therm al lnsul. Ord.

AN AL [ ) i. Therm al lnsul. Ord.

s f L'i -f — (— -------- >

1970 1980 2000 2010 2015 Time
T im

FIGURE 10.1 Development of the policy for energy-efficient and sustainable buildings in Germany
Source: diagram by U. Schramm based on http://www.enev-online.de and http://www.nachhaltigesbauen.de

a Federal law resulted in empty streets and highways. People realized that energy savings and
efficiency were the requirement of the moment for both mobility and building.
In 1976, the First Energy Conservation Law facilitated the issue of the First German
Heat Insulation Ordinance focusing on the energy performance of new buildings. A series
of laws and ordinances followed during the next several years (see Figure 10.1), thus con-
tinuously updating the requirements for energy savings. The next ordinance, to be published
in 2014, will adopt the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive (EPBD), published by
the European Commission in 2010: “The EPBD requires member states [like Germany] to
ensure that by 2021 all new buildings are so-called ‘nearly zero-energy buildings’” (European
Commission 2013).
Furthermore, the instrument of an energy performance certificate will be strengthened.
Introduced in 2002 for new buildings and in 2008 for existing facilities which are on the mar-
ket for sale or for rent, the certificate benchmarks the individual energy performance of all
buildings (see Figure 10.2). In 2014, when the next ordinance will be published, such a bench-
mark has to be included in property advertisements (e.g. in the daily press). It will even be
posted in the entrance area of public buildings, such as town halls or movie theaters. With this
step, energy efficiency will no longer be an issue for architects or engineers alone when they
 Architectural criticism and evaluation in Germany 115

ENERGIEAUSWEIS für Wohngebäude

gemäβ den §§ 16 ff. Energieeinssparverordnung (EnEV)

Erfasster Energieverbrauch des Gebäudes 3

Energieverbrauchskennwert

Dieses Gebäude:
124,3 kWh/(m2a)

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 >400

Energieverbrauch für Warmwasser: Enthalten nicht enthalten

Das Gebäude wird auch gekühlt; der typische Energieverbrauch für Kühlung beträgt bei zeitgemäβen Geräten
etwa 6 kWh je m2 Gebäudenutzfläche und Jahr und ist im Energieverbrauchskennwert nicht enthalten.

Verbrauchserfassung - Heizung und Warmwasser

Energieträger Abrechnungszeitraum Energie- Anteil Klima- Energieverbrauchskennwert in kWh/(m2a)

verbrauch Warm- faktor (zeitlich bereinigt, klimabereinigt)
[kWh] wasser
[kWh]
von bis Heizung Warmwasser Kennwert

Heizöl 22.05.2002 03.02.2004 72132 – 1,15 133,4 – 133,4

Heizöl 04.02.2004 18.08.2005 58303 – 1,12 116,4 – 116,4

Heizöl 19.08.2005 31.08.2006 43838 – 1,04 120,9 – 120,9

Durchschnitt 124,3

FIGURE 10.2 Example of an energy performance certificate, 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.

plan and construct a building, but also for clients, building occupants, and the public when
they use it. Thus, energy performance evaluation is relevant throughout the entire building
life-cycle. Using objective and measurable criteria, the evaluation serves as quality control and
sensitizes many people involved in the life-cycle of a building.

Sustainable building as leading issue

While energy efficiency has been one of the major critical factors concerning building per-
formance evaluation for the last 40 years, today “sustainability” has become the leading issue
in the German building sector.
In 2001/2, and following international reports, research studies, and conferences, the
German Federal Government enacted the national sustainability strategy “Perspectives for
Germany” and published the Assessment System for Sustainable Building (Federal Ministry 2011).
Besides energy-related aspects and other ecological requirements, current economic and socio-
cultural criteria also need to be considered in the context of sustainable building. Following
international assessment systems like BREEAM in the UK (Building Research Establishment
Environmental Assessment Method) or LEED in North America (Leadership in Energy and
Environmental Design), several certification systems for sustainable building have been devel-
oped in Germany since 2009: the DGNB-label for the private sector (Deutsche Gesellschaft
für Nachhaltiges Bauen/German Sustainable Building Council), supported by the real estate
industry, and the BNB-label for federal buildings of the government (Bewertungssystem
116 U. Baus and U. Schramm

FIGURE 10.3 Federal Environment Agency, Dessau, 2005 DGNB-Certificate:“Gold,” RIBA award,
Deutscher Architekturpreis: High Commendation
Source: Wikipedia Commons, February 28, 2014.

Nachhaltiges Bauen für Bundesgebäude/Assessment System for Sustainable Building for

Federal Buildings) are the most popular ones.
Out of some 50 criteria, the DGNB/BNB systems constitute profiles in these categories:
(1) ecological, (2) economic, (3) socio-cultural and functional, (4) technical, (5) process qual-
ity, and (6) location. They contain the description of the criterion, the sub-criteria and the
relevant indicators. Moreover, “Design and urban quality” are the only criteria related to the
architectural quality of a building contributing 2.5 percent of the overall assessment result.
Both assessment systems are primarily planning-based systems (Federal Ministry 2011). This
means that most of the evaluation takes place before the utilization phase begins, only based
on simulation or modeling and sometimes with surprising results: Matthias Sauerbruch, archi-
tect of the award-winning Federal Environment Agency in Dessau (see Figure 10.3), reports
that the total primary energy demand of the building during the first year of occupancy was
twice as much when compared to the expected performance data from modeling during the
design phase (73 kWh/m2a). The analysis showed three reasons for this (Meyer 2012):

1 Simulations are based on average values. In reality, weather and seasons vary every year.
2 Innovative technology occasionally does not work as expected from the very beginning.
Here, the solar cooling system on the roof had to be replaced by a temporary, mobile
system with extremely high power consumption.
3 User behavior is difficult to predict, especially because of the turnover of employees. By
constantly highlighting the energy saving features of the building to the employees, the
energy consumption went down (85 kWh/m2a) after five years of occupancy.

In this context, it becomes obvious that assessment systems for sustainable building have to be
used not only as tools for quality assurance as part of planning and quality control at the con-
struction site, but also in the evaluation of success in building operations. Besides the monitoring
of performance data, it is consistent to include in the BNB-assessment system the phase of build-
ing occupancy, for example, by measuring the index of actual user satisfaction: Here, a standard-
ized questionnaire, which will be available online in a short and long version, needs to be filled
out at least every four years, separately for the summer and the winter season (BMVBS 2013a).
With such tools, POE as a well-established methodology of performance evaluation dur-
ing the utilization of a building became part of the federal assessment system for sustainable
 Architectural criticism and evaluation in Germany 117

building BNB. Since 2011, this system is mandatory for all federal buildings in Germany and
reflects the “Assessment System for Sustainable Building.” This guideline was updated and
reintroduced by law in 2012, and it specifies minimum levels of building performance (e.g.
65 percent performance = silver level). The guideline is published by the Federal Ministry of
Transport, Building and Urban Development, is mandatory for all federal buildings, and it sup-
ports POE as a form of managing success with a focus on the actual user behavior (BMVBS
2013b). Thus, building users’ feedback is expected to be part of a sustainable development.
Incidentally, this is the first time that the English term “post-occupancy evaluation” (POE) has
been used in an official guideline of the Federal Ministry in Germany.

Active participation as part of Baukultur (culture of building)

Having “user satisfaction” as a major criterion, the POE methodology and the BNB system
are two examples of building performance evaluation (BPE).
For many years planning regulations in Germany have included some formal proce-
dures for public participation in general. After several controversial debates about building
and infrastructure projects like “Stuttgart 21” (see Figure 10.4), when tens of thousands of
local residents opposed plans to build a modern transportation hub, today even the Federal
Minister of Transport, Building and Urban Development, Peter Ramsauer, admits the need
for more direct participation of the citizens with real influence on the planning process
(Ramsauer 2013).
In this context, participation does not mean some input in the social media – such as “like”
or “dislike.” As building processes are too complex, they require active participants taking indi-
vidual responsibility and a critical look at the project in question. Thus, Socrates’s reminder
is still true today: “It is foolish to talk about something without knowing it” (Miessen 2012;
Frielinghaus 2013). Now, manuals for a meaningful participation of citizens are published
even at the federal and state ministry level. They offer a broad range of instruments depend-
ing on the varying goals of dialogues: for example, “Flyers” if the goal is information, “Focus
Groups” if there is need for discussion, or “Round Tables” if consultation for finding solutions
is required (BMVBS 2012; MWEIMH 2012).
The potential for participation throughout the building life-cycle is enormous: on one
hand, in terms of both the subjective perception and process quality, and the objective quality
of the results on the other. Experiences with participatory processes result in, among other
things:

• fewer conflicts;
• better behavior of consensus;
• stronger identification with the changed urban context;
• more confidence in public administration and policies;
• better understanding of democracy;
• better understanding of good design;
• better buildings, as local citizens are often appropriate and knowledgeable experts regard-
ing location, history and everyday life (Frielinghaus 2013).

Participation as part of building performance evaluation combines the expert knowledge

of building users, their creativity, and their individual interests with the work of building
118 U. Baus and U. Schramm

FIGURE 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.

professionals like planners, architects, facility managers, or even architectural critics. This may
result in higher quality processes, improved buildings, and greater acceptance by occupants and
the public.Thus, both participation and evaluation throughout the building life-cycle improve
the performance of buildings and are part of what is called Baukultur (culture of building) in
Germany today (Frielinghaus 2013).

Conclusion
Earlier in this book, Tom Fisher observed that in the US and even in terms of a global per-
spective, “Architecture criticism is in danger of disappearing at the very moment when we
need, more than ever, a searching and sustained critical conversation about the built world”
(see Chapter 7 by Fisher). This is is true in Germany as well, especially because the interests of
the real estate industry are dominating the building sector; a good architectural critic is needed
as an expert, locally connected, knowledgeable about the building, and analyzing it in a larger
context. The architectural critic of today sees criticism as a propaedeutic tool for architectural
theory by using the internet as a modern form of communication, and by aiming increasingly
at the layperson.
At the same time, instruments for energy performance evaluation, and most recently, assess-
ment systems of sustainable building are evolving such as the DGNB or the BNB certificate.
They rarely focus on architectural quality, but guarantee a high level of building technology.
Therefore, on one hand these certificates risk being abused by the real estate industry for
marketing purposes, but on the other hand they provide the prospect of monitoring the build-
ing performance throughout the building life-cycle including occupancy. Thus, the modern
architectural critic becomes an ally in an increasing number of participatory planning and
 Architectural criticism and evaluation in Germany 119

evaluation processes. Active and direct participation of educated laypeople is on the political
agenda in Germany right now, and it is needed in all phases of the building life-cycle: citizens
may get involved as knowledgeable experts of the location in the planning process, or employ-
ees may take part as experts for needs and requirements during architectural programming
and design review. Finally, occupants may participate as experts of building-in-use in POEs.
Therefore, building performance evaluation is a forward-looking complement to modern
architectural criticism as it sensitizes people to having an influence on their built environment
and to achieving good building performance.

References
Arnulf, A. (2004) Architektur- und Kunstbeschreibungen von der Antike bis zum 16. Jahrhundert. Munich:
Deutscher Kunstverlag.
Baus, U. (2012a) “Wie wir über Architektur streiten.” http://news-world-architects.com/de_09_12_
onlinemagazin_gegensaetze_de.html [accessed December 27, 2013].
Baus, U. (2012b) “Pluralismus – Chancen für eine zeitgemäße Architekturkritik.” http://www.german-
architects.com/pages/48_12_pluralismus [accessed December 27, 2013].
Bundesministerium für Verkehr, Bau und Stadtentwicklung (BMVBS) (ed.) (2012) Handbuch für
eine gute Bürgerbeteiligung: Planung von Großvorhaben im Verkehrssektor. Berlin. http://www.bmvbs.
de/SharedDocs/DE/Anlage/VerkehrUndMobilitaet/handbuch-buergerbeteiligung.pdf?__
blob=publicationFile [accessed December 27, 2013].
Bundesministerium für Verkehr, Bau und Stadtentwicklung (BMVBS) (2013a) BNB Büro- und
Verwaltungsgebäude – Nutzen und Betreiben – Steckbriefe (Version 2012): 3.1.9 Tatsächliche
Nutzerzufriedenheit und 5.1.3 Nutzerzufriedenheitsmanagement. http://www.nachhaltigesbauen.de/
bewertungssystem-nachhaltiges-bauen-fuer-bundesgebaeude-bnb/bnb-nutzen-und-betreiben.html
[accessed December 27, 2013].
Bundesministerium für Verkehr, Bau und Stadtentwicklung (BMVBS) (ed.) (2013b) Leitfaden Nachhaltiges
Bauen. Berlin: Conrad. http://www.nachhaltigesbauen.de/leitfaeden-und-arbeitshilfen-veroeffentli-
chungen/leitfaden-nachhaltiges-bauen-2013.html [accessed December 27, 2013].
Ciré, A. and H. Ochs (eds) (1991) Die Zeitschrift als Manifest. Aufsätze zu architektonischen Strömungen im
20. Jahrhundert. Basel/Berlin/Boston: Birkhäuser.
Colquhoun, A. (1985) Essays in Architectural Criticism: Modern Architecture and Historical Change. Boston:
MIT Press.
Conrads, U., E. Führ, and C. Gänshirt (eds) (2003) Zur Sprache bringen. Kritik der Architekturkritik. Münster:
Waxmann.
Dechau, W. (1998) Mit spitzem Stift. Architektur in der deutschen Tagespresse. Stuttgart: Deutsche Verlags-
Anstalt.
European Commission (2013) Energy Efficiency Directive. http://ec.europa.eu/energy/efficiency/eed/
eed_en.htm [accessed December 27, 2013].
Federal Ministry of Transport, Building and Urban Development (2011) Assessment System for Sustainable
Building: Administration Buildings. Berlin. http://nachhaltigesbauen.de/fileadmin/pdf/Sustainable_
Building/Assessment_System_Sustainable_Building1.pdf [accessed December 27, 2013].
Flagge, I. (1997) Streiten für die menschliche Stadt:Texte zur Architekturkritik. Hamburg: Junius.
Frielinghaus, M. (2013) “Der Bürger als Experte: Einfluss von Bürgerbeteiligung auf Architektur und
Baukultur.” In Zentraler Immobilienausschuss (ZIA) (ed.), Bürgerbeteiligung in der Projektentwicklung.
Köln: Immobilien Manager Verlag, pp. 95–100.
Froschauer, E. M. (2009) “An die Leser”. Baukunst darstellen und vermitteln. Berliner Architekturzeitschriften
um 1900. Tübingen/Berlin: Wasmuth.
Fuhlrott, R. (1975) Deutschsprachige Architekturzeitschriften. Entstehung und Entwicklung der Fachzeitschriften
für Architektur in der Zeit von 1789–1918. Munich:Verlag Dokumentation Saur KG.
120 U. Baus and U. Schramm

Kemp, W. (2009) Architektur analysieren. Eine Einführung in acht Kapiteln. Munich: Schirmer/Mosel.
Meyer, U. (2012) “Wir sind noch ganz am Anfang: Im Gespräch zum nachhaltigen Bauen mit Prof.
Matthias Sauerbruch.” greenbuilding 4: 41–44.
Miessen, M. (2012) Albtraum Partizipation. Berlin: Merve.
Ministerium für Wirtschaft, Energie, Industrie, Mittelstand und Handwerk (MWEIMH) (ed.) (2012)
Werkzeugkasten Dialog und Beteiligung: Ein Leitfaden zur Öffentlichkeitsbeteiligung. Düsseldorf. http://
www.dialog-schafft-zukunft.nrw.de/fileadmin/redaktion/PDF/Werkzeugkasten_Dialog_und_
Beteiligung.pdf [accessed December 27, 2013].
Philipp, K. J. (1996) Vom Dilettantismus zur Zensur. Zur Geschichte der Architekturkritik. Stuttgart: Deutsche
Verlags-Anstalt.
Preiser, W. F. E. (1972) “Umweltpsychologie: Plädoyer für eine neue Disziplin.” Umwelt 6: 25–28.
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 Data. New York: McGraw-Hill,
pp. 233–38.
Rambow, R. and N. Moczek (2001) “Nach dem Spiel ist vor dem Spiel: Gebäudeevaluation und
Baukultur.” Deutsches Architektenblatt 3: 24–25.
Ramsauer, P. (2013) “Aktive Mitwirkung erbeten: Für eine neue Kultur der Bürgerbeteiligung.” In
Zentraler Immobilienausschuss (ZIA) (ed.), Bürgerbeteiligung in der Projektentwicklung. Köln: Immobilien
Manager Verlag, pp. 10–12.
Schnell, D. (2005) Bleiben wir sachlich: Deutschschweizer Architekturdiskurs 1919–1939 im Spiegel der
Fachzeitschriften. Basel: Schwabe.
Schuemer, R. (1998) “Nutzungsorientierte Evaluation gebauter Umwelten.” In F. Dieckmann, A. Flade,
R. Schuemer, G. Ströhlein, and R. Walden (eds), Psychologie und gebaute Umwelt: Konzepte, Methoden,
Anwendungsbeispiele. Darmstadt: Institut Wohnen und Umwelt, pp. 153–73.

Further reading
Baus, U. (2009) “Wissen und Präsenz in den Medien: Die neue mediale Öffentlichkeit.” http://german-
architects.com, 47/2009 [accessed December 2009].
Baus, U. (2012) “Architektur und Literatur.” In AIT Sonderheft Faces of Interiors 2012, pp. 4–9.
Baus, U. (2013a) “Fragen zur Architekturkritik: Kritik der Kritik XII.” BDA Informationen 1: 32–37.
Baus, U. (2013b) “Welche Architekturkritik brauchen wir heute?” Baumeister 3: 80–81.
11
URBAN CONSERVATION PROJECTS OF
CAIRO: A CRITIQUE OF THE LOCAL
LITERATURE
Remah Y. Gharib

Introduction
Historic Cairo is one of the major World Heritage sites; it embraces a massive amount of
built heritage and rich traditional societies. Since the 1980s, Historic Cairo (HC) has under-
taken many preservation efforts orchestrated by various organizations. However, the urban
conservation process of HC has provided almost nothing in the way of critical assessment or
objective examination, while consuming plenty of resources. The crux of this chapter is to
observe and explore the local literature produced toward the urban conservation process of
HC. Although the literature resources are limited to the last 35 years of local newspapers and
relevant scientific magazines, the study attempts to highlight some vital and effective sources
to help us understand a way out of the continuing dilemma of uncertainty toward the urban
conservation of HC. However, the study will provide an overview of experiences of urban
conservation and the different key players within the process of criticism. It is necessary to
investigate the modes of criticism of local writers and experts forming the main argument of
this study. Revealing different trends of criticism of urban conservation in HC through various
critics’ feedback, this chapter classifies them into three categories: (a) critical commentary, (b)
theoretical criticism for awareness, and (c) public criticism.This chapter highlights the essenti-
ality for rigorous assessment rather than subjective criticism in order to introduce approaches
based on post-operative and quantitative analyses toward reviewing the urban conservation
interventions.

Urban conservation interventions within Historic Cairo

Historic Cairo consists of many urban quarters and displays a rich built heritage with dis-
tinctive architectural styles. Despite three managing authorities and several policies produced
during the 1960s and 1970s to increase urban conservation, a precipitous decline in the con-
dition of building stock occurred because of undirected and weak policies. Later, a remarkable
change occurred in the national economic strategy, encouraging foreign expertise to interfere
in the conservation process under the supervision of the Supreme Council of Antiquities
122 R. Y. Gharib

(SCA). Most of the international missions focused on restoring monuments without develop-
ing the surrounding urban context. However, the immense number of monuments that were
dispersed throughout the dense and complex urban fabric challenged the SCA. Opportunely,
the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) recog-
nized the potential of HC and declared it a World Heritage Site in 1980 to meet a tourism-led
conservation challenge (UNESCO 1985). Clearly, this was the first initiative for an urban-
scale development rather than preservation of individual historic buildings. In addition, further
international agencies joined the horde via successful restoration projects. Policies displayed
the narrow scope of decision-makers by focusing on the development of individual buildings
rather than urban conservation.Thus, the ambiguous differentiation between preservation and
conservation kept emerging in Historic Cairo.
Since 1995, the strategic objectives shifted toward proper conservation methods by intro-
ducing new managing agencies, such as the Historic Cairo Restoration Centre (HCRC)
located at the citadel complex and the Architectural Heritage Preservation Committee, both
of which report to the Prime Minister. These centres worked on designating built heritage
and proposing development plans. Unfortunately, the HCRC suffered lack of implementation
due to its inferiority compared to other government organizations. Despite these challenges,
other urban conservation agencies developed several other quarters, such as the development
of Darb Al Asfar, the rehabilitation of Darb Al Ahmar, and the establishment of Azhar Park (by
the Aga Khan Trust for Culture), the development of the Coptic Quarter, and the upgrading
of the Gamalia Quarter (with UNDP/USAID funds). Generally, historic quarters were losing
their beauty and visual harmony and were eventually filled up with spontaneous unpleasant
architecture that is short on style and identity. In 2003, the Ministry of Culture introduced
the National Organization for Urban Harmony (NOUH) to promote beauty and harmony
measures in deteriorated quarters. However, to complete the overall picture of involved stake-
holders, some other key players need to be mentioned.

Critics and channels of criticism

There are various key players involved in the process of urban conservation, which according
to Nakamura and Smallwood (1980) constitute four groups. The first group are the policy-
makers; they formulate directives and indirectly monitor the implementation process with
low interference.The second group are the formal implementers, which includes government
agencies provided with legitimate and clear authority to carry out directives. The third group
are the intermediaries, who assist in the implementation process. The last group of actors are
generally the examiners, evaluators, or critics of the process and final product. Usually they are
expert practitioners or academics aware of the field of conservation of historic quarters and
their production is the focus of this study.This group tends to criticize and share their observa-
tions through the public local media, or by consultation reports, if required.
Critics tend to distinguish the objectives of the urban conservation schemes and final out-
come via a series of criticism channels. Simply, they provide critical insights of the developing
programmes from a professional perspective. Critics operate in a free environment, where any
feedback is potentially useful. Therefore, it is vital to highlight their literature to clarify their
up-to-date and flexible reflections toward the urban conservation interventions. Critics dis-
cuss how the interventions can be improved to achieve their goal, exploit the types and levels
of resources, and express the projects’ outcomes toward target populations. All these questions
 Urban conservation projects of Cairo: a critique of the local literature 123

FIGURE 11.1 Examples of Egyptian architecture magazine covers – Alam El-Benaa (left) and
Medina Magazine (right)
Source: author.

may be difficult for other key players to tackle, yet they are accomplished through the litera-
ture of critics.

Local channels of criticism

Written media or literature is the tool for data collection, since it provides a wide range of
contributions in the field of research. Generally, written media helps in producing the means
of communication between the critics and readers with an emphasis on current projects.
Written documents are based on authorship and access. First, authorship refers to the origin-
ality of the materials. Second, access refers to the availability of the documents to most people.
Therefore, the study relies on sources that fulfil both conditions. The primary sources are
derived from public newspapers and other text sources, such as scientific magazines. During
the last four decades, there were few scientific magazines related to architecture and urbanism
in Egypt, yet the study will highlight two in addition to the public newspapers, as shown in
Figure 11.1.

Magazine 1: Alam El-Benaa

Alam El-Benaa (AB) magazine started publishing in the 1980s, offering research studies and
various criticism articles. The Centre for Planning and Architectural Studies published AB
monthly and in a bilingual format. The magazine led enormous research efforts in investigat-
ing the present and future of architecture and urbanism in Arab cities. Running for 20 years
through 2000, AB covered various topics, scientific articles, field research, and in-depth inter-
views by both academics and professionals. Throughout its tenure, AB published more than
40 articles related to the preservation of monuments and conservation of historic quarters. In
addition, for five years the magazine established a section acknowledging the historic monu-
ments from an archaeological perspective.

Magazine 2: Medina
In 1998, 18 years after the first AB issue, Medina Magazine (MM) produced its first issue; it had
a new modern look with promising vision.The magazine was founded by a group of academ-
ics, designers, and artists related to the fields of architecture and urban design. This magazine
presented various articles about culture and the built environment; it contested aspects of
124 R. Y. Gharib

design, decoration, structural work, and student activities. With a wide spectrum, its ambition
was to reach the markets of the surrounding nations in the Middle East, encouraging a focus
on the surrounding cities, and again with English and Arabic languages. During ten years of
publishing, MM produced a large number of articles concentrating on conservation efforts
and revitalization.
Therefore, both magazines and public newspapers during this period shaped the backbone
for most of the literature surveyed during this study. The samples of articles selected were
chosen according to their topic and keywords. It was a great challenge to gather and analyse
the literature produced over the last 40 years into a concise explanatory research framework
to criticize previous critical research work. The study managed to categorize different trends
of criticism in that time toward the conservation of Historic Cairo.

Trends of criticism in the local literature

Critical commentary by professionals
Critical commentary deals with the present efforts and activities in the field of conservation;
it covers evaluation by interpreting single projects. This mode of criticism reveals the current
practices with reference to historical events. AB articles mostly deliver this criticism method-
ology and focus on preservation of monuments efforts. The main theme article (1983, issue
no. 31: pp. 8–14) explored the methods of restoring monuments during the early restoration
missions in 1972, with special interest in emerging techniques of protection from deterior-
ation. This article kept referring to the monuments’ spatial configuration and their relativity
to historical events when constructed. However, this is not the only study that followed the
same mode of criticism. Al Attar and Fawzi (1984, issue no. 50: pp. 10–11) presented research
discussing the types of restoration within the Sabil of Om Abbas, tying their argument to the
historical value of built heritage as a driver for restoration. This mode of critical literature
continued throughout the magazine publications until the early issues of the 1990s.
On the other hand, MM had other modes of criticism but with little ‘critical commen-
tary’. For instance, Nasser Rabat (2000, issue no. 13: 48), in ‘Restoration Projects Critiqued’,
criticized the overall preservation efforts by drawing attention to the details of restoration pro-
cedures, and by utilizing criticism as a judgemental approach. In fact, at the time MM started
publishing, the interest was focused on the methods of urban conservation rather than sin-
gular built heritage preservation, yet without scientific criteria for assessment. In contrast, AB
pursued the same method of criticism and produced a special section called ‘Archaeological
Review’ (‘Alam Al Athar’) that interpreted the current restoration projects based on historic
briefings. The editors of this section were SCA staff members, explicitly expressing that criti-
cism focused on their method of preservation.

Theoretical criticism for awareness by professionals

Theoretical criticism is a form of critical interpretation based on a methodology and scien-
tific knowledge rather than individual views or reflections. Theoretical criticism is different
than critical commentary, which was the previous trend, because it succeeded in addressing
other factors, such as socio-economic, technological, and ideological issues. In fact, due to the
strong connection between criticism and theory, criticism that is more pragmatic was raised,
especially within the articles of MM. A large number of articles presented within MM had a
 Urban conservation projects of Cairo: a critique of the local literature 125

problem-solving orientation. May Ibrashy (2000, issue no. 12) discussed the challenges of liv-
ing cemeteries and the possibilities of resolving them via projecting tourism activities. Another
attempt was by Ismail Serageldin (2000, issue no. 13) when he proposed new strategies and
methodologies for restoring Historic Cairo. Here, it should be noted that both articles relied
on theory for unravelling the contemporary challenges, yet without a scientific empirical
examination. On the other hand, there were a few samples of theoretical criticism within AB
magazine. For instance, the chief editor Abdel Baky Ibrahim (1981, issue no. 7) mentioned in
an editorial the notion of revitalization from a theoretical perspective in order to solve the
dilemma of developing Historic Cairo. This important article was published at a time when
the government was in the conceptual and planning phases of developing Historic Cairo.
Nevertheless, the term ‘revitalization’ was never mentioned in any of the proposed plans or
enforced policies. Another theory-based article with high significance was ‘Rehabilitation
with Public Participation’ (Said 1999, issue no. 216: pp. 4–7), which acknowledged public
participation in the conservation process, again with no official response or change in the
conservation approaches to Historic Cairo.
Nevertheless, both magazines utilized more ‘theoretical criticism’ when each published
a special issue related to the conservation of Historic Cairo (issue no. 7 of AB in 1981 and
the May issue of MM in 2000). Both had a rich list of topics, including field investigations,
overview of case studies, historical representations, and future visions as concluding articles.
Furthermore, both issues had a degree of theory-based interpretations.

Public criticism by non-professionals

The final trend of criticism in Cairene local literature is ‘public criticism’, where the critics
make their judgements in the public sphere or in the public media. Accordingly, newspapers
and magazines are convenient channels for disseminating their criticisms. However, newspa-
pers constituted the lion’s share of this trend, usually via interviews organized by newspaper
journalists. For instance, Ramadan (1998) in Gomhuria newspaper stated:

When Abdallah El Attar, Chief of the Islamic Antiquities, was interviewed concerning
the restoration efforts in Historic Cairo, he confessed clearly that he knew very little
about these monuments or the places they are located at. Plus, most what he knew was
how the restorations took place, what are the materials used, and the amounts needed.

In addition, when Al Attar was questioned about the number of monuments he supervised, he
was unable to quote a figure. The journalist concluded by criticizing the chief ’s professional-
ism and knowledge.
Commonly, this mode of criticism focuses on single topics under a magnifying lens.Another
case at Ahram newspaper (2004) referred to the administrative conflicts between the Ministry
of Endowments and SCA in the conservation efforts, due to challenges of ownership and con-
trol over built heritage. Both authorities perform development according to their interest and
without considering the other’s rights and vision.
On the other hand, public criticism has been used to countenance and cheer the govern-
ment’s efforts in conserving Historic Cairo. Most public criticism has emphasized the devel-
opments as safeguarding monuments and promoting beautification in general with positive
feedback to satisfy the political regime. In addition, the public media were very conservative
126 R. Y. Gharib

due to the regime control, which used to filter and change the reports to suit their interest.
They obviously had less interest in other aspects of urban conservation, such as enhancing
the socio-economic dimension of local communities. However, when two young journalists
published reportage (Zein El Din and Yassin 2009) on the present state of the SCA/UNDP
project in Gamalia, they expressed the dissatisfaction of local communities with the urban
conservation intervention due to its neglect of the people. This was the only case where
nationally funded projects were criticized negatively in public media and it was not repeated
until after the regime change in 2011.
On the other hand, MM was more elaborate toward the discipline of urban conserva-
tion in Historic Cairo. There were a few articles that had both positive and negative criti-
cism. Some focused on specific projects, such as ‘Al Darb Al Asfar: Limited Restoration to
Wider Conservation’ (Abada 2000, issue no. 13). Others had a broader perspective, such as
‘Gentrification in Medieval Cairo?’ (Hammond and Kassem 2000, issue no. 13). Both articles
were very informative and objective by encouraging other future interventions. In addition,
both emphasized the drawbacks for future avoidance, even though this demonstrates a signifi-
cant difference in the freedom of publishing between public newspapers and privately owned
magazines.

Urban conservation of Historic Cairo necessitates further

assessment approaches
This chapter started by revealing the history of urban conservation in Historic Cairo and
the roles of key players, specifically critics. In general, it is necessary to criticize the efforts of
conservation, yet it is significant that almost none of the articles investigated the experience
through a post-operative methodology. Despite the massive local literature produced through
newspapers and scientific magazines, no empirical methodology with definite examination
criteria was implemented to evaluate any of the interventions of urban conservation. Urban
conservation in Egypt is still heeding philosophical criticism based on intellectual knowledge
and background. However, because there are enormous funds available to preserve and con-
serve, the time has come to apply new assessment methods of evaluation toward the urban
interventions at historic sites. Personally, I believe that future critical literature should follow
objective criticism rather than multi-coloured subjective interpretations. This is in order to
develop more efficient and effective development methodologies. For instance, there are sev-
eral methods that may be utilized to evaluate the urban conservation interventions, such as
the ‘Policy, Plan and Programme Evaluation’, which determines the intervention’s effective-
ness and efficiency, focuses on the implementation of objectives, and monitors the resources
used across objectives and strategies. Cost-effectiveness assessments or cost-benefit analyses
assess the cost of allocated resources against goals achieved. Another assessment approach is the
‘Goals Achievement Matrix’ that evaluates the merits of two or more approaches to a prob-
lem or objective.This provides an assessment of alternative approaches that reduce personal or
political bias in the implementation process.There are various approaches that assess the inter-
ventions of developing Historic Cairo. Such objective approaches will give space to add other
substantial factors within the assessment approach rather than philosophical or theoretical
judgements. Therefore, critics may be required to change their evaluation techniques towards
more pragmatic and systematic approaches in investigating the performance of urban conser-
vation. Unlike architecture and art that may accept criticism from purely aesthetic viewpoints,
 Urban conservation projects of Cairo: a critique of the local literature 127

judging urban conservation is more complicated and complex, especially in a context of phys-
ical suffering and social pain which exists within Historic Cairo.

References
Abada, G. (2000) ‘Al Darb Al Asfar: Limited Restoration to Wider Conservation’. Medina Magazine 13:
58–61.
Ahram (2004) ‘Islamic Monuments under Assault’. Ahram newspaper, 5 August.
Alam El-Benaa (1983) ‘Restoration of Islamic Monuments in Cairo’. Alam El-Benaa magazine 31: 8–14.
Al Attar, A. and M. Fawzi (1984) ‘Water Fountain of Khedive Ismail – Om Abbas’. Alam El-Benaa
magazine 50: 10–11.
Hammond, A. and M. Kassem (2000) ‘Gentrification in Medieval Cairo?’ Medina Magazine 13: 64–7.
Ibrahim, A. (1981) ‘Participation of Planners and Architects in the Preservation of Built Heritage’. Alam
El-Benaa magazine 7: 5.
Ibrashy, M. (2000) ‘Of the Living: Cairo’s Al-Qarafa’. Medina Magazine 12: 42–6.
Nakamura, R. T. and F. Smallwood (1980) The Politics of Policy Implementation. New York: St. Martin’s
Press.
Rabbat, N. (2000) ‘Restoration Projects Critiqued’. Medina Magazine 13: 48.
Ramadan, A. (1998) ‘By a Presidential Decree: Cairo returns to its Fatimid Origins’. Al Gomhuria news-
paper, issue no. 1041, 21 January.
Said, S. Z. (1999) ‘Rehabilitation with People Participation’. Alam El-Benaa magazine 216: 4–7.
Serageldin, I. (2000) ‘Organizing Conservation: A Proposal for Restoring Historic Cairo’. Medina
Magazine 13: 38–42.
UNESCO (1985) The Conservation of the Old City of Cairo. Paris: UNESCO Publications.
Zein El Din, M. and Y. Yassin (2009) ‘20 Million Pounds for Muizz Street’s Development. Merchants:
Before the Development was Prosperous’. Al Gomhuria newspaper (Arabic source translated into
English by the author), 4 October, p. 7.
12
BUILDINGS AND THEIR USE
The dog that didn’t bark

Frank Duffy

Introduction
The architectural profession’s principal responsibilities are (1) to evaluate and articulate clients’
requirements, (2) to explore ways in which these requirements can best be met, (3) to com-
municate to the construction industry the most efficient and environmentally benign and
supportive way of accommodating the client’s wishes for the long as well as the short term,
and (4) to build up and share with all parties involved in the process, users as well as other
design professions and the construction industry, an open-ended body of knowledge soundly
based on feedback from the performance of buildings in use through time for the full range
of constituencies and purposes.
In other words, architects are in duty bound to help clients to determine ‘What is this
building/structure/environment intended to achieve?’ before designing the optimum way in
which the client’s requirements can be met and communicating such proposals to the con-
struction industry. Unfortunately clients’ aspirations are sometimes distorted and diminished
by both architects and builders into ‘Which off-the-shelf product and mode of delivery would
suit my practice or my business best?’ Disinterested and independent advice to clients has
never been more important now that sustainability and the preservation of life on earth are
rising so high on the environmental professions’ – and the construction industry’s – agenda.
If architects and builders continue to connive, consciously or not, in mismanaging the plan-
et’s diminishing resources by focusing too much on new buildings and neglecting how waste-
fully our existing building stock is being used, post-occupancy evaluation may well come to
have a much more sinister and definitive meaning than when the term was originally coined.

A very personal perspective

I trained as an architect in London at the Architectural Association School from 1959 to 1964
and became interested in office design in my fourth year in 1962 when our class was given the
brief for the design of an office building that, compared to briefs for our much more socially
committed projects such as schools, housing and health centres, seemed extremely abbreviated
 Buildings and their use 129

and short of human purpose or sociological content – ‘Design a building of 150,000 sq ft on

a site in Central London’. My curiosity was stimulated by the assumption in the brief that
office functions were so simple and straightforward that the design of office buildings could
be regarded, at least as far as architects were concerned, simply as containers without reference
to functionality, business processes or social purpose.
In the following summer, having been stimulated by an article by the historian and com-
mentator Reyner Banham, in the Architectural Review, about a new form of office planning in
Germany called office landscaping, I was given a scholarship to travel across Germany to learn
about Bürolandschaft, a concept of office design based on studies of internal work processes
and patterns of communication while simultaneously offering a much higher standard of
accommodation for office workers than contemporary British office buildings.
Three years later I studied in the USA as a Harkness Fellow, first in Berkeley and then at
Princeton, where I completed my PhD. The focus of my research was a growing scepticism,
despite my initial excitement, against what increasingly seemed to me to be the inherently for-
mulaic and limited nature not just of conventional British and American office buildings but
also of office landscaping. The hypotheses in my doctoral dissertation were an attempt to test
the relation between two sociological dimensions – i.e. more or less hierarchical organizational
structures and the greater or lesser intensity of internal interactions between office workers –
with two hypothesized architectural and space planning consequences – i.e. greater or lesser
differentiation between workplaces and more or less openness in office layouts. Meanwhile,
based in Princeton, I was acting as a part-time consultant to JFN, then one of the leading space
planners in New York, thus learning a great deal about the practical realities of contemporary
North American office design practice.
In 1971 I returned to London to support a European office for JFN.The firm had just been
appointed by IBM to ‘roll out’ a series of open plan offices across Europe. What became very
apparent in this series of projects was that European office cultures, even within IBM’s tightly
controlled business culture, varied greatly from country to country and that any attempt to
homogenize office planning across Europe, on the American pattern, had the potential to
stimulate dangerous social tensions within the workforce.
By 1974 JFN had collapsed both in North America and in Europe in the economic crisis of
that year. DEGW (Duffy Eley Giffone Worthington) inherited the firm’s European operations
and was already becoming, in our own right, a successful international architectural, design
and consultancy practice. DEGW conducted many international studies over the decades and
became well known particularly, but by no means exclusively, in the field of workplace design.
User research was the hallmark of the practice, most notably in the series of ORBIT studies
on the impact of information technology on office design, carried out in the 1990s in the UK,
Europe, North America and South America. Many other studies were published by the firm
over the years and eventually a network of over a dozen DEGW offices was established across
Europe, North America and the Asia Pacific.

The rise and fall of Stage M

‘Houses rise and fall, crumble, are extended’, T. S. Eliot (1940)

By the 1980s I had become much involved in professional politics, eventually serving as President
of the Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) and of the Architects’ Council of Europe.
130 F. Duffy

The clue that only Sherlock Holmes was sharp enough to spot was that in the middle of
the night the dog didn’t bark. From my professional perspective, a parallel mystery is why Stage
M of the RIBA plan of work never materialized.
‘What’s Stage M?’ I hear you ask. In the early 1960s a distinguished multidisciplinary team
was tasked by RIBA to study problems of organization, staffing, quality of service and product-
ivity in a sample of architects’ offices. In a time of continuing post-Second World War recon-
struction, many leaders of the British architectural profession were convinced of the relevance
of the social sciences to architectural practice. In fact, two members of the RIBA team, Janet
Madge and Joan Milne, were sociologists. However, nothing came of the Institute’s original
ambition to make user feedback – i.e. Stage M – the mandatory final stage of the British pro-
fession’s official plan of work.
The economic context at that time was such that at least half the income of the archi-
tectural profession came from social and government funded projects – housing, schools and
hospitals – in fact, whatever was needed to repair years of bomb damage and neglect in order
to create the fabric of the brave new world of the Welfare State.
The team’s report, published by the RIBA in 1962 as The Architect and his Office (RIBA
1962) – how uncomfortable the gender bias inherent in that title sounds today – declared
that (1) architectural education should be diversified to bring technical skills into the profes-
sion, (2) architectural education should consist of a planned mix of practical training and an
approved syllabus to be taught in architectural schools, (3) architects’ fees should be related
to the size and complexity of jobs, and (4) architects needed to be taught managerial skills to
take advantage of the application of standardization and industrialization to the production of
architecture. By the standards of the early 1960s, this was a radical agenda.
In the following year the Institute published the RIBA Plan of Work (RIBA 1963) based on
the team’s socially conscious, modernizing programme. Although revised from time to time,
this template has regulated for five subsequent decades the conduct of British architectural
practice. Mandatory fee scales were laid down that still today are widely regarded as guidelines
despite increasingly strong competitive pressures and increasingly stringent, anti-monopoly
legislation. Given the Institute’s Plan of Work’s principal objective, i.e. ‘to provide a model
procedure for methodical working by the design team’, it is hardly surprising that the follow-
ing sequence of an outline plan of work was defined – ‘Stages A to M – from inception, to
feasibility studies, to outline proposals, through scheme design, to detail design, to production
information, to bills of quantities, to tender action, through project planning, to operations
on site, to completion’. Stage M – ‘Completion’ – was originally intended to embrace post-
occupancy evaluation.
For 50 years Stages A to L (but significantly never M) have been the backbone of British
architectural practice and have been widely adopted by the British construction industry.
However, Stage M, i.e. the obligation to gather data on how well each completed project had
met the client’s original objectives, was never made mandatory nor put into operational effect,
probably because it must have seemed, given the collective psychology of the profession – to
this day an unstable mixture of optimism and insecurity – too complex, too difficult and,
above all, far too likely to lead to trouble. Architects are notoriously keen to move on to the
next project. Moreover, even in those far off and relatively easygoing days, lawyers were on the
prowl and many a client would have been more than delighted to use the gift of a critical or
even a mildly apologetic post-occupancy report to claw back fees still due. Of course, in the
wider context of the construction industry, there were then and remain today plenty of other
 Buildings and their use 131

frictions between contractors and subcontractors as well as within design teams themselves.
Squabbles often occur. Grievances call out to be settled – in court if necessary. Even Stage L,
the less controversial evaluation of project delivery from the points of view of the design team
and the contractors, has provided plenty of scope for post-project wrangles. Stage M itself was
stillborn and never made operational.
The architectural profession, as a whole, in the UK but also worldwide, has been shy of
and has taken too little advantage of garnering systematic feedback from clients and users. On
the whole architects have failed to legitimize socially, operationally, commercially and legally
acceptable methods of uncovering and learning from the successes and failures of projects,
least of all from the multiple and frequently divergent points of view of investors, clients and
users. Unlike architecture, the medical and the legal professions have long since been accus-
tomed to harvest practice experience and willingly, even enthusiastically, to share data – hence
the huge value of and respect for epidemiology in medicine and for precedents in the legal
profession. For the same motive many business schools today use empirically derived case
studies as a valuable teaching method.
Three factors could still facilitate the gleaning of relevant feedback by architects: (1) spe-
cialization in single building types, (2) learning from experiences derived from parallel projects
that facilitate the comparison and categorization of success and failure, and (3) taking advan-
tage of ongoing relations with groups of similar clients, sector by sector. Access to comparative
data on the performance of buildings in use, preferably in collaboration with the relatively
new profession of facilities managers, could already have begun to provide a sound basis for
the development of measures of success and failure. An accessible body of shared, professional
experience, systematically accumulated and presented, perhaps in the format of business school
case studies, or of precedents in legal practice or of epidemiology in medical science, would be
invaluable not just to clients and users but also to the practice of architecture and the enlight-
enment of architectural students, but more strategically to benefit clients and users. So far the
opportunity of creating such a body of data and of precedents has been quietly turned down
by two professions’ – architecture and facilities management – grievous, continuing and long-
term loss.
Supply-side thinking, which results in complacency and the suppression of inconvenient,
and potentially embarrassing, feedback, is particularly strong in my field, the development and
design of speculative office buildings in the English-speaking world. In Northern European
countries, such as Sweden, Germany and the Netherlands, where developers play a less pre-
dominant role in the financing and delivery of office projects, clients tend to be more pro-
active and involved firstly because many of them are accustomed to financing and procuring
their own, purpose-built buildings, and secondly, because of the power of workers’ councils in
the social democratic political context. In this way these countries seem to have been able to
avoid some of the problems that have resulted from the combination of an over-emphasis on
the logistics of delivery combined with the weak articulation of demand-side criteria that has
been characteristic of British and North American speculative office development.
It is also the case that the American as well as British supply chains in the design of office
buildings are predominantly developer- rather than client-, let alone user-, led. These sup-
ply chains work as follows: first comes the money, in these days often from the Middle East
or China, business cultures not yet particularly renowned for caring too much for end user
criteria; secondly, the money is handed over to professional developers who consult real-
tors, whose principal job it is to sell or let space rather than using, let alone managing, this
132 F. Duffy

commodity. They negotiate with the help of lawyers, whose bias regrettably tends towards
maximising short-term financial benefits for their developer clients rather than protecting the
longer-term interests of the eventual building users. Architects are then brought in, usually
too late in the day to have any influence on strategic client decisions, followed by the rest of
the design team, who work together to hand projects over to the construction industry from
which the ball is tossed to corporate real estate in client organizations and then on to facil-
ities managers. They have sometimes been known to prefer to tell end users what they ought
to have rather than enquiring too deeply about what they really need. The result of this, for
all intents and purposes unstoppable, chain is what we see all round, particularly in British
cities, but also in the United States: the endless repetition of formulaic solutions such as deep,
‘efficient’ office floors, occupied by row after row of space-consuming and isolating ‘cubes’.
This is shown in that ingenuous cartoon character, Dilbert, and many of his male and female
colleagues, are imprisoned.
The principal characteristics of this supply chain are easy to characterize: invisibility, a top-
down bias, unidirectional processes that are unstoppable once started and, worst of all, a strong
tendency to neglect, ignore or bury feedback from users.

Conclusion
Within this wider chain of events the RIBA’s Plan of Work has turned out in practice in
office design in the UK to be a single, relatively unimportant series of processes. The good
intentions of the authors of The Architect and his Office and RIBA’s Plan of Work were quickly
subverted. By defining, in effect, the architect’s task too precisely in terms of project delivery
rather than of opening up a series of open-ended, goal-oriented enquiries, the intelligent and
well-meaning members of a RIBA committee 50 years ago unwittingly locked the profession
in an intellectual prison of which architects absent-mindedly have mislaid or even sometimes
may have thrown away the key.
So perhaps it’s not surprising that in office design the dog still hasn’t yet barked. Despite
the many good things that architects continue to achieve, had we been as clever collectively
as Sherlock Holmes was individually, we would have recognized long ago what our profession
on both sides of the Atlantic has long been missing: quite simply we architects, as we move
from project to project, especially in office design, a field in which developers’ and even cor-
porate clients’ time horizons are so short, have found it easy to be deaf to the cumulative and
longer-term requirements of whole classes of users.

References
Eliot, T. S. (1940) East Coker. London: Faber and Faber.
RIBA (Royal Institute of British Architects) (1962) The Architect and his Office: A Survey of Organization,
Staffing, Quality of Service and Productivity. London: RIBA.
RIBA (Royal Institute of British Architects) (1963) RIBA Plan of Work. London: RIBA [many subse-
quent editions].
13
OBLIQUE ALTERNATIVES
Architectural advancement through performance

Paul Knox

Introduction
Contemporary architecture culture has become obsessed with the notion of novelty. This
fixation, compounded by staggering technological advances and infinite access to data, has
resulted in a gross surfeit of architectural approaches. Paradoxically, this proliferation of sup-
posedly differentiated tactics has led to precisely the opposite of its intended effect; the more
these ostensible innovations strive to be dissimilar, the more alike they seem.Vittorio Gregotti
(1996) aptly referred to this phenomenon as “the process of homogenization set in motion by
diversity turned into pure ideology.” As these boundless options are proliferated and promoted
as a naturalized state, a critical capacity for judgment becomes all the more important in dis-
cerning between the valuable and ephemeral. Yet, this indispensable faculty has been largely
supplanted by a blind sense of acceptance of various architectural ideas, irrespective of their
material importance.Without an essential ability to judge architecture based on distinguishing
performative characteristics, architecture has the potential to blend into an inconsequential
environment of similitude. Gregotti (1996) argues that this condition “is gradually becoming
conventional, assuming the form of a tacitly conditioned freedom that makes it impossible to
establish authentic difference”. Inclusiveness displaces criticality and meaningful difference is
lost in the name of unfettered access.

The dilemma of difference

Robert A. M. Stern’s built architectural contributions are as notable as his academic ones; he
has been able to simultaneously and successfully embody the dual role of adept architectural
historian and architectural history maker. His architectural and academic works stand as recip-
rocal enrichments of the built urban environment, especially within New York City. To mark
the publication of his millennial installment of the renowned New York series, a roundtable
discussion organized by the Temple Hoyne Buell Center was held at Columbia University’s
Wood Auditorium at Avery Hall on January 25th, 2007. Writers and historians of New York
architecture, including Tom Wolfe, Robert Beauregard, Kenneth Jackson, and Joan Ockman,
134 P. Knox

had the opportunity to discuss Stern’s New York 2000: Architecture and Urbanism Between the
Bicentennial and the Millennium (2006). This most recent edition in Stern’s New York series
was an anomaly in a number of revealing respects; it was the first to include color images,
the most comprehensive of the series (weighing more than ten pounds), and the first to be
written within the moment it was attempting to historicize. In response to a question raised
by Ockman concerning the challenges confronting a historian in this last respect, which she
referred to as the writing of an “instant history” or “writing the history of the immediate past
as opposed to the most distant past in the previous volumes,” Stern responded:

It is very difficult to write about the recent past, but it seemed to me as the initiator
of the series as a whole, its natural conclusion … I owed it to the series, if you will,
to the intellectual construct [of the series] to tackle the recent past … The amount of
information out there is staggering and it makes it possible to practically chart the thing
block by block and you get caught up in this incredible array of information trying
to put it together in some type of meaningless [audience laughter followed by swift
correction] – meaningful way.

This telling Freudian slip underscores the precise dilemma facing historians of architecture
and architects alike. The impulse to completely catalog a moment in time or space is compli-
cated by the necessity of critical judgment. Previously, the technological means for quickly
culling or creating images had not been available. The sheer temporal commitment that was
required to discover an image of a past architectural era or to create one for a proposed project,
necessitated patience and in turn some degree of selectivity. Rem Koolhaas’s S,M,L,XL (1998)
ironically celebrates this dilemma and ushered in a new publishing paradigm.The tome some-
times seems to resemble an attempt to publish the internet or to prioritize the rich diversity
of images over their specific qualitative worth. Critical discrimination is sacrificed in the name
of inclusive completion. Authentic difference is relinquished in the name of what Gregotti
(1996) would term “inconsequential originality”.When speaking of the image-saturated soci-
ety, Roland Barthes (1982) voiced a similar concern that it is “as if the universalized image
were producing a world that is without difference”.
The sociologist Richard Sennett (1992) claims that the modern urban inhabitant con-
fronted with this constant bombardment of images and information, accelerated by the
technological advances of the car, necessarily simplifies his environment through passively glib
judgments. This perspective is often assumed by the architectural authors of this environment
where instantaneous judgment becomes reflexive action. The careful considerations required
to address the complexities of the urban condition are abandoned. This reaction is the phys-
ical analog to surfing the internet where thoughtful analysis is increasingly untenable and
yet all the more pressing. Someone like Robert Moses epitomized this perspective by incising
simple lines, in the form of highways, through densely entrenched swaths of New York City.
Ironically, he never actually learned to drive, further enforcing the passivity of such a perspec-
tive and the pitfalls of its makings.The ease with which images can be created, proliferated, and
consumed jeopardizes the worth of the image itself and the architecture it represents.

Diagram and image

One dominant response to the overwhelming nature of today’s inundation of information is
the ubiquitous implementation of simplified diagrams to explicate the design process. Bjarke
 Architectural advancement through performance 135

Ingles and his renowned firm have taken this stance to its logical extreme. Whole buildings
emerge unabashedly as literal extrusions of two-dimensional typographical characters. The
REN Building, for example, is literally the Chinese character meaning “people” rendered
in three-dimensions. Moreover, the original design was not even intended for its ultimately
proposed site. It was originally intended as a competition entry for a hotel in the north of
Sweden. When it was not selected as the winning entry, it was later recycled a continent
away for the World Expo 2010 in Shanghai. Notwithstanding the fortuitous and unintended
resemblance to a Chinese character, the lack of specificity inherent in its design makes it
necessarily indifferent to the context in which it is situated. This project can be interpreted
quite literally as anything, anywhere; from two-dimensional Chinese character to three-
dimensional built form, vascillating between various scales without the burden of architec-
tural materiality. Physical building and virtual diagram collapse into one fleetingly consumed
proposition.
The hazard of this sleek and attractive reduction of complexity is that the resultant archi-
tectural forms are not imbued with the material realities which constitute their ultimate cre-
ation. The material means with which the building will be made become an afterthought to
its graphic articulation. By prioritizing the emblematic representation of a building over its
architectural constitution, it runs the risk of losing lasting formal or performative value beyond
the graphic realm in which it emerges. Pier Vittorio Aureli (2005), in his deeply insightful
essay “After Diagrams,” subtly surveys this dilemma and posits that with the contemporary
use of the diagram, “the iconographic persuasion, or better yet, its graphic decor, becomes
the main essence of its content”. The building is no longer exclusively about the experiential
aspects of architecture, but equally concerned with the simplified symbol of its explanation.
He continues by rightly asserting:

The power of the diagram is its ability to evoke the reshaping of an entire situation with
one simple gesture. Thus, the most problematic aspect of the diagram is its capacity to
immediately subsume something that is absolutely irreducible to any representation.

The use of the diagram tacitly assumes that the material substance of architecture can be eas-
ily superseded with a symbol of its development. This aids in the ease with which an urban
inhabitant can now consume his environment. The daunting complexity of the urban envir-
onment, Sennett recognized, no longer needs to be confronted, experienced, and critically
judged, but rather passively consumed. Kenneth Frampton, in reference to Lewis Mumford,
posits that “the darker side of the information age resides in our incapacity to assimilate the
unending proliferation of data that is placed at our disposal” (Gregotti 1996). The diagram
allows one to comfortably disregard the physical experience of an increasingly complex and
contradictory material reality. It diminishes the design process into an exercise of avoidance.
All of the decision-making and careful considerations constituting architecture are subservient
to a single distillation of its non-material identity.
This trend has also marked the increasing infringement of graphic design on architecture
per se. In Adolf Loos’s strikingly prescient 1910 essay “Architecture,” he raises this issue that
still dominates the discipline of architecture today:

The architect has reduced the noble art of building to a graphic art. The one who
receives the most commission is not the one who can build the best but the one whose
work looks the best on paper … But for the old master builders the drawings were
136 P. Knox

merely a means of communicating with the craftsmen who carried out the work, just as
a poet has to communicate through writing. However, we are not so totally devoid of
culture as to get a boy to take up poetry just because he has a calligraphic hand.

The two-dimensional visual representation used to depict a building has come to supplant
the material experience of the building itself. This phenomenon moves beyond the abundant
diagrams used to explain a building’s genesis and into the realm of glossy images that pervade
marketing material. Rendered images of buildings appear long before they are constructed.
One of the consequences of this approach is that by the time the building is actually built, it
runs the risk of being outmoded. This is compounded in especially byzantine political con-
ditions like those of New York where projects are subject to lengthy bureaucratic processes.
However, even in China, which has a reputation for dictatorial efficiency, delays can bring
out the schism between a work promoted too soon and the reality of the finished product.
Koolhaas famously rejected a number of New York City commissions in favor of projects
within China, most notably the CCTV tower series of lectures, publications, and interviews
extolled the virtues of the project long before it was complete. The novelty of the architec-
tural form itself had run its promotional course prior to its actual debut. The diagrams of
the programmatic and structural feats of the CCTV which had been ceaselessly circulated
almost surpassed the now moderately marginalized monolith that sits in Beijing. Even with a
building exemplifying such true formal originality, the curse of pre-emptive promotion had
endangered the material force of the form itself. The massive building had almost been over-
shadowed by the obsessive imaging of its formation.

Scientistic style
Another commonplace brand of conflation has emerged between the technological means of
communicating building and the building itself. Instead of simplifying the complex contem-
porary condition with the diagrammatic image, the scientistic style seeks to ostensibly analyze
it and produce a superficially rational result.Technological innovations within computing have
led to greater ease in the execution of construction documentation for architects. However,
as the architect has become conversant in this new form of dimensional drafting he has also
become equally enamored by its technocratic image. Along with precision and productivity
has come the fetishization of digital computing.This now allows the architect to assume a new
role as a quasi-scientist who can disregard the objective rigor of the scientific method, but
reap the visually striking benefits of its three-dimensional rhetoric. Algorithms and paramet-
ric processes are able to generate form with virtuosity and seeming scientific legitimacy the
architect could only have imagined in the past.
An exemplary project of this sort is Thom Mayne’s 41 Cooper Square in New York City
(Figure 13.1).The large incision in the façade appears to be as arbitrary as it was computation-
ally challenging to conceive. The building appears to be striving to represent the complexity
of the urban condition, but not in a comprehensible way.The form appears highly specific, yet
has no specific explanation. It proposes no concerted solution, but rather an authorless expres-
sion of the dilemma itself; the discomfiting contemporary condition laid bare in frozen form.
With the Cooper Square project, the desire to arrest an undulating digital surface mid-stream
was prioritized over the material constitution of the building and its ultimate physical pres-
ence. The material, structural, and physical inefficiencies inherent in such an elaborate form
 Architectural advancement through performance 137

FIGURE 13.1 41 Cooper Square at the Cooper Union designed by Thom Mayne of Morphosis
Source: author.

become evident when considering its cost. When it was announced that Cooper Union will
no longer be offering free tuition for the first time in its 150-year history, one cannot help but
look to the Cooper Square project as an emblem of indifference towards the material reality
of architecture.
Another fundamental impetus behind this trend is the abstention of authorship. These
types of scientistic propositions seem to largely generate themselves and as such are impreg-
nable to direct criticism. The form is a consequence of a largely anonymous computational
process beyond the ability of an architectural author. The architect is then isolated from criti-
cism because the complexity of his work’s formal genesis prohibits the comprehension of
any specificity; each formal move has no explanation per se, but rather has emerged from an
autonomous virtual space. Both the design decisions and the culpability associated with those
choices can be conveniently jettisoned by the architect. Managing the results of a digital
process can result in arbitrary outcomes that do not necessarily account for the material
realities inherent in built form. Definitive decisions can be ceded in favor of passive detach-
ment, much akin to the avoidance afforded by the diagrammatic approach to architecture as
a simplified solution.
138 P. Knox

Form and performance

We occupy an age of near epistemological conclusion where an excess of information has
produced an environment of indifference. Coping with the amount of knowledge at our
disposal is as formidable as it is overwhelming. Architects of the past faced the opposite
dilemma encountered by practitioners of today. Knowledge was so scarce that mere access
could empower an individual to imbue his creations with originality. Thomas Jefferson’s copy
of Palladio’s Quattro Libri likely contributed more to his architectural achievements than any
inherent innovations of his own invention. Knowledge was passed preciously along as a com-
modity rather than a fragment to be summarized in a sea of information.
At the same time as Jefferson was building his celebrated Rotunda at the University of
Virgina, the British scientist Michael Faraday was across the Atlantic embarking on his famed
experimentations in electromagnetism. What is revealing about Faraday is that he was not
formally trained as a scientist, yet he was able to make some of the most significant scientific
contributions of his age. Lacking any formal education, Faraday was so mathematically inept
that he resorted to sketching diagrams of metal filings that formed various patterns around
magnetic poles in place of developing the proofs to explain the phenomenon he witnessed.
These simple graphics are still found in today’s advanced textbooks and persist as instrumen-
tal tools in explicating the foundational discoveries of magnetic forces. Akin to Jefferson,
Faraday’s contributions were able to arise in an era where Moore’s law had yet to be fully
realized. An environment of epistemological scarcity in the past provided an opportunity for
what we would consider a layperson to make an original discovery of lasting historical value.
Contributions of this magnitude today can only be the result of either extreme expertise
through specialization or management of human resources.

Conclusion
The most original projects today are able to thoughtfully resolve the complexity of our current
condition through architectural performance on formal and material grounds alike. They are
able to reconcile the necessary technical demands of a building with the formal elegance that
activates the perspective of the subject. Faraday’s discoveries are at work in one such signifi-
cant example: Herzog and de Meuron’s SBB Signal box 4 in Basel, Switzerland (Wang 1998).
The copper clad bands that wrap the twisted shape both protect the sensitive electrical equip-
ment within from electromagnetic fields and provide a material dynamism to the form of the
building. As the subject shifts around the building, the thin twisted slats of copper dynamically
alter the material appearance of the mass. The material form of the building actively expresses
the shifting position of the viewer in a haptic personification of movement. Complex infra-
structural and urban issues are resolved elegantly with a singular formal and technical solution.
Herzog and de Meuron’s work has long been marked by this type of consistent sophistication
and restraint. Jacques Herzog argues that:

Today our designs look much more spectacular and nobody can criticize us for lack of
inventiveness or richness of form. Actually the problem is the richness itself, countless
variations that flood the world of architecture and art, and generate a kind of blindness.
The problem, as always, is to escape the tyranny of innovation.
(Herzog et al. 2004)
 Architectural advancement through performance 139

The unyielding demand of our contemporary condition to constantly reinvent comes at

a cost to our ability to critically discern. Authentic originality can only emerge from a reso-
lute dedication to the intrinsic qualities of architecture. Formal and technical performance are
the material characteristics that can catalyze the possibility of genuine difference and move
beyond the prevailing positions of “inconsequential originality” (Gregotti 1996).

References
Aureli, P.V. (2005) “After Diagrams.” Log 6: 5–9.
Barthes, R. (1982) Camera Lucida. New York: Hill and Wang.
Gregotti,V. (1996) Inside Architecture. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Herzog, J., J. Wall, and P. Ursprung (2004) Pictures of Architecture, Architecture of Pictures: A Conversation
between Jacques Herzog and Jeff Wall, moderated by Philip Ursprung. New York: Springer.
Koolhaas, R. (1998) S,M,L,XL. New York: Monacelli Press.
Loos, A. (1910) “Architecture.” Reprinted in T. and C. Benton and D. Sharp (eds), Form and Function: A
Source Book for the History of Architecture and Design 1890–1939. London: Crosby Lockwood Staples,
1975, pp. 41–44.
Sennett, R. (1992) The Uses of Disorder: Personal Identity and City Life. New York: W. W. Norton.
Stern, R. A. M. (2006) NewYork 2000: Architecture and Urbanism Between the Bicentennial and the Millennium.
New York: Monacelli Press.
Wang, W. (1998) Herzog and de Meuron. Basel: Birkhäuser.
REFLECTIONS ON PART III
Daniel S. Friedman

Critics write what media publish; both criticism and media require newsworthy targets. Essays
in this Part III of the book, such as Ashraf Salama’s thorough analysis of published reviews of
the design of Cairo’s Al Azhar Park, explore the social and cultural consequences of this limi-
tation, since the overall efficacy of built environments clearly depends not only on how good
or bad buildings look or on who designed them, but on how well or poorly they perform.
In addition to mechanical operations – air quality, thermal efficiency, water management,
and energy – the evaluation of performance requires empirical methodologies and data that
assess the impact of buildings on people – their perceptions, productivity, health, and salubrity,
among other factors. One consequence of architecture’s historical orientation to the values
and aspirations of high design is the intellectual and academic marginalization of research and
scholarship that study how people actually use buildings, how well they serve their needs and
expectations, and how a building’s total performance conditions its design success or failure.
Cases where critical acclamation conflicts with the experiences of use and public perception
abound – in Seattle, Rem Koolhaas’s Central Public Library, completed in 2004, and Frank
Gehry’s Experience Music Project, completed in 2000, still polarize the consuming public,
dividing critics and admirers brandishing vocabularies that condemn or celebrate building
form and building and performance.

Integrated design and practice needs integrated architectural criticism

This segregation of methodologies and vocabulary is not limited to public debate surrounding
marquee architecture. Likewise influencing the future of criticism is the shift that takes place
internally, within architecture’s professional culture and the industries that surround it. Paolo
Tombesi cogently describes the current threshold dividing past and future practices:

In the end, it is up to [schools] to facilitate the adoption and dissemination of a cultural

paradigm in which architects may find themselves in a (group) discussion on build-
ings but also industrial systems, on spatial semantics but also procurement strategies,
on materials but also industrial relations and training programs, on project budgets but
 Reflections on Part III 141

also project priorities. Of course, implementing this agenda requires adjusting curric-
ula [and] devising teaching strategies that can expand the idea of design as an activity
broader than architectural design … As suggested, this might involve questioning the
epistemology of design vis-à-vis the domains it intersects rather than treating its archi-
tectural component with blind reverence; it might also involve overcoming the cultural
separation that has long beset the analysis of intellectual work in construction, possibly
by revealing design’s social heterogeneity and by adopting analytical instruments capable
of decoding the actual value of particular patterns of work; and it could require present-
ing construction, management, real estate, or other enterprises that are not strictly archi-
tectural as legitimate concerns of one’s professional dimension as an architect.
(Tombesi 2010)

Tombesi’s formidable analysis of the economics and culture surrounding design labor ech-
oes the observations offered by Ursula Baus and Ulrich Schramm in this volume in their
argument to extend and integrate the compass of architectural criticism to include “all phases
of the building life cycle.” Tombesi likewise calls for the radical integration of architecture
with other professional vocabularies responsible for the production and maintenance of built
environments. At issue, as always, is the relationship and distribution of risk, responsibility, and
reward.Tombesi argues that increased intimacy with the construction industry offers architects
obvious benefits – more influence over quality, greater public awareness, and less triviality.
Tombesi’s essay characterizes one strand of an ongoing discussion among educators and
practitioners increasingly concerned about how to engage the built environment both within
and beyond the traditional architectural vocabulary. Design criticsm at both smaller and larger
scales of production – personal teletechnology, for example, or public space in cities – already
integrates social, economic, and environmental evaluation. Architectural criticism has long
integrated history, anthropology, sociology, and political science – the seminal works of Joseph
Rykwert and Richard Sennett come to mind (Rykwert 1988; Sennett 1991). Environmental
psychology has also established a firm foothold in academia, in part through the growth and
success of the 46-year-old Environmental Design Research Association; similarly, the conver-
gence of landscape architecture and urban design fostered the emergence of a sub-discipline,
landscape urbanism, which has more recently expanded into the field of urban ecological
design. As Frank Duffy notes in this volume, a new, twenty-first-century criticism might
likewise and more fully integrate the migration of principles and methodologies across and
among more obvious, adjacent professional discourses, such as construction management,
building product manufacturing, supply chain systems, real estate studies, public health, and
environmental science.
On the one hand, leaders in architecture, planning, urban design, landscape architecture,
real estate, and construction management increasingly acknowledge the central importance of
integrated practice, which seeks to engage and apply “disruptive technologies” – e.g. build-
ing information modeling (BIM), 3D printing, and rapid prototyping – within well-estab-
lished practices increasingly dependent on both empirical research and design inquiry. This
approach presupposes not only new contractual structures, but also a new kind of technical
and scientific understanding that can command and maximize the full potential of increasingly
transformative digital tools. Among other capabilities, these tools permit the construction of
virtual buildings and urban districts in highly adjustable digital environments, assembled into
data-rich models, which therefore provide an opportunity for unprecedented analyses of the
142 D. S. Friedman

behavior and performance of buildings, landscapes, cities, and regions, in advance of capital
investment and implementation.
On the other hand, many educators argue that architectural education should intensify its
emphasis on design-in-itself as the defining subject of our contemporary professional curricula
and criticism. Given the current limits of the curriculum – in the US these limits are defined
by the National Architectural Accrediting Board (NCARB) and by the professional regula-
tion it serves – this needn’t suggest further displacement of building science and technology.
On the contrary, the expansion of design methodologies in architecture to a broader range of
physical and organizational problems suggests an opportunity to integrate, not exclude, empir-
ical evaluation and data. With that said, academics who regard architecture as an autonomous
branch of the humanities fiercely defend their detachment from technocracy and commercial
practice; their responsibility is to incessantly provoke, displace, and often scandalize the com-
placency, habits, and ruling assumptions of commercial practice. Historians, theorists, and crit-
ics abhor banality; their job is to question the profession’s aesthetic and ethical compass.

Emerging models of integrated architectural criticism

Yet integrative design thinking – generously redefined at the scale of built environments –
ostensibly reconciles aesthetics and performance, opening doors to the novel exploration of
their critical synergies, as Kiel Moe has ably demonstrated in his seminal study of thermally
active surfaces in buildings (Moe 2010). Moe’s methodology blends philosophy, social and his-
torical analysis, scientific principle, building performance evaluation, architectural history, and
high design theory, providing an entirely new model of integrative architectural criticism and
scholarship that greatly expands the potential benefits to readers. Moe models an iconoclastic
alternative to contemporary criticism, defining his scope on thermodynamic principles that
encompass diverse urban and ecological contexts, therefore expanding his audience to include
not just teachers and students of architecture and trailing culturati, but also middle-ground
practitioners, mechanical engineers, building owners, developers, and occupants, anyone for
whom heat and energy matter.
Looming behind these concerns of course is global economic and environmental uncer-
tainty. The next few years will be especially decisive for built environments disciplines, since
disruptive technologies like BIM and mass customization increasingly shift early design deci-
sion-making from the individual architect to an interdisciplinary team, including developers,
contractors, engineers, consultants, and specialists.
How well is traditional architectural criticism addressing the traffic across traditional discip-
linary boundaries? Without exception, conversations with professional leaders in architecture,
planning, landscape, and construction confirm the recognition that grand challenge prob-
lems – the environment, energy, urbanization, information, and health (all solvable, but not by
any one discipline working alone) – require deep, structural collaboration; and that leadership
in the built environment professions increasingly demands the effective and even radical inte-
gration of diverse methods, practices, vocabularies, and services.
There are many reasons to seek structures that better leverage new forms of criticism and
media attentive to this level of interdisciplinary exchange. The digital age recently witnessed
the passing of one of its pioneers, Jack Wolf, emeritus professor at the University of California
San Diego, whom the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers called “one of the most
productive cross-fertilizers in engineering research, successfully importing techniques used in
 Reflections on Part III 143

one field to obtain unexpected results in another” (Martin 2011). His life’s work reminds us
that computer science began as a hybrid discipline born out of the convergence of mathem-
atics and electrical engineering; likewise the word “bioengineering,” a burgeoning discipline
and locus of hundreds of millions of dollars in sponsored research, was not in common use
before the second half of the last century. Moe’s work on thermodynamics in architecture,
among other convergences described in this and following parts of this book, holds out hope
that similar hybrid methods and vocabularies will transform our understanding of built envir-
onments and the complicated social, natural, and cultural systems in which they always already
find themselves immersed.

References
Martin, D. (2011) “Jack Wolf, Who Did the Math Behind Computers, Dies at 76.” The New York Times,
March 20.
Moe, K. (2010) Thermally Active Surfaces in Architecture. New York: Princeton Architectural Press.
Rykwert, J. (1988) The Idea of a Town:The Anthropology of Urban Form in Rome, Italy, and the Ancient World.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Sennett, R. (1991) The Conscience of the Eye: The Design and Social Life of Cities. London: Faber and
Faber.
Tombesi, P. (2010) “On the Cultural Separation of Design Labor.” In P. Deamer and P. G. Bernstein
(eds), Building (in) The Future: Recasting Labor in Architecture. New York: Princeton Architectural Press,
pp. 117–36.
This page intentionally left blank
PART IV

Historical review and types of

building performance evaluation
This page intentionally left blank
14
HISTORICAL REVIEW OF BUILDING
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
Wolfgang F. E. Preiser and Andrea Hardy

Introduction
The goal of this chapter is to chronicle the history and evolution of the field of post-occu-
pancy evaluation (POE) as it evolved into building performance evaluation (BPE), and to
identify major milestones in its development. This chapter outlines the progression of evalu-
ation efforts. This was undertaken by categorizing evaluations by building types, ranging from
residential housing to offices, hospitals and government facilities, or just about any facility
type for that matter. Findings included: large organizations with repetitive building programs
were the major players in POE/BPE projects; major concentrations of POE/BPE efforts were
found in English-speaking countries like the US, UK, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada.
Major outcomes and benefits of POE/BPE case study evaluations were the development of
guidelines for the planning and design of future buildings. The implications of the evolution
of POE/BPE are increased sophistication of methodologies and system-wide applications in
a growing number of countries around the world.

The evolution of post-occupancy evaluation

Beginning in the late 1960s, evaluation case studies of university dormitories were carried out
by Sim van der Ryn (1967) of the University of California, Berkeley, and Victor Hsia (1967) of
the University of Utah. While they were not called post-occupancy evaluations (POEs), these
evaluations were the precursors for the first systematic attempts at assessing building perform-
ance from the building users’ point of view (Connell and Ostrander 1976a).
Inspired by Van der Ryn and Hsia, one of the authors’ (Preiser 1969) Master’s theses also
focused on evaluating dormitory performance, i.e. at Virginia Tech. It employed political sci-
ence rating scales (the Thurstone Scale of Equal Appearing Intervals) in innovative ways,
which have an error rate of no more than 3–5 percent. These rating scales were used to create
quality profiles, as perceived by the students living in three very different types of dormitories.
Ironically, the newest ones looked like high-rise prisons, and the oldest looked like Oxford-
style, two-story walk-up structures, and not surprisingly, they scored highest.
148 W. F. E. Preiser and A. Hardy

TABLE 14.1 Milestones in the evolution of POE/BPE

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

1967 Van der Ryn and Silverstein Student dormitories Environmental analysis; concept
and methods
1968 Manning Offices and schools Comprehensive building
appraisal
1968 Sanoff Any facility type Evaluation Techniques for
Designers – first monograph
on POE
1969 Preiser Student dormitories Environmental performance
profiles; correlation of
subjective and objective
performance measures
1971 Field et al. Hospital Multi-method approach to data
collection
1972 Markus et al. Any facility type Cost-based building
performance evaluation model
1974 Becker Public housing Cross-sectional comparative
approach to data collection
and analysis
1975 General Services US courts design Office system performance
Administration (GSA) guide standards (Building Research
Board 1987b)
1975 McLaughlin Hospitals “Evaluation of Hospitals” – first
article published on POE
1975 Veterans Administration Veterans’ hospitals POE of the Veterans
Administration Hospital in
San Diego (Building Research
Board 1987)
1976b Connell and Ostrander Government Post-occupancy evaluation of mail
facilities delivery and communications in
bachelor enlisted housing
1976 Goodrich Public square Observational POE
methodology
1976 US Army Corps of Military facilities Design Guide Series with
Engineers updatable, state-of-the-art
criteria (Building Research
Board 1987)
1978 Bechtel and Srivastava Housing Comprehensive review of POEs
of housing
1979 Public Works – Canada Government POE incorporated into project
facilities delivery system
1980 Daish et al. Military facilities POE
1980 Marans Offices Evaluation model linking
perceptual and objective
attributes
1981 Palmer Any facility type Programming linked to POE
methodology
1982 Parshall and Peña Any facility type Simplified and standardized
evaluation methodology for
practitioners
 Historical review of building performance evaluation 149

TABLE 14.1 (cont.)

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

1983 Duffy and Chandor Offices Orbit 1: Systems design standards
1984 Brill et al. Offices Linking worker productivity and
office design
1985 Davis et al. Orbit 2 Study Rating Process on Organizations,
Buildings and Information
Technology
1987a Building Research Board Any facility type Post-Occupancy Evaluation Practices
in the Building Process
1988 Preiser, Rabinowitz, and Any facility type Post-Occupancy Evaluation – first
White book on POE methodology
1989 Farbstein et al. US Postal Service POE and organizational
development
1989 Preiser Any facility type Building Evaluation – POE case
studies from around the world
1992 Sanoff Any facility type Integrating programming, POE,
and user participation in
design
1996 Baird et al. Any facility type Building Evaluation Techniques –
first comprehensive methods
book
1997 Preiser and Schramm Any facility type “Building Performance
Evaluation” – conceptual BPE
framework
2001 Federal Facilities Council Any facility type Learning From Our Buildings –
Federal POE/BPE overview
2001 National Educational facilities Feedback-based design standards
Clearinghouse for for schools
Educational Facilities
2003 NCARB Any facility type Improving Building Performance – a
study guide for architects
2005 Preiser and Vischer Any facility type Assessing Building Performance –
global BPE book
2005 Szigeti and Davis Any facility type Performance Based Building
2006 Zeisel and Eberhand Any facility type Example POE - The Jerusalem
Center for Multi-
Handicapped Visually
Impaired Children
2007 Hartman Any facility type “Measuring a Building’s
Success” – an article reviewing
the potentials and fears of
POEs for building designers
2008 Gonchar Any facility type “Looking Back and Moving
Forward”
2009 Ireland Any facility type Importance of collaboration and
building analysis – examples
using information about LEED
and intelligent building design
2009 OECD Educational facilities First coordinated European
effort
150 W. F. E. Preiser and A. Hardy

TABLE 14.1 (cont.)

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

2010 Spataru et al. E.ON Research Research on “creative energy
House homes”
2011 Borg Any facility type “A Dossier on Post-Occupancy
Evaluation”
2012 Kampschroer US federal buildings Building requirements and
evaluations for federal
buildings
2012 Lenoir, Baird, and Garde Educational facility How to achieve thermal comfort
through the use and efficiency
of the ENERPOS building in
La Réunion
2012 Mallory-Hill, Preiser, and Any facility type Enhancing Building Performance –
Watson state-of-the-art book on
process model, methodology,
and case studies
2012 Newton et al Educational facilities Australia’s “Building the
Education Revolution” –
template designs critiqued by
an interdisciplinary team in
POEs reviewing pedagogy,
sustainability, and life-cycle
analysis
Source: authors.

Planning Planning

Programming Programming

Design POE Design POE

Construction Construction

Occupancy Occupancy

FIGURE 14.1 An in-house approach to the use of post-occupancy evaluations

Source: Andrea Hardy.

By the mid-1970s, the first publications with the term “POE” in their title appeared, the
first of which was authored by Herb McLaughlin of KMD Architecture in San Francisco in
the AIA Journal issue of January 1975. He and a team of consultants had performed POEs
on hospitals in Utah and in San Francisco. Since then, over the past 35 years, McLaughlin has
been an ardent supporter of POE as a tool for in-house knowledge building in architecture
 Historical review of building performance evaluation 151

Research

POE Interview

Observation

FIGURE 14.2 Key components of a post-occupancy evaluation

Source: Andrea Hardy.
Performance
POE characteristics

Scale of settings
People

Intensity of POE investigation

FIGURE 14.3 Categories for post-occupancy evaluations from simpler indicative to more complex
diagnostic POE
Source: Andrea Hardy.

and design firms (McLaughlin 1997).Table 14.1 summarizes the history and milestones in the
evolution of POE/BPE.
Then there was the first methodological review of POE techniques that was also com-
missioned by the AIA Research Corporation (Connell and Ostrander 1976b). By the 1980s,
a great number of POEs were being carried out in the UK, Canada, New Zealand, Australia,
and the US focusing primarily on public works projects, government buildings, airports, and
similar facility types (Figure 14.1).
Also in the mid-1980s, the National Academy of Sciences (1987) established commit-
tees on opportunities for improvement in the practices of programming, post-occupancy
152 W. F. E. Preiser and A. Hardy

evaluation, and database development, which linked the two conceptually. What is really
interesting to know is: have the recommendations of the reports been realized over the
past 35 years? Yes, indeed they have, especially in the information technology arena, which
was in its infancy at that time. A seminal and first POE textbook was published by Preiser,
Rabinowitz, and White (1988). The appendix of that book is perhaps the most interesting
part, because it presents measurement techniques for getting feedback on the quality of
facilities. Considered to be a companion volume to Post-Occupancy Evaluation, the book
Building Evaluation was published a year after it (Preiser1989), with case studies from around
the world (Figure 14.2).
The early POE framework (Preiser, Rabinowitz, and White 1988) provided three lev-
els of effort, sophistication and data-gathering techniques, cost, manpower, etc.: indica-
tive, investigative, and diagnostic POEs (Figure 14.3). Within each of these were three
steps: (1) Planning: reconnaissance and feasibility, resource planning, research planning;
(2) Conducting: initiating on-site data collection process, monitoring and managing data
collection procedures, analyzing data; and (3) Applying: reporting findings, recommend-
ing actions, reviewing outcomes. Finally, the three categorizations in carrying out POEs
were: people (individuals, groups, and organizations); scales of settings (rooms, buildings, and
building complexes); and three levels of performance (according to the habitability frame-
work). As this field progressed, this framework was considered to be quite simplistic, and, in
many ways, inadequate.
One example of POEs using this framework is an evaluation done on the Jerusalem Center
for Multi-Handicapped Visually Impaired Children. Preiser was brought on early as a consult-
ant to architect Adina Darvasi and then again after the building’s completion by the owners
to conduct a POE. It was through research, conducting interviews, and observing that Preiser
was able to pinpoint numerous problems with the building and then provided the client with
various solutions to increase the efficiency and overall use of the building for its disabled
occupants (Zeisel 2006).
As POE strategies and techniques continue to evolve, the main goal behind these stud-
ies and evaluations is to share their findings. The intent is to help building technologies and
designs to move forward and develop. Completed POEs “can help identify strategies that work
best, those that need refinement, and those that should not be repeated on future projects.” For
even further building analysis, the owner and architect can conduct a BPE (Gonchar 2008)

Toward building performance evaluation

In the mid-1990s, issues pertaining to the building delivery cycle, as well as the life-cycle of
a building – a meta-level approach to building evaluation – were investigated by Preiser and
Schramm (1997), and subsequently, an integrative framework/process model for building per-
formance evaluation was developed. In it, post-occupancy evaluation represents only one of
six internal review loops, and the framework focuses on the entire life of a building, as well as
anticipating the next building cycle.
The key concept was a gradually evolving knowledge base (Federal Facilities Council
2001) that translated into building performance criteria: issues like health, safety, security;
building codes; functionality and guideline materials; and last, but not least, the social, psycho-
logical, and cultural aspects of building performance (Figure 14.4).
 Historical review of building performance evaluation 153

POE
POE external
external POE
external

Planning

Programming

Design
POE

Construction

Occupancy

In-house use and

development of
POEs
FIGURE 14.4 In-house and external influences through the use of post-occupancy evaluations
Source: Andrea Hardy.

Major trends and their implications

The role of evaluation
Socio-critical, building performance, and aesthetic evaluations have been largely abandoned
in recent years in favor of the faux-affirmation of pseudo-scientific data porn and diagram-
matic “meaning” writ large. If evaluations are by definition empirically sound, why does
criticism fall so far behind to mere populism? Why are quantitative measures of user experi-
ence so frequently omitted from the design process? With the combination of observed data
as a tool, not a picture, and practical willingness to integrate criticism into the design pro-
cess as a dynamic tool for evaluation, architecture can reclaim a critical stance grounded in
unmediated user experience as the highest aspiration for beauty, technology, and space. In
other words, the most powerful tool we can exercise as architects is that our buildings engage
directly and sometimes unpredictably with our users. The architectural imperative is then to
produce work that holds the user in high enough esteem to allow them to both form and
communicate judgment.

Conceptual/theoretical implications
Descriptive criticism does not seek to judge nor even intend to interpret, but to help people
see what is actually there. In all of its types it does not offer judgments, but merely depicts what
154 W. F. E. Preiser and A. Hardy

exists, such as how people move through space, and/or provides information about the social,
political, and economic context within which built environments are designed and created.

Methodological implications
The expanded, three-pronged approach to architectural criticism advocated here implies dir-
ect feedback on the experienced quality of built environments involving all major stakehold-
ers. Measuring stakeholders’ responses through the use of adjective descriptor scales or rating
scales ranging from very satisfied to neutral to very unsatisfied means that respondents need
to be presented with data-gathering instruments, whether through Web surveys or hard copy
surveys. Furthermore, a panel consisting of laypersons and expert judges will establish the
agreed-upon weightings of environmental attributes ranging from health, safety, and security
issues to cultural and aesthetic ones.
However, it is the building’s physical evaluation that is feared most by the building’s archi-
tect – “the fear of what you might discover.” In an age where lawsuits are almost guaranteed
at the end of a project, it is a legitimate concern for all involved in the building’s design and
construction. If architects, engineers, and contractors work collaboratively, this may elimin-
ate fears of conducting a BPE, although it should also be recognized that POEs/BPEs could
help prevent such lawsuits. Once again, the objective of these somewhat more complicated
measurements is to move from highly subjective to more objective criticism (see Chapter 15
by Bordass and Leaman).

Impact on future facility programming and design

It is hypothesized that this more balanced approach to assessing the ingredients that constitute
the quality of experienced architecture will lead to better and more architectural coordinated
programs and designs that advance the field way beyond what meets the eye. It will be super-
ior in quality by considering the entire range of human experience in the built environment
(Figure 14.5).

Impact on emerging and future architectural practice

With a newly empowered clientele, a more savvy cadre of practitioners, and the communica-
tion and production opportunities provided by a globally networked profession, the potential
impacts on practice cannot be overstated (Figure 14.6).
The architect becomes a part of this larger network by allowing objects and humans to
communicate with themselves and each other, and then to be manipulated over time. BPEs
show the importance to the architect of how the building is lived in by highlighting missed
opportunities in the design process and wrong assumptions when anticipating the afterlife
of a building. In turn, this helps to support and evolve these flexible and networked building
technologies, which tie together the architect, engineers, owner, occupants and surroundings
(Borg 2011). Then when being held accountable or justifying costly design moves, emer-
ging professionals will be continually challenged to engage with manufacturing technologies
that allow their visions to be operative and cost-effective. Revolutions and evolutions can be
made in standard building practices from normative material dimensions to inter-operability
between distinct disciplines and trades, thus anticipating that trades and manufacturers will
 Historical review of building performance evaluation 155

Providing better technologies

People/ Constructed
occupants buildings

Feedback from occupants:

POE
FIGURE 14.5 People influence buildings and buildings influence people
Source: Andrea Hardy.

Client’s needs

POE/BPE

Building design

FIGURE 14.6 POEs/BPEs allow for a more direct interaction and influences between clients,
occupants, and buildings
Source: Andrea Hardy.

evolve to provide cost-effective means of enabling ambitious design because both clients and
architects are working together to normalize the previously “ambitious.”This loop is continu-
ous and is based on each party driving for a synthesis of their interests, ultimately furthering
the efficiency, quality, and satisfaction from the built environment.

Impact on furthering sustainable building practices

For many architects and buildings owners, when designing a new building, one of the goals of
the design is typically for the structure to be sustainable. Sustainability should not be the main
goal driving a building’s design, but rather a benefit resulting from intelligent buildings and
designs. Intelligent buildings and designs are developed through early collaboration between
the client, architect, engineers, and contractor along with the continuing analysis of buildings
after their completion (Ireland 2009)
It is through the evolution of intelligent buildings that building performance evaluation
practices, and the study of how technologies and spaces are actually used by the buildings’
occupants, continue to develop.A study from the UK on “Creative Energy Homes,” specifically
156 W. F. E. Preiser and A. Hardy

FIGURE 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.

FIGURE 14.8 Imagine having to wash windows after a sand storm

Source: buildipedia.com, April 6, 2014; Credit: Gehry Partners LLP.

that of the E.ON Research House, was able to analyze and demonstrate the behavior and pat-
terns of occupants within a replica of the existing 1930s detached home. The conclusion of
this study demonstrated the importance of designing for the comfort and use of the occupant,
and also confirmed the importance of a BPE to make it possible to do this type of research
(Spataru et al. 2010).
What can be considered an intelligent building? Is it the Cleveland Clinic Lou Ruvo
Center for Brain Health in Las Vegas, designed by Frank Gehry (see Figures 14.7 and 14.8)?
Another building that has been studied to observe the use and comfort of its occupants
is the ENERPOS building in La Réunion. Because of the building’s orientation, design, and
 Historical review of building performance evaluation 157

interactive passive systems, the educational facility provides thermal comfort for its occupants
for the majority of the year. It has been noticed that if there was documentation of how to
most efficiently use the building’s passive systems, such as operable windows and ceiling fans,
the building performance would be even greater (Lenoir et al. 2012).
Starting with the opposite approach, the E.ON and ENERPOS buildings were con-
structed with the idea that they would be analyzed, studied, and written about. Australia’s
Building the Education Revolution in 2009 created a substantial amount of funds for the
construction of educational facilities in 2009. These buildings were essentially templates that
were quickly designed and constructed to help boost the local economies. Recently, inter-
disciplinary teams were brought in to analyze the pedagogy, sustainable design, and life-cycle
analysis for three examples of these quickly designed buildings to analyze the structures.
The BPEs for these buildings showed that the spaces are being utilized successfully by both
faculty and students, but also reiterate the importance of interdisciplinary design teams and
educating the faculty on the building systems because of some of the struggles that the fac-
ulties have had with the different technical building systems.This study also demonstrates the
importance of BPEs to fix smaller problems within the schools to make them as efficient as
possible (Newton et al. 2012).
As sustainable designs and technologies continue to evolve, the US government has done
its part to ensure that intelligent design becomes a permanent standard rather than a pass-
ing phase in architectural history. Kevin Kampschroer outlined some major breakthroughs
to the US House of Representatives for sustainable design for federal buildings: the Energy
Policy Act of 2005, Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, the Federal Leadership in
Environmental, Energy and Economic Performance program, and many others. Kampschroer
continues by explaining that the US government in fact realizes the impacts that buildings
have not only on the environment, economy, and natural resources but also on the health and
performance of the occupants. One of the smaller but potentially most beneficial practices
for federal buildings is the requirement that they need to conduct a study every five years to
evaluate and compare building evaluation systems (Kampschroer 2012).
Lastly, Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED), which was founded by
the US Green Buildings Council (USGBC), has become very influential within the develop-
ment of sustainable design over the past ten-plus years.While quite possibly being best known
for LEED’s checklists to design efficient buildings, how do these certified buildings function
five years down the road? Are they really cost-effective and as sustainable as these checklists
suggest? In 2008, USGBC did a study on 121 LEED certified buildings, which found a sig-
nificant difference between the intended energy use of the building and what was actually
being reported as their current energy uses.This study has led the organization to provide new
requirements such as LEED Advanced Commissioning and Measurement and Verification
credits. These credits require the owner to provide information over the years to prove that
their building does in fact perform as it was designed and intended to (Ireland 2009).

Conclusion: impact on the future of architectural design education

The pedagogical implications are already established but have not found traction in the pro-
fession as it exists today. The willingness to experiment with new technologies and design
methodologies is the foundation of any design program given that the architectural process is
cumulative over a lifetime. Furthermore, facility with software, awareness of social networks at
158 W. F. E. Preiser and A. Hardy

all scales, and mental acuity and flexibility define the baseline curricular demands of contem-
porary universities. Once in the workforce, these tools are traded for top-down demands of
older generations. With increased expertise, and a concise way for all parties to communicate,
students can emerge into the workforce with a refined sensitivity to clients and the profession
that will minimize the “shock” of entering real-world practice.

References
Baird, G., J. Gray, N. Isaacs, D. Kernohan, and G. McIndoe (eds) (1996) Building Evaluation Techniques. New
York: McGraw-Hill.
Bechtel, R. and R. Srivastava (1978) Post-Occupancy Evaluation of Housing. Washington, DC: US
Department of Housing and Urban Development.
Becker, F. D.(1974) Design for Living: The Resident’s View of Multi-Family Housing. Ithaca, NY: Workplace
Design and Productivity.
Borg, A. (2011) “A Dossier on Post-Occupancy Evaluation.” Architecture Australia 100(5).
Brill, M., S. T. Margulis, and E. Konar (1984) Using Office Design to Increase Productivity, Volume I. Buffalo,
NY: Workplace Design and Productivity.
Building Research Board, National Research Council (W. F. E. Preiser, Committee Chairman) (1987a)
Post-Occupancy Evaluation Practices in the Building Process: Opportunities for Improvement. Washington,
DC: National Academy Press.
Building Research Board, National Research Council (W. F. E. Preiser, Committee Chairman) (1987b)
Programming Practices in the Building Process Opportunities for Improvement. Washington, DC: National
Academy Press.
Connell, B. R. and E. R. Ostrander (1976a) Methodological Considerations in Post-Occupancy Evaluation: An
Appraisal of the State of the Art. Washington, DC: AIA Research Corporation.
Connell, B. R. and E. R. Ostrander (1976b) Post-Occupancy Evaluation of Mail Delivery and Communications
in Bachelor Enlisted Housing. AIA Research Corporation.
Daish, J., J. Gray, and D. Kernohan (1980) Post Occupancy Evaluation Process Guidelines. School of
Architecture Publications.Victoria, NZ: University of Wellington (2nd edn, 1983; 3rd edn, 1986).
Davis, G., F. Becker, F. Duffy, and W. Sims (1985) ORBIT-2 – Report of the ORBIT-2 Project and Rating
Process on Organizations, Buildings, and Information Technology. Research Report. Norwalk, CT:
Harbinger Group.
Duffy, F. and M. Chandor (1983) The Orbit Study – Information Technology and Office Design. London:
DEGW/Eosys.
Farbstein, J., M. Kantrowitz, B. Schermer, and J. Hughes-Caley (1989) “Post-Occupancy Evaluation and
Organizational Development: The Experience of the United States Post Office.” In W. F. E. Preiser
(ed.), Building Evaluation. New York: Plenum Press, pp. 327–38.
Federal Facilities Council (ed.) (2001) Learning from Our Buildings: A State-of-the-Practice Summary of Post-
Occupancy Evaluation. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Field, H. H., J. A. Hanson, C. J. Karalis, S. Lippert, and P. G. Ronco (1971) Evaluation of Hospital Design: A
Holistic Approach. Boston: Tufts-New England Medical Center.
Gonchar, J. (2008) “Looking Back and Moving Forward.” Architectural Record 192(2): 160–69.
Goodrich, R. (1976) Post-Design Evaluation of Centre Square Project. Philadelphia: Atlantic Richfield.
Hartman, H. (2007) “Measuring a Building’s Success.” Architects’ Journal 226(18): 41.
Ireland, B. (2009) “Performance Anxiety.” Electrical Construction and Maintenance 108(11): 18–25.
Kampschroer, K. (2012) “House Science, Space, and Technology Subcommittee on Investigations and
Oversight Hearing: The Science Behind Green Building Rating Systems.” Federal Information and
News Dispatch.
Lenoir, A., G. Baird, and F. Garde (2012) “Post-Occupancy Evaluation and Experimental Feedback of a
Net Zero-Energy Building in a Tropical Climate.” Architectural Science Review 55(3): 1–13.
McLaughlin, H. (1975) “Post-Occupancy Evaluation of Hospitals.” AIA Journal, January: 30–34.
 Historical review of building performance evaluation 159

McLaughlin, H. (1997). “Post-Occupancy Evaluations: They Show Us What Works, and What Doesn’t.”
Architectural Record 185(4).
Mallory-Hill, S., W. F. E. Preiser, and C. Watson (eds) (2012) Enhancing Building Performance. Oxford:
Wiley-Blackwell.
Manning, P. (1968) “Appraisals of Building Performance:Their Use in the Design Process.” The Architects’
Journal, 9 October: 793–800.
Marans, R. (1980) Perceptions of Life Quality in Rural America: An Analysis of Survey Data from Four Studies.
Ann Arbor, Michigan: The University of Michigan, Institute of Social Research, and College of
Architecture and Urban Planning.
Marans, R. and K. Spreckelmeyer (1981) Evaluating Built Environments: A Behavioral Approach. Ann Arbor,
MI: The University of Michigan, Institute for Social Research, and the College of Architecture and
Urban Planning.
Markus, T., P. Whyman, J. Morgan, D. Whitton, T. Maver, D. Canter, and J. Fleming (1972) Building
Performance. New York: Halstead Press.
Nasar, J. L., W. F. E. Preiser, and T. Fisher (eds) (2007) Designing for Designers: Lessons Learned from Schools
of Architecture. New York: Fairchild.
National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities (2001) School Assessment Methods. Washington,
DC: NCEF.
National Council of Architectural Registration Boards (NCARB) (2003) Improving Building Performance
(W. F. E. Preiser, author). Washington, DC: NCARB.
Newton, C., S. Wilks, D. Hes, A. Aibinu, R. H. Crawford, K. Goodwin, C. Jensen, D. Chambers, T.-K.
Chan, and L. Aye (2012) “More Than a Survey: An Interdisciplinary Post-Occupancy Tracking of
BER Schools.” Architectural Science Review 55(3): 196–205.
Palmer, M. (1981) AIA Guide to Programming. Washington, DC.: AIA Corporation.
Parshall, S. A. and W. M. Peña (1982) Evaluating Facilities: A Practical Approach to Post-Occupancy Evaluation.
Houston, TX: CRS Sirrine.
Preiser, W. F. E. (1969) “Behavioral Design Criteria in Student Housing.” In H. Sanoff and S. Cohn
(eds), Proceedings of the First Environmental Design Research Association Conference. North Carolina State
University, Raleigh, North Carolina.
Preiser, W. F. E. (ed.) (1989) Building Evaluation. New York: Plenum Press.
Preiser, W. F. E., H. Z. Rabinowitz, and E. T. White (1988) Post-Occupancy Evaluation. New York: Van
Nostrand Reinhold.
Preiser, W. F. E. and U. Schramm (1997) “Building Performance Evaluation.” In D. Watson, M. J. Crosbie,
and J. H. Callendar (eds), Time Saver Standards for Architectural Data (7th edition). New York: McGraw-
Hill, pp. 233–38.
Preiser, W. F. E. and J. C.Vischer (eds) (2005) Assessing Building Performance. Oxford: Elsevier.
Sanoff , H. (1968) Evaluation Techniques for Designers. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina State University
Press.
Sanoff , H. (1992) Integrating Programming, Evaluation and Participation in Design. Aldershot: Avebury.
Spataru, C., M. Gillott, and M. R. Hall (2010) “Domestic Energy and Occupancy: A Novel Post-
Occupancy Evaluation Study.” Journal of Low-Carbon Technologies 5: 148–57.
Szigeti, F. and G. Davis (2005) Performance Based Building: Conceptual Framework. The Netherlands:
International Council for Building development foundation (CIBdf) (PeBBu). http://www.pebbu.
nl/resources/allreports/downloads/04_framework_final.pdf [AccessedNovember 1, 2011].
Van der Ryn, S. and M. Silverstein (1967) Dorms at Berkeley: An Environmental Analysis. Berkeley, CA:
Environmental Facilities Laboratories, University of California.
Zeisel, J. (2006) Inquiry by Design: Environment/Behavior/Neuroscience in Architecture, Interiors, Landscape and
Planning. New York: W. W. Norton.
15
BUILDING PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
IN THE UK
So many false dawns

Bill Bordass and Adrian Leaman

Introduction
In the 1960s, the imperative to move architecture on to a more scientific footing led to an
interest in evaluating the performance of buildings in use and feeding back the results. In the
1970s, this early promise became severely eroded. Since then, there have been several cycles
during which interest and capabilities have grown and then faded away. Why has it been so
difficult for the industry, its clients and government to adopt routine building performance
evaluation (BPE) and feedback, and what can be done about it?

Some developments in the UK from 1960 to 2002

The history of post-occupancy evaluation (POE) in North America is outlined in Chapter 14.
In the UK, POE also emerged in the 1960s, as part of a policy to move architecture on to a
more scientific footing. A review of architectural practice for RIBA, the Royal Institute of
British Architects (Derbyshire and Austin-Smith 1962) led on to its Plan of Work for design
team operation (RIBA 1963). This included Stage M – Feedback, where architects would
return to their projects after a year or so to review their performance in use.
In 1967, the Building Performance Research Unit (BPRU) was set up at the University
of Strathclyde, Glasgow, to undertake feedback, bring together research, teaching, and design
on building performance, and publish the results. In 1968, BPRU started a major project,
sponsored by the Ministry of Public Building and Works, the RIBA, the Architects’ Journal,
and 20 architectural and engineering practices. This focused on newly built comprehensive
schools, for ages 11–18. The results were published in the book Building Performance (Markus
et al. 1972). Today its findings still ring true, for example an obsession with first cost; repeated
mistakes; poor strategic fits between buildings and the activities inside them; and single issues –
particularly daylight factors – dominating the design and preventing effective integration,
whilst often not being achieved themselves.
Building Performance should have been required reading for participants in the UK’s recent
‘Building Schools for the Future programme’, where eye-catching architectural design (and
 Building performance evaluation in the UK 161

sometimes banal contractor design) has too often trumped functionality, with poor environ-
mental performance (Partnerships for Schools 2011) and high capital and running costs. Yet
again these have exposed the differences between the views of architectural critics, and what
physical measurements and occupant surveys reveal. A former student at one award-winning
school summed it up (Anon. 2012): ‘the architecture showed next to no sense. It leaked in the
rain and was intolerably hot in sunlight. Pretty perhaps, sustainable maybe, but practical it is
not.’The comment was supported by POE results. In this chapter we use BPE to designate the
general activity of building performance evaluation and POE for BPE undertaken in the first
two or three years after a building’s occupation, where the findings can influence those who
commissioned and undertook the design and building work.
Building Performance included a plea for architects to get more involved in BPE and feed-
back, and provided strong arguments why. Unfortunately, this did not happen – the first
false dawn. In 1972, the very year it was published, RIBA took Stage M out of its Architects
Appointment document, reportedly because clients were not willing to pay for feedback as an
additional service; and RIBA did not want to create the impression that architects would do
it for nothing. While Stage M remained in the Plan of Work, architects did very little routine
feedback subsequently, as has been reviewed by Duffy in this volume. Fortunately, the latest
version of the Plan of Work (RIBA 2013) does include more about activities beyond physical
completion, in Stage 6 (“Handover and Closeout”) and a new Stage 7 (“In Use”). However
the contents of these stages are not yet well defined, particularly Stage 7.
The publication of Building Performance also marked the end of BPRU’s government/indus-
try/academe/publisher collaboration, not the first step on a journey to BPE as a discipline,
connecting research, practice and clients. A statement in the book may reveal why: ‘BPRU
was more interested in research than in developing devices, however practical, without a
sound theoretical framework.’ Developing theory at the expense of practical opportunities for
improvement may fit the priorities of academe, but may well have distanced BPRU from the
designers, clients, operators and users it had originally aimed to serve. Time and again we find
a mismatch between the priorities and practices of academe, the criteria for research funding,
and the interests of building professionals and their clients. It has been particularly difficult to
obtain funding for multi-disciplinary research into the combined effects of people, processes,
techniques and technologies; and for broad-based case studies that concentrate on outcomes.
For the remainder of the 1970s, Britain’s economic difficulties, exacerbated by energy
crises in 1973 and 1979, suppressed the amount of new building and the appetite of clients
and government for BPE, in spite of the constant lessons that better feedback from building
performance in use promised to make future buildings both cheaper and better. However, one
aspect of building performance – energy use – began to receive considerable attention, leading
to developments in regulation (mostly for insulation), energy management (including bench-
marking and subsidized energy surveys), and new techniques and technologies (with grants
for demonstration projects). In 1974 the UK set up the Department of Energy (DEn) to deal
with both the supply side (in particular North Sea oil) and to some extent the demand side.
In 1977, demand management obtained a similar status. The UK’s energy efficiency policies
from 1973 to 2013 are reviewed by Mallaburn and Eyre (2013).
In 1974 DEn set up the Energy Technology Support Unit (ETSU) at the Harwell national
laboratory to provide technical and research support. In 1976, the Department of Industry
added a programme for industry, coordinated by the National Physical Laboratory. In 1978,
the Department of the Environment (DoE) established a companion unit (BRECSU) in its
162 B. Bordass and A. Leaman

Building Research Establishment (BRE). In 1983, DEn set up the EEO, the Energy Efficiency
Office, to help coordinate these three streams of demand-side work and present the results.

The 1980s
In the early 1980s, interesting low-energy buildings had been constructed and useful feedback
was being obtained. Another false dawn. Later in the decade, progress slackened, owing to fall-
ing fuel prices, a political belief in the efficiency of the marketplace, plans to privatize the gas
and electricity industries, and a shift in emphasis from conservation to efficiency. As a result,
many opportunities for improving building performance remained unrecognized or undevel-
oped. A generic problem also emerged: a preference to celebrate and often over-play successes
(or supposed successes), but not to publish the findings from failures, so allowing mistakes to
be repeated indefinitely.
In the late 1980s, DEn’s prime focus was to privatize the gas and electricity industries and
then to extinguish itself. In the process, EEO, the Energy Efficiency Office, was scaled down,
its energy demonstration and survey schemes replaced by the Energy Efficiency Best Practice
programme, EEBBp. This had four interrelated elements: Energy Consumption Guides, with
benchmarks and action items; Good Practice guides and case studies to help stimulate adop-
tion of energy-saving techniques and technologies; New Practice guides, case studies, events
and visits; and Future Practice. R&D under the New and Future banners was more about
liaising and disseminating results than funding research itself.
In 1992, DEn was abolished and the EEO moved to DoE, the Department of the
Environment, which was responsible for many aspects of buildings including regulation, the
government estate, construction industry sponsorship and BRE. In spite of this convergence,
BRECSU’s support to the EEO programme was only weakly connected to BRE’s work as a
national laboratory.
In the 1980s, there was also some private sector interest in BPE, in particular to support
the energy-related work, the growth of facilities management, and in a few design prac-
tices. For example, in 1979, four architectural firms got together to help create Building Use
Studies Ltd (BUS), largely to work on briefing/programming, human factors and occupant
surveys. In the event, the vast majority of BUS’s commissions were not from architects but
for research projects, construction clients and building managers. One major commission, the
Office Environment Survey (Wilson and Hedge 1986), analysed responses to a 20-page question-
naire on occupant health, comfort and productivity from a total of 5,000 respondents in 50
office buildings.This provided a foundation for further work in the 1990s and beyond, includ-
ing Raw (1992) and the Probe studies (Building Research & Information 2001).
Following the Bruntland Report (World Commission on Environment and Development
1987), climate change came to the fore in UK government policy. Key milestones were
Margaret Thatcher’s speeches to the Royal Society in 1988 and to the United Nations on the
global environment in November 1989. From then on, the UK took a leading role in climate
issues internationally, though the rhetoric tended to run well ahead of the action. Under the
UK’s present government (2010–15), both the leadership and the action are collapsing.

The 1990s
Recognition of climate change at the highest policy level, together with other developments
including the launch of BREEAM, the BRE Environmental Assessment Method (Baldwin
 Building performance evaluation in the UK 163

et al. 1990), boded well for improving the performance of buildings in use. Good progress was
made in the early 1990s, with energy joining other work on building and environmental per-
formance at DoE and BRE, supplemented by a new Energy-Related Environmental Issues
programme EnREI. More projects evaluated building performance from multiple perspec-
tives – human, technical and environmental, for example Bordass et al. (1994).
In 1995, DoE started a new programme – Partners in Technology (PiT) – into which any-
one could bid. PiT (later called Partners in Innovation, PiI), supported some multi-disciplinary
work on building performance, including Probe – Post-occupancy review of buildings and
their engineering – which undertook and published 20 POEs of recently completed buildings
between 1995 and 2002.The work was initiated by the editorial board of Building Services – the
CIBSE Journal. The EEBBp then funded a review of the first 16 Probe studies, the Probe pro-
cess and the strategic and tactical lessons: these were summarized in a special issue of Building
Research & Information (2001). The review identified major problems with the way that build-
ings were procured, and considered the implications for briefing/programming, design, con-
struction, commissioning, handover and management; and for government policy. Although all
but one of the Probe buildings were in the UK, the findings also resonated in other countries,
particularly in North America, Australia and Europe. The Dutch even republished the five
papers from the special issue. Perhaps the most important findings were the need for better
procurement processes that focused on outcomes; and that unmanageable complication was
the enemy of good performance.
Sadly, over the same period, the UK government’s own insights into building performance
had been leaking away, as it outsourced its design and property management skills and priva-
tized its national laboratories: not just BRE, but also Harwell (where ETSU was based); and
the electricity and gas industry laboratories which had also monitored performance of people,
buildings and plant. DoE was also dismembered, its building-related activities dispersed to
various ministries and agencies, with no common core.
As a result, government increasingly turned to the construction industry for advice on
building performance – something the industry knew little about, as it didn’t routinely follow
through into use and capture the feedback (Blyth and Edie 2000). As Duffy (2008), a former
president of the RIBA, wrote:

unlike medicine, the professions in construction have not developed a tradition of prac-
tice-based user research … Plentiful data about design performance are out there, in the
field … Our shame is that we don’t make anything like enough use of it.

Two government-sponsored reports consolidated the confusion of building performance with

construction: Rethinking Construction (Egan 1998) and Rethinking Construction Innovation and
Research (Fairclough 2002). Amongst other things, the Egan Report advocated customer focus,
ambitious targets and effective measurement of performance. However, when it came to its
implementation, the focus was almost entirely on construction time, cost and elimination of
defects; not understanding fitness for purpose. Government took the view that the industry
should get things ‘right first time’, not seeing the need for follow-through from construction
into operation. However, lacking good routine feedback information, neither government nor
industry knew what ‘right’ really meant.
In 2001, the Association for the Conservation of Energy published two reports that pointed
out the enormous gaps that had opened up between design intent and reality in energy per-
formance: Building in Ignorance (Olivier 2001) for housing and Flying Blind (Bordass 2001) for
164 B. Bordass and A. Leaman

FIGURE 15.1 The cover illustration from Flying Blind (Bordass 2001)
Source: Louis Hellman.

commercial buildings. Figure 15.1 shows the cover illustration, with the designer, builder, facil-
ities manager and owner of a recently completed building all ignoring the evidence of a big
difference between estimated and actual performance, what is now known as the Performance
Gap. (The data for the graph shown on the table in Figure 15.1 came from a building that had
won a sustainability award.) Flying Blind advocated using energy certificates to disclose actual
performance and to motivate action. It also expressed its concern about the dangers of frag-
mentation of the buildings and energy policy that had previously been concentrated in DoE.

The past decade

Fairclough (2002) considered the implications for government research of the completion
of the five-year transitional arrangements following the privatization of BRE in 1997. The
report saw the construction industry as largely responsible for innovation and research; but
did identify four areas in which government might need to fund building research directly:
as regulator, sponsor, and client, and ‘for issues that go wider than the construction industry’,
mentioning climate change, energy and unforeseen circumstances. However, it regarded in-
use performance as more a matter for regulation. One unfortunate result was that Partners in
Innovation, the government programme that had helped to fund Probe and other industry-
relevant research on building performance in use, was transferred to the Department of Trade
and Industry and was soon closed down.
From 2000 to 2010, the UK had a major public buildings programme, especially for health
and educational buildings. However, the focus was on construction and on design in the archi-
tectural sense, not on outcomes. It also used a tick-box approach to sustainability, which tends
to favour additive, over-complicated buildings to simple, thoughtfully integrated ones. The
favoured method of procurement was PFI, the Private Finance Initiative, where a contractor
finances, designs, builds and operates. PFI’s main purpose was to keep the capital cost of pub-
lic assets off the balance sheet. Policy-makers also thought that the single point responsibility
would increase emphasis on performance in use, though we feared this might not happen
(Bordass et al. 2002).
 Building performance evaluation in the UK 165

In the event, the results were even worse than anticipated, producing too many build-
ings that were expensive to build, difficult and expensive to run, and with poor functionality.
Problems were exacerbated by buildings, environmental and energy policies that were not
well-enough informed by performance outcomes, so tended to favour added features over
getting the basics right, hence creating more of the unmanageable complication that the Probe
studies had warned against. These deficiencies are now more widely appreciated, but it is little
short of scandalous that so little was learned from POEs carried out in earlier days, given the
social, economic and environmental pressures we now face. One problem is that the findings
from individual case studies (even the 20 assembled over seven years by Probe) are too easily
dismissed as anecdotal. This demonstrates common but mistaken misconceptions about the
validity of case study research, which has the power to capture contexts, causes and effects,
and systemic interactions in ways that rule-based knowledge cannot. The situation is well
described by Flyvbjerg (2006).
Since about 2008, a number of developments reveal a growing interest in in-use per-
formance, including the formation of a new ministry, DECC, the Department of Energy
and Climate Change, which has begun to put more emphasis on demand and not just sup-
ply. Unfortunately DECC has little access to institutional memory owing to the outsourcing
culture, the privatization of the UK’s national laboratories, and the loss of key staff. Starting
in 2010, the Technology Strategy Board (which is supported by BIS, the Department of
Business, Innovation and Skills) has also funded about 100 BPE studies of recently completed
buildings (about half domestic and half non-domestic), together with other projects on low-
energy retrofit, design and decision-making, construction process and energy management.
Universities and design practices are also showing more interest in BPE and POE. However,
policy-makers continue to regard building performance in use as largely a matter for the con-
struction industry, for example in establishing the Green Construction Board; and always seem
to be asking for more statistics, not more case studies.

The Usable Buildings Trust

With government connection to building performance in use diminishing, departmental
responsibilities fragmenting, and the design professions not filling the gap that was opening
up, in 2002 the authors helped to set up the Usable Buildings Trust (UBT), a not-for-profit
charity. UBT helps to connect people, collect and disseminate information, and embed the
concept of in-use performance into policy and practice. Over the past ten years, we have had
some modest successes but considerable setbacks. Three examples are outlined below.
Clients. Since few designers and builders had the appetite to make POE routine, we
obtained funding for a project on feedback for construction clients, who we hoped would
take the lead, in their own interests. We then got a shock, as the study revealed that the con-
cerns of major clients were mostly about project management, delivery and defects: inputs and
outputs, not outcomes apart from capital cost.This is perhaps not surprising for the speculative
buildings that predominate in the UK, but similar attitudes were often found in procurement
departments of many clients that retained their building stock, e.g. universities and housing
associations. Those most interested in performance in operation tended to be one-off clients
procuring buildings for their own use. Among major clients, we also found some individuals
committed to good outcomes, but their reflective nature tended not to fit the organizational
culture, so after one success they would often move on to other jobs.
166 B. Bordass and A. Leaman

Energy certificates. UBT helped to develop strategy and detail for the energy certificates
required under the European Union’s Energy Performance of Buildings Directive (OJEC
2003). We argued that the certificates required for display in ‘public buildings and buildings
frequently visited by the public’ should be based on actual metred energy use and updated
annually. UBT also assisted with strategy for these Display Energy Certificates (DECs), for
example in Onto the Radar (UBT 2005). The hope was that DECs would make energy
performance in use visible and actionable; extend in due course from public to commer-
cial buildings and from larger into smaller buildings; and also encourage people to measure
other aspects of in-use performance, e.g. occupant satisfaction and productivity. DECs were
introduced in England and Wales in 2008 for public buildings only. They have had some
effect, but sadly the government has not given proper support to further development and
benchmarking, which has hindered their extension to commercial buildings. As the govern-
ment lacks a focal point for policy-making for buildings and energy, or a consistent tech-
nical infrastructure, it has also introduced other systems of reporting that are conflicting, not
complementary.
Soft Landings. The Probe team identified deficiencies in how building work was procured.
Too often there was inadequate briefing/programming and little or no continuity from cli-
ent and design intent to completion and handover, and on into operation. UBT therefore
helped to research and develop the Soft Landings process (Way and Bordass 2005), which was
taken further with an industry group convened by BSRIA, the Building Services Research
& Information Association. Outputs include a published Framework (Way et al. 2009), case
studies including some of schools sponsored by the Technology Strategy Board, and other
documents. Soft Landings can potentially be grafted onto any procurement system, for any
building project, in any country. It aims to improve a project’s focus on outcomes, in par-
ticular augmenting five stages: (1) Briefing/programming; (2) Expectations management
during design and construction; (3) Preparation for handover; (4) Initial aftercare, and (5)
Longer-term aftercare and POE. It is designed to bring out the leaders, allowing client and
team members to set priorities and assign tasks. The government has decided to adopt the
principles for public sector procurement projects, but has decided to codify them more than
we would have preferred. This creates a risk that government Soft Landings will turn into
yet another ossified standard, with the process being regarded as a substitute for leadership,
but only time will tell.

Who owns building performance? Avoiding another false dawn

Buildings last a long time, well beyond the time horizons of their creators. Good perform-
ance in use is in the public interest, but is the result of the actions of many players. Sadly, and
in spite of all the evidence, it has been difficult for policy-makers to appreciate that building
performance is about a lot more than construction, and to get joined-up government think-
ing and action. We see performance in use as too important to be entrusted to designers and
builders alone; and certainly not just to architects, who are no longer ‘leaders of the team’, as
they were in the UK 50 years ago.
In his commentary on Probe, Cooper (2001) raised a fundamental question: which party
involved in the procurement and operation of buildings owns POE? At the time, the authors
(Bordass et al. 2002) thought that follow-through and feedback would become routine practice
 Building performance evaluation in the UK 167

as something clients would want and pay for, in terms of the benefits and savings it would bring.
However, this was before we discovered that major clients were less interested in building per-
formance in use than we had expected. Ten years later, the British government’s intention to
mandate Soft Landings for public procurement from 2016 suggests that the tide is turning.
How best can this increasing interest in performance in use be supported? UBT considers
that it will need cultural changes and new institutions.

A new professionalism
In terms of cultural changes, UBT has been advocating a new professionalism, where all building
professionals engage much more closely with the consequences of their actions.This is already
implicit in the codes of many professional institutions, which require members to under-
stand and practise sustainable development. The Institution of Civil Engineers even expects
its members to ‘do the right thing’. At present, these aspirations are too often honoured in the
breach.
UBT helped to arrange a debate in London in 2011 on the role of the building profes-
sional in the twenty-first century, by the Edge, a multi-disciplinary group that considers emer-
ging issues in the built environment (see http://www.edgedebate.com). Speakers identified
many gaps: between professions; between practice and academe; and between design assump-
tions and how buildings work in use, owing to a failure to develop a shared knowledge base.
Solutions were seen to lie in ethics, integration, practice based on evidence, and an action-
learning culture. Some thought the UK had the necessary knowledge and skills, but lacked the
resolve to bring them together.
Building Research & Information then issued a call for papers on New Professionalism, lead-
ing to a special issue on the subject (Building Research & Information 2013). This was discussed
at another Edge debate, where the authors of four of the papers presented their views, after
which questions from the audience were debated by a panel of senior representatives of UK
professional institutions in architecture, engineering, surveying and construction.
It was agreed that the challenges of sustainability were exposing inadequacies of regulations
and markets, and creating a vacuum that building professionals and their institutions could
help to fill. However, the meeting was not sure whether they would have the will to do so, the
necessary capabilities, or whether society would trust them in this role. Critical needs were
identified for:

• a shared vision and identity for practice and education, with more emphasis on ethical
aspects and perhaps something similar to the Hippocratic Oath;
• better procurement processes, with a proper focus on outcomes;
• building performance in use to become a properly recognized and represented know-
ledge domain.

After the first debate, the Edge suggested developing some shared principles that any built
environment professional could adopt – today. The ten points that emerged are shown in
Figure 15.2. They fall into three groups: (1) ethics and behaviour; (2) engagement with out-
comes, reflecting and sharing knowledge; and (3) the wider context of policy, practice, edu-
cation and research.
168 B. Bordass and A. Leaman

Ethics and behaviour

1. Be a steward of the community, its resources, and the planet.Take a broad view.
2. Do the right thing, beyond your obligation to whoever pays your fee.
3. Develop trusting relationships, with open and honest collaboration.
Engagement with outcomes
4. Bridge between design, project implementation, and use. Concentrate on the outcomes.
5. Don’t walk away. Provide follow-through and aftercare.
6. Evaluate and reflect upon the performance in use of your work. Feed back the findings.
7. Learn from your actions and admit your mistakes. Share your understanding openly.
The wider context
8. Bring together practice, industry, education, research, and policy-making.
9. Challenge assumptions and standards. Be honest about what you don’t know.
10. Understand contexts and constraints. Create lasting value. Keep options open for the future.

FIGURE 15.2 Elements of a new professionalism: ten points developed with the Edge
Source: adapted from Building Research & Information (2013: Table 1, p. 6).

Conclusion: Reinforcing the knowledge domain of building performance

How can society best support the development of a built environment in which much more
emphasis is given to in-use performance outcomes, not just for new buildings but in the
improvement of the existing stock? How do we avoid yet more false dawns? The change in
attitudes and practices of a new professionalism need institutional and educational support. Our
view is that the existing institutions will not be able to move fast enough.We need new struc-
tures that can both support and challenge them.
Fairclough (2002) identified the need for government to sponsor research that went wider
than the construction industry. We put performance in use in this category. However, in the
current political climate, it seems unlikely that it will obtain government funding to the extent
necessary. Since the late 1970s, the prevailing worldview has been to leave things to the mar-
ket. As a result, government no longer wants to build technical capacity itself, but looks to
industry for solutions. But what industry owns building performance; and should any indus-
try own it anyway? Not the construction industry: it regards buildings largely as construction
projects. Not the property industry, which sees them as money machines. In the 1980s, we had
great hopes for the emerging facilities management profession, but have been disappointed by
the way this industry has developed. The UK government also put its faith in PFI, the Private
Finance Initiative, where a contractor finances, designs, builds and operates public assets. We
expressed concern about this (Bordass et al. 2002); and in the event it has too often produced
buildings that were expensive, inappropriate or of poor quality.
UBT has concluded that society needs new institutions to develop and properly represent
the knowledge domain of building performance in use. They would have the following
attributes:

• independent, public interest;

• interdisciplinary from the start. No historic silos;
• authoritative, evidence based. Able to bring together work from many different sources;
 Building performance evaluation in the UK 169

• connecting research, practice and policy-making;

• able both to support and challenge the construction and property industries.

The authors are seeking philanthropic support to get this started.

Acknowledgments
© Bill Bordass and Adrian Leaman 2013.

References
Anon. (2012) https://www.worldarchitecturenews.com/index.php?fuseaction=wanappln.projectview&
upload_id=11781
Baldwin, R., S. Leach, J. Doggart, and M. Attenborough (1990) BREEAM 1/90: An Environmental
Assessment for New Office Designs. Garston, UK: Building Research Establishment, Report No.
BR 183.
Blyth, A, and A. Edie (2000) CRISP Consultancy Commission 00/02: How Can Long-Term Building
Performance Be Built In? London: Construction Research & Innovation Strategy Panel.
Bordass, B. (2001) Flying Blind – EverythingYou Wanted to Know about Energy in Commercial Buildings But Were
Afraid To Ask. London: Association for the Conservation of Energy. http://www.usablebuildings.co.uk
Bordass, B., A. Leaman, and R. Cohen (2002) ‘Walking the Tightrope: The Probe Team’s Response to
BRI Comments’. Building Research & Information 30(1): 62–72.
Bordass, B., A. Leaman, and S. Willis (1994) ‘Control Strategies for Building Services: The Role of the
User’. Garston, UK: BRE/CIB Conference on Buildings and the Environment, Methods Paper 4.
Building Research & Information (2001) Special Issue: Post-Occupancy Evaluation 29(2): 79–174. http://www.
tandfonline.com/toc/rbri20/29/2. The original papers in the Probe series in Building Services – the
CIBSE Journal can also be downloaded from the Probe section of http://www.usablebuildings.
co.uk
Building Research & Information (2013) Special Issue: New Professionalism 41(1): 1–128. http://www.tand-
fonline.com/toc/rbri20/41/1
Cooper, I. (2001) ‘Post-Occupancy Evaluation: Where Are You?’ Building Research & Information 29(2):
158–63.
Derbyshire, A. and J. Austin-Smith (1962) The Architect and his Office: A Survey of Organization, Staffing,
Quality of Service and Productivity. London: RIBA.
Duffy, F. (2008) ‘Linking Theory Back to Practice’. Building Research & Information 36(6): 655–8.
Egan, J. (1998) Rethinking Construction: The Report of the Construction Task Force. London: Department of
Trade and Industry.
Fairclough, J. (2002) Rethinking Construction Innovation and Research. London: Department of Transport,
Local Government and the Regions and the Department of Trade and Industry.
Flyvbjerg, B. (2006) ‘Five Misunderstandings about Case-Study Research’. Qualitative Inquiry 12(2):
219–45.
Mallaburn, P. and N. Eyre (2013) ‘Lessons from Energy Efficiency Policy and Programmes in the UK
from 1973 to 2013’. Energy Efficiency Journal 7(1): 23–41.
Markus, T., P. Whyman, J. Morgan, D. Whitton, T. Maver, D. Canter, and J. Fleming (1972) Building
Performance. London: Applied Science Publishers.
OJEC – Official Journal of the European Communities (2003) Directive 2002/91/EC of the European
Parliament and of the Council of [h1] 15. December 2002 on the energy performance of buildings,
L1.65–71, 4 January.
Olivier, D. (2001) Building in Ignorance. London: Association for the Conservation of Energy. http://www.
usablebuildings.co.uk
170 B. Bordass and A. Leaman

Partnerships for Schools (2011) Post-Occupancy Evaluation of Schools 2010–11. http://www.building.

co.uk/Journals/2012/04/26/o/q/p/POE-full_report.pdf
Raw, G. (1992) Sick Building Syndrome: A Review of the Evidence on Causes and Solutions. HSE Contract
Research Report 42/1992. London: HMSO.
RIBA (1963) Plan of Work for Design Team Operation. London: Royal Institute of British Architects.
RIBA (2013) Plan of Work Overview. London: Royal Institute of British Architects. http://www.ribap-
lanofwork.com/Download.aspx
UBT (2005) Onto the Radar: How Energy Performance Certification and Benchmarking Might Work for
Nondomestic Buildings in Operation, Using Actual Energy Consumption. Usable Buildings Trust. http://
www.usablebuildings.co.uk
Way, M. and B. Bordass (2005) ‘Making Feedback and Post-Occupancy Evaluation Routine 2: Soft
Landings’. Building Research & Information 33(4): 353–60.
Way, M., B. Bordass, A. Leaman, and R. Bunn (2009) The Soft Landings Framework. Bracknell, UK: BSRIA,
BG 4/2009.
Wilson, S. and A. Hedge (1986) The Office Environment Survey: A Study of Building Sickness. London:
Building Use Studies Ltd.
World Commission on Environment and Development (1987) Our Common Future. New York: United
Nations.
16
MID-OCCUPANCY URBANISM IN
SHANGHAI
The current state of the site of Expo 2010

Clare Jacobson

Introduction
The site of Expo 2010 Shanghai China is in the middle of its transition from a land of make-
believe to a key new area of the city. Of the 145 buildings that made up the expo, only five
were built to be permanent.1 Yet three years after the world’s fair, 99 temporary buildings
remain. Some continue to promote the countries that built them. Others have been converted
into theaters, museums, and theme parks. Still others stand firm but empty, awaiting reuse or
demolition.
The Expo buildings could be viewed as anomalies, architectural follies that have little rele-
vance to the more serious development of greater Shanghai. But the former Expo site could
also be read as a microcosm of the city. As in other parts of Shanghai, a number of factors
converge to result in the reuse of some buildings and the demolition or disuse of others. This
chapter looks at the Expo site in the middle of its redevelopment to explore these factors.

Expo 2010
Expo 2010 Shanghai China took place between May 1 and October 31, 2010.The world’s fair,
organized under the theme “Better City, Better Life,” covered 5.28 square kilometers formerly
occupied by factories, residences, and a vast shipyard on both sides of Shanghai’s Huangpu
River.2 Its more popular venues – the national pavilions and the main event spaces – were
south of the Huangpu in the newly developed part of the city called Pudong. Corporate pavil-
ions and the Urban Best Practices Area were positioned in Puxi, north of the river. Both sites
are three kilometers south of Shanghai’s center, where Puxi’s Bund faces Pudong’s Lujiazui
across the river.
Expo 2010 came on the heels of the hugely successful Beijing 2008 Olympic Games.
While the Olympics aimed to show China to the world, Expo had the opposite intent –
to show the world to China. Only 5.8 percent of the record-breaking 73 million visitors
were foreigners.3 The 246 participating countries and international organizations spared no
expense in this show. France exhibited original artwork by Van Gogh, Manet, and Millet; Chile
172 C. Jacobson

FIGURE 16.1 Footprint of buildings during Expo 2010 Shanghai China. The Huangpu River
runs between buildings in Puxi (to the north) and Pudong (to the south). The five buildings des-
ignated to be permanent structures are (1) Expo Axis; (2) Expo Center; (3) Expo Culture Center;
(4) Theme Pavilion; and (5) China Pavilion.
Source: Clare Jacobson.

displayed a capsule designed to rescue the Copiapó miners; and Denmark brought the actual
Little Mermaid, a statue and national treasure, from the Copenhagen harbor to Shanghai.
Countries showed themselves to China not only in what they brought to Expo but also in
the buildings that housed these wonders. Well-known architects – including Norman Foster
(United Arab Emirates Pavilion) and Miralles Tagliabue EMBT (Spain) – designed national
pavilions. Designers with less global recognition – such as Vo Trong Nghia (Vietnam), John
Körmeling (The Netherlands), and Juan Carlos Sabbagh (Chile) – produced sublime pieces of
architecture as well. Cities and corporations were also well represented in pavilions by Wang
Shu (Ningbo) and Yung Ho Chang (Shanghai Corporate).
Thomas Rohdewald, Director of the Luxembourg Pavilion, talks about his country’s par-
ticipation in the fair.4 Luxembourg, he says, does not attend every world expo but decided to
join Expo 2010 in order to increase its recognition in Asia. In Shanghai, Luxembourg built
its largest-ever world expo pavilion, in both size and budget. Rohdewald says a combination
of good architectural design, curiosity about his small country, the inclusion of Luxembourg
City’s original Golden Lady statue, and a free-flowing rather than periodic entrance led to
7.2 million visitors. This is 10 percent of the total number of Shanghai Expo visitors, up from
5 percent at the 2000 Expo in Hanover, Germany. According to the Luxemburger Wort, the
pavilion had another benefit: it garnered business revenue of €5.8 million ($7.8 million).5
Coincidentally or not, applications for C visas from China to the Schengen Area, of which
Luxembourg is a part, increased from 597,430 in 2009 to 1,079,516 in 2011.6
 Mid-occupancy urbanism in Shanghai 173

FIGURE 16.2 Footprint of buildings on July 12, 2013. Buildings in black are in use; those in gray
are extant but not in use. The five permanent buildings are now (1) River Mall; (2) Shanghai Expo
Center; (3) Mercedes-Benz Arena; (4) ICBC World Expo Exhibition and Convention Center; and
(5) China Art Museum. Other buildings and collections of buildings in use are (6) Saudi Arabia
Pavilion; (7) Expo Stage (formerly Baosteel Stage); (8) Energy Park (Turkey, Ukraine, and Iceland
pavilions); (9) Shanghai Italian Center (Italy and Luxembourg pavilions); (10) Shanghai Expo-Mart
(Africa Joint Pavilion); (11) Chocolate Happy Land (South Africa, Tunisia, Egypt, Algeria, Angola,
Nigeria, Libya, Argentina, and Slovenia pavilions and an information center/toilet); (12) Gung Ho
Communications Office (Cuba Pavilion); (13) information center/toilet; (14) Commemoration
Exhibition of Expo 2010 Shanghai China (Pavilion of Urban Footprint); (15) PICC Pavilion; (16)
Shanghai Children’s Theater (SAIC-GM Pavilion); (17) Power Station of Art (Pavilion of Future);
(18) Macao, Rhône-Alpes, Alsace, Hamburg case pavilions, with revised public and private uses;
(19) SKF Shanghai Office (Cases Joint Pavilion 2).
Source: Clare Jacobson.

Post-Expo buildings
The splendor of Expo was not meant to last. Pavilions were designed to stand for six months
in Shanghai, and thus avoided the construction necessities that cold winters and long-term
resiliency would require. Only five Expo structures – Expo Axis, Expo Center, Expo Culture
Center, Theme Pavilion, and China Pavilion – were built to be permanent. According to
Huub Buise, Consul, Consulate General Kingdom of the Netherlands, Expo documents stated
that the Dutch Pavilion had to be demolished by May 31, 2011.7 It was the responsibility of
each country to remove its national pavilion to meet this deadline.
Some building owners responded quickly to their contractual duty.The UK demolished its
“Seed Cathedral,” designed by Thomas Heatherwick, soon after the fair closed, dispersing its
seed-filled acrylic rods to Chinese schools and through an online sale.8 The building was much
174 C. Jacobson

loved by visitors and critics alike, and it received Expo’s Gold Pavilion Design Award. When
asked why it was not saved, David Martin, Deputy Director of the UK Pavilion, says that it was
meant to be a temporary thing, “more lasting in its memory than … in its reality.”9
Some pavilions were designed so that they could be taken down easily and reconstructed
on other sites. The UAE sent its Foster-designed building back home, where it is used for
the Abu Dhabi Art Fair.10 Other countries looked to rebuild their pavilions in China. The
Sweden Pavilion was taken apart and transported to Hebei Province to be part of the Tangshan
Caofeidian Ecocity.11 It remains in storage as of summer 2013, “due to lack of funds in the
city.”12 The Finland Pavilion was specifically designed to allow it to be reconstructed at another
site, but since reconstruction was not realized, “most of its materials were recycled in a sustain-
able way.”13 The profit of recycling in China makes it likely that materials from this and other
demolished buildings were reused.14
In the summer of 2013, long after the May 2011 deadline, many Expo national pavilions –
as well as other Expo buildings – remain present on site for a variety of reasons. Some are
being reused. The Cuba Pavilion now houses offices for Gung Ho Communications, and the
Africa Joint Pavilion is now the Shanghai Expo-Mart, an exhibition center. Other buildings
sit abandoned, showing the wear of three years. Portugal’s cork façade has been stripped as if
a tree, the Czech Republic has lost its hockey pucks, and all the red flags that covered Croatia
have blown away.
The former Expo site is now a patchwork of three-year-old pavilions, fenced-off rubble-
strewn plots, and big digs for new developments. I mapped this site in the summer of 2013,
three years after Expo, to gauge the changes (Figures 16.1 and 16.2). As the status of the area
is changing quickly, I chose the date of July 12, 2013 for this mapping. Titanic: The Artifact
Exhibition at the spruced-up former Greece Pavilion closed just before this date, and the
Aviator Theme Park at the site of the US Pavilion held a trial opening soon after. But this
mapping shows the footprint on a single day.

Planning the Expo site

“Patchwork” may not be the ideal word to describe the current footprint of Expo 2010
Shanghai China. The buildings on the Puxi site, in fact, remain largely intact. Those on the
Pudong side are patchier, but their presence and absence fall mainly according to the location
in which they sit.
This is no happy coincidence.The post-Expo redevelopment plan is a somewhat expanded
but otherwise minimally changed version of the original Expo plan. And the state-owned
investment enterprise in charge of the new plan, Expo Shanghai Group (ESG), under the
supervision of the Shanghai Municipal Government, is essentially a continuation (albeit on a
smaller scale) of the Shanghai Expo Bureau, which coordinated the preparation and operation
of Expo.
Jasmine Pang, Spokesperson, Deputy GM of General Office, ESG, says the planning bureau
needed to have a vision for the post-Expo use of the site because the area would take the lead
in new city development. She notes that the Shanghai Expo differs from previous world expos
because it is built within the city, not in the outskirts. After Expo, 225 hectares (roughly half
of Expo’s 528 hectares) were available to be reused and redeveloped. Of this, 78 hectares are to
be redeveloped and 147 newly developed.15
Most of the empty Pudong lots are concentrated around Expo’s five permanent buildings.
It is an active center. The China Pavilion is now reused as the China Art Museum, currently
FIGURE 16.3 Site map of five zones during Expo 2010 Shanghai China. The predominant uses
for the zones are (A) Asian and Middle Eastern national pavilions; (B) Five permanent build-
ings, Southeast Asian national pavilions, and pavilions for international organizations; (C) African,
European, and American national pavilions; (D) corporate pavilions; (E) Urban Best Practices Area.
Source: Clare Jacobson.

FIGURE 16.4 Site map of future use of five zones, as defined by the Expo Shanghai Group,
March 2013. The zones are designated as (A) Governmental Office Community; (B) International
Exhibition and Central Business District Area; (C) Houtan Extended Zone; (D) Museums and
Exhibition Zone; (E) Urban Best Practices Area.
Source: Clare Jacobson.
176 C. Jacobson

China’s largest art museum. Expo Culture Center, now the Mercedes Benz Arena, has held
concerts by Jennifer Lopez, the Beach Boys, and Metallica. The renamed Shanghai Expo
Center and ICBC World Expo Exhibition and Convention Center hold conventions ranging
from “Architects@Work” to boat shows. The 1,000 × 110 meter Expo Axis is in the process
of becoming the River Mall. A few small shops and metro stops at either end of it help to
service the buildings around it.
Ground has been broken on sites east and west of this center, which have been cleared of
Asian and Middle Eastern national pavilions. (The only pavilion to remain in this area, and
the only foreign national pavilion designed by a Chinese architect, is the $164 million Saudi
Arabia Pavilion, the most expensive pavilion at the fair.16) Of the handful of new projects that
are under construction, the farthest along is by Atlanta-based architect John Portman. His
complex of four hotels covers a 300,000 square meter site just south of the ICBC Center.17
These new developments follow the economics of Shanghai development, where large
parcels of land are commonly sold as one site. Planning for the area formerly occupied by
factories, residences, and a shipyard seems to have paid off. According to China Daily, in the
spring of 2013 a 6,100 square meter plot in the former Expo area was sold at a record-break-
ing ¥40,079 ($6532) per square meter.18

Redevelopment in Pudong
Despite this record-breaking land value, many national pavilions remain in Pudong (Figures 16.3
and 16.4). In early 2011, it was reported that five national pavilions – France (designed by
Jacques Ferrier Architectures), Italy (Giampaolo Imbrighi), Russia (P.A.P.er architectural team),
Spain (Miralles Tagliabue EMBT), and Saudi Arabia (Wang Zhenjun) – had been donated to
Shanghai and would reopen soon.19 In October 2011 the Luxembourg Pavilion (Hermann &
Valentiny) joined this group.20 All six have drawn attention in the design press, appearing on
ArchDaily, Dezeen, Designboom, and other popular sites, and all but Italy received one of the
official 34 awards at Expo 2010.21 Yet it is difficult to measure how these pavilions’ design and
their popular reception influenced their retention.
While plans to put these six pavilions into operation continue, only three – Saudi Arabia,
Italy, and Luxembourg – had reopened as of summer 2013.22 People who skipped the Saudi’s
nine-hour line can now see roughly the same show for a single-venue price.23 And Italy has
absorbed the Luxembourg Pavilion (now used as Istituto Marangoni fashion training center
and the Da Marco Restaurant) and The Netherlands Pavilion (which is empty but supports
a video screen showing Italian content) into the Shanghai Italian Center.24 The center – in
partnership with Ferrari, Bulgari, and several other Italian brands – reopened on May 18, 2012
as an exhibition and cultural center and as a showplace for Italian products.25 A ticket office,
information center, and gift shop have been added to the complex, and the area where the
UK Pavilion stood is now used as its parking lot. Ferdinando Gueli, Deputy General Manager,
Shanghai Expo Trade Co. Ltd, Shanghai Italian Center, says the center had 400,000 visitors in
its first year, more than the annual visitation to Leonardo Da Vinci’s Last Supper in Milan and
the Medici Chapels in Florence.26
Across the street from the Shanghai Italian Center, the pavilions of South Africa, Tunisia,
Egypt, Algeria, Angola, Nigeria, Libya, Argentina, and Slovenia have been converted to
Chocolate Happy Land, a theme park. No one could argue that these buildings were saved for
 Mid-occupancy urbanism in Shanghai 177

FIGURES 16.5 Italy Pavilion during Expo 2010 (top) and with a new information center for reuse
in the Shanghai Italian Center during the summer of 2013 (bottom)
Source: Clare Jacobson.

their architectural value. They are stock cookie-cutter boxes built by the Expo and rented to
participating countries.27 (In fact, 75 percent of Expo participants exhibited in rented or joint
pavilions.)28 What the buildings have that made them worth saving was their uniformity (which
made them easy to reuse) and their proximity to the Shanghai Italian Center and Shanghai
Expo-Mart (which makes them easy to access). One public bus stop serves all three sites.
FIGURES 16.6 Angola Pavilion during Expo 2010 (top) and redecorated and reused as part of the
Chocolate Happy Land theme park during the summer of 2013 (bottom)
Source: Clare Jacobson.
 Mid-occupancy urbanism in Shanghai 179

FIGURES 16.7 Portugal Pavilion during Expo 2010 (top) and extant but unused during the sum-
mer of 2013 (bottom)
Source: Clare Jacobson.

The Turkey Pavilion, another award-winning project, is now the headquarters of Energy
Park. Together with the Ukraine and Iceland pavilions, it forms a theme park with a track for
riding electric cars, electric go-karts, and Segways. Asked how the design might have influ-
enced the retention of the building, Deniz Eke, Consul General of Turkey, says that she is not
sure, “But if you ask my personal and non-expert opinion, I may agree that the architectural
180 C. Jacobson

design of our pavilion, or more so the story behind it, may have influenced this decision.”29 The
pavilion’s dark red and white exterior – meant to represent the volcanic mountain, Hasandağ,
and houses in Çatalhöyük – has been repainted white and bright green to suit its new use.30
Elsewhere on the Pudong Expo site, the Denmark Pavilion sits among several similarly
unused remnants of Expo. Stine L. Guldmann, Project Director of Expo Association Denmark,
explains, “When Expo 2010 closed, the Chinese Expo organizers asked to take over the raw
pavilion in order to delay the dismantling, so that the area wasn’t left as one big building site at
once.”31 The Venezuela and Mexico pavilions appear as contenders across a newly built soccer
field, which replaced the Chile Pavilion. A trio from Spain, Serbia, and Monaco stand next
to each other, their wicker or brightly colored façades faded to dull tones. Not far away, the
Porterhouse, an Irish brewpub and one of the few stand-alone restaurants at Expo, sits alone
in a field, its taps long shut down. While construction crews are busy around Expo’s center, it
will take some time for them to arrive to the western frontier where these buildings remain
(Figures 16.5, 16.6, 16.7).

Redevelopment in Puxi
Across the Huangpu River in Puxi, a similar footprint of demolished sites, remnant buildings,
and reused buildings exists. On this smaller site, fewer buildings are in use. The SAIC-GM
Pavilion is now the Shanghai Children’s Theater, and the Pavilion of Urban Footprint now
holds the Commemoration Exhibition of Expo 2010 Shanghai China.
The most active Pudong area is the Urban Best Practice Area (UBPA). This small devel-
opment showcased city initiatives such as Taipei’s trash recycling, Macao’s reuse of historic
buildings, and Madrid’s low-income high-design housing. The Power Station of Art, China’s
first state-owned museum of contemporary art, anchors the UBPA. Its building was used as
the Pavilion of Future during Expo 2010, and was originally a power station.
Many of the UBPA case studies were similarly shown in reused industrial buildings, which
are being reused again. Case Joint Pavilion 2 now holds the SKF Shanghai Office, and cases
Joint Pavilion 4 is being converted to a “Cultural Experience Center.” The UBPA develop-
ment is focusing on accommodating creative industries, according to Dr. Tang Zilai, Professor
and Head, Department of Urban Planning, Tongji University and Chief Planner of UBPA.32
Some stand-alone UBPA constructions remain in use. The Macao, Rhône-Alpes, Alsace,
Hamburg case pavilions now have revised functions, including city-specific offices, restaurants,
and product showrooms.A garden representing Chengdu sits in the middle of them. UBPA’s new
buildings and the Chengdu garden are partial or full-scale reproductions of precedents. UBPA
contains other copied contributions, including an Antoni Gaudí lizard, a gift from Barcelona.
Tang notes that the UBPA’s main square duplicates the L shape of St. Mark’s Square in Venice.
The proposed future footprint of UBPA is very similar to the footprint of UBPA during
Expo. According to Tang, it was decided in the early planning of UBPA that many of the pavil-
ions would remain as permanent buildings. This plan was not announced, he says, as it would
have been politically inopportune to do so. But groups of UBPA pavilions were constructed
for long-term, rather than six-month, lives, while others were built as temporary structures to
allow for high-rise development in their place after Expo. Wang Shu’s Ningbo case Pavilion
is one of these temporary buildings. Tang says that since Wang won the 2012 Pritzker Prize,
the UBPA is reconsidering moving the building from the redevelopment area and making it
permanent.
 Mid-occupancy urbanism in Shanghai 181

The plan of UBPA is markedly different from the rest of Expo. Tang notes that it has the
pedestrian-friendly scale of lilongs, the traditional lane housing complexes that once covered
much of Puxi. He adds that the grid of national pavilions across the river, and the new devel-
opments that are replacing them, more closely follows Pudong’s car-centered, tower-in-plaza
planning.

Conclusion
Three years after Expo 2010 Shanghai China, its buildings exist in a state of mid-occupancy
urbanism. A number of factors – including geographic proximity (for example, where build-
ings stand in relation to the five permanent buildings), economic viability (Italy Pavilion),
popular reception (Saudi Arabia Pavilion), and perceived design value (Ningbo Pavilion) –
affect which Expo buildings stay, which go, which are used, and which are dormant. Yet the
most important factor is the Shanghai Expo Bureau. It predetermined the five Pudong build-
ings and the UBPA Puxi buildings that would remain permanently, the buildings that needed
to be demolished for immediate redevelopment, and those that could remain in a state of
limbo until development arrives.
I began research for this chapter assuming (or, rather, hoping) that extant Expo buildings
were saved because of their good design. I found that in fact single buildings had little import
within the site’s master plan. The same can be said of the development of greater Shanghai,
outside the Expo site. Few single buildings have been preserved. Instead, Shanghai’s historic
architecture tends to exist in clusters – the Bund, Xintiandi, Red Town, Tianzifang – that
are economically viable as destination neighborhoods. As fewer and fewer heritage buildings
remain in Shanghai, those interested in saving what is left might start thinking less like preser-
vationists and more like planners. The key to retaining old Shanghai may be saving it in bulk.

Notes
1. Bureau of Shanghai World Expo Coordination, Expo 2010 Shanghai China Official Guidebook
(Shanghai: China Publishing Group, 2010). Additional building data used in this chapter are based on
site visits by the author during Expo 2010 and during the summer of 2013.
2. Shanghai Guidebook; David Barboza, “Shanghai Buys Itself a Makeover Before a Fair,” New York Times,
May 30, 2009, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/31/world/asia/31expo.html
3. David Barboza, “Shanghai Expo Sets Record with 73 Million Visitors,” New York Times, November 2,
2010, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/03/world/asia/03shanghai.html
4. Thomas Rohdewald, interview with author, Shanghai, July 10, 2013.
5. “Shanghai Expo Pavilion Earns €5.8 Million for Luxembourg for Business,” Luxemburger Wort, July 23,
2012, http://www.wort.lu/en/view/shanghai-expo-pavilion-earns-5-8-million-for-luxembourg-
for-business-500d71fae4b0957b2af2b6e7
6. European Commission Directorate-General Home Affairs, “Overview of Schengen Visa Statistics
2009–2011,” http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/what-we-do/policies/borders-and-visas/visa-
policy/docs/overview_of_schengen_visa_statistics_2011_final_en.pdf
7. Huub Buise, interview with author, Shanghai, August 10, 2013.
8. Clare Jacobson, “Setting the Bar High: The UK Leaves an Indelible Legacy at Expo,” The Beat
(December 2010).
9. Ibid.
10. Susan Hack, “Abu Dhabi Art Fair Guide: What to See, Where to Eat, and How to Get Around,”
Condé Nast Traveler, November 7, 2012, http://ww.cntraveler.com/daily-traveler/2012/11/abu-
dhabi-art-fair-saadiyat-island-guide
182 C. Jacobson

11. Peng Lin, “Introduction of Tangshan Caofeidian Ecocity,” PDF document dated October 2011,
emailed to author.
12. Britt Lindner Norberg, Project Manager of CENTEC, Embassy of Sweden, email to author, August
23, 2013.
13. Clare Jacobson, “At Shanghai Expo, Finnish Pavilion Provides a Stunning Green Model,” Engineering
News Record, September 6, 2010, http://enr.ecnext.com/coms2/article_bude100901ShanghaiExpo;
Eili Andersson, Consul, Consulate General of Finland, email to author, September 13, 2013.
14. For more on the economics of recycling in China, see Adam Minter, Junkyard Planet: Travels in the
Billion-Dollar Trash Trade (London: Bloomsbury Press, 2013).
15. Jasmine Pang, interview with author, Shanghai, July 25, 2013.
16. Hart Cohen, “Culture, Nation, and Technology: Immersive Media and the Saudi Arabia Pavilion,” in
Tim Winter (ed.), Shanghai Expo: An International Forum on the Future of Cities (Abingdon: Routledge,
2013), pp. 155–69.
17. “Expo Hotel Complex,” John Portman & Associates, http://www.portmanusa.com/projectdescrip-
tion.php?name=Expo%20Hotel%20Complex&projectid=5940, accessed September 10, 2013.
18. “Commercial-Property Price Record Set in Shanghai,” China Daily US Edition, May 9, 2013,
http://usa.chinadaily.com.cn/business/2013-05/09/content_16489569.htm
19. “Five Foreign Pavilions to Remain at Expo Site,” Global Times, January 4, 2011, http://www.global-
times.cn/shanghai/society/2011-01/608593.html
20. “Pavilion a Present,” Luxemburger Wort, October 21, 2011, http://www.wort.lu/en/view/pavilion-a-
present-4f60c217e4b047833b93a091
21. Chen Ran, “Expo Pavilions Commended,” Beijing Review, October 31, 2010, http://www.bjreview.
com.cn/expo2010/2010-10/31/content_309498.htm
22. ESG’s Jasmine Pang mentions the France Pavilion will reopen as an art museum, Spain as a Spanish
cultural center, and Russia as a yet-to-be-determined venue. Pang, interview with author.
23. Cohen, “Culture, Nation.”
24. Huub Buise, says the Netherlands made a deal with the Expo corporation to keep the building, stat-
ing the project must not be used for commercial ventures and must be removed by December 2015.
Buise himself is not certain that this date will be held, stating it is more likely to change with new
government in 2020. Buise, interview with author.
25. Shanghai Italian Center, PDF document dated June 13, 2013, emailed to author.
26. Ferdinando Gueli, conversation with author, Shanghai, July 15, 2013.
27. Consulado General de la República Argentina en Shanghái, email to author, August 5, 2013.
28. Willem Paling, “Ordinary City, Ordinary Life: Off the Expo Map,” in Winter (ed.), Shanghai Expo,
pp. 120–36.
29. Deniz Eke, email to author, July 9, 2013.
30. EXPO Theme “Better City, Better Life,” Turkey Expo 2010 Shanghai, http://www.turkishpavil-
ion2010.com/en/, accessed September 17, 2103.
31. Stine L. Guldmann, email to author, September 17, 2013.
32. Dr. Tang Zilai, interview with author, Shanghai, August 2, 2013.
17
ARCHITECTURAL CRITICISM MEETS
BUILDING EVALUATION IN JAPAN
Akikazu Kato, Gen Taniguchi, and Shiho Mori

Introduction
Hospital buildings have not received a great deal of attention in architectural critique in Japan.
This may be because the intense focus on the provision of medical functions made hospital
buildings just monotonous. However, a hospital requires comprehensive environment devel-
opment and the realization of a restorative environment. This chapter will discuss the general
trend seen in the articles of Shin Kenchiku, Japan Architects, and AIJ Work Selections and will
clarify the unique designs in a number of hospital buildings.The first case study is a large-scale
and multi-function development resembling a townscape.Tokyo Metropolitan Fuchu Medical
Plaza with 1,350 beds has a variety of functions and is serviced by a full spectrum of facility
management. The second is a healing environment in Aichi Children’s Health and Medical
Center, which was presented in a British architectural magazine, Hospital Development, in 2008.
The third is the design of a dilettantish and unique approach by Atelier Architects, Katta Public
General Hospital.

Key issues in hospital architecture critique

British building appraisal tradition
Becker (1990) acknowledged British building appraisal to be a tradition of balanced evaluation
of building performance. The impressive book we remember is Stone’s British Hospital and
Health-Care Buildings, Designs and Appraisals (1980) where British hospitals were introduced
by “Architect’s account” and evaluated in “Appraisal” by another expert. Stone’s book (1980)
consisted of articles originally published in The Architects’ Journal mostly in the 1970s. This
approach has been adopted widely around the world. In Japanese architectural journalism,
Shin Kenchiku, the most widely read architectural magazine in Japan (with its English trans-
lation issues as Japan Architects), presents monthly critique in its series of issues. The articles of
AIJ Work Selections have been published annually by the Architectural Institute of Japan since
1989. They consist of introductions by the architect, and appraisals by other experts. However,
one shortcoming is that hospital architecture is not discussed in detail. Lastly, it should be
184 A. Kato, G. Taniguchi, and S. Mori

noted that the Journal of Japan Institute of Healthcare Architecture was first issued in 1968, and
has reported on newly built health care facilities with explanatory photographs and drawings,
including articles and research papers. The authors played responsible roles in the design of
hospitals which were published in the journal and one hospital received the first Healthcare
Architecture Award by the Institute in 1991. Although a review of planning and design fea-
tures of awarded hospitals would suit the purpose of this chapter, the authors have decided to
keep that task for another occasion.

Hospital as a city
Northwick Park Hospital and Clinical Research Center, designed by John Weeks of Llewelyn-
Davies Weeks, is the first deliberate attempt to design a modern hospital with no finite form
(Stone 1980). In this project the architects showed a piecemeal growth of the hospital complex
as a “village.”This was introduced in Japan by Professor Yasushi Nagasawa and became a strong
supporting argument to provide for future growth by clarifying the main circulation corridor
in a hospital complex as a “hospital street” as in a village main street.
Fuchu Medical Plaza was introduced in Shin Kenchiku (July 2010 edition). It is certainly
one of the largest hospitals in Japan with a total of 1,350 beds. It is a complex of two hospitals,
namely Tokyo Metropolitan Tama General Medical Center and Tokyo Metropolitan Pediatric
General Medical Center. The development and operation program has been carried out as a
private finance initiative (PFI) of the Tokyo Metropolitan Government. The average number
of facility users totals over 6,000 persons per day, including staff and over 2,000 outpatients.
Having outpatients of this magnitude in a hospital may be considered a significant speciality
in Japanese hospitals.
An article of interviews among architects of hospital projects has appeared in Shin Kenchiku
titled “Hospitals in connection to Townhood,” discussing design issues related to users’ com-
fort, including wayfinding. To a limited extent some works by Professor Roger Ulrich have
also been introduced.

Evidence-based design
The authors would like to discuss an article which appeared in the distinguished British archi-
tectural magazine, the Architectural Review (Finch 2005a). Paul Finch, who was an Architectural
Review author at that time, starts his essay by introducing Professor Roger Ulrich and evi-
dence-based design which showed that certain environments can help patients recover more
quickly, using fewer drug treatments.When compared to the US and UK, Professor Ulrich has
not yet achieved a strong presence in Japan. It has been pointed out that the above-mentioned
drug treatments are seldom used in Japan, so that the validity of research has been questioned.
This view is quite strange in the sense that if the treatment is meaningful in a certain society,
the issue of quantity is a matter of decision-making. However, when Ulrich’s theory was first
introduced in Japan, a certain Doctor S. Haruyama had already published in Japan a book
entitled A Great Revolution in the Brain World (1995) which sold a million copies. He proposed
a new type of health care facility where nurses wearing kimonos welcomed a patient, based on
the principle that “Illness is the result of consciousness,” a Japanese saying. Looking for more
construction work in health care, representatives of general contractors and subcontractors
crowded into this doctor’s office. However, they found that it was only an empty idea.
 Architectural criticism meets building evaluation in Japan 185

FIGURE 17.1 A picture book on the journey of Marron Sister and Acorn Brother
Source: Akikazu Kato.

Healing environment
Japan has a long history of healing environments and healing gardens. The first Buddhist tem-
ple established for healing purposes was Yakushiji in Nara. Yakushi means pharmacist. In the
year 680 Emperor Temmu commissioned the project to pray for the recovery from illness of
his wife, who succeeded him as Empress Jito.The temple was moved to the present site in 710,
in coordination with the development of the ancient capital of Heijokyo.
Garden design was much improved in later temples such as the Ginkakuji,Temple of Silver
Pavilion, in Kyoto. Shogun Yoshimasa Ashikaga initiated plans to for creating a retirement villa
and gardens as early as 1460. It is said that Yoshimasa sat in the pavilion contemplating the calm
and beauty of the gardens while the Onin War (1467–77) worsened and Kyoto was burned to
the ground. After his death the temple became a Zen temple, Jishoji, named after Yoshimasa’s
monk name.
However, the term healing garden may originate in the gardens of the Children’s Hospital
at San Diego, in California, USA. “Carley’s Magical Gardens” are filled with bronze ani-
mals, giant buggies, and interactive play areas. The design is inspired by little Carley Copley,
who was just a toddler when her battle with leukemia came to an end. A picture book
was made from Carley’s memories, and her parents funded the project to build gardens to
allow Carley’s spirit to live on. Cooper Marcus and Sachs (2013) introduced survey results
of healing gardens and pointed out that unexpected uses by patients’ families and staff are
also important.
Architects and administrators of a number of children’s hospitals in Japan were inspired
by the above design process and one of most impressive examples is Aichi Children’s Health
and Medical Center (Figure 17.1). This Center was discussed in the British magazine Hospital
186 A. Kato, G. Taniguchi, and S. Mori

Development, in 2008. The Center depicts the story of Marron Sister and Acorn Brother who
were born in the Center forest and went on a journey to meet various animal and plant
friends. A picture book was made to illustrate various areas of the Center, and pictures and
ornaments are presented on hospital walls. Thus, by looking at the website picture book, child
patients and their parents can familiarize themselves before the actual hospital visit. This type
of embodied presentation by using print characters and environment provides for a better
understanding of health care environments.

Rediscovery of the Nightingale Ward

The Nightingale Ward is a typical ward building which is designed and built following a
common design concept for health care facilities as advocated by Florence Nightingale in the
nineteenth century, and similar designs can be found in various countries around the world.
At the beginning of the twenty-first century the design was adapted in hospital architecture
designed and built in Japan and the UK.

Katta Public General Hospital, Japan

Katta Public General Hospital was presented in the June 2002 issue of Shin Kenchiku magazine.
A 308 bed hospital was rebuilt at a new site to create a floor area of 26,164 square meters.This
amounts to 85 square meters per bed, and it was designed by three collaborative architects Taro
Ashiwara, Ko Kitayama, and Hideto Horiike. Although many specialists for medical services
and health care architecture were involved in the design process, these three architects avoided
a tower on muffin type of building where high-rise inpatient quarters sit on the footage of a
services block, which is a type of building often used in hospitals in urban settings.They instead
created a low-rise three-story building, with inpatient wards on the third floor (Figure 17.2).
Ashiwara referred to a modern interpretation of a nineteenth-century Nightingale Ward in
the magazine interview. We assume that they received advice from Professor Kazumasa Otaki
of Yokohama National University at that time. It is interesting that the full Japanese translation
of Florence Nightingale’s 1860 classic Notes on Nursing was revised in 2000. The first transla-
tion came out in 1974 in the Nightingale Writing Series including Notes on Hospitals. In the
floor plan of Katta Hospital, a combination of four-bed rooms and single rooms are used in
the ward. Thus, the 30-bed ward in the original Nightingale Ward is no longer being used.
However, because the ward wings are all on the third floor they are placed in parallel rows
facing 9.3 meter-wide courtyards. This arrangement of ward wings follows the design prin-
ciple of the pavilion used in Nightingale Hospitals. The interview also refers to the features
of Nightingale Wards in relation to airborne cross-infections, which was one of the results of
nineteenth-century rational thinking. Katta Hospital was recognized to have realized a good
environment in two critiques reported in the following month’s issue of the magazine.

Evelina Children’s Hospital, UK

Evelina Children’s Hospital was presented in the May 2005 issue of the Architectural Review
(Finch 2005b). Following the formation of the National Health Service, the institution was
incorporated within the trust responsible for St. Thomas’s and Guy’s Hospital, and relocated
 Architectural criticism meets building evaluation in Japan 187

LONDON
LONDON
LONDON

YORK
YORK
YORK
YORK

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

to the new site next to the 1871 Nightingale Ward complex. The new building houses 140
beds with a floor area of 16,500 square meters, or 118 square meters per bed. The designers,
Hopkins Architects, claim on their home page that it was their first health care project, where
ideas pioneered in workplace design have been applied. They claim that like offices, hospitals
require efficient and flexible layouts, including informal social interaction spaces. Following
an introductory article on evidence-based design by Professor Roger Ulrich, Finch (2005)
acknowledges the design of Evelina Children’s Hospital as a hospital that doesn’t feel like a
hospital. This reflects high aspirations both for an architectural “wow” factor, and for a high
level of construction quality.The interior design is of an abstract nature.The ward plan consists
of six- and four-bed bays and single rooms.The paired bays are covered by one nursing station
and the use of counter-partitions to a snaking corridor results in an open environment of a
traditional Nightingale Ward.

Privacy versus supervision

A comprehensive introduction to Nightingale Ward design is provided by Thompson and
Goldin (1975). The authors discuss a transition in American hospitals from the use of multi-
bed rooms to single-bed rooms which they describe in detail referring to various building
examples, research papers in the US and UK, and surveys carried out in the Yale University
Hospital. The American preference for privacy is referred to by one chapter title in the book,
“A Loud, Loud Noisee about Privacy: A Review of Contemporary American Literature on
the Hospital Room.”
More recently, Padbury et al. (2013) discussed the all single room NICU built at the Women
and Infants Hospital of Rhode Island. The underlying concept is that the physical environ-
ment can have profound effects on the recovery of very small infants. In an open multi-bed
room they are typically exposed for weeks to invariant lighting, sleep deprivation, and audi-
tory disruption.Thus, the design of the new unit was critical to the effective delivery of devel-
opmentally appropriate family-focused care.
188 A. Kato, G. Taniguchi, and S. Mori

Five Single Rooms in one Unit

terrace
1 3000 f 9 -V
single room
la v a to ry n o - o
d irty u tility r o o n I 3 lavatory

AN AL
8 .5 9 m ' Com m or 9 .7 9 m 2 I.L Q J
17.01m2
storage
■t< ||Ci»|| ^ 'a c e k r i l l ______ 1 V - lS il
' ‘ P P E Z O O B 3
— h o s p ita l ro o m 1 4 ! single room single roorin

1 - - '
3000 0 ^
10.62m 2_ I 10.07m2 16.94m2 16.94m2

2 3 I single room
single room

m i i y , 16.96m2 16.96m2
16.96
| 1 1 .0 6 m 2 | 1 0 .7 5 m 2
u te rra c e .Q r ^

G Hospital T Nursing home

FIGURE 17.3 Single rooms with multi-bed room arrangement
Source: Shiho Mori.

Discussions on hospital bed rooms

Advantages and disadvantages of single-bed and multi-bed rooms
When the advantages of single-bed rooms are compared with those of multi-bed rooms, the
former are seen to provide more privacy, while the latter provide for better observation and
efficiency in nursing (Figure 17.3).
A variety of recent ward room designs in Japan proposes privacy-oriented multi-bed rooms.
In the example at M Hospital, a small window is placed near each bed to provide for better
views and air flow, which results in a plan that secures more privacy within a limited floor area.
However, the movement area inside the bed room is found to be inadequate and the space
between beds is of minimum size.
In a newly proposed Pod Ward Plan, single rooms are arranged like a multi-bed room.
Examples are found at G hospital which is under construction and at T Nursing Home. At G
Hospital a common space in the center of the pod plan provides for a nurses’ charting station
and communication among patients. In T Nursing Home, the floor area for the central com-
mon space is realized with a larger area to enhance living facilities for the elderly.
The above two planning and design approaches can result in a better balance between
the two issues of privacy versus supervision (Figure 17.4). An ideal healing environment may
require a suitable balance between contradictory privacy and communication, and secures
adequate choice for all patients (Figure 17.5).

Studies on personal belongings in bed rooms of health care facilities

The recognition of the importance of personal belongings in the healing environment differs
between hospitals and assisted living facilities. Various studies of assisted living facilities have
shed light on the value of residents’ using their own possessions in everday activities (Toyama
et al. 1997, 2002). The hypothesis is that a resident is more likely to undertake an activity
 Architectural criticism meets building evaluation in Japan 189

M. \ with m u ltiple-b ed\ privacy oriented

AN
POLICYAL
single-bed room AN AL
multiple-bed room rnultiple-bed room
ANAL
AL
J room like arrange- j
AN AN
AL
FIGURE 17.4 Suggestion to make two inconsistent ideas possible in Japan
Source: Shiho Mori.

privacy ) communication

communication
privacy

FIGURE 17.5 Ideal type of relations between privacy and communication

Source: Shiho Mori.

when he/she can use a familiar personal object, such as a comb or hairbrush. This view rec-
ognizes the need for more space to accommodate personal belongings. In turn, the need for
more floor area encouraged the trend to change the bed room environment from a four-bed
room to a single-bed room. In contrast, according to a study by Imai and Maeda (1993), the
situation is different in hospitals where multi-bed rooms are mainly used for efficiency. The
study refers to the orderly use of storage in the limited space provided.The former view values
the patients’ access to a variety of belongings and the latter requires the patients to sort their
belongings in an orderly fashion.
In our recent survey most patients tended to lie down on their beds.Various everyday activ-
ities were also carried out in that position. A physical environment design which allows for
various patient positions is required to provide for better communication in order to enhance
quicker recovery. Some patients place their beds closer to each other for easier communica-
tion. A flexible management rule or system should be established, so that users can position
their beds freely (Figure 17.6).

Comments on bed room design

The following suggestions are made to better resolve the controversial issue of privacy versus
communication:

1 The management system and environmental design should be realized to support the free
and natural occurrence of communication among inpatients and their families.
2 It is important to furnish and implement the adjustments of interpersonal relationships
among inpatients, and also to reduce unnecessary tight rules among them.
3 A series of common spaces in a variety of areas inside and outside hospital rooms should
be created, and this should not impede the privacy of personal space.

These points may become future directions with a focus on the values of Asian people.
FIGURE 17.6 Example of adjusting interpersonal relationships
Source: Shiho Mori.

FIGURE 17.7 Schematic sketch of an impatient ward with all single rooms
Source: Akikazu Kato.
 Architectural criticism meets building evaluation in Japan 191

Moreover, it is a rule of thumb that when a certain personal space is provided for both ter-
ritory and privacy, fruitful communication will occur more freely and naturally.
Figure 17.7 is a schematic sketch of an all single room inpatient ward for a Japanese hos-
pital, which is inspired by the ward design of Katta Public General Hospital and the pod ward
plan of G Hospital.

Conclusion
The chapter discussed the trends in hospital architecture critiques in Japan by contrasting
tradition and fad, abstraction and embodiment, mega-structure and campus, urban center and
village concept, PFI and non-PFI, and others. The juxtaposition is not merely suggestive of a
dichotomy of values as in red versus white as in the flag of Japan. They are suggestive too as
guidance for building performance evaluation in hospitals or other building types in Japan as
well as in other parts of the world.

References
Aichi Children’s Health and Medical Center (n.d.) homepage for kids. http://www.achmc.pref.aichi.jp/
Morino_nakama/S008.html
Ashiwara, Taro, Koh Kitayama, and Hideto Horiike (2002) “In Search of the Most Suitable Solution for
Hospital Architecture: Interview with Three Architects.” Shin Kenchiku June: 128–30 [in Japanese].
Becker, Franklin (1990) The Total Workplace: Facilities Management and the Elastic Organization. New York:
Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Cooper Marcus, Clare and Naomi A. Sachs (2013) Therapeutic Landscapes: An Evidence-Based Approach to
Designing Healing Gardens and Restorative Outdoor Spaces. New York: John Wiley.
Finch, Paul (2005a) “Doctors’ Orders.” Architectural Review May: 44–45.
Finch, Paul (2005b) “Light Touch, Evelina Children’s Hospital.” Architectural Review May: 46–55.
Imai, Shoji and Yoshihiro Maeda (1993) “A Study on the Needs of the Space Formation around
In-Patients’ Beds.” Journal of Architecture and Planning 450: 57–62, Architectural Institute of Japan [in
Japanese].
Kato, Akikazu, Kanae Mochizuki, Shiho Mori, and Masayuki Kato (2014) “Special Composition of
Hospital Ward Plan Configuring Pod Plan Scheme from Traditional Nightingale Ward.” Proceedings of
AIJ Tokai Branch Research Meeting 52, Architectural Institute of Japan [in Japanese].
Kobayashi, Hitoshi (2002) “Katta Public General Hospital.” Shin Kenchiku (New Architecture) June:
116–27 [in Japanese].
Mori, Shiho, Seng Kee Chan,Yoshinori Shinohara, Homare Tani, Hirofumi Higashizono,Yoshihiko Sano,
and Akikazu Kato (2011) “Which is Better – a Single Bed Room Versus a Multiple Bed Room in
a Hospital? Analysis on the Asian Way to Develop the Inpatient Environment.” Poster presenta-
tion 30421, at the UIA 2011 Tokyo, the 24th World Congress of Architecture Academic Program,
September, ISBN 4-903378-09-1.
Mori, Shiho and Gen Taniguchi (2002) “A Study on Single Room Known by a Viewpoint of Homely
Space: Studies on Environment Providing the Aspect of Dwelling for the Ederly.” Journal of Architecture
and Planning 552: 109–15, Architectural Institute of Japan [in Japanese].
Padbury, James, Jesse Bender, and Marybeth Taub (2013) “Millennium Neonatology: A Building for the
Future.” edra44 Providence Conference Proceedings: 229–30.
Stone, Peter (ed.) (1980) British Hospital and Health-Care Buildings: Designs and Appraisals. London:
Architectural Press.
Thompson, John D. and Grace Goldin (1975) The Hospital: A Social and Architectural History. New Haven:
Yale University Press.
192 A. Kato, G. Taniguchi, and S. Mori

Toyama,Tadashi,Toshie Koga,Takashi Takahashi, and Hiroshi Tachibana (2002) “A Study on the Meaning
of Possessions for Environmental Transition: The Actual Conditions and Meaning of Possessions
Belonging to Elderly Persons Who Live in Nursing Homes.” Journal of Architecture and Planning 551:
123–27, Architectural Institute of Japan [in Japanese].
Toyama, Tadashi, Hiroshi Tachibana, Takashi Takahashi, and Toshie Koga (1997) “A Study on
Personalization in Single Room of Nursing Home for the Elderly.” Journal of Architecture and Planning
500: 133–38, Architectural Institute of Japan [in Japanese].
18
ARCHITECTURAL CRITICS AS ANOTHER
BUILDING STAKEHOLDER
A global perspective

Chris Watson

Introduction
The editors invited a global perspective on “Architecture Beyond Criticism” based on 30 years
of evaluating nearly 200 buildings in Australasia and Europe. In this chapter post-occupancy
evaluation (POE) is redefined in the context of current practice. As buildings are primarily
built to live or work in, building stakeholders’ perspectives on productivity and well-being
are an essential component of POE. In documenting stakeholder experiences and views the
importance of objectivity in prompting perspectives and neutrality in their documentation
is outlined. Experiences of critics are compared with those documented in POEs; architec-
tural critics writing for journals, spontaneous public criticism and architect critics within three
POEs. Specifically, the chapter considers the architecture profession’s interest in stakeholders’
needs and their opportunities for stakeholders to contribute to architecture that has largely
been beyond criticism. Finally, the trend, globally, towards increased involvement of private
corporations in public facilities is considered and discussed in light of the changing opportun-
ities for POE. This chapter concludes that architectural critics’ experience of buildings can be
complementary to that of other stakeholders and is therefore a valuable contribution to POE.

Defining post-occupancy evaluation

The following definition of POE is offered:

• POE is the architectural process of generating recommendations to improve well-being

and productivity by optimizing the fit between design and use of buildings under oper-
ational conditions. It is achieved by communicating all stakeholder groups’ experiences
of existing buildings and generating architectural recommendations about design and use.
Communicating experiences of buildings allows adjustment in perceptions and reconcili-
ation of expectations with the subject building’s performance.
• POE is applied throughout building life-cycle. Lessons learned from previous evaluations
inform briefing (programming) and design review. Evaluations in the first few years of
194 C. Watson

a building’s life are used to fine-tune new buildings and in the planning of subsequent
buildings. Evaluations of older buildings guide planning and design for changes.
• All stakeholder groups (people with interests in buildings) are included in POEs and they
speak for themselves. To avoid evaluator bias, the building is used as the objective prompt
to elicit stakeholders’ comments. Thus, the building’s support or frustration of product-
ivity and well-being are addressed in three dimensions of building evaluation, namely,
design, use, and conditions.
• Stakeholders’ testable observations about cause and effect are documented. For example;
“We switch on electric heaters because the air conditioning is too cold in summer.”
Participants often contribute parameters of design/use solutions to problems and the
architect evaluator’s recommendations to improve well-being and productivity are based
on balanced consideration of all relevant stakeholders’ experiences of building features.
• Organizations’ POE reports document experiences of all relevant parts of a building and
building features and qualities are addressed specifically in each part of the subject build-
ing, as their performance may vary substantially in different parts of the building and
under different operating conditions.
• Whilst buildings are the common subject of POEs, the process can equally be applied to
landscape design, ships, or other built environments.

Various routine or non-routine reviews and assessments are undertaken at the completion
of projects. Stakeholders may bring information from such assessments to a post-occupancy
evaluation, but these other studies do not constitute POEs themselves. For example, Post
Implementation Review (http://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newPPM_74.htm),
benefits realization management (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benefits_Realization_
Management), survey (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survey), questionnaire (http://
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Questionnaire), and various technical studies help professionals to
assess the performance aspects of buildings.The latter includes compliance, mechanical equip-
ment, energy consumption analysis, air leakage, materials review, security equipment, and
electrical equipment review.

Stakeholders
Stakeholders include groups of people with a “stake,” or interest, in the subject building.
Well-being and productivity are the client organization’s primary interests and they are
partly dependent on stakeholder experience of buildings; thus POE is stakeholder-centred.
Stakeholders with interests in public and commercial buildings are those groups who work
there, their clients, and those who created and maintain the building. Specifically, stake-
holder groups include: owners and/or their property managers; employees – who work in a
building and those responsible for productivity within; people served in the building – cus-
tomers, students, prisoners, clients, residents, tenants, guests, patients, visitors, etc.; the project
team – client, project manager, architect, engineer, builder, etc.; maintenance team – facility
manager, plumber, electrician, cleaner, etc. Evaluations can include other groups affected
by the building, such as neighbors, architectural critics, people with disabilities, community,
etc. and future generations – an example below refers to POEs in which future generations’
(environmental) interests were specifically documented
 Architectural critics as another building stakeholder 195

Everyone is an expert on their own experience of buildings

The fundamental purpose of POE is to communicate stakeholders’ experiences of buildings
as a basis for generating recommendations for improvements.The architect’s website described
one building in published notes in terms of its layout, appearance, intended effects of light,
and intended flexibility. An architectural awards jury gave it a prize. By contrast, occupants
report regular sewage smells in their working spaces, uncontrolled noise interrupting meetings,
excessive mechanical plant noise, safety concerns about windows, lack of security, excessive
light impairing sight, switching problems, blackouts and unwanted light, air quality causing
discomfort, illness, sick leave, and rainwater leaks through the roof, wall, and doors.
It is unusual for occupants’ experiences to be heard in architectural criticism. The “loud
silence” about such unheard diversity of experiences is perhaps what Frank Duffy refers to as
“the dog that did not bark” (Mallory-Hill et al. 2012). It is not clear whether the award jury
saw photographs, drove past, or looked inside the building with so many problems, but it seems
unlikely that they listened to occupants.
Property managers, architects, engineers, and builders seldom report defects. On the few
occasions when unwelcome experiences are mentioned, responsibility for them is attributed
to each other or to the occupants. Terms of architectural engagement rarely encourage archi-
tects to review occupants’ experience a year or two after completion. Frank Duffy described
the removal of section M of the Royal Institute of British Architects’ services (Mallory-Hill
et al. 2012). He writes “[it] locked the profession in an intellectual prison. Hopefully, we archi-
tects haven’t yet collectively thrown away the key.” Perhaps institutes of architecture will find
ways of consulting occupants more thoroughly when granting awards.

Learning lessons
The buildings we evaluate have been designed and approved by clients and architects from
conception to completion, and most design features function satisfactorily for most purposes
under most conditions. However, there are sometimes serious and unnecessary failures that
the architects and their critics are unaware of. Outsourced project management and fear of
being held accountable may be reasons why project teams do not take a responsible approach
to managing failure.

Example: classroom design for alertness

In POEs of mechanically ventilated buildings, the unanimous summary of many stakeholder
groups is that air quality is among the worst aspects. In one unpublished survey in a European
country reported to the author, 23 out of 25 schools were found to be too hot in both sum-
mer and winter, and a technical review found that the same 23 out of 25 failed to meet energy
efficiency standards.
Alertness is important in order for a population to be receptive to its education upon
which the country’s productivity, innovation, and skills depend. Lethargic students and teach-
ers sharing germs in overheated and stuffy classrooms may have a significant effect on a
nation’s productivity when those generations of students become the workforce in subsequent
decades. If those planning, designing, and building the 25 schools had taken time to read the
lessons learned from our POEs of Scottish schools they might have ensured that classrooms
196 C. Watson

were comfortable and efficient. Furthermore, air quality problems can be costly in legal dis-
putes (Wilding 2013).

Example: wash hand basin design to minimize spread of infection

Populations’ well-being and productivity are also affected by health and hygiene, as reported
by Dr Val Curtis of the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine’s Hygiene Centre.
“There’s a strong economic case for investing in good hand washing facilities in our schools.
Britain’s twelve million cases of norovirus, gastroenteritis, MRSA, e-coli and now swine flu
infections are mainly down to dirty hands” (London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine’s
Hygiene Centre 2010).
Scottish schools are equipped with wash hand basins at a suitable height for children; how-
ever, POE stakeholders reported that the basins were too deep for younger children to easily
reach the tap. The lesson was learned but not used by a neighboring education department
designing a subsequent school that we also evaluated a few years later – it also had a basin too
deep for the smaller children to reach across.

Objective review – the universal set of building experiences

Stakeholders’ building experiences are subjective.The first stage of POE is to objectively prompt
and document stakeholders’ experiences of architecture in a neutral manner. At this initial stage,
it is important that comments are recorded without judgment so that stakeholders respond
freely.Thus, even comments that are based on assumptions that the interviewer may understand
to be false are occasionally documented. At a later stage the stakeholder findings are considered
and recommendations are generated for design and used to support stakeholders’ well-being
and productivity. Recommendations can include some action to correct misunderstandings.
Some professionals argue that they alone describe objective experiences of buildings.
Lighting designers, for example, might insist that the objective measure of success in office
illumination is 400 lux at 700 mm above floor level. Such lighting designers might be unaware
of other stakeholders’ concern that the regular level of light wastes energy by lighting empty
desks, carpet, and the tops of shelves, for example, regardless of whether anyone else wants the
light. The 400 lux illumination has also been blamed for migraine headaches that take staff
away from work. Other interviewees have removed fluorescent tubes or used sunglasses and
peaked caps in their office to protect their eyes from 400 lux of light.
Stakeholders seeking to achieve optimum solutions need to be able to communicate their
various needs under different conditions within the design parameters. POE documents all
stakeholders’ reported experiences within operational conditions about controversial issues so
that design and use solutions can be developed.

Architectural criticism – another stakeholder experience

The difference in experiences between architectural critics could hardly be more stark than
the abovementioned award winning architecture in which occupants suffer sewage smells,
rainwater leaks, and air, noise, security, safety, and light problems. Fortunately, most buildings
can be described as broadly successful for most occupants and other stakeholders regardless of
architectural critics’ experience of them.
 Architectural critics as another building stakeholder 197

Comparison #1: published architectural criticism

This section compares several published architectural criticisms with the experiences typically
reported by stakeholders in POEs. A sample of published critics’ self-described experiences
of buildings were weighted towards their aesthetic sensitivities in terms of their values and
appreciation of architectural history and style. Their discussion about other functional per-
formance dimensions is generally vague and unsubstantiated. Critics’ photographs illustrate
limited interaction between people and the subject building.
By contrast, stakeholders in POEs typically observe a myriad of building quality effects on
well-being and productivity. They often offer testable observations as evidence in support of
their comments. POE photography shows anthropometric relationships affecting ergonomics
such as the hand-washing example above. Photos also communicate to decision-makers the
experience of occupants – delight, disgust, awe, satisfaction, etc. – in ways that are not possible
using text or numbers, and have recently become known as “photovoice.”

Comparison #2: architectural critics within POEs

In 2004–2006 architects were included as participants in three POEs. They were selected
for their specialist knowledge of the effects of building materials, construction, and building
operation on the environment and so provided a practical summary of life-cycle effects of
the buildings on the environment. These “green architects” were engaged to represent future
generations’ interests so that the environmental effects of subject buildings could be noted
alongside current stakeholders’ interests. They were specifically briefed to represent the envir-
onmental effect of the building on future generations off-site.
In addition to commenting on the effects of the buildings on future generations, the archi-
tects went beyond their brief venturing into predictions about building users’ experiences of
some building features. In effect, they adopted the role of architectural critics. They did this
with mixed accuracy. When their predictions of building users’ experiences conflicted with
building users’ reported experiences they undermined their own credibility.
The green architects’ inaccurate predictions of occupant experience had a minor effect
on the POE but the author drew two important conclusions from the process. First, that the
architects could be overconfident about the accuracy of predictions of building occupants’
experiences of buildings features. Second, it confirmed a basic principle of POE: that stake-
holders should describe their own experiences of buildings.

Comparison #3: young architectural critics

Students at Juan Carlos School in Murcia, Spain, became architectural critics in October 2013
(López 2013).The author heard in one report that the temperature reached 50 degrees Celsius
in classrooms that have been used for 15 years. In 2013 students publicly protested after three
of them fainted. The author heard that protesting students were later reprimanded – perhaps
discouraging further architectural criticism.
A POE in the first year or two of building use could have documented any discomfort and
promptly negotiated and implemented a resolution so that students and teachers could be alert
and comfortable in their workplace. Lessons from such an evaluation could have also informed
design of other schools within the last 15 years.
198 C. Watson

Global investor acquisition of public buildings

The author’s work in Australasia and Europe since the 1980s has witnessed increasing privat-
ization of building procurement and ownership as global investors acquire control of many
public building programs and services. This has happened through outsourced consulting ser-
vices, public–private (so-called) partnerships and fully outsourced services.
Investors have rented facilities to governments that financial advisors say are cheaper –
apparently because they are from public operating accounts instead of public capital accounts.
Government departments have been downsized leaving remaining school building managers
to negotiate specifications and contracts with corporate lawyers who represent the investors.
As corporations increase their role in planning, designing, building, owning, and man-
aging facilities for public use, there are opportunities for POE to identify and communicate
architectural lessons learned so that the projects can become more successful. Citizens, with
interests in the facilities, continue to need buildings designed on lessons learned to improve
economic prosperity and citizen well-being.

Conclusion
The definition of POE offered includes provision for sharing all experiences about design in
terms of use under various conditions. It includes the principle that all groups with interests
in the subject building are entitled to participate as stakeholders. Each is treated as an expert
in their experiences of the building. At a later stage lessons are professionally documented for
application on future designs and management.
The client project manager, architect, engineer, and builder routinely participate in the
author’s evaluations and report on the building from the perspectives of their interests.
Professional architectural critics may lack understanding and experience of using buildings for
operation purposes but their interest in architectural history, design, style, and philosophical
considerations of aesthetics are as valid as other stakeholders’ interests.Thus, professional critics
are entitled to participate in POE along with other stakeholders and can be expected to com-
plement other stakeholders’ experiences to contribute to the necessary diversity of POE.
Architect Frank Duffy wrote “The dog hasn’t barked yet” (Mallory-Hill et al. 2012) to
describe the lack of community dialogue about architecture. Building occupants have no
forum to negotiate the nuanced mix of design/use/conditions to support well-being and
productivity. The dog may not have barked yet, but architects are rapidly losing niche markets
as clients engage project managers, building scientists, engineers, interior designers, and other
specialists who undertake work once under the auspices of architecture. Architecture remains
largely beyond criticism in the public realm, but this could change. Just as whistle blowers have
exposed secret government crimes, “social media” could expose architectural features that
compromise well-being and productivity. This could provide an opportunity for architects to
communicate our ability to design for the population at large. In the same discourse referred
to above, Duffy also wrote “if we architects had been as clever as Sherlock Holmes, we would
have realized long ago that it’s the absence of barking, the absence of feedback … Silence is
Not Assent.”
Architectural award citations and published criticism may have defined architecture as
being largely an aesthetic pursuit, yet practitioners have a considerable amount to gain if they
are to be recognized for design that improves well-being and productivity. The example of
 Architectural critics as another building stakeholder 199

young Spanish architectural “critics” in the school setting demonstrates the need for POE to
be undertaken on all projects to identify successes and repair any problems before they com-
promise the population’s education. Building occupants can use information technology and
may be able to disrupt architecture that is now largely beyond criticism.

References
London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine’s Hygiene Centre (2010) “Improve school toilets and
reduce rates of absenteeism in UK schools, advise hygiene experts.” http://www.lshtm.ac.uk/pres-
soffice/press_releases/2010/handwashing.html [accessed October 22, 2013].
López, A. (2013) “Alumnos del IES Juan Carlos I protestan por el calor en las aulas.” Laverdad, October
11. http://www.laverdad.es
Mallory-Hill, S., W. F. E. Preiser, and C. Watson (eds) (2012) Enhancing Building Performance. Oxford:
Wiley-Blackwell.
Wilding, M. (2013) “Carillion sues Aedas for £1m over school windows.” Building Design, September 13: 5.
REFLECTIONS ON PART IV
Daniel S. Friedman

As the topic and contributors to this Part IV of the book suggest, a twenty-first-century archi-
tectural criticism can no longer afford to perpetuate false dichotomies between design and
performance – judgment of the quality of the former increasingly requires evaluation of the
measurement of the latter. Nowadays, premier architects tout rigorous carbon-management
protocols, sustainable technologies, user surveys, and operational accountability as the principal
highlights of novel form and spatial organization. Measurable carbon management is increas-
ingly unavoidable among primary high design criteria, even in awards programs traditionally
oriented toward visual and aesthetic achievement. As a consequence, architects and builders
are testing new materials, new mechanical equipment, new approaches to the health benefits
of spatial organization, new approaches to thermal efficiency, and especially new means and
methods of construction that mitigate GHG emissions and waste.
In 1998, the US Green Building Council established the LEED (Leadership in Energy &
Environmental Design) accreditation system to promote sustainable practices in the building
industry. Now in its third iteration, the LEED system expanded both the profession’s and the
public’s understanding of the impacts buildings have on health and the natural environment.
Its approach eschews traditional professional compartmentalization, opting instead for an inte-
grative and transdisciplinary model that transforms the problem field into overlapping market
sectors – exterior and interior design and construction, building operations and maintenance,
neighborhood development, and homes. As the LEED system evolves from its groundbreaking
punch-list and points approach to continuous monitoring and measurement, public demands
for evidence of the ratio of cost to value in building design will increasingly include life-cycle
analysis, energy optimization, water management, and recyclability, among other metrics of
sustainable design. The material, spatial, and formal conceits of architectural composition are
keeping pace – in part to secure LEED certification, in part to explore the generative poten-
tial of these new criteria in novel building forms and compositions. Evidence of increased
public attention to the integration of image and performance is the biennial Solar Decathlon
program, established by the US Department of Energy in 2002 to promote green building
practices. Every other year collegiate teams from around the world design and construct small
solar-powered prototype homes scored for energy conservation, habitability, and appearance.
 Reflections on Part IV 201

Architecture and science

One of the impediments to a fully integrated built environments criticism seems to be the
perception of the architect as the sovereign agent of building design, a mythology with roots
in the evolution of professional identity from antiquity through the modern era. After all, the
prefix “archi-” – “chief,” “first” – stubbornly suggests sole authority in all matters involving
the history and evolution of building types, likewise all matters involving the composition
and construction of buildings in particular and especially the theory of the unity of relation
between part and whole. One question criticism has yet to ask is whether or not it’s possible to
sustain disciplinary and professional identity at the same time architects open up their practices
and research to a radically integrative and interdisciplinary enterprise. Architectural compos-
ition and its historical formalisms have traditionally resisted the incursions of both mechanical
and behavioral science, since they threaten to apply empirical data and methodology that
may reveal operational and spatial flaws and shortcomings to owners and the public, beauty
notwithstanding.
Another impediment to a more inclusive built environment criticism is that architects
finally regulate themselves. They largely decide or influence the criteria for competence and
achievement; they decide what inputs from the public they accept or do not accept; and they
are the authors of their own internal ideologies, which rarely extend beyond self-enclosure.
“The profession is, in fact, allowed to define the very standards by which its superior compe-
tence is judged,” Magali Sarfatti Larson writes. “Professional autonomy allows the experts to
select almost at will the inputs they will receive from the laity. Their autonomy tends to insu-
late them: in part, professions live within ideologies of their own creation, which they present
to the outside as the most valid definitions of specific spheres of social reality” (Larson 1977).
Another way to account for the profession’s rejection of science is professional education’s
resistance to empirical research. The professional curriculum clearly orients toward design
methodologies that privilege artistic composition over either measurable technical perform-
ance or empirical evidence. Despite significant forays into both these spheres of academic
activity over the last hundred years, design reigns supreme. Despite their long-standing flir-
tation in the US and Europe, the distrust between design and research may have roots in
twentieth-century phenomenology and its general critique of scientific rationality, especially
after World War II.“Science manipulates thing and gives up living in them,” Maurice Merleau-
Ponty famously wrote in the first sentence of his last published essay.

It makes its own limited models of things; operating upon these indices or variables to
effect whatever transformations are permitted by their definition, it comes face to face
with real world only at rare intervals. Science is and always has been that admirably
active, ingenious, and bold way of thinking whose fundamental bias is to treat every-
thing as though it were an object-in-general – as though it meant nothing to us and yet
was predestined for our own use.
(Merleau-Ponty 1964)

The degree to which modern artists and architects embraced phenomenology in the first half
of the last century helps account for architecture’s orientation to philosophy, fine arts, and the
humanities, especially since the tenure system obliges the vast majority of full-time architec-
ture faculty to meet standards of achievement in the humanities, not science.
202 D. S. Friedman

Principled design is no less essential to thriving communities than principled science, yet
design attracts just a fraction of the sponsored research available to universities. Few if any
schools of architecture promote a culture of sponsored research, which is far more rigorous in
both its criteria for grants and its accountability than the negligible funds available to support
theory, history, and criticism. However, in view of nationwide cutbacks in funding for public
higher education, the academic context for professional education is changing. Transition to
sponsored research promises to be a steep climb: the National Science Foundation (NSF) has
yet to acknowledge design epistemology within the criteria it uses to distribute its $7 billion
annual budget, since design properly speaking falls under a different category of federal fund-
ing, housed in the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA), which enjoys just 2 percent of
NSF’s annual allocation.
If the ruling thought behind nineteenth-century architectural production is “typology,”
followed in the twentieth century by “program,” then surely the ruling thought behind the
production of twenty-first-century built environments is “research,” which needs much clearer
definition against the backdrop of studio-based curricula. Other disciplines in the university
envy the studio structure, and rightly so, since design is often the alchemy that determines how
effectively knowledge formed in the mind leaves the hand. The full potential of our profes-
sions therefore involves a question about what research in our disciplines looks like and how
it changes our criteria for success, especially among the noble but often moldy assumptions
underlying the accreditation of professional degree programs.

Design inquiry in the age of climate change

A new built environment criticism might better leverage the privileged branches of knowledge
that command not just research revenues but also the public trust and public imagination. By
virtue of their funding priorities, the NSF, NIH, and other public agencies endow science,
medicine, engineering, and related disciplines with both the resources and the authority to
objectively diagnose “grand challenge” problems – energy, climate, environment, urbanization,
information, health, and social equity – all of which intersect the root vocabularies of architec-
ture and related disciplines. Among recent examples of emerging, transdisciplinary initiatives
that promise to change the landscape of education, practice, and criticism is a consortium of
public and private organizations, firms, and universities that comprise the Greater Philadelphia
Innovation Cluster (GPIC) for Energy Efficient Buildings, which received nearly $130 mil-
lion from the US Department of Energy and other federal agencies. The GPIC aims to
develop innovative energy-efficient building technologies, designs, and systems. A significant
portion of this funding will transform the 1,200 acre Philadelphia Navy Yard into a laboratory
where researchers will apply new technologies to existing urban fabric and infrastructure, with
goals to demonstrates a 50 percent energy saving in a “scalable, repeatable solution that can be
affordably applied to a broad spectrum” (Penn State 2010).
Novel research emerging along the margins of education and practice demonstrates the
potential of data-driven design to both produce and advance knowledge intelligible to the
scientific community – materials science, production economics, thermodynamic systems,
and health impact assessments are examples of areas where analogical and empirical reasoning
clearly and synergistically overlap. Given the breadth, scope, and global appetite of the diverse
projects described in Part IV, I cannot imagine a more urgent activity than the assessment of
boundary conditions of architecture, no longer as the locus of artistic genius and productive
 Reflections on Part IV 203

cultural displacements, but rather as part of the larger systems that constitute built environ-
ments, both horizontal and vertical.
When architects use the terms “knowledge-based practice” and “evidence-based design,”
they generally mean practice and design supported by methods of inquiry characteristic of the
physical and social sciences. In this case, architects seek to use knowledge the same way doctors
and engineers use knowledge, shaped and structured by verifiable conclusions and measur-
able data that flow from universally acceptable scientific methods. On the other hand, when
architects speak of “history, theory, and criticism,” they seek to use knowledge in the same way
that literary critics and art historians do, shaped and structured by provisional interpretations
and readings that flow from the undecidable nature of images and texts. The aforementioned
changes in the ways we design and produce built environments suggest that architectural
knowledge has already radically shifted.
The question remains, how can we ensure that current standards of criticism keep pace?
Whether or not critics (and for that matter, educators) can effectively slipstream disruptive
technologies is finally the province of individual writers and their institutional context. Yet
opportunities abound, and they surround the heart of current practices – parametric model-
ing, mass customization, urban infrastructure, public health, building life-cycle, big data, and
carbon management, to name just a few of the most obvious examples. The faster we can
explore hybrid criticism, the faster we can promote hybrid design – the faster we can produce
higher performing and more suitable environments; the faster we can renew public respect for
the social and economic value of design; the faster we can create steady demand for profes-
sional knowledge and services; the faster we can generate new interest among an increasingly
diverse and demanding readership.

References
Larson, M. (1977) The Rise of Professionalism: A Sociological Analysis. Berkeley: University of California
Press.
Merleau-Ponty, M. (1964) “Eye and Mind.” In The Primacy of Perception, ed. J. M. Edie. Evanston, IL:
Northwestern University Press, pp. 159–90.
Penn State (2010) “Penn State Receives $122 Million for U.S. DOE Energy Innovation HUB.”
December 14. http://www.research.psu.edu/industry/11-29-12-archive-information-for-industry/
theiron/fall-2010/doe-energy-innovation-hub [accessed January 1, 2014].
This page intentionally left blank
PART V

Architectural analysis within

building performance evaluation
This page intentionally left blank
19
USING SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH METHODS
IN ASSESSING VISUAL AESTHETIC
QUALITY
Jack L. Nasar

Introduction
When architectural critics, as they often do, report their opinion of the “artistic” merit of
a building, they miss people’s experience with buildings. In contrast, a scientific approach
gauges the feelings of occupants and passersby about the appearance of places. These evalu-
ative appraisals (emotional responses and meanings) affect behavior and function. The present
chapter describes how to measure such evaluative appraisals. Referring to the research and
theory in environmental psychology and related disciplines, it evaluates the options and dem-
onstrates two visual quality programming projects, one done for a city and the other done for
the new headquarters for the New York Times. Designers, planners, and communities can use
the existing knowledge on how characteristics of the environment affect emotional response
and meanings, or for specific projects and purposes, they can use the assessment methods to
create visual quality guidelines.

Background
Design researchers have discovered physical and perceived characteristics of environments that
affect human evaluations, such as preference and behavior (Kaplan and Kaplan 1989; Nasar
1994). For example, people tend to walk more in an area they perceive as safe or pleasant
(Miles and Panton 2006). Although individuals may differ, plans for visual quality should seek
for shared meanings or preferences. Such plans would create places that convey relevant mean-
ings. This involves crafting design guidelines for appearance to satisfy emotional and meaning
goals such as appearing pleasant or safe.
Planners can assess places for meanings by having people rate and evaluate various qual-
ities of those places. The physical and the perceived characteristics of environments are likely
to provide complementary information about the influence of environments on perception,
meaning, and behavioral outcomes. But it is the perceptions that matter most.
Environmental assessments that differ in terms of various individual characteristics may
provide clues about guidelines for various groups. Identifying environmental characteristics
208 J. L. Nasar

that most people evaluate favorably and that relate to desired behavior can offer clear guide-
lines for design. For this, one must have appropriate measures of perceptions and evaluations
and appropriate study designs.
For guiding visual quality, this chapter covers: (1) the link between environmental percep-
tion, meaning, and function, (2) methods for measuring perceptions, and (3) what to measure
in the environment. Characteristics of the physical environment interact with various human
characteristics to affect the individual’s reaction to the environment. Those reactions affect
evaluations and meanings, which affect behavior.This chapter focuses on vision, the dominant
sense for humans.
Regarding perception, evaluation, and function, appearances have powerful effects on
people. Humans have rapid emotional responses to places (Zajonc 1984). “Aesthetics” (visual
appeal) dominates people’s experience of their surroundings (Nasar 1994; Rapoport 1990)
and behaviors (Duncan and Mummery 2005; Humpel et al. 2004). People are more likely to
visit places they judge as pleasant, and avoid places they judge as unpleasant. Studies on aes-
thetics operationalize it as favorable evaluations and inferences about the quality of the envir-
onment and users (Nasar 1994). People are more likely to walk in environments they perceive
as safe (Ball et al. 2001; Miles and Panton 2006; Nasar and Fisher 1993).
Some physical measures of the environment do not translate into people’s perceptions of
the environment, which ultimately affect their behavior. Thus, we must gauge perception, and
in particular those environmental characteristics that stand out in people’s perception.

Methods to assess visual quality

To measure environmental perception, meaning, and visual quality, the planner must consider
four issues: (1) characteristics of the environment, (2) environmental stimuli, (3) response
measures, and (4) respondents. The following sections describe and evaluate these choices for
practicality, establishing cause, and applicability of the findings to other conditions.

Selecting and measuring characteristics of the environment

One can obtain physical measures of concrete characteristics of the environment such as room
height. However, many characteristics of relevance to perception, evaluation, and behavior
involve a more abstract perceived integration of characteristics. Thus, we must use human
observers to assess abstract characteristics of the environment (such as naturalness or order)
that affect human evaluations and behavior. For design, it helps to know how well a physical
measure matches people’s perception of it to know whether a specific manipulation works as
intended.
Thus, studies might use both physical and perceptual measures. For example, Nasar and
Fisher (1993) linked physical measures to perceptual measures to behavior. Although percep-
tual measures appear subjective, they tend to be consistent and accurate measures of environ-
mental characteristics (Ewing et al. 2006). Fifteen raters should be adequate to get the needed
reliability.
There is also strong consensus across people in evaluations of places. A review covering
40 studies, 1,001 environments, 5,301 respondents from 432 samples, 21 countries, and 13
demographic groups found strong consensus (except for designers and the public) across a
host of socio-demographic groups (Stamps III 1999). Other research indicates that variation
 Assessing visual aesthetic quality 209

in evaluation depends more on characteristics of the environment than on differences among

people (Stamps III 2000).
To find the relationship of perceived characteristics of the environment to the evaluation
of them, one must obtain independent measures of the two kinds of variables. If the same
person rates both kinds of variables, the ratings might affect one another, biasing the results.
Thus, for example, a study of the desirability of physical characteristics of an office should
use two groups, one to assess those characteristics and another to assess the desirability of the
offices.
Ratings from occupants after a change in their environment may have a bias either from an
implicit comparison to the previous conditions or from the occupants’ knowledge of invest-
ment to make it better. To rule out these potential artifacts and find the cause, controlled
walkthrough simulations, discussed later, offer one technique to establish the likely responses
and behavior.

Selection and presentation of environmental stimuli

Investigators must decide how to sample the environment and must choose the mode of pres-
entation of the selected environment.

Sampling the environment

For a visual quality plan, the programmer needs to obtain information on the effects of cer-
tain characteristics of places in a way that generalizes to real conditions. The programmer
could systematically manipulate scenes along characteristics of interest. For example, one study
created nine signscapes that varied in the physical complexity and obtrusiveness of the signs
(Nasar 1987). Ratings by a panel of judges confirmed that the signscapes varied as expected
on perceived complexity and obtrusiveness; and the study subsequently obtained evaluative
responses to the various options.
People familiar with an environment may, influenced by personal feelings, judge its char-
acteristics and evaluate it differently from others unfamiliar with it. Familiarity can color their
judgment of its physical characteristics. Using a panel unfamiliar with the environment can
mitigate those potential biases.
The programmer could also select real environments that vary according to the characteris-
tics of interest. While this can yield a more realistic sample, it may do so by sacrificing control.
Other naturally occurring characteristics may co-vary, leaving cause uncertain. For example,
if one selected environments that varied in naturalness, they might also tend to vary in dens-
ity, openness, upkeep, or some other characteristic that would affect evaluations. Pre-selection
may also overlook characteristics relevant to ordinary experience. To avoid this problem, the
investigator could select characteristics previously identified as salient in people’s perception
of the environment (Figure 19.1).
One could sample a variety of environments relevant to the kind of environment of inter-
est, without attempting any control – although one should control the presentation of the
environments to reduce bias from photographic quality and viewing angle. This approach
could have strong generality, but the presence of so many characteristics makes it difficult to
establish cause. The use of multiple methods, each with unique biases, can allow for triangula-
tion of convergent and divergent validity tests on the results.
210 J. L. Nasar

• Naturalness refers either to the perception of an area as natural or to the predominance of natural
elements (vegetation, water, mountains) over developed elements.
• Upkeep (civilities) refers to the perceived maintenance (and lack of signs of decay) of areas.
The negative pole of this property is referred to as physical incivilities, which function as cues to
disorder.
• Openness refers to the perceived openness of view or visual scope.
• Complexity refers to the amount of structural information, the number of different noticeable elements.
• Order refers to the degree to which an environment appears unified, or coherent.
• Historic significance rests on the perception of a place as historical.

FIGURE 19.1 Salient physical characteristics of environments

Source: author.

TABLE 19.1 Strengths and weakness of various modes of presentation

Similarity to on-site Experimental control:

Mode of presentation experience: experimental internal validity Ease of use

On-site exposure Most realistic Less control Difficult to take panel

to site(s) for ratings
Color video or film Realistic Hard to control Easy to have panel
rate characteristics
of many places
Virtual reality walkthrough Realistic Allows control Easy
Color slides/photos* Realistic Allows control Easy
Color slides/photos of models Less realistic Allows control Easy
Black-and-white photos, and Least realistic Allows control Easy
models

* Computer manipulations of color photos and virtual reality environments can yield realistic controlled images.
Source: author.

Mode of presentation
The dilemma of the choice between internal and external validity can be alleviated through
choosing an appropriate mode of presentation (Table 19.1).
The investigator can overcome the trouble of taking each participant to sites by using color
slides or virtual reality simulations. The computer allows one to easily manipulate charac-
teristics for testing; and responses to color slides or photos accurately reflect on-site experi-
ence, more accurately than responses to drawings or black-and-white photos (Kaplan and
Kaplan 1989; Stamps 1993). Responses may differ with movement (Heft and Nasar 2000;
Rapoport and Hawkes 1970). Computer-generated virtual walkthrough environments allow
both experimental control and movement, and behavior in virtual environments generalizes
well to behavior in actual environments (Nasar and Cubukcu 2005).

Response measures
Many studies use verbal rating scales without efforts to deal with response biases and the
reactivity inherent in them (Adair 1973; Hoyle et al. 2002; Webb et al. 1966). To record
 Assessing visual aesthetic quality 211

TABLE 19.2 Items for use in assessing salient aspects of emotional appraisals

Response category Items

Pleasantness Appealing – unappealing

Attractive – unattractive
Beautiful – ugly
Pleasant – unpleasant
Inviting – repelling
Excitement Unexciting – exciting
Lively – dull
Unstimulating – stimulating
Interesting – uninteresting
Relaxation Unexciting – exciting
Upsetting – calming
Refreshing – wearying
Restful – disturbing
Threatening – safe
Distracting – soothing
Source: author.

environmental perceptions and evaluations, research needs such verbal ratings, but these can
be supplemented with physiological and behavioral measures. For evaluative appraisals (such
as preference), reliance on verbal measures alone may identify cold cognitions that lack emo-
tional involvement (Lazarus 1980). Behavioral and physiological measures may help establish
the level of involvement. One can also craft verbal measures to indirectly tap likely behavior
or physiological response by asking about expected behavior or feelings in realistic situations.
For example, a study of house exteriors had respondents imagine winning a dream-house
lottery and then selecting the house they wanted (Nasar 1989); a study of commercial strips
asked respondents to indicate which they would most likely visit to shop (Nasar 1987). Other
research has developed a verbal measure that is consistent with physiological measures of
restorativeness (Hartig et al. 1997).
One can administer verbal measures to large numbers of people, allowing the quick evalu-
ation of many environments. Psychological texts on measurement offer more detail on the use
of such measures (Hoyle et al., 2002).

What to measure
In planning the visual quality of place, we need to assess the characteristics that people notice.
The following paragraphs briefly summarize key characteristics of places of relevance for envir-
onmental perception, evaluation, and behavior (Kaplan and Kaplan 1989; Nasar 1994, 1998).
Emotional responses in relation to the environment include affective appraisals and emo-
tional reactions (Posner et al. 2005; Russell et al. 1989). Affective appraisal refers to the emotional
quality and inferences attributed to an environment, such as liking it or judging people in it as
friendly. An emotional reaction refers to an internal state (such as pleasure) that a person feels.
For design, affective appraisals probably have more relevance. Affective appraisals have three key
dimensions: pleasantness, excitement, and relaxation (Posner et al. 2005; Russell et al. 1989).
Table 19.2 shows items from tested lexicons of environmental descriptors (Kasmar 1970; Nasar
1988a, 1988b) that can be used to construct scales for pleasantness, excitement, or relaxation.
212 J. L. Nasar

Selecting respondents
For evaluating places, the assessment should tap into users (individuals likely to experience
the places under consideration). In some cases, such as a school, one can assemble a list
of the population. Then the investigator should use a census (for a small population), or a
random, stratified, or cluster sample to obtain a sample representative of the population.
For new or proposed projects, the investigator could identify passersby, occasional visitors,
and surrogates for them. Then, the investigator could use a census for a small population,
or a probability or non-probability sampling procedure to select respondents from the
population.
Although a random, stratified, or cluster sample is desirable, in many cases an opportunity
sample makes sense. For example, it makes sense for finding out how passersby evaluate the
exterior of a building. To avoid potential biases in selection, use a systematic sampling proced-
ure, with decision rules about selection days, times, and people.

Examples of visual quality programs

Research shows some consistent patterns in environmental preferences (for reviews, see
Kaplan and Kaplan 1989; Nasar 1994). People like environments perceived as natural, orderly,
historical, and having good upkeep, open views, and moderate complexity, and novelty or
atypicality. For projects seeking a pleasant appearance, one can use these characteristics. For
other appearance goals, such as excitement, other characteristics would apply. From a practical
perspective, for specific projects it makes sense to consult people about the visual quality goals
and the design features to achieve goals. Consider two examples.

Programming the evaluative image of a city

In planning for the Knoxville International Exposition, we developed criteria for improving
city appearance (Nasar 1998). We let the respondents define the visual characteristics they
liked and disliked. They responded to their mental image of the city. We had each participant
identify up to five areas they liked visually and five areas they disliked visually, give boundaries
for each, and name the physical features that accounted for their responses, and we had them
select from a list of physical elements the ones in need of improvement. Because the city was
concerned about resident and visitor impressions, we sampled each group. For residents, we
obtained a random sample (N = 160) through random digit dialing. Because we could not get
a random sample of visitors, we sampled them (N = 120) by selecting hotels and motels at ran-
dom from six zones of the city and approaching people in those places. Residents responded
verbally and the interviewer mapped their responses. Visitors marked their responses on a
map. To analyze the results, we overlaid the maps (today one could use GIS) to create a shared
evaluative map for residents and visitors separately of the most frequently liked or disliked
areas and the most frequently cited reasons (Figures 19.2 and 19.3).The visual quality program
showed areas having positive images, areas needing improvement, and what was needed to
improve the image of the disliked areas. Based on the analysis, the guidelines to improve the
evaluative image called for policies to improve the character of the undesirable areas by adding
the desirable elements.
 AN
W AL
jS S aS S S S sr'
AN AL
V
\
m
w * ^ss&sjiw
b ||s
V> X . OPEN SPACE JS g tt- y

^AN AL X\ Le A N 0 6 C A P M G ^ r o oN n
c G E «e ms ot n i mo ^n
g
AN AL
,g g p ^ | | j | p p ^ K

AN AL
1| V ^ r ^ S S E kept

m J rn y f u****” ™
AN AL
— ^ l l i i kvx
N D U S T B Y ^^, , ^ " v /
SION B llit
UD B SD S v| ( .i i g ^ ^H" GHT
:k
■ iillf
' T SMJ ; /^ XS k

^ ^c ^^ ^ ^S jW
» t Phaotk
^ HA0TK AN AL
M m gz^ Jv /

P A R K t ^ ^ T Y g a i N y ^ y Y ' ri ™ ' y i* — sp^ x

v y /

-
- c .— N \ ^ —
p A R K H G ~ ) f p p ^ | | ^ ^ r y ^ A a s ff i- < ^ — n\
w in n r n n
CONGESTED
CONQESTED
. ,. .. _. ._.». ...
J^ U S^ ’
. . __ ^^ nn HH @B rr
AN AL ,U
r - ., u a [ m » t ^ S ^ ^ ^ a ^ ' | 1f ^ O p E k s p a c e
WS f f iPf f l j l^Mv XT TM l M
--‘fS W w ^
f cSAh ' X' - "- ". - . . .IALANOSCAPW®
' - - - -' ' ''
N O 9C A P M 0 _ ^ _ _
~~--._ LIGHTING

AN AL
NARROW ^^ ,.y f . .] ^M^ ^ R
o u inS oTu sRt bYy WELLKEPT
WELL KEPT
PLSMTHWY
FLSNT HW Y ^ ^ ^ p R g a j y > - | JEA .^. . J ^ 7 ' ,," Jj R

OROANBEO t 1 I V

AN AL
;•■ . ' ' . HCOUOVN'** 4 J l f f i ML'TLANO STAMM
^ ^ J ^ I ^ ^ anoscap ^ g . / . g g k X . « * * " *

■ ii^ t fS r " ^ \\ '''^ , ^ L ^ B O | H f c > I L A P I D A T I O N " '‘^ ' " ' ' —
K p P ^ ' | liC - t , <,L'n '^ . - . ^ : y ■) / • w ir e s p o l e s ^w agap u , .—
anattm J / J p w w * ’ = 5 5 S S r

C H A O U ^ ^ / 2 _ ,^ ,1 .1 % OPEN SPACE____________________________________________

I I MOST LKED f H lK F T ) E U l K ED /D ISLKED P S B d IS LKH J U S MOST DBLKED

FIGURE 19.2 Evaluative map of Knoxville by residents

Source: author.

/ HARRISONBAY
::::::::::clean AN AL
signal mtn:-;-:-
/

153 \

\ \ J l2 7 I REDBANK AN AL
AN
P \ |ALy
AN AL
AN AL
l ig h t in g / P ^

\% \ V I / PARKING /
DILAPIDATION

AN AL \ &\
\ I raa
SIGNAGE
POLLUTION
CONGESTED
r MISSIONARYRIDGE
cbd
AN
ANAL
AL

f LOOKOUT MTN HISTORIC

CLEAN
MOUNTAINS
75 \

| ; ; '1 MOST LIKED j LIKED ID LIKED/DISLIKED DISLIKED § g MOST DISLIKED

FIGURE 19.3 Evaluative map of Chattanooga by visitors

Source: author.
214 J. L. Nasar

Appealing Unappealing Friendly Unfriendly

Impressive Majestic Dignified Inspiring
Powerful Soothing Disturbing Complex Shape
Simple Shape Ornate Unadorned Colorful
Colorless Orderly Chaotic Adventurous
Familiar Unusual Usual Other
Rectilinear Curvilinear Bright Colors Other
Muted Colors Historical Historical Other
Modern Other

FIGURE 19.4 Adjective checklist for qualities the new headquarters should convey
Source: author.

Creating guidelines for the appearance of the new headquarters for

the New York Times
For the New York Times headquarters I had to discover the meanings the new facility should
convey. For this, I assembled a list of adjectives (both positive and negative) that might apply
and checked the list with representatives from the Times to get a final list (Figure 19.4). For
stimuli, I used color photographs of a diverse set of nine buildings (the height of the planned
building). I obtained four kinds of responses. On the adjective list, participants checked those
words that best described the image the new facility should convey. I had them sort the build-
ings from the one most like what the new headquarters should look like to the one least like
what it should look like. I had them describe the liked physical characteristics of their most
preferred buildings, and the disliked physical characteristics of the least liked buildings. The
Times limited my sample to employees. To get that sample (N = 212), I set up a table at the
main entrance during the peak morning, afternoon, and evening hours and stopped passersby
for interviews. The analysis tallied the frequency they picked each adjective, the rank scores
for each building, and the frequencies with which participants mentioned building qualities
as liked or disliked. The appearance guidelines specified the meanings most participants cited
for the new headquarters to convey, the desired qualities (with examples of most liked build-
ing), and the undesirable qualities (with examples of least liked buildings). It also showed the
overall building ranks, and the reasons given for the most liked and least liked buildings. After
the building was built, one could conduct a post-occupancy assessment of the meanings the
completed building conveys to passersby.

Conclusion
Assessing perceptions of environmental characteristics and affective appraisals of environments
has relevance to programming and evaluating places. With appropriate choices of environ-
mental stimuli, measures, and respondents, one can create solid visual quality guidelines for
design. For specific projects, one can develop visual quality guidelines by determining the
visual qualities desired for the particular project, context, and populations. For this, the design
programmer should investigate, develop, gather, and organize information to produce design
guidelines that support the visual quality goals for the facility. Recognizing the connection
 Assessing visual aesthetic quality 215

between function and appearance, visual quality programming creates guidelines within which
the design should operate.
This consumer-oriented approach involves people in decisions that affect them. Scientific
tests of this approach have found that public appraisals of likely meanings of designs accurately
fit the actual meanings conveyed by the designs.The resulting visual quality program can both
answer immediate questions about visual quality and feed into a database to help answer future
questions. Ultimately, it yields environments that people enjoy.

Acknowledgments
This chapter was adapted from J. L. Nasar, “Assessing Perceptions of Environments for Active
Living.” American Journal of Preventive Medicine 34 (2008): 357–63.

References
Adair, J. G. (1973) The Human Subject: The Social Psychology of the Psychological Experiment. Boston: Little,
Brown.
Ball, K.,A. Bauman, E. Leslie, and N. Owen (2001) “Perceived Environmental Aesthetics and Convenience
and Company are Associated with Walking for Exercise among Australian Adults.” Preventive Medicine
33(5): 434–40.
Duncan, M. and K. Mummery (2005) “Psychosocial and Environmental Factors Associated with Physical
Activity among City Dwellers in Regional Queensland.” Preventive Medicine 40(4): 363–72.
Ewing, R., S. Handy, R. C. Brownson, O. Clement, and E. Wilson (2006) “Identifying and Measuring
Urban Design Qualities Related to Walkability.” Journal of Physical Activity and Health Suppl. 1:
S223–S240.
Hartig, T., K. Korpela, G. W. Evans, and T. Garling (1997) “A Measure of Restorative Quality of
Environments.” Scandinavian Housing and Planning Journal 14(4): 175–94.
Heft, H. and J. L. Nasar (2000) “Evaluating Environmental Scenes Using Dynamic versus Static Displays.”
Environment and Behavior 32(3): 301–22.
Hoyle, R. H., M. J. Harris, and C. M. Judd (2002) Research Methods in Social Relations, 7th edn. Fort Worth,
TX: Wadsworth.
Humpel, N., N. Owen, D. Iverson, E. Leslie, and A. Bauman (2004) “Perceived Environment Attributes,
Residential Location, and Walking for Particular Purposes.” American Journal of Preventive Medicine
26(2): 119–25.
Kaplan, R. and S. Kaplan (1989) The Experience of Nature. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Kasmar, J.V. (1970) “Development of a Usable Lexicon of Environmental Descriptors.” Environment and
Behavior 2(2): 153–69.
Lazarus, R. S. (1980) “On the Primacy of Cognition.” American Psychologist 39(2): 124–29.
Miles, R. and L. Panton (2006) “The Influence of the Perceived Quality of Community Environments
on Low-Income Women’s Efforts to Walk More.” Journal of Community Health 31(5): 379–92.
Nasar, J. L. (1987) “Effects of Signscape Complexity and Coherence on the Perceived Visual Quality of
Retail Scenes.” Journal of the American Planning Association 53: 499–509.
Nasar, J. L. (1988a) “Editor’s Introduction.” In J. L. Nasar (ed.), Environmental Aesthetics: Theory, Research,
and Applications. Cambridge: Cambridge Cambridge University Press, p. 258.
Nasar, J. L. (1988b) “Urban Scenes: Editor’s Introduction.” In J. L. Nasar (ed.), Environmental Aesthetics:
Theory, Research and Applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 257–59.
Nasar, J. L. (1989) “Symbolic Meanings of House Styles.” Environment and Behavior 21(3): 235–57.
Nasar, J. L. (1994) “Urban Design Aesthetics:The Evaluative Qualities of Building Exteriors.” Environment
and Behavior 26(3): 377–401.
Nasar, J. L. (1998) The Evaluative Image of the City. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
216 J. L. Nasar

Nasar, J. L. and E. Cubukcu (2005) “Influence of Physical Characteristics of Routes on Distance Cognition
in Virtual Environments.” Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 32(5): 777–85.
Nasar, J. L. and B. Fisher (1993) “Hot-Spots of Fear and Crime: A Multimethod Investigation.” Journal of
Environmental Psychology 13(3): 187–206.
Posner, J., J. A. Russell, and B. S. Peterson (2005) “The Circumplex Model of Affect: An Integrative
Approach to Affective Neuroscience, Cognitive Development, and Psychopathology.” Development
and Psychopathology 17(3): 715–34.
Rapoport, A. (1990) The Meaning of the Built Environment: A Non-Verbal Communication Approach. Tucson,
AZ: University of Arizona Press.
Rapoport, A. and R. Hawkes (1970) “The Perception of Urban Complexity.” Journal of the American
Institute of Planners 36(2): 106–11.
Russell, J. A., M. Lewicka, and T. Nitt (1989) “A Cross-Cultural Study of the Circumplex Model of
Affect.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 57(5): 848–56.
Stamps III, A. E. (1993) “Simulation Effects on Environmental Preference.” Journal of Environmental
Management 38(2): 115–32.
Stamps III, A. E. (1999) “Demographic Effects in Environmental Aesthetics: A Meta-Analysis.” Journal of
Planning Literature 14(2): 155–75.
Stamps III, A. E. (2000) Psychology and the Aesthetics of the Built Environment. Norwell, MA: Kluwer
Academic.
Webb, E. J., D. T. Campbell, R. Schwartz, and D. Sechrest (1966) Unobtrusive Measures: Non-Reactive
Research in the Social Sciences. Chicago: Rand McNally.
Zajonc, R. B. (1984) “On the Primacy of Affect.” American Psychologist 39(2): 117–23.
20
PERFORMING THE URBAN FORM-BASED
CODES AS A METHOD OF ARCHITECTURAL
CRITIQUE
Brenda C. Scheer

Introduction
Form-based codes (FBC) are being adopted in progressive settings throughout the US (Parolek
et al. 2008). They are a regulatory system for land development that is usually substituted for
the existing zoning code. While zoning is focused on regulating and separating land uses
and density, form-based codes are focused on creating a particular physical result, typically a
more ordered and somewhat higher density place with a more urban or village-like character.
Form-based codes have more flexibility for land uses and density than zoning, but are much
more restrictive concerning the design of buildings, sites, and public spaces.

The context
According to the Form-based Code Institute (FBCI), which is an interest group promoting
such codes:

Form-based codes foster predictable built results and a high-quality public realm by
using physical form (rather than separation of uses) as the organizing principle for the
code. They are regulations, not mere guidelines, adopted into city or county law …
Form-based codes address the relationship between building facades and the public
realm, the form and mass of buildings in relation to one another, and the scale and types
of streets and blocks.The regulations and standards in form-based codes are presented in
both words and clearly drawn diagrams and other visuals. They are keyed to a regulating
plan that designates the appropriate form and scale (and therefore, character) of devel-
opment, rather than only distinctions in land-use types.
(Form-Based Codes Institute 2013)

Form-based codes (FBC) followed on the popularity of design guidelines, which are usually
applied as an overlay on conventional zoning. Design guidelines are quite specifically focused
on the design, character, and details of new and renovated buildings, and are common in
218 B. C. Scheer

areas with some historic buildings. In contrast, FBC are a set of regulations applied to specific
areas where a particular character is desired. Although the regulations sometimes cover public
investments in streets, sidewalks, open space, and the like, the rules we are most concerned
with here are those that impact, evaluate, or control architecture.
Like post-occupancy evaluations (POE), FBC are a way of evaluating certain qualities in
built form to predict with some accuracy how a building will perform (or does perform)
against the ideal situation as reflected in the code. Rules, laws, or guidelines that require
a design to measure up to a specific directive are sometimes called “performance” meas-
ures. Post-occupancy evaluations, daylight requirements, energy efficiency, and accessibility
guidelines are among the proliferating performance tests that a building design can undergo.
Because of our computer capabilities, architects now have the means to build performance
testing into the models that are created to simulate a building, so that as he or she designs, an
architect can get a continuous read-out on whether a design is performing on target against a
variety of criteria and rules.

Performance criteria/measures
In the past, architects used their own observations and their own long experience to evaluate a
design according to criteria that they developed as a kind of sensibility. As he or she designed,
the architect used his or her internal evaluations to guide the work, and thus incorporate
them as part of the whole design process. Many things were left out, of course, and it was
the designer and the client who prioritized the most important criteria to incorporate. Our
tendency in recent years has been to proliferate performance criteria, because we now have
the data and the capacity to measure and predict performance beforehand. Even quite com-
plicated performance-based evaluation measures can get built into sophisticated computer
simulations of buildings, and the model can then be iterated many times to maximize the fit
with various criteria.
While in the past, the client and the architect had the greatest influence on the design,
today we must also satisfy a more diverse set of audiences for architecture than was tradition-
ally the case. The public, the government, users (broadly defined), and consumers have begun
to insist that buildings perform according to more and more specific criteria. Form-based
codes are just one area where a group of citizens, planners, neighbors, and policy-makers have
inserted themselves into the traditional design process in order to achieve a public good, like a
better urban environment. Most performance evaluations have a public purpose of some kind
(safety, access, sustainability, user comfort).
Every performance-based criterion set starts out with an underlying, and somewhat iso-
lated, ideal, such as creating a highly “green” building. By isolated, I mean that this perform-
ance specification is neutral with regard to other potential criteria, such as building function.
These may conflict: for example, orienting the building to maximize daylight may mean that it
fails urbanistic or wayfinding criteria. It is the traditional task of an architect to balance various
requirements to create a great building. Soon, it will be the task of the computer to balance
the performance criteria, maximizing each according to an algorithm, perhaps dictated by the
design team. At present, good designers rarely allow the performance measures to generate
the design. In the future, however, the performative criteria may get the upper hand entirely,
because the complexity of the models makes the process more and more opaque, even to the
designer (Scheer 2014).
 Urban form-based codes and architectural critique 219

Most performance evaluations are based on data. Certainly, people working with post-
occupancy evaluations have been doing social science research for decades (see Chapter 19,
this volume).This research, as the term “post-occupancy” implies, is gathered by studying built
architecture. Sometimes it is based on surveys of occupants, sometimes it is observations of
how people use a building, or both. Energy efficiency performance is even more clear-cut and
based on the scientifically measured performance of specific materials, systems, and assemblies.
This testing is best done in a post-occupancy setting, as well.
Form-based codes, on the other hand, are derived primarily from conventional wisdom,
handed down from designers and other experts who have observed successful and unsuccess-
ful urban environments and drawn conclusions from what they have observed (Ewing and
Bartholomew 2013). Some of these conclusions are quite mundane and obvious: “people pre-
fer to walk where there are street trees.” Recently, researchers have begun to test much of the
underlying wisdom of FBC, using some of the same research methods used in post-occupancy
evaluation.There have been no surprises: the conventional wisdom has proven to be generally
true: people actually do prefer tree-lined streets.
For example, experts have observed that the ratio of street width to building height reaches
a point where intimacy and human scale feel compromised.This is difficult to measure, but real,
and rules of thumb have been devoted to quantifying the correct ratios. But even describing this
simple rule of thumb makes us realize that there is a huge number of conditions that mitigate
or exacerbate the ratio, and that perhaps intimate human scale is not always the point (e.g. Las
Vegas, St Peter’s Square). But the study of these limits (and continued observation to enhance
their specificity) is important information for designers, who can to use it or break it or develop
a contrast, as needed for the context. All designers, to one degree or another, learn and use their
craft by accumulating observations and understanding the known rules of thumb or data.
In addition to the conventional wisdom of experienced designers, FBC also incorporate
the popular sensibility: they are a kind of crowd-sourcing mechanism, so that the sensibilities
of the common man are queried. Through participatory planning, visual preference surveys,
visioning meetings, and so on, the opinions of neighbors, planners, and government officials
coalesce around the conventional wisdom, and emerging research brought to the process by
consultants who specialize in FBC. The likes and dislikes that emerge are constantly being
broken down and explained in finer and finer detail, so that precise rules can be written. FBC
can be extraordinarily precise and quite long – 100 or more pages of code are not unusual,
even for a small district.

Outcomes
The environments created this way are often successful and intimate pedestrian and people
places, as the FBC intend. They are human-scaled, have ample public gathering places, and an
attractive level of complexity. They are also all very strikingly similar, since they are follow-
ing known urban formulas and urban typologies, which are only slightly modified for local
effect. These are a particular “type,” born of a formula not unlike the successful and repeti-
tious formula that drives the design of a suburban mall or a subdivision, but with a different
intention. That FBC buildings are very similar implies that these urban typologies share many
characteristics and that the people who create them appear to be more homogeneous than
they probably are: do denizens of the French Quarter respond the same way as the denizens
of San Antonio?
220 B. C. Scheer

FIGURE 20.1 Form-based codes, like this one in Columbia Pike,VA, produce urban scale buildings of
a particular type, broken up vertically to simulate narrow buildings. Contrast the new development on
the right side of the photo with the iconic (and authentic) Bob and Edith Diner on the left.
Source: photo by Brett VA, licensed under CCx3.0.

Because they are created with a combination of research, expertise, and crowd-sourcing,
FBC are an unusual way to critique an urban environment and its architecture. To be sure,
FBC are not so much a critique of architecture as they are a critique of the business of real
estate development, which often seems to have a tin ear (or greed) in regard to collective, pub-
lic issues. That is why educating the public is also a common goal for these codes, as they are
created and as they are written. FBC often contain within them little “mini guides” to good
urban design, presumably not aimed at the trained designer, but at the real estate industry, the
politicians, the street engineers, and the public.
With FBC, the act of evaluation applies to the entire body of new construction within a
specific area. Is the building helping to create a street wall? Does it have a stated amount of trans-
parency on the ground level? Does it respond to the immediate context in a respectful way?
Is it oriented vertically or broken up in vertical segments to provide the illusion of verticality
(Figure 20.1)? Are there openings every 25 or 50 feet? Is it complex in its expression (no boxes)?
Most FBC go further and recommend, like design guidelines, incorporating copies of historic
details, including eaves, porches, windows, stair rails, and materials that mimic historic ones in
the neighborhood (Scheer and Preiser 1994). Like other performance criteria, the level of detail
of the FBC has a tendency to increase as they are adopted successfully in communities. Citizens
find this a satisfying way to control many design elements that they are unhappy about.
Performance measures are strengthened and promoted by their reference to data. They are,
generally speaking, created by data-driven research, including user surveys, measurements over
time, and observations. On the other hand, architectural criticism has sometimes in this book
been presented as the personalized evaluation of the quality of a particular building, or even
more narrowly as the review of the building’s aesthetic quality. What this book proposes is
that these are two opposing (or perhaps complementary) views of evaluating the quality of a
building. It is almost as if there should be a showdown between what the common man desires
(represented by POE and FBC) and the perverse opinion of the dilettante critic.
 Urban form-based codes and architectural critique 221

Juxtaposition vs. complementarity

I believe that this is a very misleading opposition: criticism and performance evaluation are not two
different/equal ways to evaluate quality. Performance measures do not evaluate the “quality”
of architecture, they evaluate a building’s performance according to algorithms more or less
generated by data. By suggesting that a building is “well designed” if it suffices all its perform-
ance criteria, we risk leaving almost everything about architecture that is important out of the
evaluation. By designing only to maximize the performance of a building on various criteria,
we leave the judgment of holistic design quality out of the picture altogether. No responsible
architect does this.
Criticism (good criticism), on the other hand, is the interpretation of a building or a series
of buildings that places them in context with intellectual and aesthetic currents, and which
critiques the holistic design ideas, the message and meaning of the building, and the conditions
under which it arose. Critics are highly selective: very few buildings are reviewed at all. Most
buildings are background to the culture – generally very derivative or typologically known,
generally performing well but not very well, and on the whole, having no interest or intention
for the advancement or revelation of the culture or the city or the art of architecture. Most
buildings are designed to maximize a series of criteria, both the public-purpose performance
criteria already discussed, and also the economic, functional, and image performance required
by the owner. They do not rise to the level of interest for architectural critique. There is very
little to say about them, and what meaning they have simply reinforces the culture as it is. So
for example, a new mixed-use building that follows an urban formula or FBC speaks only to
the meaning we can attach to the formula (Why this formula? Why now?), not to the particu-
lars of that building.
So the act of reviewing a building at all is a selective act that has as its purpose to call atten-
tion to some cultural moment that the building elucidates (even if it is bad). Critics are simply
not interested in buildings that are polite, comfortable, ordinary, and closely following a known
form-type. It is arguable that the only way to create an interesting and important building
that pushes the culture forward is to break away from the ordinary, comfortable, and politely
contextual. As a designer, I like to understand the conventional wisdom and know how to put
it into practice, but I also want to be able to use my own interpretation of the history of the
site and the problem, for example, to provide a unique and authentic response, rather than be
driven to use a specific formula.
This is an important dilemma. Whereas it is possible to satisfy POE criteria and most other
performance measures while still designing an interesting or avant-garde building, it is not
possible to do so in a district where FBC are strictly applied. Because FBC require (by law)
a conventional context-based solution rather than a unique response, it is probable that they
inhibit architectural excellence and innovation, at the same time that they inhibit developer-
driven banality (Scheer 1999). By following form-based codes precisely, we create popular,
normal, predictable, competent and comfortable, yet entirely unremarkable architecture (still
difficult to pull off). On the other hand, without FBC, we usually get very weak and even
offensive “product” – the result of real estate market forces, industry habits, and inertia. What
we don’t have, in areas with FBC, are the many disappointing attempts at something different,
which can become an affront to everyone. But we also do not have a few stunning and cre-
ative works that help us understand the art of architecture and the larger currents of meaning
of the culture (Figure 20.2).
222 B. C. Scheer

FIGURE 20.2 Form-based codes create architecture that is vaguely historic and conventionally
pretty, but not meaningful to the place and culture. This project could be anywhere and has no
aspiration but to serve the real estate development.
Source: photo by D. Scheer.

Conclusion
Here is where a good critic becomes a vital part of promoting design excellence. The critic
does not instruct us on a few simple rules for good normal design, such as those put forward
by FBC or POE. We learn a completely different thing from a good critic: the shattering of
tradition, the way to see something we had not seen before, the place of this new addition
in the continuity of the city and the culture. We learn why the architect did not follow the
known rules and why this is important or badly done. We learn the relationship of this art,
architecture, to other arts and movements and politics. These reflections and contemplations
are not offered as a way to make better buildings in the future (however buildings are defined
as “better”), but are offered as interpretations to allow us to see the architecture and the places
in all their fullness, i.e. not getting lost in specific criticisms of the width of the hallway to
accommodate traffic (POE), or the distance of the door from the sidewalk (FBC). The critic
will identify large problems of the culture and society that are embodied in the architecture,
and draw our attention to creative movements.
The critic, hopefully, will also let us know when performative measures have gone too far
or been applied too rigorously or restrictively. When the general urban environment becomes
tame and codified and Disneyfied, it is the job of the critic to encourage more innova-
tive work, to ask the public to look beyond its conventional ideas of prettiness, retro urban
types, and pedestrian scale: to call attention to public places that are exciting and relevant and
forward-thinking, rather than just good “people places.” The critic can also deplore the use
of “old-timey” architecture that cynically mimics a past that never existed, even as the public
swoons over the brass fittings and “brick” façade.
Critics also give people a language to use to talk about what is happening around them,
in their neighborhood. Instead of helplessly saying, “it’s just too big,” people who follow an
enlightened critic can talk about the legacy of the older homes, the instruments of power
 Urban form-based codes and architectural critique 223

that drive real estate, the destroyed patterns of the city streets, the trade off between building
here versus somewhere else, all of which have great legitimacy. There is a direct relationship
between the kind of knowledge that critics can bring, and the broader knowledge of architec-
ture and place in the community.

References
Ewing, R. and K. Bartholomew (2013) Pedestrian- and Transit-Oriented Design. Washington, DC: Urban
Land Institute and American Planning Association.
Form-Based Code Institute (2013) “What Are Form-Based Codes?” http://www.formbasedcodes.org/
what-are-form-based-codes
Parolek, D., K. Parolek, and P. Crawford (2008) Form-Based Codes: A Guide for Planners, Urban Designers,
Municipalities, and Developers. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.
Scheer, B. C. (1999) “When Design is Against the Law.” Harvard Design Magazine 7.
Scheer, B. C. and W. F. E. Preiser (eds) (1994) Design Review: Challenging Urban Aesthetic Control. New
York: Chapman and Hall.
Scheer, D. (2014) The Death of Drawing: Architecture in the Age of Simulation. London and New York:
Routledge.
21
THE SOCIO-CULTURAL CONTEXT OF
ARCHITECTURAL CRITICISM AND
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
Yasser Mahgoub

Introduction
This chapter addresses the socio-cultural context of architectural criticism and evaluation
studies. It considers understanding the context for the critic, evaluator, project or building, and
the society at large as a key factor that influences the outcome of these studies.While this book
attempts to demonstrate that the “two currently divergent paradigms of architectural criticism
and building performance evaluations can co-exist and even complement each other,” I argue
that there is a critical and dynamic context that should be considered when initiating criti-
cisms and evaluation studies, and when attempting to understand their value to the individual,
society, and profession.
The political, economic, social, and cultural context of studies influences the instigation
and function of these studies in intellectual, professional, and scientific aspects of society.
Democratic and autonomous societies value personal opinions and user feedback more than
autocratic or authoritarian societies. The value of a qualitative approach is inferior to that of
a quantitative approach in less developed societies. Cultural beliefs and attitudes continue
to affect how people view criticism and evaluation studies. The following account attempts
to highlight significant contextual issues that should be understood in order to improve the
impact of criticism and evaluation studies in different socio-cultural realms.

Recent trends
Since the end of the twentieth century, the field of architectural criticism and evaluation
has witnessed the advent of a new shift in focus from criticism to evaluation, assessment,
and performance. It also witnessed the praise of quantitative methods over qualitative ones.
“Announcing the death of criticism is nothing new,” wrote Hélène Jannière (Jannière 2010).
This is attributed partially to the pressing requirements of the realm of scientific research and
granting agencies that value the measured over the perceived and the quantitative over the
phenomenological. This shift is also attributed to the emergence of new types of organiza-
tional clientele and decision-makers who prefer to utilize quantitative and statistical evidence
 Architectural criticism and evaluation 225

during decision-making. As Rendell put it, “very few critics seem willing to reflect upon the
purposes and possibilities of architectural criticism, or to consider their choice of subject mat-
ter and modes of interpretation and operation” (Rendell 2005).
As sustainability is becoming increasingly a requirement, the increase in applying different
sustainability assessment and rating systems poses a new challenge to the field. Most projects
are obliged to provide evidence of their sustainability strategies, energy conservation, reduc-
tion of carbon footprint, and concerns for world climate change.Yet, there is increasing criti-
cism that “these tools [are] still unable to estimate the actual project outputs of sustainable
projects, as sustainable measures and technologies can turn out differently in the use-phase.
Also, the influence of project end-users is underestimated and not considered properly in these
tools” (Abdalla et al. 2011)”
Criticism failed to provide an alternative to evaluation and assessment studies. As Bürger
put it, “We live in an age in which the spirit of critique has become strangely numb” (Bürger
2010). There was a time during the mid-twentieth century when criticism was considered
the drive to initiate change and improvement of the profession. This period was followed by
a period of increased success in evaluation research. The rise of post-occupancy evaluation
(POE) research was followed by a more holistic evaluative research covering all building
aspects known as building performance evaluation (BPE). It was a clear shift of focus from
the “occupant” to the “building” in an effort to achieve more recognition from the prevailing
scientific community.
A chronic problem in the field is the value and benefits of its results, and how are they are
utilized by practitioners, decision-makers, and users. As pointed out in the Federal Facilities
Council (FCC) report:

only a limited number of large organizations and institutions have active POE pro-
grams. Relatively few organizations have lessons from POE programs fully incorpo-
rated into their building delivery processes, job descriptions, or reporting arrangements.
One reason for this limited use is the nature of POE itself, which identifies both suc-
cesses and failures. Most organizations do not reward staff or programs for exposing
shortcomings.
(Federal Facilities Council 2001)

Among the barriers to making POE more effective, the report added: the difficulty in estab-
lishing causal links between positive outcomes and the physical environment; reluctance by
organizations and building professionals to participate in a process that may expose problems
or failures; fear of soliciting feedback from occupants on the grounds that both seeking and
receiving this type of information may obligate an organization to make costly changes to
its services or to the building; lack of participation by building users; and failure to distribute
information resulting from POEs to decision-makers and other stakeholders (Federal Facilities
Council 2001). Knowledge gained from evaluation studies should be fundamental for an
informed new buildings and projects decision-making process.

Defining the socio-cultural context

The term “socio-cultural” is an umbrella term that encompasses the social and cultural aspects
that exist in a particular context.According to the American Heritage Dictionary, socio-cultural
226 Y. Mahgoub

means “of or involving both social and cultural factors” (The American Heritage® Dictionary of
the English Language 2011). It suggests the inseparable nature of culture and society.
Socio-cultural studies traditionally focused on the interface between society and culture
and its impact on people and their actions. This approach was “first systematized and applied
by L. S.Vygotsky and his collaborators in Russia in the nineteen-twenties and thirties. [It was]
based on the concept that human activities take place in cultural contexts, and are mediated
by language and other symbol systems” (John-Steiner and Holbrook 1996). While this chap-
ter attempts to demonstrate the impact of socio-cultural context on architectural criticism
and evaluation, it does not attempt to lessen the impact of other economic, environmental, or
technological factors. And, as Bürger “politely” put it, “the general political climate can prob-
ably not be denied” (Bürger 2010).
According to Oxford Dictionaries, criticism means “(1) the expression of disapproval of
someone or something on the basis of perceived faults or mistakes, (2) the analysis and judg-
ment of the merits and faults of a literary or artistic work” (Oxford Dictionaries 2013). Criticism
is perceived as personal opinion of a “recognized critic” based on experience and intellectual
procedures aiming at highlighting success and failures of a “significant” project. Aiming at the
professional press and community, criticism utilizes specialized terminology, usually out of the
reach of the public. Being limited to “visual/aesthetic concerns, such as form, composition,
order, etc., but it typically does not cover the addressing of needs for major stakeholders in
buildings,” as indicated by Davis and Preiser (Davis and Preiser 2012), architectural criticism
had limited impact and value in the public realm. Recognition that architecture criticism is in
a state of “crisis” is found in most parts of the world. According to Stead:

Local commentators commonly complain that Australian architectural criticism is “not

critical enough”, and that it is characterized by mild, politely descriptive, aesthetic or
formalist approaches. Springing from this are a whole string of further assumptions –
that critics are not sufficiently objective, that they are biased by their own connections
within the small and close-knit architectural community, that they are complicit with
the commercial bias of the journals, that they are timid and afraid of litigation, and that
for all of these reasons architectural criticism is as nauseatingly sycophantic as it is irrele-
vant and ineffectual.
(Stead 2003)

On the other hand, attempts were made to bring architectural criticism to the public realm
by appointing critics to write columns in popular newspapers, but their rapid disappearance
from daily newspapers sends an alarming signal. Although Vanessa Quirk commented that we
might think that “The Architect Critic Is Dead” when critics like Paul Goldberger left their
long life career in architecture criticism to other media empires (Quirk 2012), as Alan Brake
argues, “all the blogs, websites, and publications that cover architecture and urbanism” created
a new platform for architectural criticism (Brake 2013).
While architectural criticism has lost some ground in popular newspapers and magazines,
architectural evaluation has grown in scientific and academic domains. It has become recog-
nized as a legitimate research area worthy of receiving research grants and professional com-
missions. For example, POE was defined by Preiser et al. as “the process of evaluating buildings
in a systematic and rigorous manner after they have been built and occupied for some time”
(Preiser et al. 1988). Its focus on methods and process allowed it to be recognized as part of
 Architectural criticism and evaluation 227

the scientific research domain.Yet, for many architects, professional magazines continue to be
the major source of information and inspiration during the design stage. Also, the scientific
language, terminology, and jargon used in evaluation research are not fully grasped by the
average architect seeking useful information applicable in the design stage. Evaluation and
criticism continue to be post facto activities aiming at finished products and they appear not
to be useful during the design stage. This is largely attributed to the languages used in com-
municating results and recommendations that remain unfamiliar to the design profession. As
argued by Preiser et al.:

It is acknowledged that criticism in architecture is not based in scientific inquiry and

does not appear to have developed as a clear discipline with its own boundaries in both
the Western and non-Western regions. Nevertheless, POE is increasingly accepted as
part of the academic and professional activities ranging from the classroom to building
commissioning now required by many governments and building authorities.

Do we need architectural criticism and evaluation to continue as separate realms or should

they be combined in one? Davis and Preiser (2012) attempted to “bridge the gap between the
affective and effective goals of architectural criticism” by exploring an “entirely new form of
criticism that is instructive as both a tool to professionals and an explication of the built envir-
onment to the layperson beyond aesthetic platitudes” (Davis and Preiser 2012). To achieve
integration between criticism and evaluation, they suggest: “For architectural criticism to be
valid and comprehensive, the subjective or perceived criteria for criticism and the objective or
measured criteria need to be brought together in a single coherent conceptual framework that
can be communicated to others” (Davis and Preiser 2012).
Many factors affect the significance of criticism or evaluation studies. The first factor is the
selection of what is studied or assessed. The location, size, and context of what is being stud-
ied are important factors. Individual buildings are the customary candidates for both criticism
and evaluation studies. Aspects of study might include quantitative or/and qualitative factors
such as aesthetics, function, performance, and energy consumption. While evaluation focuses
on assessing performance, criticism focuses on impact, success and failures. The second factor
is individuals, groups, or organizations that perform the study. Criticism is performed by an
individual who has background, expertise, and knowledge allowing him or her to comment
and express professional opinions about a building or projects. The critic might be a native of
the place where the subject of study is located or might be a foreigner using the project to
express an opinion or view point. As Davis points out in his chapter, “Criticism in its intended
form, is a reasoned and thoughtful examination of a subject within an arc of an historical and
philosophical context.” It suffers under the impulses of “the cacophony of media options and
cultural histories that act as tools of estrangement.” Finally, the subject of study is usually a
building or project of significance or public importance to the community. Critics rarely study
projects used by poor or marginalized populations.The critic’s intention is to provide the pro-
fessional community with evaluation, assessment, or appraisal of a building or a project. On
the other hand, evaluation is usually performed by experts, or group of experts, focusing on
the performance aspects of the building or project. Their diverse background allows them to
evaluate different aspects of the project.Their aim is to provide feedback and assessment of the
building performance from the point of view of the user, as well as its technical performance.
The points of view expressed in these evaluation studies reflect specific users and buildings.
228 Y. Mahgoub

While criticism focuses on project intentions, evaluation focuses on actual use and user feed-
back. The point of view of the critic or evaluator cannot be directly utilized in the design
stage.While criticism is closer to the professional mode of work and thinking, its results remain
remote from the architectural design process due to its specificity and limited generalizations.

Recognizing the socio-cultural context

While conducting various research studies in different contexts, several socio-cultural issues
were identified. They ranged from mistrust of people in research and its benefits in changing
their lives, and the use of research to harm them, to research as an accepted practice in a soci-
ety. The political context might cause people to be suspicious of research efforts assuming
that researchers are collecting information to harm them. In a village in Egypt’s countryside,
people were hostile towards a research team, assuming they were collecting information and
pictures of houses to inform authorities to demolish them.
“So what will be the benefit of your research for us?” asked one of my informants in a
remote village in Nubia, Upper Egypt. He added, “We’ve received many researchers like you
before.They all left and never returned again. Our life remained the same and never changed”
(Mahgoub 1990). Should the researcher remain “objective” and “removed” from the situ-
ation in order not to fall into the trap of the anthropological syndrome called “going native”?
Should he or she be “certain” that the research results will benefit his or her “subjects and
informants” either as a “sample or population”? Should he or she remain a “stranger” and
avoid becoming “native” (see Figure 21.1)?
In developing countries, research results do not help end users as they never reach author-
ities or decision-makers, and research is frequently influenced by bureaucracies and accepted
practices. Phenomenological and qualitative research is usually considered “soft” and its results
are unreliable. Research permits are limited to research that employs quantitative research only.
While in most cases qualitative and ethnographic research reaches deep issues and gets in con-
tact with people more than quantitative research, it is not considered as “valid” and “reliable”
research. Research results challenge authorities’ agendas or assumptions. Policies established
by centralized authorities direct research, imposing tight guidelines and areas of research pri-
ority. There is limited usefulness in the research results for the people who are affected by the
socio-cultural context of funding and granting agencies. This continuing condition will limit
research to certain areas and prohibits creativity, innovation, and exploration of new frontiers.
It will also direct research away from daily concerns of people.
More drastic is the submission of Arab critics and architects to Western theories due to the
absence of native theories and schools of thought. Al Naim describes it as:

personalizing the criticism approach away from its academic basis by not producing
serious academic studies for the field of architecture, and thus, ending up in generations
of Arabs who do not ask critical questions about their practices and processes. They are
‘submitting’ to whatever they receive and accept it blindly.
(Al Naim 2010)

This condition is a reflection of a larger cultural crisis in the Arab world that is fully dependent
on foreign technologies, professionals, and critics.
FIGURE 21.1 Researcher and informant dialogue
Source: author.

iocultural contex
Soc t

Profession
Practitioner
Design
Construction
Opinion Results

Criticism Evaluation
Expert Specialist
Subjective Objective
Interpreration Method

No Dialogue

FIGURE 21.2 Profession, criticism, and evaluation dialogue

Source: author.
230 Y. Mahgoub

The gap between research and practice has been recognized since the end of the twen-
tieth century. Efforts to bridge this gap included the establishment of “InformeDesign,” “an
evidence-based design tool that transforms research into an easy-to-read, easy-to-use format
for architects, graphic designers, housing specialists, interior designers, landscape architects,
and the public” (InformeDesign 2002–2005). InformeDesign recognized the need “to bring
research and practice aspects of the design professions together. InformeDesign aimed to bring
research from a vast array of reputable research sources to the design community that address
those challenges” (InformeDesign 2002–2005).Yet it ceased to continue due to lack of funds
and is now idle. The designers of the built environment face a multitude of complex chal-
lenges: resource, social, environmental, behavioral, and design in nature (see Figure 21.2).

Conclusion
Criticism and evaluation impact can be improved if they recognize their shortcomings in
communicating useful results to practitioners and decision-makers.They should focus on pro-
viding “practical” information to designers during the pre-design stage. While they both have
their successes and failures, they remain marginal to professional practice. They should rec-
ognize the socio-cultural, for both the subject of study and the person studying, as a major
factor in shaping the results. Recognition of continuous changes in clients’ and users’ interest
is intrinsic to their future success. Clients are either becoming more sophisticated, requir-
ing more information and evidence that the design will satisfy their needs and ambitions, or
they are becoming more helpless and have no input in what is being designed for them by
the professionals and decided for them by decision-makers. If both criticism and evaluation
re-recognize their base in the architecture profession, their results will be more useful and
practical. While criticism needs to become more research based and apply rigorous and sys-
tematic methods, evaluation needs to be more critical and produce more relevant results to
the profession. Criticism and evaluation need to initiate a dialogue to achieve mutual strategies
useful for the profession.

References
Abdalla, G., G. Maas, J. Huyghe, and M. Oostra (2011) “Criticism on Environmental Assessment Tools.
Proceedings from IPCBEE 2011.” International Proceedings of Chemical, Biological and Environmental
Engineering 6: 443–46. Singapore: IACSIT Press.
Al Naim, M. (2010) Safar Al Omran [Urbanism Genesis]. Nadi Al Sharquiah Al Adabi.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language (2011) http://ahdictionary.com/word/search.
html?q=sociocultural+&submit.x=59&submit.y=32
Brake, G. A. (2013) “Criticism is Dead! Long Live Criticism!” The Architect’s Newspaper. http://archpaper.
com/news/articles.asp?id=6605
Bürger, P. (2010) “Definitions and Limitations of Criticism.” OASE Journal of Architecture 81: 14–32.
Davis, A. T. and W. F. E. Preiser (2012) “Architectural Criticism in Practice: From Affective to Effective
Experience.” International Journal of Architectural Research 6(2): 24–42.
Federal Facilities Council (2001) Learning From Our Buildings: A State-of-the-Practice Summary of Post-
Occupancy Evaluation (FFC Report No. 145). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Jannière, H. (2010) “Architecture Criticism: Identifying Object of Study.” OASE Journal of Architecture
81: 34–54.
John-Steiner, V. and M. Holbrook (1996) “Sociocultural Approaches to Learning and Development: A
Vygotskian Framework.” Educational Psychologist 31(3–4): 191–206.
 Architectural criticism and evaluation 231

Mahgoub, Y. (1990) “The Nubian Experience: A Study of the Social and Cultural Meanings of
Architecture, doctoral dissertatio.” Retrieved from Mirlyn Catalog, University of Michigan, USA.
Oxford Dictionaries (2013) http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/criticism
Preiser, W. F. E., H. Z. Rabinowitz, and E. T. White (1988) Post-Occupancy Evaluation. New York: Van
Nostrand Reinhold.
Quirk, V. (2012). “The Architect Critic Is Dead (just not for the reason you think).” ArchDaily. http://
www.archdaily.com/223714/the-architect-critic-is-dead-just-not-for-the-reason-you-think/
Rendell, J. (2005) “Architecture-Writing.” Journal of Architecture 10(3): 255–64.
Stead, N. (2003) “Three Complaints About Architectural Criticism.” Architecture Australia 92(6): 50–52.
22
QUALITY ASSESSMENTS IN HEALTH
CARE ENVIRONMENTS
Dina Battisto, Deborah Franqui, and Clayton Boenecke

Introduction
The field of health care architecture is replete with information about evidence-based design,
best practice design strategies, and lessons learned from the field for various environments.
Yet few of these latest studies have been replicated, and only a limited number are performed
within the context of the complete hospital environment or a broad network of health care
facilities. Most evaluation projects to date on health care facilities have utilized different proc-
esses, metrics, and sets of tools, hampering the transferability of findings and compromising the
development of a standardized facility database that spans multiple facilities or departments.
In response, this chapter will discuss the development and pilot testing of a new structured
post-occupancy evaluation (POE) approach to conduct quality assessments of medical facil-
ities for the military health system (MHS) in their quest to build and operate world-class med-
ical facilities. The MHS desires to build an assessment program to inform the development of
evidence-based planning and design guidelines for health care projects. In particular a POE
approach, framework, methodology, metrics, and data collection tools are briefly presented,
offering insight on how to conduct facility-wide assessments and focused assessments within
inpatient and outpatient clinical departments. Finally, lessons learned from conducting two
subsequent pilot studies testing the POE methodology will be presented.

Quality assessments of health care facilities: a case study of the military

health system
A series of articles that first appeared in the Washington Post reported the rundown condi-
tions and substandard medical treatment afforded to soldiers returning from America’s wars.
The recent scandal concerning the hospital system of the US Department of Veterans’ Affairs
is a case in point. Public exposure of the dilapidated conditions at MHS’s Walter Reed Army
Medical Center spurred interest and action toward change. Consequently, in 2008 the Health
Systems Advisory Subcommittee of the National Capital Region Base Realignment and
Closure Act (BRAC) was charged with reviewing the floor plans for two newly designed
 Quality assessments in health care environments 233

MHS hospitals to determine whether these facilities were designed and constructed to be
world-class (WC) medical facilities. The independent review of these floor plans led to a
document entitled “Achieving World-Class.” In this report, a definition of world-class facil-
ities was presented as: “The delivery of healthcare in a state-of-the-art facility that consistently
delivers superior, high quality care, translating into optimal treatment outcomes at a reason-
able cost to the patient and society” (Kizer et al. 2009). With a mandate in place to create and
operate world-class facilities, the MHS then initiated the development of a facility evaluation
program and reached out for help from Clemson University, NXT, Noblis, and the National
Institute of Building Sciences (NIBS).
This chapter highlights lessons learned from a multi-year effort aimed at developing a
standardized POE process and toolkit for medical facilities utilizing complementary subjective
and objective quality indicators. Compared to previous environmental evaluations, quality is
assessed along a set of indicators derived from the “world-class criteria.” A case study approach
was employed for the POE with two main assessment approaches: a broad-brush facility-wide
assessment and focused departmental-level assessments. First, the facility-wide inquiry is a
limited, broad study of the overall hospital level including all departments. Its strength is that
it permits the evaluators to study departmental interrelationships to understand how the facil-
ity operates as a whole and the effectiveness of linkages across different departments. Second,
at the department level, in-depth inquiries are conducted permitting the evaluators to study
select departments in a comprehensive manner. Their strength is that the unit is understood
at a more granular level and targeted design recommendations can be more aptly devised.
Prior to starting the POE, inpatient and outpatient clinical units were identified to study. For
example, the MHS selected three outpatient units including family medicine, surgery, and
emergency services; and four inpatient units including general medical surgical, behavioral
health, and obstetrics. The POE methodology and toolkit were developed and tested sequen-
tially in two pilot studies leading to a refined process and set of metrics and tools. It is believed
that findings from POEs may lead to ongoing improvements in the MHS facility guidance
and design criteria, such as space planning criteria and room templates, as well as providing
opportunities to seek best practices in facility design.

Employing a quality improvement approach to conduct health care

facility assessments
An important consideration for the project was to determine an approach to guide the evalu-
ation process and toolkit. Based on the objectives of the evaluation, the short timeline, and
lessons learned from the first pilot, the team pursued a quality improvement (QI) approach
rather than a scientific research approach for the second pilot. Upon review of the applica-
tion, a committee determined that the project did not qualify as research according to the
federal regulations and therefore did not require Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval.
Instead, the POE project was deemed a QI project, a study that aims “to assess or improve an
existing internal process, or local program/system or to improve performance as judged by
established/accepted standards.”
Moving forward, the team proposed a four-level quality improvement process for the
evaluation as shown in Figure 22.1. The first level in the process, Assessment, involves a
Facility Documentation step and a Performance Evaluation step which encompass a facil-
ity-wide assessment with focused inquiries in select units. The outcome from this initial
234 D. Battisto, D. Franqui, and C. Boenecke

Levels Objectives Methods Frequency

I Assessment
1. Facility Documentation 1. Capture built • Archival data Every 3 to 5 years
environment factors • Onsite observations for Building-in-Use
• Online surveys Approach
2. Performance Evaluation 2. Conduct a quality • Interviews
assessment • Technical readings
(one time)

II Diagnosis
Explore and validate • Focused observations As needed based on
problem areas • Interviews Level I findings
• Technical readings
Seek potential solutions
(continuous readings)

III Scenario Testing

As needed based on
Refine solutions • Focus groups
Level II findings
• In-depth interviews
Explore scenarios of
• Simulation/prototyping
action for resolution
• Usability studies

IV Implementation
Conduct feasibility studies • Interviews As needed based on
• Logistical planning Level III findings
Prepare action plans

FIGURE 22.1 Quality improvement POE levels

Source: Dina Battisto and Sonya Albury-Crandall.

assessment is the presentation of strengths and challenges of the facility design across the
evaluation criteria. It is proposed that the quality assessment should be performed repeat-
edly to gather data, thus creating a dynamic facility profile that relates to WC performance
benchmarks. The emphasis of the work to date, and focus of this chapter, encompasses this
initial Level One Assessment.
The second level, Diagnosis, entails in-depth explorations to further understand prob-
lem areas identified during the Assessment level. For example, in a POE of an outpatient
clinic, the exam room may have received a low satisfaction score from staff and/or patients
that may be attributed to its size, configuration, equipment, or lighting specifications.
Therefore, additional studies are conducted to diagnose and validate the problem as well
as suggest the need to review related design guidance tools such as space planning criteria
and room templates. During the third level, Scenario Testing, through the fourth level,
Implementation, a team works toward seeking solutions to the identified problem areas
and then develops an implementation strategy to improve problem areas. Following the
resolution of the problem, the team returns to Level I to conduct a follow-up assessment
to determine whether the design intervention was effective. The progression through the
levels is repeated as necessary. In the next section, the Level I Assessment will be described
in more detail.

Development of a standardized POE framework for assessing the quality of

health care facilities
Once the QI POE approach was determined, the team worked to develop POE components
informed by MHS world-class principles.The nine guiding principles provided the core values
 Quality assessments in health care environments 235

World Class
9 Guiding Principles

'W
r
4 Outcomes

'W

10 Facility Dimensions

'W

100 Key Metrics

'W
r _______
Data Collection
12 Tools

FIGURE 22.2 POE components informed by MHS world-class principles

Source: Dina Battisto and Sonya Albury-Crandall.

and starting point for the development of the POE toolkit. These principles also informed
the ongoing refinement of facility guidance criteria, such as a WC design checklist (originally
an evidence-based checklist), space planning criteria, and room templates. Since the MHS
wanted to understand what works and does not work in a completed, occupied facility in
relation to world-class directives as well as initial design and project goals, the POE method
was selected for the Level I Assessment. The POE method builds upon the longstanding work
of Preiser and colleagues (e.g. Preiser et al. 1988; Preiser and Vischer 2005; Mallory-Hill et al.
2012). More information on this method can be seen in Chapter 14 in this book. Currently,
POE is at the forefront in knowledge generation as it provides an assessment of design related
decision-making, recommended design strategies, design concepts, and final design solutions
in relation to expected outcomes. Additionally, it allows for the comparison of predicted per-
formance captured during the programming and design phases of an architecture process,
with actual performance of a building in use being captured during the POE. While Preiser
and Schramm proposed a building performance evaluation (BPE) approach (1997, 2012) as an
all-encompassing life-cycle approach to assessing quality, this methodology was not possible
since the building was already complete when the team was approached. Nevertheless, the
development of the POE methodology and toolkit evolved in a hierarchical fashion whereby
the WC principles were translated into quality assessment criteria and performance indicators
(Figure 22.2).
To conduct quality assessments, it is essential to integrate design and research think-
ing to identify relationships between facility design (what the architect has the ability to
shape or create) and outcomes (an expected end result valued by a client). Figure 22.3
236 D. Battisto, D. Franqui, and C. Boenecke

AN Facility
AL Design
Facility Documentation
r \ AN AL
Performance Evaluation

Facility Dimensions 12 I
Outcomes
I
Built Environment
Metrics
Factors

FIGURE 22.3 Simplified performance concept to connect outcomes to facility design

Source: Dina Battisto and Deborah Franqui.

illustrates a simple back and forth relationship between these two critical components.
Building upon this premise, outcomes are defined at the beginning of a project and pro-
vide the basis for informing design decision-making. Along the way, the architectural team
formulates claims or position statements aimed at predicting performance, in other words,
how facility design solutions will contribute to achieving expected outcomes. After the
building is completed and in operation, these claims are evaluated by measuring the actual
performance and comparing findings to what was predicted earlier in the process. By
applying research thinking, the actual performance of a building-in-use is evaluated using
methods and metrics to reveal measured connections between built environment factors
and expected outcomes. Findings from the Level I Assessment can then move forward to
Level II Diagnosis to further validate the problem areas in the facility as well as feed lessons
learned forward to inform future building projects or updates to POE methodologies. This
process of using “measurement, evaluation, and feedback” is central to realizing a perform-
ance concept (Preiser et al. 1988).
Building on this premise, a performance framework was developed to provide an organ-
izational structure and a linear chain of logic from the beginning to the end of a building
project. A framework includes three basic components: outcomes, facility dimensions, and
built environment factors. First, the development of the framework starts with the identifi-
cation of outcome areas. An outcome can be defined as an end result that can be measured,
either subjectively or objectively. Outcomes are what a client values and hopes to achieve
and can be organized in a hierarchical fashion to suggest priorities. An outcome is often
significant to a building typology, a universal outcome, or significant due to the unique
influences of a particular project, referred to as a project-specific outcome. Metrics are sub-
jective or objective indicators or measurements that are used to assess how design solutions
positively or negatively contribute to the achievement of the expected outcomes. Subjective
or perceived metrics are data elements from users’ perception captured quantitatively using
research methods such as surveys, or qualitatively using methods such as interviews or
focus groups. Objective metrics are data elements captured through actual measurements
from research methods such as floor plan take-offs, technical readings, and observations.
Comparing perceived and objective metrics often provides the ability to triangulate data
and strengthen conclusions.
Facility dimensions are the second component in the performance framework and
serve as a lens or filter to elevate the most salient architectural design considerations
related to outcomes of interest and are supported by relevant published literature. These
facility dimensions are used to highlight what an architect or designer has the ability to
 Quality assessments in health care environments 237

Outcomes Facility Dimensions Key Metrics

Travel distances from parking; Access to parking nearby;

Access and Wayfinding
Clarity and visibility of signage; Ability to find your way

Family accommodations; Access to daylight, and views to

Patient and Family Comfort and Control
outdoors in patient care areas; privacy; comfort
Positive
Experience
First impression; Amenities; Access to daylight in public ar­
Positive Patient and Family Experience
eas; views to outdoors from public areas; overall noise

Amenities; Resources; Views and physical access to land­

Staff Support
scaped areas; Access to daylight in staff work areas

Travel distances; Building efficiency factor; Size and location

W orkflow Efficiency
of storage; Wait times; Length o f visit

R S Operational
Layout of overall unit/clinic design; Layout of key patient care
^ Efficiency Functionality
areas; Layout o f clinical elements in patient care areas

Unit/clinic layout to support changes and expansion over

Flexibility and Adaptability time; Patient care areas to accom modate new tech, and
care needs

Noise levels; Hand-washing; Light levels; Visibility - staff

Quality of Care, Safety, and Infection Control to staff and staff to patient; assitive devices/patient safety
| 0 Clinical features
Effectiveness
Layout o f patient care areas to promote communication be­
Communication and C ollaboration
tween providers and patient/families; Compatibility of tech

_ _ Healthy Air quality; Air temperature; Quality of lighting; Energy con­

t . J Environment Environmental Quality and Sustainability servation efforts; Water Conservation efforts; W aste reduc­
H f l and Sustainability tion

FIGURE 22.4 POE performance framework

Source: Dina Battisto, Deborah Franqui, and Mason Couvillion.

influence and can be assessed along a quality continuum. For example, a desired outcome
could be to achieve a “positive experience for customers” through the promotion of
easy “access and wayfinding” (a facility dimension). If a person spends considerable time
to get from the parking lot to the entrance, and has difficulty finding their way to their
desired destination, then this will more than likely lead to a lower perceived experience
by a customer.
The third component, built environment factors (BEF), include the physical attributes of
a facility design that are expected to influence outcomes as shown in published empirical
research or from professional experience.They represent the interpretation of a recommended
design strategy or guideline manifested into a final design solution and can be captured in a
qualitative or quantitative manner. Qualitative BEFs are best captured through diagrams repre-
senting the conceptual design solution implemented in the facility. Once the architect finalizes
a design solution, it is advantageous for the design solution to be captured in written format
for archiving purposes. Quantitative BEFs are best captured through design variables that are
measured using various methods such as floor plan take-offs (i.e. space allocation, travel dis-
tance, and net-to-gross factors).
To tie front-end thinking and back-end thinking together in the MHS POE, the team
developed a customized POE framework, as shown in Figure 22.4, that is organized around
four outcome areas: positive experience, operational efficiency; clinical effectiveness; and
healthy environment and sustainability. Additionally, there are ten facility dimensions
aligned with these outcome areas; and corresponding metrics or indicators used to measure
performance.
238 D. Battisto, D. Franqui, and C. Boenecke

Development of a standardized POE methodology for assessing the quality of

health care facilities
To address the issue of standardization and comparability of data across study sites, a two-
step process was developed for the Level I Assessment including facility documentation
and performance evaluation. The first essential step of the POE, facility documentation, is
a systematic process to capture the qualitative and quantitative aspects of the built environ-
ment factors, aligned with expected outcomes using a performance framework. This step
ideally should start at the beginning of a project in an effort to consistently capture, in
a predefined format, data elements corresponding to the planning, programming, design,
and construction steps of a building project. However, since it was decided to conduct this
evaluation after the building was occupied, facility data had to be collected retrospectively.
Six essential data collection tools were developed for capturing facility data. The use of
diagramming is a useful visual approach to capture qualitative, holistic data such as design
concepts or more concrete design solutions such as facility or unit layout. In contrast,
quantitative data are best represented using data tables and displays. Measurements such
as area sizes, net-to-gross factors, and travel distances collected from floor plan take-offs
are examples of the types of data that lend themselves to objective data tabulations and
comparisons.
The second step, performance evaluation, is a systematic process of assessing the effects
and benefits of facility design, or qualitative and quantitative built environment factors, using
a POE methodology encompassing a variety of data collection tools noted in Figure 22.5.
In order to carry forward lessons learned from the performance evaluation, a third step
should be considered, a translation step. During this step, a research and design team trans-
lates lessons learn from the Level I Assessment in order to feed forward findings to other
comparable facilities, utilize findings to help validate and then correct problems identified
within a studied facility (Levels II through IV) as well as refine the POE methodology.

Development of standardized POE metrics and tools for assessing the quality of
health care facilities
The ten facility dimensions are formal groupings used to organize the POE data elements,
methodology, and tools. Overall, the team identified more than 100 metrics across the ten
dimensions which are used to conduct the quality assessment of the select inpatient and out-
patient departments in the health care facilities. Once the set of key metrics were defined,
the tools were developed. Given the complexity of this project, the access and wayfinding
dimension will provide an example to illustrate how built environment factors can be linked
to subjective/perceived and objective metrics as depicted in Figure 22.6.
The complexity of environmental research warrants a multi-method approach to studying
the relationships between outcomes and built environment factors. Figure 22.7 presents an
example of how the outcome (positive experience) is studied in relation to the facility dimen-
sion (access and wayfinding).This is achieved by connecting relevant built environment factors
captured during the facility documentation step and subjective and objective metrics studied
during the performance evaluation step. This example also shows an example of the metrics
and data collection tools for the access and wayfinding facility dimension. The overall goal is
 Quality assessments in health care environments 239

AN AL
Facility Documentation
^ Toe
T o o ls to c a p tu re b u ilt e n v iro n m e n t fa c to rs
2 Pe
Performance Evaluation
T o o ls to m e a s u re o u tc o m e s

r= i A rch ival Data R equest - Facility and O perations:

d fe d G uided F l i n t y W alkthrough:
R equest fa cility data and planning docum ents
pQ P Fam iliarize POE team w ith the overall fa cility and units or
clinics u n d e rs tu d y
F lo o r Plan Take-off:
<— w S u rvey - P atients/Fam ilies and Staff:
C apture the physical environm ent using m easured draw ings
i ^ U nderstand patients/fam ilies and staff perception o f the
I fa cility and the departm ents under study w ith respect to the
F acility D iagram m ing Protocol:
core dim ensions
G enerate diagram s w ith departm ental boundaries, square
footage calulations and space and dim ension-oriented ^ Interview - Leadership:
specifications Understand leadership perception o f the fa cility and the
departm ents under stu dy w ith respect to the core dim ensions
F acility Verification:

Gf Verify onsite fa cility inform ation and answ er questions from

take-off analysis Technical Readings:
Gain insight on how the de partm ent perform s in practice with
Photograph Protocol: respect to Lighting, Sound and A ir Q u ality
D ocum ent Facility inform ation using visual form at.

Interview - D esign Team:

C apture the design intent o f th e fa cility and th e units or c lin­
ics u n d e rstu d y

FIGURE 22.5 POE phases and data collection tools

Source: Dina Battisto, Deborah Franqui, and Mason Couvillion.

Facility | Design Strategy:

Outcome: Dimension: ^ Provide clear spatial ^
Design Solution
Positive Experience Access and organization and visual cues for ........
Way-Finding way-finding

I
AN AL
AN AL
r~
o
CO

AN AL
£ Perceived Metric:
O
o
— ► S atisfaction w ith Facility
Layout f____
B.E. Factor 1:
Facility Layout

Objective Metric:
Path, comlexity -
number oftum s

Perceived Metric:
Satisfaction with ability to find
destination _____ T_____
B.E. Factor 2:
Circulation Pathways

Objective Metric:
Path, comlexity -
number of turns

Perceived Metric:
Satisfaction with clarity and
visibility o f directional signs _____ I_____
B.E. Factor 3:
Wayfinding Elements

Objective Metric:
Data triangulation of perceived and objective metrics to assess if Number and location of directional
facility design achieves the established performance criteria signs

FIGURE 22.6 Example of metrics for access and wayfinding

Source: Dina Battisto and Deborah Franqui.

to understand how a positive experience can be achieved through effective access and way-
finding design strategies. Thus findings from the POE are translated into best practice design
strategies synthesized during the translation step.
240 D. Battisto, D. Franqui, and C. Boenecke

Accessing & Way-Finding Metrics and Data Collection Tools

Outcome Facility Documentation Performance Evaluation
P o s itiv e E x p e rie n c e B u ilt E n v iro n m e n t F a c to rs K e y M e tric s

Facility Dimension Built Environment Factors Objective Metrics [1,2]

A c c e s s & W a y -fin d in g F a c ility la y o u t [1 ,4] T ra v e l d is ta n c e s , T ra v e l T im e , P ath C o m p le x ity
C irc u la tio n p a th w a y s [1 ,2 ,4 ,7 ] & S ig n a g e a n d L a n d m a rk s N u m b e r, T yp e an d
W a y -fin d in g e le m e n ts [1 ,2 ,3 ,4 ] L o c a tio n
Design Strategy
P a rk in g lo c a tio n [1 ,2 ,3 ,4 ]
P ro v id e c le a r s p a tia l
F a c ility E n try P o in ts [1 ,2 ,3 ,4 ] Perceived Metrics [5,6]
o r g a n iz a tio n a n d v is u a l c u e s
In fo rm a tio n a c c e s s p o in ts [2 ,3 ,4 ] S a tis fa c tio n w ith [5]:
fo r w a y -fin d in g
A rriv a l s e q u e n c e [2 ,4 ,7 ] la y o u t o f th e h o s p ita l
T ra v e l D is ta n c e [1 ,2 ,4 ] a c c e s s to p a rk in g n e a r c lin ic
c la rity a n d v is ib ility o f s ig n s to c lin ic
a b ility to fin d th e c lin ic
tra v e l d is ta n c e e n tra n c e to c lin ic
E x p e rie n c e w ith [6]:
a c c e s s in g the fa c ility fro m p a r k in g o r d r o p - o ff
g e ttin g to y o u r d e s tin a tio n (im p a c t o f la y o u t,
la n d m a rk s , v is u a l cu e s, s ig n a g e )

Data Collection Tools

[1 ] F lo o r P lan T a k e -o ff [5] S u rv e y s : P a tie n ts a n d F a m ily ;
[2] F a c ility W a lk th ro u g h & V e rific a tio n S ta ff
[3] P h o to s [6] In te rv ie w s
[4] D ia g ra m s / T a b le s / Illu s tra tio n s [7] O b s e rv a tio n s

Translation Design Strategies: Best Design Practices:

> C le a r s p a tia l o rg a n iz a tio n > L a y o u ts to m in im iz e w a lk in g
a n d v is u a l c u e s d is ta n c e a n d p ro v id e d ire c t ro u te s
> S im p le a n d d ire c t ro u te s > D ro p -o ff a n d e n try p o in ts
fro m a rriv a l to d e s tin a tio n c o n fig u ra tio n s
> M a x im iz e c la rity a n d > E ffe c tiv e w a y -fin d in g s tra te g ie s
s im p lic ity o f s te p s > A c c e p ta b le tra v e l d is ta n c e s

FIGURE 22.7 Example of data collection tools and metrics for access and wayfinding
Source: Dina Battisto and Deborah Franqui.

Lessons learned for quality assessments in health care environments

The aim of the MHS POE project was to develop and pilot test a facility evaluation method-
ology and toolkit that aligned with established world-class criteria. The results from the pro-
cess yielded some interesting findings that are applicable to both military and civilian medical
facilities. Below are recommendations from lessons learned from the two pilot studies.

1 Identify an approach based on POE objectives – a quality improvement (QI) intent aimed at
problem-seeking and problem-solving versus a research project aimed toward producing
generalizable knowledge. It is recommended that a research proposal only be considered
when a specific hypothesis is to be tested, or to establish a generalizable practice stand-
ard where none is already accepted. Otherwise, it is recommended that the POE should
follow a QI strategy. Another important recommendation is to embrace a joint effort
with the local site team, where “POE champions” serve as the site team leaders and dis-
tribution source for information and coordination. POE champions are instrumental in
facilitating local site briefings, securing executive level approvals, and scheduling in per-
son interviews and collecting all background information. It is further recommended to
avoid the collection of sensitive data such as quality and safety information – falls, medical
errors, and infection rates – which are more aligned with focused research studies and
could potentially delay the process.
2 A post-occupancy/building-in-use inquiry is good for the “after the fact” performance evalua-
tions (Preiser et al. 1988). As a research method, POE is defined as a “process of evaluating
buildings in a systematic and rigorous manner after they have been built and occupied for
 Quality assessments in health care environments 241

some time” (Preiser et al. 1988). In the case of the MHS, building performance is meas-
ured and compared to the world-class criteria and the results of the evaluation can be fed
forward to update planning and design tools, such as space planning criteria, programs for
design, and room templates.
3 It is important to establish an organizing structure, specifically a performance framework that
includes outcomes, related facility dimensions, and metrics to assess the performance of a
final design solution captured through built environment factors. It is recommended that
a performance framework be developed for the unit of analysis and a specific department
type (or facility type), in an effort to identify best practices or worst practices.
4 It is recommended to select and define a set of common metrics to generate a facility data-
base repository that can be used to identify performance targets and benchmarks. One
of the biggest lessons learned involves the need to establish priorities for the POE with a
particular emphasis on defining data elements that can be compared across similar units
or facilities, i.e. universal data elements, and others that may be specific to a project or
service line, namely project-specific data elements. When data elements can be studied
across units as well as at the hospital level, trends can be identified so the organization
can define best practices worthy of repeating at the system level or other practices that
require additional study. A challenge encountered during the two pilot studies was that
some of the units and service lines were unique to that particular facility and therefore
the transferability of findings was questionable. One of the considerations for the future is
to determine beforehand whether a site or service line is so unique that the findings may
not be readily comparable to another site, thus limiting the utility of the POE findings for
broader applications.
5 A standardized process and set of tools that can be replicated are critical to ensure comparable
data across similar projects and service lines. While POE has stimulated bursts of activity
over the years and has many followers, the biggest criticism is the “lack of indicators and
accompanying benchmarks” to establish what constitutes a “good building” (Zimmerman
and Martin 2001). Since POE typically involves the use of multiple methods similar to
case studies, the same methods, tools, and metrics are typically not used consistently across
each evaluation. Therefore, findings are difficult to compare objectively across facilities
(Bechtel 1997). This has been an ongoing limitation of the POE method resulting in less
application than deserved.Without a unifying performance framework that is adopted for
building type-specific projects, and a set of standardized process, metrics, and tools, the
POE method has limited potential for the development of a coordinated database and
benchmarking.
6 Findings should be translated into evidence-based planning tools. Medical facilities planned
and designed for the MHS are informed by recommended and required guidance criteria.
Recommended criteria developed by the MHS include space planning criteria and room
templates. Many of these tools are currently being revised and expanded upon to com-
ply with the latest world-class criteria. In addition to the recommended criteria, design
teams for new MHS facilities are required to comply with certain codes and mandates.
A standardized POE process and toolkit implemented at multiple comparable facilities
would yield valuable findings for updating these planning and design tools.Therefore, the
POE process should align with existing planning and design guidelines and tools to assess
the merits of these recommendations. In addition to universal guidance criteria, the MHS
has project-specific criteria to guide the planning, design, and project implementation
242 D. Battisto, D. Franqui, and C. Boenecke

process of a particular facility such as a program for design (PFD), concept of operations
(CONOPS) manual, the operational process plan, and the functional concept manual.
These documents were valuable for capturing the initial intentions of the facility design
and are used in conjunction with the evaluation. It is recommended that civilian facilities
also archive up-front planning and design information in a consistent format.

Conclusion
This chapter presented a performance framework, a POE methodology, and lessons learned
from a multi-year effort to develop a standardized approach for the military health system
to conduct quality assessments in health care environments. The MHS claims that evidence-
based planning and design criteria should be informed by findings discovered from a struc-
tured POE process and toolkit. As one of the largest health care systems in the world – the
MHS manages over $30 billion of physical facilities including 660 outpatient clinics and
56 hospitals – there are huge incentives for building a knowledge base to inform front-end
thinking. It is envisioned that developing a standardized POE approach can help yield find-
ings that inform the development of space planning criteria, design checklists, room templates
and codes that are evidence-based. Finally, the adoption of a standardized POE process with
a common set of metrics may yield a facility database that can reveal objective best practices,
benchmarks, and targets.

Acknowledgments
The authors wish to acknowledge the POE team including: Health Affairs/Portfolio
Planning – Michael Bouchard; Noblis – Sharon Steele; Clemson University/NXT: Mason
Couvillion, Salley Whitman, Justin Miller, and Dianah Katzenberger; Joint Task Force Capital
Region (JTF Cap Med) – Lt Col Weidman and Patricia Haley; USA Health Facility Planning
Agency – Trillis Birdseye, Pamela Ferguson, and Brenda McDermott; US Army Corps of
Engineers – Antony Travia and Gary Spivey; Community Hospital at Fort Belvoir – LTC
Gantt – POE Champion and Lead Site Investigator and HDR – Barbara Dellinger, Julian
Jones, Erin Viviani, and Kelley Dorsett. Finally, the authors would like to thank Elizabeth
Cooney for help with the graphics in this chapter.

References
Bechtel, R. B. (1997) Environment and Behavior: An Introduction. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Kizer, K.W., M. McGowan, and S. Bowman (2009) Achieving World-Class: An Independent Review of the
Design Plans for the Walter Reed National Military Medical Center and the Fort Belvoir Community Hospital.
Falls Church,VA: National Capital Region Base Realignment and Closure Health System Advisory
Subcommittee of the Defense Health Board.
Mallory-Hill, S., W. F. E. Preiser, and C. Watson (eds) (2012) Enhancing Building Performance. Oxford:
Wiley-Blackwell.
Preiser, W. F. E., H. Z. Rabinowitz, and E. T. White (1988) Post-Occupancy Evaluation. New York: Van
Nostrand Reinhold.
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.
 Quality assessments in health care environments 243

Preiser, W. F. E. and U. Schramm (2012) “A Process Model for Building Performance Evaluation (BPE).”
In S. Mallory-Hill,W. F. E. Preiser, and C.Watson (eds), Enhancing Building Performance. Oxford:Wiley-
Blackwell, pp. 19–31.
Preiser, W. F. E. and J. C. Vischer (eds) (2005) Assessing Building Performance. Burlington, MA: Elsevier
Butterworth-Heinemann.
Zimmerman, A. and M. Martin (2001) “Post-Occupancy Evaluation: Benefits and Barriers.” Building
Research & Information 29(2): 168–74.
23
BUILDING PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS
AND UNIVERSAL DESIGN
Korydon H. Smith

Introduction
The discipline of architecture involves many things. Architecture is both art and science, the
issues faced are both aesthetic and practical, and problem-solving is rooted in both con-
vention and innovation. Likewise, architectural design involves both “inclusive” thinking and
“discriminatory” thinking – the integration of ideas and things, as well as the editing out of
ideas and things.Yet the term “discrimination” takes on at least two distinct meanings – (1) a
general sense: discrimination as a process of recognizing differences or distinctions between
ideas or things, and (2) a negative sense: e.g. racial discrimination, gender discrimination, etc.
Naming, categorizing, and organizing are forms of discrimination and are common proc-
esses in architectural design. Architects use clearly named architectural concepts, elements,
and components like enfilade, parapet, and balustrade to design buildings; they work within
established programmatic categories, such as “residential,” “educational,” and “industrial”; and
they organize spaces and plans, for example, along corridors, around courtyards, or into grid-
ded clusters. Designers broadly refer to these forms of discrimination as “typological think-
ing,” a central mode of decision-making in architectural education and practice. On the other
hand, practitioners and the public tend not to think of negative forms of discrimination as an
integral part of architecture. Both clients and the profession frequently conceptualize archi-
tectural works – and architects – as benevolent, humanitarian, and public-minded. In fact, a
primary role of architects, among other design professions in the United States and elsewhere,
is ensuring the “health, safety, and welfare” (HSW) of people. However, examples such as the
famed Pruitt-Igoe housing complex – a project built in the mid-1950s in St. Louis, Missouri,
USA, described as “particularly unappealing” and as a “world of troubles,” and subsequently
torn down in the 1970s – demonstrate that not all architectural works fulfill the HSW mission
(Rainwater 1970).
Throughout history, architects, and society in general, have displayed a variety of predi-
lections, value systems, and ideologies regarding what constitutes “good architecture.” Many
of these inclinations have been aesthetic, e.g. neo-classicism, modernism, brutalism. Other
interests have focused on environmental issues, as evidenced in the sustainability movement;
 Building performance evaluations and universal design 245

POLICY
POLICY
PLANNING
POLICY
POLICY

FIGURE 23.1Illustration of discriminatory design practice: sign at the main entrance to “Living
Tomorrow: House and Office of the Future,” Amsterdam, Netherlands (architects: UNStudio,
2000–2003)
Source: photo by Korydon Smith.

technological issues, exemplified in the emergence of digital design and fabrication; or on eth-
ical issues, as seen in concepts like critical regionalism.These examples, nevertheless, are forms
of discrimination; each one is a willful focus within what is a broad, complex, and changing
discipline. This is not to say that any of these areas of specialization or interest is malevolent.
On the contrary, areas of concentration often emerge out of practical necessity or in response
to a perceived shortcoming in the discipline. The large point is that, whatever an architect
chooses to emphasize in her or his practice – whether it be philosophical, aesthetic, or prag-
matic in nature – buildings are never neutral and have physical, psychological, and social con-
sequences for the humans that use them. Positively or negatively, design affects everyone.
While the now widespread sustainability movement has increased awareness about envir-
onmental issues in design, the universal design (UD) movement has advanced awareness about
human diversity in design. Societies around the world have grown more diverse in terms of
ethnicity, age range, health status, and other factors, necessitating broader and deeper know-
ledge of how these factors affect (and are affected by) architectural design. How can city parks
be designed to be safe and enjoyable for both children and their grandparents? How can
signs in airports be designed for English speakers, non-English speakers, and for persons with
impaired vision? How can entrances be designed to accommodate wheelchairs, strollers, and
foot-traffic?
During the latter half of the twentieth century, disability advocates and researchers, and
some architects, realized that conventional design approaches resulted (mostly unintentionally)
in segregated, stigmatizing solutions, especially for persons with physical, sensory, or cognitive
disabilities. The goal that emerged from UD (aka “inclusive design” and “design-for-all”), on
the other hand, was to create integrated design solutions for a broader spectrum of the popu-
lation. For example, rather than designing one building entrance for ambulatory users and a
second entrance for visitors using wheelchairs and strollers (Figure 23.1), UD seeks to create
246 K. H. Smith

FIGURE 23.2 Illustration of universal design practice: integrated stair, elevator, and signage in the
main lobby of the Statens Museum for Kunst, Copenhagen, Denmark (architects: C. F. Møller, 1998)
Source: photo by Korydon Smith.

one solution usable by everyone (Figure 23.2). This chapter discusses the philosophical and
scientific underpinnings of UD, as well as the legal and aesthetic implications on the design
and assessment of buildings.

The philosophy and science of universal design

The phrase “universal design” is commonly attributed to American architect Ron Mace (1985),
yet the concept can be traced at least as far back as Bednar (1977). Since then, UD has become
much more particular, namely with the articulation of ideas like the “Eight Goals of Universal
Design” (Steinfeld and Maisel 2012). It is more important in the context of this book, how-
ever, to take a broader perspective. This begins through understanding that UD possesses
both philosophical and empirical underpinnings. The empirical flank of UD stems from a set
of interdisciplinary sciences that emerged in the mid-twentieth century, including: ergonom-
ics and anthropometry, environmental psychology and behavior, and post-occupancy evalu-
ation. Ergonomics, often used interchangeably with “human factors,” is the study of humans’
 Building performance evaluations and universal design 247

interface with the built environment and how building and product design makes tasks easier
or more challenging; particular emphasis is placed on productivity, efficiency, health, and safety
in work settings (Salvendy 2012). Anthropometry, the measurement of human bodies and
movements, is particularly important to ergonomics. The design of spaces (organization and
layout), workstations (chairs, desks, etc.), and machines, tools, and instruments, affects comfort,
stamina, accuracy, speed, and other aspects of human functioning. In addition, graphic design,
lighting design, acoustic design, and design for other senses affect human performance and,
thus, are central to the science of ergonomics.
With much overlap to ergonomics, environmental psychology research explores how
built and natural environments affect human emotion, cognition, and behavior. The field of
environmental psychology flourished during the mid-twentieth century with the works of
Altman and Chemers (1980), Gibson (1977), Kaplan and Kaplan (1978), Rapoport (1977),
and Sommer (1969). Acceptance among architects waned in the last part of the twentieth
century, but, with clients’ increased emphasis on empirically measurable outcomes and on
“evidence-based design” (EBD), environment–behavior research is again on the rise (Bechtel
and Churchman 2002). Post-occupancy evaluation (POE), a comprehensive field that assesses
building performance – including operating costs, environmental efficiency, maintenance
requirements, human performance, user satisfaction, and other measures – is a clear form of
EBD. The number of books published on POE (e.g. Anderzhon et al. 2007; Federal Facilities
Council 2001; Gupta and Stevenson 2012; Preiser et al. 1988) points to the continued value
in and need for architectural research of this kind. Scientifically reliable methodologies have
provided further legitimacy to the UD movement.
The philosophical flank of UD rests upon principles of social justice and a theoretical para-
digm generally termed “critical theory.” Critical theory is a concept utilized in literary criti-
cism, philosophy, and the social sciences, with differing meanings in each. The philosophical
and sociological meanings possess the most relevance to UD concepts. The purpose of critical
theory is “to liberate human beings from the circumstances that enslave them” (Horkheimer
1982). The goal of emancipation is achieved, first, by exposing the ways that hidden or expli-
cit beliefs, values, laws, or systems negatively affect civil-, social-, and human rights, and then
using education, advocacy, and/or public policy to foster change (Calhoun 1995). Inequality
based on race, sex, economics, or religion, among others, is often the focus of a critical theor-
ist, while providing equal access to decision-making power, property and capital, employment,
and education is a common objective.
From a broader perspective, critical theory builds upon principles of social justice (e.g.
Carver 1915; Miller 1999; Rawls 1999). More narrowly, critical theory takes many forms, such
as “feminism,” an effort to draw attention to gender-based prejudices and create equal rights for
women. Both social justice, generally, and feminism, in particular, have traditionally focused on
health care, voting rights, wages, and similar issues. More recently, however, architectural design
has entered critical theory discourses, exemplified in Weismann’s (1992) feminist critique of
architecture, as well as in recent books such as Design Like You Give a Damn (Architecture for
Humanity 2006), Design for the Other 90% (Smith 2007), and Expanding Architecture: Design as
Activism (Bell and Wakeford 2008). UD, more particularly, initially sought to expose and undo
design discrimination regarding persons with physical, sensory, and cognitive disabilities, but
has expanded to issues of gender, age, ethnicity, and other areas as well.The argument, in short,
is that most buildings are designed for an idealized population –“healthy,” “able-bodied,” and
“normal” – not for the reality of a population with diverse needs, abilities, and preferences.
248 K. H. Smith

The populations of many countries have grown older, many countries are experiencing large
numbers of severely injured war veterans, and improved medical science has led to increased
diagnoses of various physical and psychological conditions and increased survival rates and life
spans of people with severe disabilities: all of which has bolstered the UD movement.

Legal and aesthetic “codes”

Universal design has benefited from the confluence of more potent scientific research, an
increased value in social justice, and striking demographic trends. One result is the prolifer-
ation of books published on UD and inclusive design since 2000 (e.g. Clarkson et al. 2003;
Goldsmith 2000; Herwig 2008; Imrie and Hall 2001; Nussbaumer 2011; Preiser and Ostroff
2001; Preiser and Smith 2010; Pullin 2009; Sanford 2012; Smith et al. 2010; Steinfeld and
Maisel 2012; Steinfeld and White 2010;Vavik 2009). A second outcome is the growing num-
ber of product designers, interior designers, architects, landscape architects, and urban design-
ers and planners whose practices focus on UD concepts. A third, and potentially the most
significant, product is the large number of national laws and local buildings codes throughout
Asia, Europe, North America, and South America that now incorporate or reference UD
(Preiser and Smith 2010). The United States’ Americans with Disabilities Act (1990) is a clear
demonstration of a national law with sweeping impact on disability rights, building codes, and
the built environment.
In the context of architecture, “codes” often refer to explicit legal requirements of the
architect(s) and builder(s), e.g. fire codes, electrical codes, structural codes, plumbing codes.
But “codes” also refer to implicit social norms or tacit collective agreements. Each culture
possesses certain accepted or taboo behaviors. This holds true for academic and disciplinary
sub-cultures as well. The discipline of painting, for instance, has adopted a variety of codes
throughout history about what is and what is not considered acceptable subject matter or
technique. Architecture is similar in this regard. Aesthetic codes – including stylistic trends,
material fads, and technological innovations – sway and are swayed by both the values of
architects and the opinions of the public about what is “good” architecture. UD is frequently
discussed from an ergonomic or social justice perspective, and is mistakenly viewed – by pro-
ponents and skeptics alike – as an architectural movement without aesthetic discourse. For
two primary reasons, however, the contention can be made that UD, at its core, is as much an
aesthetic concept as it is a functionalist concept.
First, the difference between specialized design for disability, e.g. assistive technology, and
the UD paradigm is important.While both design for disability and UD stem from social just-
ice and civil rights, there are significant distinctions in their outcomes. Assistive technologies
and other specialized features address very particular sensory, mobility, or cognitive needs, and,
therefore, tend toward a specialized aesthetic, characterized by a medical, machine-like, or
industrial appearance and feel. In an architectural setting, these features – such as wheelchair
lifts, “handicapped” parking, grab bars, or Braille – appear objectified rather than integrated
into a building’s spatial and material composition. UD, on the other hand, seeks a more inte-
grated, seamless quality akin to Wright’s (1955) notion of structural, spatial, material, and for-
mal “continuity,” where different elements of a building merge or blend into one another. In
UD this is achieved through the forethought of how to integrate specialized features as well
as by eliminating the need for most specialized equipment by considering solutions that meet
the needs of a broader population. UD emerged from the desire to integrate, rather than seg-
regate and stigmatize, design for disability and to improve design quality.
 Building performance evaluations and universal design 249

positivism

evidence-based design \
including: \

AN AL
Environmental psychology, l
)ost-occupancy evaluation, I
human factors, & /
ergonomics /

design-for-all ^
universal design l

including:
inclusivedesign m
J
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ s t h e t i c s ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ B r ^ osocial
c i a l justice
including:
sensory perception, r ^ t responsibility
responsibility,
cognitive resonance (ethics), / I fairness, &
& spatiai/material continuity / \ merit

7 v V

constructivism critical theory

FIGURE 23.3 Conceptual diagram of the complementary paradigms of universal design
Source: Korydon Smith.

Second, aesthetics is an all-encompassing subject matter. Colloquially, aesthetics usually

refers to the visual characteristics of a design. In philosophy, however, aesthetics refers to the
emotional responses – feelings – one experiences from the visual, auditory, tactile, and other
sensory stimuli of human art forms. Even more broadly, aesthetics includes an “observer’s” (lis-
tener’s, reader’s, etc.) cognitive sentiments about a particular art piece (painting, musical, story,
etc.), including the relationship between ethics and aesthetics (Feldman 1970). This is where
the ethical system of an observer is weighed against his or her perceptions of the moral codes
an art piece conveys. In pondering an artwork, the observer may have feelings of frustration,
pleasure, grief, ambiguity, emancipation, etc. Artist Josef Albers famously and succinctly stated,
“I consider ethics and aesthetics as one.” The media of architecture are space and material.
These two things – space and material – affect the ways in which people move, see, hear, and
interact (aesthetics); and they affect, if tacitly, occupants’ conceptions of right and wrong (eth-
ics). Designers utilizing a UD paradigm strive for ethical-aesthetic sensibilities of justness and
satisfaction, or at least seek to reduce the likelihood of occupants feeling a sense of isolation,
segregation, or discrimination. Ergonomics and usability play a role; building performance and
efficiency play a role; continuity and integration play a role.

Conclusion
It is not a single paradigmatic shift that marks universal design thinking but a confluence
of knowledge domains, including: environmental psychology, human factors, and POE;
social justice; and aesthetics (Figure 23.3). These domains are frequently viewed as conflict-
ing, yet universal design brings them together in a complementary manner, much like the
250 K. H. Smith

complementary pairs described in Chapter 1.This results in a powerful, comprehensive means

of assessing the value and significance of architectural works.
In this regard, UD parallels phenomenology, a philosophical approach and social science
technique that sought to bridge the gap between positivism (objective, scientific inquiry) and
constructivism (subjective, sociological inquiry). As architecture is a discipline that frequently
draws from both objective fields, e.g. engineering, and subjective fields, e.g. fine art, it is clear
why many architects, educators, and architectural theorists have adopted a phenomenological
approach. Phenomenology, as a result, has had a tremendous impact on architectural educa-
tion, criticism, and design. In the discipline and practice of architecture, phenomenology helps
to synthesize what are often seen as binaries: pragmatics vs. poetics, context-specific design
vs. universality, and objective phenomena vs. cultural phenomena. Universal design, in par-
allel, reveals the reciprocal relationship between aesthetics and social justice in architecture.
Through this paradigm, aesthetics is necessary for assessing whether or not social justice has
been achieved. Reciprocally, issues of social justice are integral to aesthetic “discrimination.”
Aesthetics and social justice are not independent; they are interdependent, illuminated by the
prospects and aspirations of the complementary paradigms of universal design.

References
Altman, I. and M. Chemers (1980) Culture and Environment. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Anderzhon, J.W., I. L. Fraley, and M. Green (2007) Design for Aging: Post-Occupancy Evaluations. Hoboken,
NJ: John Wiley.
Architecture for Humanity (2006) Design Like You Give a Damn: Architectural Responses to Humanitarian
Crises. New York: Metropolis Books.
Bechtel, R. and A. Churchman (eds) (2002) Handbook of Environmental Psychology. New York: John
Wiley.
Bednar, M. (1977) Barrier Free Environments. Stroudsburg, PA: Dowden, Hutchinson, and Ross.
Bell, B. and K. Wakeford (2008) Expanding Architecture: Design as Activism. New York: Metropolis Books.
Calhoun, C. (1995) Critical Social Theory: Culture, History, and the Challenge of Difference. Oxford:
Blackwell.
Carver, T. N. (1915) Essays in Social Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Clarkson, J., R. Coleman, S. Keates, and C. Lebbon (eds) (2003) Inclusive Design: Design for the Whole
Population. London: Springer-Verlag.
Federal Facilities Council (2001) Learning from our Buildings: A State-of-the-Practice Summary of Post-
Occupancy Evaluation. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Feldman, E. B. (1970) Becoming Human through Art: Aesthetic Experience in the School. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Gibson, J. J. (1977) “The Theory of Affordances.” In R. Shaw and J. Bransford (eds), Perceiving, Acting, and
Knowing:Toward an Ecological Psychology. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 67–82.
Goldsmith, S. (2000) Universal Design: A Manual of Practical Guidance for Architects. Oxford: Architectural
Press.
Gupta, R. and F. Stevenson (2012) Post-Occupancy Evaluation of Buildings: Policy and Practice. London:
Earthscan.
Herwig, O. (2008) Universal Design: Solutions for Barrier-Free Living, trans. L. Bruce. Basel: Birkhäuser-
Verlag.
Horkheimer, M. (1982) Critical Theory. New York: Seabury Press.
Imrie, R. and P. Hall (2001) Inclusive Design: Designing and Developing Accessible Environments.
London: Spon.
Kaplan, R. and S. Kaplan (1978) Humanscape: Environments for People. North Scituate, MA: Duxbury
Press.
 Building performance evaluations and universal design 251

Mace, R. (1985) Universal Design, Barrier Free Environments for Everyone. Los Angeles: Designers West.
Miller, D. (1999) Principles of Social Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Nussbaumer, L. (2011) Inclusive Design: A Universal Need. New York: Fairchild.
Preiser, W. F. E. and E. Ostroff (eds) (2001) Universal Design Handbook. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Preiser, W. F. E., H. Z. Rabinowitz, and E. T. White (1988) Post-Occupancy Evaluation. New York: Van
Nostrand Reinhold.
Preiser, W. F. E. and K. Smith (eds) (2010). Universal Design Handbook, 2nd edn. New York: McGraw-
Hill.
Pullin, G. (2009) Design Meets Disability. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Rainwater, L. (1970) Behind Ghetto Walls: Black Families in a Federal Slum. Chicago: Aldine.
Rapoport, A. (1977) The Mutual Interaction of People and their Built Environment: A Cross-Cultural Perspective.
The Hague: Mouton.
Rawls, J. (1999) A Theory of Justice, rev. edn. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Salvendy, G. (ed.) (2012) Handbook of Human Factors and Ergonomics, 4th edn. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.
Sanford, J. (2012) Universal Design as a Rehabilitation Strategy: Design for the Ages. New York: Springer.
Smith, C. (2007) Design for the Other 90%. New York: Smithsonian Institution.
Smith, K. H., J. D. Webb, and B. T. Williams (2010) Just Below the Line: Disability, Housing, and Equity in the
South. Fayetteville, AR: University of Arkansas Press.
Sommer, R. (1969) Personal Space:The Behavioral Basis of Design. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Steinfeld, E. and J. Maisel (2012) Universal Design: Creating Inclusive Environments. Hoboken, NJ: John
Wiley.
Steinfeld, E. and J. White (2010) Inclusive Housing, a Pattern Book: Design for Diversity and Equality. New
York: W. W. Norton.
Vavik, T. (ed.) (2009) Inclusive Buildings, Products, and Services: Challenges in Universal Design. Trondheim,
Norway: Tapir Academic Press.
Weismann, L. (1992) Discrimination by Design: A Feminist Critique of the Man-Made Environment. Chicago:
University of Illinois Press.
Wright, F. L. (1955) An American Architecture. New York: Horizon.
24
REGENERATIVE DESIGN
Redefining the limits of architectural judgment

Elizabeth A. Walsh and Steven A. Moore

Introduction
In this chapter we argue that architectural judgment is best understood and practiced as a pub-
lic conversation through which we shape our material, social, and ecological conditions. We
also hold that the qualitative and quantitative assessment tools of conventional architectural
judgment have generally failed to stimulate the public conversations required to cultivate the
collective knowledge, capacity, and will of stakeholders to create conditions that sustain life.
We define “life” liberally, evoking the concept of “living systems,” which includes every liv-
ing organism, every part of those living organisms, and communities of living organisms that
include humans and non-humans (Capra 2005). Because both qualitative and quantitative
assessment methods may provide reliable feedback about the health of living systems, and are
essential for sustainable management of the built environment, we raise concerns about dom-
inant modes of assessment. First, traditional qualitative assessment is too often limited to elite
modes of judgment, or the exercise of “taste” (Bourdieu 1984), where architecture is under-
stood as either private sentient experience or public representation of social values. Second,
quantitative assessment is too often limited to professional modes of judgment, where archi-
tecture is understood primarily in the economic terms of efficiency. Although these modes
of judgment retain some value, by limiting the capacity to judge the built environment to
social elites on the one hand, or professional elites on the other, the act of judging architecture
never becomes relevant to the 96% of the population who inhabit and commission it. Without such a
highly relevant and highly public conversation, we can never construct a sustainable “building
culture,” or “the coordinated system of knowledge, rules, and procedures that … sustain life”
(Davis 2006; see also Baus and Schramm’s discussion of “Baukultur” in Chapter 10 of this vol-
ume and their emphasis on the importance of incorporating the knowledge of experts and
laypersons inhabiting buildings in architectural judgment).
Given these observations about the limits of conventional public conversation about the
built environment, we maintain that architectural judgment has a responsibility to advance
regenerative design – broadly defined as design that goes beyond simply reducing negative eco-
logical and social impacts by actually generating benefits and creating material, social, and
ecological conditions in which life can flourish (see Figure 24.1). If architects are to meet this
 Regenerative design: the limits of architectural judgment 253

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

challenge, they will need to participate in, and lead public conversations to catalyze, regen-
erative places. These public conversations will necessarily integrate more inclusive forms of
qualitative and quantitative assessment into a regenerative dialogue where stakeholders can
make sense of the rich complexity of particular places, imagine a life-enhancing future, and
enact systemic change. In what follows we outline four characteristics of public conversation
essential to the success of regenerative design and identify capacities required of facilitators
and participants in these conversations. We then demonstrate that such regenerative dialogue
is, indeed, possible, drawing from research in various social sciences and examples from regen-
erative design practice.

Precepts
We are not the first to claim that architectural judgment should be an inclusive public conver-
sation about how the design of our built environment might better address the world’s most
pressing problems. Aaron Davis and Thomas Fisher make similar arguments in Chapters 2
and 7, and provide examples from history. Nor are we the first to take note of the destructive
254 E. A. Walsh and S. A. Moore

effects that dominant practices of urban design and development have had on the natural
environment and many social communities.While scholars and activists have been document-
ing these environmental and equity concerns since at least the rise of the industrial city, Lewis
Mumford brought them to the center of architectural criticism starting in the 1930s. In his
1938 The Culture of Cities, Mumford offered a powerful call to action:

We must alter the parasitic and predatory modes of life that now play so large a part,
and we must create region by region, continent by continent, an effective symbiosis or a
co-operative living together.The problem is to coordinate, on the basis of more essential
human values than the will-to-power and the will-to-profits, a host of social functions
and processes that we have hitherto misused in the building of cities and polities, or of
which we have never rationally taken advantage.

The challenge is as salient in 2014 as it was in 1938. In a world mired by escalating climate
change, dwelling disparities, and public health threats related to the built environment, it is
more important than ever to develop forms of architectural judgment that can help harness
a collective will capable of catalyzing such a “symbiosis” of diverse social and ecological sys-
tems. In this chapter, we also offer propositions from the emerging scholarship and practice
of regenerative design as partial answers to these core challenges for architectural judgment,
drawing primarily from three recent inquiries:

1 The Beyond LEED symposium, which convened 13 recognized sustainable design lead-
ers for a dialogue on the future of architectural judgment at the University of Texas in
January 2012 (Moore and Walsh 2012).
2 “Regenerative Design and Development,” a special issue of Building Research & Information
including nine articles by leaders in the emerging regenerative design movement (Cole
2012a).
3 Questioning Architectural Judgment: The Problem of Codes in the United States, which subverts
the apparent conflict between art and technology in architectural judgment by observing
that both sets of criteria are socially constructed and therefore mutable (Moore and Wilson
2013).

We see promise for the future of regenerative design in architectural judgment, yet we also
observe significant challenges.

Where we are: the crisis of architectural judgment

Our research identifies two primary obstacles to achieving regenerative design within con-
ventional architectural discourse: it is both too exclusive, and too narrow. We will examine each
claim in order.
First, we hold that the discourse of architectural judgment is far too exclusive. We live
in a world where professional architects design only about 5 percent of the built environ-
ment (Box 2007), with the rest largely dictated by market forces moderated by mandated
public policies (e.g. building and land use codes) and voluntary standards (e.g. most green
building rating systems), a concern also emphasized by Baus and Schramm in Chapter 10.
If we want our built environment to achieve sustainable outcomes, architects will need
 Regenerative design: the limits of architectural judgment 255

to use the power of public conversation to catalyze social learning and social movements
that shift consumer preferences, establish public codes, and generate new practices that
reflect core human values, such as the will to protect life in its full diversity (Moore and
Wilson 2013).
Second, we hold that the discourse of architectural judgment is too narrow. It too fre-
quently fails to consider the related concepts of place, consequence, and complexity. Similarly,
it errs in viewing building users as passive consumers of the built environment instead of
influential inhabitants (Cole 2012c). Far from being a static, isolated artifact that can be judged
“good” or “bad” in the eye of its beholder, a building is a complex aesthetic, social, ecological,
and technological system that changes over the course of time with its inhabitants and con-
text (Moore and Walsh 2012). Buildings are not simply isolated works of art, they are built to
perform, and to assist their inhabitants in achieving particular goals. It is not enough to judge
a building in the design phase, nor immediately following the construction phase because sig-
nificant consequences of the building happen only after the building is inhabited. By drawing
from the literature and methods of the natural and social sciences, design teams, including
architects, might learn to judge not only the visual consequences of their work, but also the
environmental and social consequences. (See also Nussaume’s argument in Chapter 9 of this
volume that architectural judgment should include social science methods and consideration
of social and ecological contexts.)
The bad news is that these limitations of architectural judgment are deeply entrenched.
Moore and Wilson observe that when Vitruvius recorded and codified the elements of ancient
architecture, about 15 BC E , he was concerned with the practices of an entire building culture
(Moore and Wilson 2013). However, with the rise of the Renaissance some sixteen centur-
ies later, Andrea Palladio’s Four Books of Architecture shifted the emphasis of judgment from
whole building cultures to the singular works of individual architects. For the first time in
history, excellence in building style and practice became associated with the genius of single
individuals, rather than that of a people (Habraken and Teicher 2005). “Excellent” design suc-
ceeded in distinguishing elite commissioners rather than benefiting the public. The modern
standard of design excellence, derived from Palladio onward, has been abstract and universal,
too often devoid of local context and the nuances of place (Moore and Wilson 2013). The
all-too-obvious problem with employing such narrow and exclusive criteria for judgment, as
constructed in the Renaissance, is that the social and ecological conditions in which we build today
have radically changed.

Where we can go: toward regenerative design

The good news appears to be that the high stakes of the current crisis of architectural judg-
ment create an opportunity to transform previously entrenched patterns and practices. We
support a growing number of leaders in the sustainable design discourse in calling for a new
conversation focused on regenerative design, defined as “a collaborative, inclusive, place-based
conversation and call to action for stakeholders in the built environment to create a built
environment that supports the flourishing of life” (Moore and Walsh 2012). As envisioned in
Figure 24.2, regenerative design views the co-evolution of social, technological, and ecological
systems as an active and intentional process; humans consciously shape our social, techno-
logical, and ecological environments through conversation and have responsibility to do so in
a way that supports (human and non-human) life (Cole 2012a).
256 E. A. Walsh and S. A. Moore

/ \ :

■
. ta lk ab
a b o u t sso
o cie ty 1|

AN AL
*
!I ^ ______ _ ^ ANx AL :
i
1
;
e° ° /0
***% *

/g K H . AN AL
♦♦1 x l ■ P f f iP B iM r -/ : s
| ^ *** ' ^ ^ '
/ *4
AN * \ fAL \
/ AN /yAL vsy/
if r % *fci
* * \ /* *

: AN l i t AL
e f i

;
AN AL »♦* n ,

* E ^ S " “ tT ^ '
: j t _

\ . . - • *

■ * .*

AN AL
FIGURE 24.2 Public conversation as a driver of changing social, ecological, and material conditions
Source: authors.

Regenerative design offers a powerful call for a new kind of architectural judgment
grounded in four integrated public conversations:

•
•
an ethical and aesthetic conversation to imagine a world where life flourishes;
an inclusive conversation that engages diverse stakeholders and builds collective will;
POLICY
• a place-based conversation that builds on strengths and considers consequences;
• a conversation that builds capacity for relational systems thinking.

Although modern aesthetics and science often appear to be at odds with each other, regen-
erative design holds that “things judged truly beautiful will in time be regarded as those that
raised the human spirit without compromising human dignity or ecological functions else-
where” or at another time (Orr 2006). This aesthetic implies an ethical imperative to protect
and engage vulnerable human populations who are rarely included in public conversations
about their home environments, and are disproportionately burdened by the economic and
aesthetic pursuits of those with power and resources (Bullard et al. 2007; Moody 2012).
Inclusion of diverse stakeholders is also a strategic imperative in that it helps build (1)
deeper collective knowledge of the whole system, and (2) the collective will among stake-
holders required for sustained high performance of the building landscape, or region (Holden
2008; Innes and Booher 2010). When we fully acknowledge that buildings are co-evolving
social, ecological, and technical systems, it becomes important to engage the people who
inhabit and influence these systems now and in the future.
To engage diverse building inhabitants in a regenerative dialogue, it is important to build
on the strengths of the particular place, as observed by Bob Berkebile (2012):
 Regenerative design: the limits of architectural judgment 257

As more and more people struggle with the oppressive process of measuring or miti-
gating the incremental destruction of life that is typical in sustainable design practice,
regenerative design turns this perspective on its ear and focuses instead on measuring
the vitality and quality of life that is emerging in a place as it evolves to support life.
Regenerative design allows people to see their role in creating or maintaining the con-
ditions that are conducive to life.

This place-based regenerative dialogue enables inhabitants to see their own power in the exist-
ing systems and to embrace it by making new choices and enacting new commitments appro-
priate to their particular place. By focusing first on what people already love and are willing
to protect, regenerative designers have been more successful in garnering sustained collective
action than through problem-based approaches (Hoxie et al. 2012; Mang and Reed 2012).
These strengths-based approaches draw on the literatures and practices of “asset-based com-
munity development” (Kretzmann and McKnight 1993), “appreciative inquiry” (Cooperrider
and Whitney 2005), and “positive psychology” (Grant 2012).
A strong place-based conversation also considers the consequences of design choices for
surrounding communities at multiple scales. Danielle Pieranunzi, Director of the Sustainable
SITES Initiative, emphasized that “[i]t is essential that architecture not be judged in isolation
without regard to how the site and community are impacted and how ecosystem services are
protected or improved” (2012). While the LEED rating system has been criticized for failing
to adequately consider performance of buildings post-occupancy (Miller 2012; Turner and
Frankel 2008), regenerative design underscores the importance of multi-disciplinary post-
occupancy performance evaluation at multiple scales (Moore and Walsh 2012).
The public conversation of regenerative design must also build capacity for relational, sys-
tems thinking in learning communities. The reductive, “best-practice” approach to assessment
often used in conventional green building rating systems is no longer sufficient. The “object-
ive” systems thinking conducted by “outside” observers intended to predict and control urban
systems (Bordass and Leaman 2005) also fails to be enough. Stretching beyond best practices
and mechanistic thinking, regenerative design calls for an active, engaged, and intuitive systems
thinking that can embrace uncertainty, notice patterns, and accept responsibility for agency
(Mang and Reed 2012). Since regeneration is an unfolding process and the definition of “sus-
tainability” necessarily changes over time, the challenge of architectural judgment is ultimately
to build the regenerative capacity of the people who will inhabit and manage the project in
question rather than judge the artifact itself (Mang and Reed 2012).
Building such regenerative capacity also requires high levels of trust and reciprocity as well
as collaborative leadership. To establish conditions for regenerative public conversation, Mang
and Reed (2012) underscore the importance of self-reflection and self-actualization occurring
concurrently with process design. As they put it, “the participatory and co-creative nature of
a regenerative process also requires psychological and cultural literacy, and the ability to tap
the latent creativity of a community by weaving broader sets of expertise and insight into the
design process” (Mang and Reed 2012). Building common vision and collective will amongst
diverse stakeholders requires leaders with exceptional emotional intelligence, enabling them
to empathize with potential collaborators, build networks of trust, and create conditions safe
enough for people to share their true intentions and nascent ideas (Goleman et al. 2012).
In doing so, leaders can help stakeholder groups harness their untapped collective wisdom
and creativity to generate context-appropriate solutions (Scharmer 2009). Unfortunately, the
258 E. A. Walsh and S. A. Moore

FIGURE 24.3 Greensburg Regenerative Design Dialogue. In the wake of the disaster of an EF5
tornado, over 300 people gathered under a large, temporary circus tent on the east edge of town to
share their ideas and create a unified community vision. The tent served as a space for community
dialogue throughout the recovery process, hosting several design workshops, community meetings,
and even Sunday morning church service.
Source: BNIM, © BNIM.

training of architects and planners rarely builds such relational intelligence or leadership skills.
Too often students are trained to be distant experts who can use argumentation and graphic
image-making to convince others of their own vision, but rarely are they prepared to enter
into genuine dialogue with a client to build a collective or public vision.

Exemplars: regenerative design in practice

Regenerative design is still a new area of scholarship and practice, but one with a solid foun-
dation and broad opportunities for research, action, and education. Facilitating the kind of
dialogue called for in this chapter is an important challenge. Thankfully, innovators have been
experimenting in practice and are translating much of their tacit and empirical knowledge
into more usable forms, through process guidelines, evaluation rubrics, rich case studies, and
academic literature.
Two private firms, BNIM and REGENESIS have been leading contributors of their
reflective practice to regenerative design scholarship. Bob Berkebile of BNIM celebrates the
tremendous advances in community process over the past 20 years as a key to their successful
community planning work. BNIM has refined an approach they call “a collaborative dia-
logue of discovery,” facilitated through public conversations. They have found that “when
the residents, stakeholders and consultants come together as a collaborative community, a
creative force is generated that produces miracles” and generates social learning as the lasting
capacity for regenerative design and development (2012; Hoxie et al. 2012). BNIM’s work
in Greensburg, Kansas, is a powerful example of their practice of regenerative design. After a
devastating EF5 tornado in 2007, BNIM designed a regenerative public conversation through
which Greensburg’s citizens chose to rebuild an economically, socially, and ecologically sus-
tainable city. As shown in Figure 24.3, over 300 people gathered under a large, temporary cir-
cus tent to share their ideas and create a unified community vision. The tent served as a space
for community dialogue throughout the recovery process, hosting several design workshops,
community meetings, and even Sunday morning church service. The process itself helped
generate the town’s capacity for regenerative design. United by a vision of creating a strong
community devoted to family, fostering business, and working together for future genera-
tions, the Greensburg community chose to build their new K–12 school at the center of the
community and to build it – and every other future public building – to the LEED-Platinum
 Regenerative design: the limits of architectural judgment 259

FIGURE 24.4 Greensburg Regenerative Rebuild, LEED-Platinum high school. United by a vision
of creating a strong community devoted to family, fostering business, working together for future
generations, the Greensburg community chose to build their new K–12 school at the center of
the community and to build it – and every other future public building – to the LEED-Platinum
green building standard.
Source: BNIM, © Assassi.

green building standard. This new LEED-Platinum school (see Figure 24.4) will help sustain
the town’s regenerative capacity, as reflected by the observations of Darin Headrick, the school
district’s superintendent:

Before the tornado, if you asked most of the high school kids about their plans for the
future, they’d say the same thing, “I’m going to go away to college and never come
back.” Now they say, “I’m going to go to college and then come back.” They see things
here they can impact.

As the case of Greensburg shows, the process and practice of regenerative design helps people
create places they love and are willing to steward for generations to come.
Drawing on similar approaches, REGENESIS has translated 16 years of reflection in prac-
tice into a regenerative methodology with a strong theoretical foundation (including Living
Systems Thinking, permaculture, and developmental change processes). Drawing on research
demonstrating the brain’s higher capacity to make sense of complexity through story-telling,
they have developed a “Story of Place” methodology that has helped build regenerative cap-
acity for their projects. One powerful example of their regenerative design practice is Playa
Viva, a sustainable boutique vacation resort near Juluchuca, Mexico, situated on a beach among
lush mangroves, ancient ruins, and the natural habitats of thousands of species. As part of the
regenerative design process, project leaders convened a multi-disciplinary team of experts and
interviewed the local community to learn about their aspirations and memories of the place
and its changes over time. Drawing from the community’s local knowledge and the diverse
FIGURE 24.5 Regenerative tourism at Playa Viva. Regenerative resorts facilitate mutually benefi-
cial relationships among guests, the surrounding ecosystem, and communities.
Source: courtesy of Playa Viva; photo by Randolph Langenbach.

FIGURE 24.6 Participatory process for the Potty Project.Tactile models and image cards helped resettle-
ment community members engage in public conversations about sewerage infrastructure design.
Source: Julia King.
 Regenerative design: the limits of architectural judgment 261

FIGURE 24.7 A decentralized sewerage system in the making. Following community dialogue, the
sewerage design team installed shallow bore sewer pipes along the narrow streets to direct efflu-
ent from homes to the decentralized waste water treatment plant, with minimal disruption to the
existing built environment.
Source: Julia King.

team of experts, the team designed their beach resort to “revitalize and nurture local natural
resources and the community, so they thrive in harmony and continually improve” (Leventhal,
n.d.).Today, their luxurious resort lives lightly on the earth (see Figure 24.5), through provision
of local, sustainable food sources, use of local materials and services, and design of structures
that operate comfortably using minimal energy supplied by renewable energy sources such
as solar arrays and solar thermal systems. Designing with community cultivation in mind, the
resort enables guests to form new relationships with one another through a mix of private and
public spaces, provides volunteer opportunities to meaningfully contribute to the surround-
ing community, and contributes through the Regenerative Trust, a 2 percent fee added to the
total bill for all guests as a contribution to the social and environmental welfare of Juluchuca.
By engaging the deep contextual knowledge of the community and the knowledge of discip-
linary experts throughout the process, REGENESIS supported Playa Viva in creating a resort
designed to support and enhance its very particular context while meaningfully engaging
visitors from other places. With this and other successes from practice, REGENESIS joins the
regenerative design movement in a call for process-based tools that empower context-specific,
collaborative, and creative ecological design (Moore and Walsh 2012).
Responding to the need to bolster the capacity of the emerging community of practice
in regenerative design, the United States Green Building Council (USGBC) retained a core
team at BNIM to develop “REGEN” – an online “forum, a repository for place-based and
systems-based information and a framework capable of stimulating dialogue among diverse
262 E. A. Walsh and S. A. Moore

practitioners and decision makers.” Still in its early development, REGEN reflects the kind of
support system that will advance regenerative architectural judgment throughout the design
and development cycle. Its greatest promise is expanding the conversation for regenerative
design in a way that taps greater collective wisdom, will, and resources.
Two other promising process-oriented frameworks for architectural judgment featured
in the Beyond LEED conference: LENSES (Living Environments in Natural, Social, and
Economic Systems) and the SEED (Social Economic Environmental Design) network. Both
programs foster inclusive and holistic public conversations about design of the built world
through place-based, bottom-up approaches to an integrated design process. They share a
commitment to developing a networked community of practitioners who are highly skilled
process facilitators who consider social, ecological, and economic aspects of the built environ-
ment as they craft places. Both initiatives aim to empower innovative practitioners with sets
of rich case studies, enabling them to learn through the lived experience of colleagues. SEED
already supports its learning network with an online community equipped with online per-
formance tracking and evaluation (Cole 2012b, 2012c; Moore and Wilson 2013; Plaut et al.
2012; SEED 2013). SEED also supports an annual awards program for projects that directly
engage communities in design projects with significant social, economic, and environmental
benefits.
One of the SEED 2014 winning projects, a decentralized sanitation system in Savda
Gherva, a resettlement area outside of New Delhi, stands out both for its innovative com-
munity process and the ecologically and socially appropriate infrastructure it produced. Julia
King, a doctoral student in architecture from the UK, engaged community members in a
design workshop focused on sanitation. To overcome language and literacy constraints, King’s
team provided image-based issue cards that allowed residents to prioritize their concerns and
aspirations (see Figure 24.6). Further, to convey complex building and infrastructure designs
simply, King used very simple representations of the existing variety of homes to convey how
individual houses would be transformed with the arrival of the new sewerage infrastructure.
Working with community members, local authorities, and infrastructure experts, the team
built an off-grid, decentralized sanitation system that serves more than 1,500 people with
minimal disruption to the existing built environment, at 25 percent less cost than a conven-
tional sewer system. Shallow bore sewer pipes were placed along narrow streets and connected
to a septic system located beneath a community park where waste water is cleaned and dis-
charged (see Figure 24.7). For more information, see http://www.holcimfoundation.org/
Projects/decentralized-sanitation-system-near-new-delhi-india.

Conclusion
Given the social, ecological, and economic challenges posed by the dominant practices of
architecture and planning, architectural judgment can no longer afford to be a private con-
versation among social or professional experts (exclusive), nor strive for aesthetic ideals devoid
of social or ecological context (narrow). Instead, architectural judgment must engage diverse
stakeholders in public conversation that builds collective knowledge, finds meaning particu-
lar to the richness of place, and builds the capacity of the whole group for relational systems
thinking. In order to construct a building culture that supports the flourishing of life, archi-
tectural judgment must marshal its two most powerful creative forces: language and the design
 Regenerative design: the limits of architectural judgment 263

of our built world. By harnessing the social functions and processes Mumford imagined –
which are now developed more fully through research and practice in regenerative design –
we can more powerfully generate an “effective symbiosis or a co-operative living together”
(Mumford 1938). Our current challenge is to continue experimenting, documenting pilot
projects for rich case studies, and building the capacity of an ever-expanding and history-
shaping conversation.

References
Berkebile, R. (2012) “Promoting Obsolescence: A Journey Toward Regenerative Design.” University
of Texas, Beyond LEED: Regenerative Design Symposium. February. http://soa.utexas.edu/beyon-
dleed/PDFs/11.Berkebile.pdf
Bordass, B. and A. Leaman (2005) “Making Feedback and Post-Occupancy Evaluation Routine 1: A
Portfolio of Feedback Techniques.” Building Research & Information 33(4): 347–52.
Bourdieu, P. (1984) Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste, trans. R. Nice. London:
Routledge.
Box, H. (2007) Think Like an Architect. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Bullard, R. D., P. Mohai, R. Saha, and B. Wright (2007) Toxic Wastes and Race at Twenty: 1987–2007.
Cleveland, OH: United Church of Christ Justice & Witness Ministries. http://www.ucc.org/assets/
pdfs/toxic20.pdf
Capra, F. (2005) “Speaking Nature’s Language: Principles for Sustainability.” In M. K. Stone and Z.
Barlow (eds), Ecological Literacy: Educating Our Children for a Sustainable World. San Francisco, CA: Sierra
Club Books, University of California Press.
Cole, R. J. (ed.) (2012a) “Regenerative Design and Development.” Special issue of Building Research &
Information 40(1).
Cole, R. J. (2012b) “Regenerative Design and Development: Current Theory and Practice.” Building
Research & Information 40(1): 1–6.
Cole, R. J. (2012c) “Beyond LEED: Embracing Holism, Engaging Complexity & Accepting Uncertainty.”
University of Texas, Beyond LEED: Regenerative Design Symposium. February. http://soa.utexas.
edu/beyondleed/PDFs/2.Cole.pdf
Cooperrider, D. L. and D. K. Whitney (2005) Appreciative Inquiry: A Positive Revolution in Change. San
Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
Davis, H. (2006) The Culture of a Building. New York: Oxford University Press.
Goleman, D., L. Bennett, and Z. Barlow (2012) Ecoliterate: How Educators Are Cultivating Emotional, Social,
and Ecological Intelligence. New York: John Wiley.
Grant, G. B. (2012) “Transforming Sustainability.” Journal of Corporate Citizenship 46: 123–37.
Habraken, N. J. and J. Teicher (2005) Palladio’s Children: Essays on Everyday Environment and the Architect.
New York: Routledge.
Holden, M. (2008) “Social Learning in Planning: Seattle’s Sustainable Development Codebooks.” Progress
in Planning 69: 1–40.
Hoxie, C., R. Berkebile, and J. A. Todd (2012) “Stimulating Regenerative Development through
Community Dialogue.” Building Research & Information 40(1): 65–80.
Innes, J. E. and D. E. Booher (2010) Planning with Complexity: An Introduction to Collaborative Rationality for
Public Policy. Hoboken, NJ: Taylor & Francis.
Kretzmann, J. P. and J. McKnight (1993) Building Communities from the Inside Out: A Path Toward Finding
and Mobilizing a Community’s Assets. Evanston and Chicago, IL: The Asset-Based Community
Development Institute, Institute for Policy Research, Northwestern University, distributed by ACTA
Publications.
Leventhal, D. (n.d.) “Playa Viva: Regenerative Practices.” http://www.playaviva.com/sustainable-by-
design/regenerative-practices/regenerate
264 E. A. Walsh and S. A. Moore

Mang, P. and B. Reed (2012) “Designing from Place: A Regenerative Framework and Methodology.”
Building Research & Information 40(1): 23–38.
Miller, C. S. (2012) “LEED: A Set-up For Sick Buildings? Is LEED Diamond the Answer?” University
of Texas, Beyond LEED: Regenerative Design Symposium. February. http://soa.utexas.edu/beyon-
dleed/PDFs/9.Miller.pdf
Moody, L. (2012) “Building for the Future: A Vision for Sustainable Communities.” University of Texas,
Beyond LEED: Regenerative Design Symposium. February. http://soa.utexas.edu/beyondleed/
PDFs/10.Moody.pdf
Moore, S. A. and E. A. Walsh (2012) “Beyond LEED.” Platform, Fall 2012. http://soa.utexas.edu/files/
publications/platform_fall2012.pdf
Moore, S. A. and B. B. Wilson (2013) Questioning Architectural Judgment: The Problem of Codes in the United
States. New York: Routledge.
Mumford, L. (1938) The Culture of Cities. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Co.
Orr, D. W. (2006) Design on the Edge: The Making of a High-Performance Building. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.
Pieranunzi, D. (2012) “How SITESTM and an Ecosystem Services Framework Can Influence the
Performance of Both Architecture and Landscape.” University of Texas, Beyond LEED: Regenerative
Design Symposium. February. http://soa.utexas.edu/beyondleed/PDFs/7.Pieranuzi.pdf
Plaut, J. M., B. Dunbar, A. Wackerman, and S. Hodgin (2012) “Regenerative Design: The LENSES
Framework for Buildings and Communities.” Building Research & Information 40(1): 112–22.
Scharmer, C. O. (2009) Theory U: Learning from the Future as It Emerges. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-
Koehler Publishers, Ebooks Corporation Limited.
SEED (2013) “SEED: Social Economic Environmental Design.” http://www.seed-network.org/
Turner, C. and M. Frankel (2008) Energy Performance of LEED® for New Construction Buildings.Washington,
DC: The New Building Institute for the U.S. Green Building Council. http://www.usgbc.org/
ShowFile.aspx?DocumentID=3930
REFLECTIONS ON PART V
Daniel S. Friedman

The urban economist David Perry, former director of the Great Cities Initiative in Chicago,
once offered a distinction between architects and planners: “When architects put something
physical into the world, they think of their job as done.When planners put something into the
world, they think of their job as just beginning” (Perry 2006). As the chapters in Part V help
demonstrate, building performance evaluation is an ideal, integrative framework for architec-
tural criticism. An integrative intellectual framework would extend the typical compositional
and historical assessments of architecture to include its life in time and use, which would in
turn expand the ethical compass of criticism to include a building’s impact on environment,
health, and well-being. Such criticism would constitute a greater “inducement to involve-
ment,” to borrow a phrase from the philosopher Richard Rorty – if “truth is what works,”
then “the obvious question is whom does it work for?” (Rorty 2006). This broader problem
field stands to strengthen the credibility and value of architecture, which in turn stands to
transform the design methodologies that produce new subjects and objects of criticism.
When a French journalist asked Charles Eames, “What are the boundaries of design?”
Eames famously answered, “What are the boundaries of problems?” (Eames 1972). Eames
understood design as the arrangement of parts that best accomplishes a stated purpose; the
confluence of evidence and intuition is the hallmark of the Eames ethos. I suggest two deriva-
tive properties of this ethos that might be enriched by building performance evaluation – suit-
ability to context and modulation of waste. None of these qualities preclude the vast list of
aesthetic attributes and meanings critics assign to newsworthy design.

The fourth epistemology

In The Marketplace of Ideas, Louis Menand describes three dominant modes of research driv-
ing knowledge production, based on three categories of engagement: disciplines that are
interested in the way things are, disciplines that are interested in how people behave, and
disciplines that are interested in what things mean – respectively empiricism, hermeneut-
ics, and some combination of the two (Menand 2010). The kind of highly integrative built
environment vocabularies suggested by contributors to this volume intimates a “fourth
266 D. S. Friedman

epistemology,” a hybrid universe of knowledge production based on poetic reasoning, empir-

ical research, and creative practice. This fourth method of inquiry concentrates on the ratio
of the way things are to the way they could be. Its aim is principled composition, defined as
contextually suitable forms and systems that flow from design, planning, and production. Its
practices are no less essential to social and cultural advancement than traditional science and
the humanities, which this fourth epistemology both complements and completes. It signifi-
cantly influences our response to the “wicked” problems of this century – energy, climate,
the environment, urbanization, information, the economy, health, and social equity – not
least in its capacity to frame time, enrich experience, reduce stress, improve health, stabilize
habitat, and through its aesthetic responsibilities, engender greater and more productive self-
awareness and self-fulfillment.
Other branches of the academic enterprise envy the integrative pedagogies of the design
studio, for good reason.Ways of knowing that characterize studio experience embody Herbert
Simon’s observation that “Everyone designs who devises courses of action aimed at changing
existing situations into preferred ones” (Simon 1996). A new approach to architectural criti-
cism may reside here, by multiplying the value of diverse vocabularies among the variegated
disciplines with responsibility for built environments, and by translating hybrid research into
practice.
As the authors in Part V demonstrate, the suitability of a more thoughtful integration of
coupled human and natural systems into the vocabularies of architectural criticism seems
like an obvious and necessary advancement of knowledge. The habitual resistance of the
educators and practitioners to integrated practice brings to mind David Foster Wallace’s
commencement address at Kenyon College: “There are these two young fish swimming
along and they happen to meet an older fish swimming the other way, who nods at them
and says ‘Morning, boys. How’s the water?’ And the two young fish swim on for a bit, and
then eventually one of them looks over at the other and goes ‘What the hell is water?’”
(Wallace 2009).
What the hell is the construction industry? What the hell is real estate? What the hell is per-
formance? Old habits may survive academic program review, accreditation standards, criteria
for licensure, but they are not likely to survive the last recession and its seismic impact on prac-
tice. Harvard economist Kermit Baker confirms that the number of employees in US architec-
ture firms declined nearly 30 percent from its peak in 2008 (Baker 2012). Few of these jobs are
likely to return in the same form, if at all. According to a 2012 Georgetown University survey
on the impact of the recession among a dozen or so different academic disciplines, architecture
graduates suffered the highest rate of unemployment – 14 percent, worse even than fine arts
majors (Rampell 2012). More recently, the Chronicle of Higher Education reported data on the
change in the number of Bachelor’s degrees awarded among 42 fields of study over a 20-year
period, between 1991 and 2011: construction trades ranked first, with a 1,267 percent increase
over 20 years; architecture and related services ranked 35th, increasing just 1 percent, less even
than English (Chronicle of Higher Education 2013). Now add to this the fact that the profession
of architecture spends up to seven times more to accredit its professional degree programs and
license its interns than the professions of engineering and law, which offer their graduates sub-
stantially greater earning power (Monti 2012–13). Keeping Baker’s and the Chronicle’s figures
in mind, the future of the profession depends upon skillful management of the relationship
between enrollment and employment. One remedy is to transform the public perception of
 Reflections on Part V 267

the value of architectural knowledge from its primarily artistic and compositional fixations to
a kind of expertise more directly connected to experience and human optimization.

Object versus event

The more we approach buildings as events, not objects, the more congenial the relationship
between data and interpretation. The word “event” derives from Latin, eventus, from evenire,
meaning “to result” or “to happen” – from ex-, “out of,” conjoined with venire, “to come.”
Fixity and permanence are strictly human conceits; built environments are material and social
events in a continuous state of becoming. This view has already proliferated in projects and
writings at the margins of practice and the curriculum, where both avant-garde and built
environment theory have adopted increasingly integrative methods. These emerging models
tend to conceptualize design as a distributive responsibility networked in collaboration with
interdependent and highly collaborative agents. Finance, construction, engineering, ecology,
material science, public health, planning, and architecture – all these specializations converge
in the context of problem fields requiring the coordination of data and specification at mul-
tiple scales, often simultaneously.
The 2013 repositioning initiative of the American Institute of Architects (AIA) testifies to
the influence of this orientation, and helps account for AIA’s identification of four strategic
priorities for the coming decade: resilience, materials, energy, and health (American Institute
of Architects 2014). All four of these categories suggest a much greater emphasis on research,
data, empirical analysis, and building performance; and all four suggest a deeper integration
within the Institute’s historical commitments to design.The message is clear: design excellence
must now exhibit measurable attributes that account for energy consumption, environmental
integrity, carbon management, context, and health impacts. By focusing on the built environ-
ment as a continuously unfolding event inseparable in its molecular and systemic constitution
from the events that surround it, architectural criticism can help shift concern from how a
building looks to how it is made and to how it behaves over time. The authors in Part V and
this entire book aim to reassess the relationship between good looks and good design through
the lens of good performance, and to explore the effects this shift might have on our relevance
and effectiveness in a precipitously uncertain future.

References
American Institute of Architects (2014) “Progress Report 2014.” http://www.aia.org/about/reposition-
ing/index.htm.
Baker, K. (2012) Presentation to the Association of Collegiate Schools of Architecture Board of Directors,
Boston (from notes by the author).
Chronicle of Higher Education (2013) “Change in Number of Bachelor’s Degrees Awarded by Field of
Study, 1991–2011.” Chronicle of Higher Education Almanac 2013–14, August 23.
Eames, C. (1972) “Design Q&A.” In The Films of Charles & Ray Eames. Chatsworth, CA: The Eames
Office.
Menand, L. (2010) The Marketplace of Ideas. New York: W. W. Norton.
Monti, M. (2012–13) “Is Architectural Education Today Sufficient to Prepare Tomorrow’s Practitioners?”
[panel presentation]. Conversations on Architectural Education and the Future of the Profession.
University of Maryland, March 1.
Perry, D. (2006) In conversation with the author.
268 D. S. Friedman

Rampell, C. (2012) “Want a Job? Go to College, and Don’t Major in Architecture.” The New York Times,
January 5.
Rorty, R. (2006) “Toward a Postmetaphysical Culture.” In Take Care of Freedom and the Truth Will Take
Care of Itself: Interviews with Richard Rorty, ed. E. Mendieta. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press,
pp. 46–55.
Simon, H. A. (1996) The Sciences of the Artificial, 3rd edn. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Wallace, D. F. (2009) This Is Water: Some Thoughts, Delivered on a Significant Occasion, about Living a
Compassionate Life. New York: Little, Brown.
PART VI

Epilogue
This page intentionally left blank
25
TALKING THE TALK
About architecture

Ike Ijeh

Away, then, with the structures, mechanical systems, with curtain walls, with emergency
staircases, parapets, false ceilings, projectors, pedestals, showcases. If their functions must
be retained, they must disappear from our view and our consciousness, vanish before the
sacred objects so we may enter into communion with them.
Jean Nouvel describing Musée du quai Branly, Paris, France, 2006

There is an apocryphal story, popular amongst architectural students, that upon leaving a Rem
Koolhaas lecture, a bewildered attendee was asked by a colleague what it had been about. ‘I
have absolutely no idea,’ the hapless listener replied, ‘either I’m stupid or that guy’s a genius.’
Apocryphal or not, this charming anecdote indicates a prevailing perception amongst many
in society, not the least of whom are baffled architecture students, that much of the language
adopted by architects is utterly unintelligible. Flowery prose, pretentious musings, convoluted
phraseology and intellectual narcissism are just some of the accusations leveled against the type
of language adopted by some in the profession.
Even popular culture has taken the bait. Hollywood once portrayed architects as stoic, vir-
tuous, and dependable, essentially idealized heroic versions of the common man. Witness the
human Mount Rushmore that is Gary Cooper’s Howard Roark in the 1949 dramatization
of Ayn Rand’s novel The Fountainhead. Or even Paul Newman’s solidly tenacious everyman
in The Towering Inferno of 1976. Jump forward a few decades and we have the architect in the
Matrix trilogy, a grey-suited, mustachioed, imbecilic dandy spouting forth all manner of non-
sensical verbiage about cosmic anomalies and prophetic infiltration.
Of course, it is easy to see why these perceptions exist when we look for examples of hubris
within architectural discourse. There is a hardcore coterie of celebrated architects who insist on
propagating an esoteric style of language that is not only completely incomprehensible to laypeople
but to scores within their own profession.As the extract below demonstrates Peter Eisenman is one
of the worst offenders. In fact, if Churchill said that the Soviet Union was a ‘riddle wrapped in a
mystery inside an enigma’ then Peter Eisenman is the Siberian snowstorm that obscures all three:

Our project represents an attempt to rethink the symbolism of the vertical office build-
ing. Traditionally, the vertical building had two metaphoric connotations, one as a
272 I. Ijeh

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

metaphor for anthropocentrism (the human vertebrae as upright, symmetrical and skel-
etal) and the other as a symbol of power and dominance, in particular, phallocentrism.
Our building symbolically seeks to undermine these two centrisms, first by producing
a building that is not metaphorically skeletal or striated … and second, by producing an
image somewhere between an erect and a ‘limp’ condition.

Here Eisenman is describing his Nunotani Corporation Headquarters, built in Tokyo, Japan,
in 1992. The building is painted bright pink and features sloping walls, windows and parapets
as if it is virtually disintegrating into the ground, a common deconstructivist ruse. Eisenman’s
bombast, however, does no favours for those who wearily contend that modern architectural
output has nothing to do with male appendages by reminding everybody, in the most ludi-
crously cryptic and convoluted way possible, that that’s exactly what his concept involves.
Despite his best efforts, the message couldn’t have been clearer had this bizarre building been
wrapped in latex and given zips for windows.
And yet, despite this patent failure to grasp the core essentials of communication, Eisenman
has been deified by the global architectural academic establishment and force-fed to thousands
 Talking the talk: about architecture 273

of architectural students across the world, inevitably reducing most of them to various stages
of bafflement and distress (see Figure 25.1 for an example of his work). Why? Is this the way
the architectural profession wishes to be perceived by the outside world? Are pomposity and
obfuscation really the skills that it wishes to bequeath to the next generation of architects?
Sadly Eisenman is not alone but it is not necessarily to his countrymen in the United States
that we must turn for further evidence of this disturbing trend but Europe. Europe has pro-
duced scores of architects who happily revel in the egregious excesses of architectural hubris.
France is perhaps the key culprit. Unlike England which has for centuries taken great pains
to fastidiously foster a robust suspicion of overt intellectualism, in France philosophical pros-
elytizing of the kind so adored by Eisenman and his ilk has been elevated to a religion. Jean
Nouvel, as his description of his 2006 Musée du quai Branly in Paris shows, is a habitual and
unrepentant offender:

everything is designed to evoke an emotional response to the primary object, to protect

it from light, but also to capture that rare ray of light indispensable to make it vibrate
and awaken its spirituality.

However, Nouvel’s evidently slender grip on reality is insufficient to usurp the throne occupied
by that Grand Wizard of Obfuscation, the undisputed Master of Miasma, fellow Frenchman
Bernard Tschumi. Attempt to decipher his description of Paris’s baffling Parc de la Villette
(1988) at your peril:

The park’s architecture refuses to operate as the expression of a preexisting content,

whether subjective, formal or functional. Just as it does not answer to the demands of
the self (the sovereign or ‘creative’ architect), so it negates the imminent dialectic of the
form, since the latter is displaced by superimpositions and transformations of elements
that always exceed any given formal configuration. In a Nietzschean manner, La Vilette
moves towards interpretative infinity, for the effect of refusing fixity is not insignificance
but semantic plurality.

Tschumi represents everything that is alarming about contemporary architectural discourse.

Unintelligible and impenetrable in equal measure, vacillating remorselessly from one inde-
cipherable theory to another, this is a gross and corpulent corruption of language that suc-
ceeds in illuminating nothing other than the author’s own narcissism and vanity. So much
so that one imagines that Tschumi would answer even simple requests for directions or the
time with sonnets and soliloquies charged with such withering uber-intellectual ferocity as
to transform even the most ardent linguist into a supplicating pile of smouldering ash by the
time he had finished. Like Eisenman he has spent much of his career tormenting architectural
students, but at least Eisenman’s tirades provide unintentional humour; Tschumi is just blow
after blow of unsaturated cerebral haemorrhaging. It is a matter of extreme injustice that while
one imagines that his buildings are subject to all manner of health and safety scrutiny, his pen
is allowed to proceed unimpeded.
Alas,Tschumi, Nouvel and Eisenman do not operate in isolation. Behind every one of them
there is a Koolhaas, Hadid, Herzog, Libeskind or Ando patiently waiting in the wings equally
willing to shatter linguistic clarity to pieces. Why? Why do some architects feel the urge to
embalm their message beneath layers of cryptically choreographed conceit of this kind? Is
274 I. Ijeh

FIGURES 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 in Figure 25.3
Source: Wikipedia, May 19, 2014.

deconstructivist architecture the answer? The term could readily be applied to the work of
at least Eisenman and Libeskind (Figure 25.2) and deconstructivism’s theoretical emphasis on
semiotic distortion and structural dislocation would appear to make it a natural bedfellow of
linguistic dissembling. However, while a seductive theory it is ultimately a hollow one. Sadly
architectural hubristic affinity extends far beyond the proponents of deconstructivsm and
there are even those who practise the style who have been known to occasionally make sense.
Gehry’s buildings may look like the frenzied work of a deranged sculptor (Figure 25.3) but
Gehry himself tends to communicate with relative clarity and simplicity.
Could the reason be centred on the collapse of Modernism in the 1970s? For all their
architectural radicalism, the likes of Frank Lloyd Wright, Louis Kahn or even Le Corbusier
made far more sense than many of their successors today. Le Corbusier’s ‘machine for living’
may have been a controversial idea, but it is easy to grasp what he meant. Equally, Mies van
der Rohe could hardly have been plainer when he penned the now timeless maxim ‘less is
more’. But with the fall of Modernism many of its exponents took refuge in the less conten-
tious world of academia and pseudo-intellectualism. Banished from building tower blocks and
flyovers they resorted instead to proselytizing about philosophical theory, dressing their prose
in the kind of indecipherable garb that they presumed lent integrity to the ideas that had
been discredited in the real world. Might it not even be the case that rather like the bully who
shields his cowardice with aggression, some architects adopt the linguistic modes and conven-
tions of academic intellectualism to conceal the very poverty of intellect that lies behind their
own work and ideas? Essentially, despite the fact that pretentious prose is clearly harnessed to
subconsciously imply architectural quality by association, might it actually be being deployed
to conceal dross, insecurity and ineptitude?
 Talking the talk: about architecture 275

FIGURES 25.3 The shattered building style of Libeskind’s addition at the Royal Ontario Museum
in Figure 25.2 compared to the frenzied work of Gehry at MIT’s Stata Center
Source: Wikipedia, May 19, 2014.

These academic or even philosophical pretensions, however, are yet another extension of
the core question that has dogged architecture since the Enlightenment and which could
well offer yet another possible explanation for architectural hubris: is architecture an art or a
profession? So much of the everyday practice of modern architecture is concerned with the
prosaic execution of the latter (contracts, legislation, management, coordination, etc.) that per-
haps language is employed as a device to reassure some within the profession that their labours
are ultimately connected with the core, civilizing human condition of creativity and therefore
separated from other (baser) vocational occupations such as law and medicine. These are not
problems encountered by the musician or the painter.They are clearly producing a form of art
and need no further didactic recourse to validate their efforts as such. But with architecture,
particularly in an increasingly codified and regulated world, there is perhaps the compulsion
to intensify, however disingenuously, its artistic credentials.
And what of the role of the architect within this increasingly codified and regulated world?
It is perhaps no coincidence that the rise of architectural hubris from the 1970s directly cor-
responds with the erosion in the power and influence of the architect. In 1963 when prolific
English architect Richard Seifert was progressing plans for a controversial 34-storey tower
block in the heart of historic central London, he bluntly informed the local planning authority
that ‘we shall be glad to discuss any amendments but it is important that the bulk of the build-
ing should not be reduced’. Such hectoring authoritarianism from any architect today, not to
talk of one as shamelessly commercialized as Seifert, would be unthinkable.
The architect was once the undisputed master craftsman, the all-powerful chief consult-
ant whose influence was as keenly felt on the construction site as in the draughtsman’s office.
But now a whole raft of contractual, technological, and professional changes has undermined
276 I. Ijeh

this position almost beyond recognition with innovations such as design and build contracts,
project managers and even the democratizing influence of BIM technology gradually eating
away at the roles and responsibilities that were once the cherished and exclusive domain of
the architect. As the world emerges from recession and clients and contractors wish to extract
ever more value from the construction process, this trend is likely to accelerate. Might it not
be the case that when faced with these humiliating incursions some architects, driven by pro-
fessional paranoia and a defiant, defensive compulsion to protect what is left of architectural
identity, have subconsciously retreated into a safe harbour which no other new consultant or
process can invade – language?
So, it would seem that the reasons why some architects employ hubristic language are far
from clear.What is perfectly clear, and gravely so, are the consequences. If we accept that archi-
tecture is an art form then we must surely acknowledge that it is a unique one. It is the only
art form that affects all the senses; even the blind man must still feel his way up the stairs and
have a room in which to lie in bed at night. Architecture is the universal tool that shapes our
built environment which is why the language architects use is so important. Of course we are
all familiar with the terms medical or legal jargon but it is only architectural jargon that has
the potential to impoverish and confuse an individual’s relationship with their surrounding
context.
There can be only two inevitable consequences of architects continuing to use language
in this way. First, the exacerbation of the perception that architects are arrogant and elitist and
second, and even more worryingly, the increasing severance of the relationship between the
architectural profession and the public. Already, in the eyes of many, architects have an image
problem. They are frequently seen as overly proud and hopelessly egotistical, more concerned
with impressing their peers and imposing their superiority than with serving the public. All
of which are shortcomings that a committed propensity for infantile linguistic contortionism
will only serve to worsen.
But even more serious is the potential detachment from the public that hubristic language
threatens to exact. The relationship between architects and the public is critical to the suc-
cess of any civilized society. Of course architecture is a career and a vocation; some architects
have even been known to make money. But with the privilege of being able to the shape the
built environment comes the unique covenant of responsibility with the general public that
dictates that the social consequences of architectural intervention must be benign. Therefore
it is absolutely crucial that the relationship between the architect and the public is based on
mutual trust and understanding. But how can there be any understanding when one half of
this relationship speaks, quite literally, in a different language?
Few of us enjoy being made to feel stupid, but this is the inevitable consequence of lan-
guage specifically constructed to divide rather than divulge. Those not interested in intellec-
tual masochism will eventually end the conversation and simply walk away. This is the danger
of a public who cannot engage with its architects; the conversation becomes one-sided which
ultimately renders it futile. Frustration, spite and resentment will eventually ensue from both
sides; change takes place as it inevitably always does but without intellectual investment from
one side and overburdened by intellectual prerogative on the other, as history has consistently
shown us, it is ultimately doomed to failure.
Things need not be thus. Language is one of humankind’s greatest gifts; it is one of the
few precious physiological capabilities that separate us from the animal kingdom. Language
should liberate not constrain, reveal and not restrict. Language has an innately liberalizing,
 Talking the talk: about architecture 277

democratic and empowering influence; turning it into a grubby semiotic code enjoyed by a
chosen few keen to suppress their insecurities about their perceived skill, role or identity by
loudly proclaiming their membership of an exclusive cerebral club is a pernicious corruption
of the social and cultural benevolence that language has the potential to bestow.
If architects were to learn that language is the tool and not the product, then its power to
strengthen and clarify our relationship with both architects and our surroundings would be
infinite. Is it not ironic that one of the earliest architectural structures attributed to Christian
civilization is the Tower of Babel, a monstrous citadel to avarice and arrogance whose eventual
impact was to segregate and confuse? Cynics may interpret this biblical echo as allegorical
proof that some things never really change; for the future of architectural discourse and society
as a whole, let us hope that they eventually do.

Note
A shorter version of this piece appeared in the 18 December 2013 issue of Building magazine
(London), titled ‘How to Speak Architect’.
INDEX

academic intellectualism 274 Americans with Disabilities Act (1990), United

Acrópole 54 States 248
aesthetic codes 248–9 Andre, Carl 72
aesthetic quality, assessment of: background of anthropometry 197, 246–7
207–8; emotional responses in relation to 211; Antonelli, Paola 86
environmental stimuli for 209–12; evaluative architects: aesthetic concerns of 75; design
appraisals for 207; guidelines for 214; methods architects 72–3; executive architects 72–3;
for 208–9; mode of presentation for 210; macro-economy, effect of 73; professional
programming the evaluative image of a city responsibilities 75
for 212; ratings from occupants 209; response Architects’ Council of Europe 129
measures 210–11; sampling the environment Architectural Aberrations 38
for 209; selecting respondents for 212; visual architectural advancement, through performance:
quality guidelines for 207, 212–14 diagram and image 134–6; dilemma of
Aga Khan Trust for Culture 122 difference 133–4; form and 138; scientistic
Ahram newspaper (2004) 125 style 136–7
AIA Corporation 151 architectural and environmental design, future
Alam El-Benaa (AB) magazine 123 prospects of 15–16
Al Attar, Abdallah 124–5 Architectural Association School, London 128
Al Azhar Park, Cairo 91–2, 140; best design architectural criticism 6, 37, 73; in Brazil
features 99–100; experiential quality of 94; see architectural criticism in Brazil; change in
key places from users’ perspective 98–9; lights 43–5; conceptual framework and reference
and lighting system 100; management and point for 108–9; elements of 16; evolution of
operation of 101–2; media coverage of 95–8; 37–9; foundation of 105; and hermeneutic
overall planning and design of 98; reasons approaches to milieus 106–8; hidden hand
for users’ ratings of 99; recreational space 95; in 40–3; ideas of broadening the audience
redevelopment project 95; socio-economic for 27; influence of the “milieu” on 104;
development 95; spatial quality and key design in Japan see building evaluation in Japan;
features of 92–5; users’ reactions to design Lange’s conception of 44; major phases in
qualities 98–102; view of 92; visiting patterns the evolution of 32–4; meta-criticism 27; at
and users’ activities 100–1; wayfinding and newspapers and general interest magazines 40;
signage system 100 point of 39–40; and pre-packaged experience
Al Dahhan, Ramy 94 30–1; rejecting the academy and the new
Allen, Stan 85 divinity 24–6; socio-cultural context of
Al Naim 228 see socio-cultural context, of architectural
American Institute of Architects (AIA) 85, 267 criticism; stakeholder experience 196–7;
in twenty-first century 112–13; until 1975
 Index 279

111–12; see also integrated architectural Bauhaus movement 14

criticism Baukultur (culture of building), evaluation of
architectural criticism in Brazil: abstraction and 117–18, 252
revolution 55–9; aesthetic value and social Baus, Ursula 141
commitment 55; architectural formalism 54; Beauregard, Robert 133
architectural modernism 53; background of behavioral science, application in architecture 9,
53–4; Concrete Art 54; critical bias 54–5; 13–14, 201
cultural identity 53; history of 54; material Bell, Elizabeth 79
work and liberation 59–63 Benjamin, Walter 47; characterization of the
architectural design education 4, 77; impact on “cultural producer” 47
the future of 157–8 Berkebile, Bob 256, 258
architectural exhibitions: and “critical project” of Berque, Augustin 104
Modernity 48; as inducers of change 48–9; rise Bill, Max 54
of 48–9 BNIM company 258, 259, 261
architectural knowledge 85, 203, 267 BRE Environmental Assessment Method
architectural production 34–5, 46–7, 51, 57, 63, (BREEAM), United Kingdom 109, 115, 162
69, 202 British Hospital and Health-Care Buildings, Designs
architectural psychology 13, 113 and Appraisals (1980) 183
Architectural Record (2011) 26, 30, 37 Bruntland Report (1987) 162
architectural space, expansion of 27–8, 66 building codes: form-based codes see form-based
architectural trends, classification of 104, 108 codes (FBC); as form of normative criticism
architectural works 56, 72, 108, 244; development 44; legal and aesthetic “codes” 248–9
of 106; regulations and certifications of 109; building delivery cycle 152
significance of 250 building delivery process 113, 225;
architecture: classical music 84–5; design’s complexities of 14
relationship 85–6; emerging and future building design 60, 85, 247; in age of climate
practices 154–5; to envision changes for change 202–3; evidence-based 184
the future 105–6; highbrow architecture building evaluation in Japan: British building
84; in-house knowledge building 150; as appraisal tradition 183–4; of building
performance 76–7, 80; regulations and performance 183; evidence-based design
certifications 109; and science 201–2; in 184; healing environment 185–6; hospital
underdeveloped country 59 architecture critique, issues in 183–6; hospital
Architecture and Critical Imagination (1978) 44 bed rooms 188–91; hospital buildings 183;
architecture curating 48–51 hospitals, as a city 184; Katta Public General
Aristotle 77 Hospital 186; Nightingale Ward 186–7; Tokyo
Art-Architecture Complex,The (2011) 31 Metropolitan Fuchu Medical Plaza 183
Art as Experience (1934) 4 building industry 84, 200
art curating, practices of 48, 50 building information management 85
Artigas, João Vilanova 54, 59, 61–2 building information modeling (BIM) 84, 141–2
Assessment System for Sustainable Building (2011) Building in Ignorance (2001) 163
115, 117 building life-cycle see life-cycle of building
asset-based community development 257 Building Performance (1972) 160–1
Association for the Conservation of Energy building performance evaluations (BPE) 3, 5,
163 15, 75, 104, 108, 112–13, 147, 225, 235; active
Attoe, Wayne 37, 44; categories of criticism 45 participation as part of Baukultur 117–18;
Aureli, Pier Vittorio 135 building life-cycle, performance concept in
austere modernism 81 113; conceptual/theoretical implications of
Ayyubid wall, restoration of 94 153–4; developments in the UK see building
Azuma House, by Tadao Ando 106–8 performance evaluations (BPE), in United
Kingdom; emerging and future architectural
Baird, George 27 practice 154–5; of energy efficiency 113–15;
Banham, Reyner 129 future facility programming and design,
Barata, Mario 54 impact on 154; integrative framework/
Bardi, Lina Bo 54 process model for 152; in Japan see building
Barthes, Roland 134 evaluation in Japan; knowledge domain of
Base Realignment and Closure Act (BRAC, 168–9; major trends and their implications
2008), United States 232 153–7; methodological implications of 154;
280 Index

role of 153; of sustainable building practices construction industry 85, 112–13, 128, 130, 132,
115–17, 155–7 141, 162–5, 168, 266
building performance evaluations (BPE), constructive idea, concept of 63
in United Kingdom: from 1960 to 2002 Cooper Square project 136–7
160–2; in 1980s 162; in 1990s 162–4; and Costa, Lucio 54
avoiding another false dawn 166–7; clients Creative Energy Homes 155
and 165; Egan Report on 163; elements crowd-sourcing 219–20
of a new professionalism and 168; energy Culture of Cities,The (1938) 254
certificates 166; for health and educational curating: capability of 51; notion of 50–1
buildings 164; new professionalism and 167; curating architecture 46–7; constraints to
Partners in Innovation (PiI) 163; Partners in 51–2; critical potentialities of 50; as critical
Technology (PiT) 163; during past decade practice 49–51
164–5; Performance Gap 164; Private curating as critical project 51; constraints to 51–2
Finance Initiative (PFI) 164; public buildings curatorial practice, trends in 49
programme 164; soft landings 166; Usable cyberspace 84
Buildings Trust (UBT) 166
Building Performance Process Model 6 Darb Al Ahmar district, redevelopment of 94, 98
Building Performance Research Unit Darvasi, Adina 152
(BPRU) 160 Davis, Aaron 84, 226–7, 253
Building Research & Information (2001) 163, decision-making 16, 66, 72, 103, 135, 142, 165,
167, 254 184, 224–5, 235–6, 244, 247
buildings: energy efficiency of 113–15; governing Deconstructivist Architecture (1988) 49
codes and standards 14; influence on people Defective Brick project (1999) 69
155; intelligent design 157; personal perspective De Maria, Walter 67–8
on use of 128–9; post-occupancy evaluation Department of Energy (DEn), United Kingdom
of 14–15; reuse and recycling of 14–15; 161, 165
sustainability of 5; technological innovations Desbravamento da Mata painting (1941) 56
136; user participation in planning and design Descoberta do Ouro painting (1941) 57
of 15; user satisfaction, criteria of 117 “descriptive” criticism 45
Building Schools for the Future programme, design architects 72–3, 76
United Kingdom 160 design quantity, degree of efficiency
Building Services Research & Information relating to 73
Association (BSRIA) 166 Deutsches Gütesiegel Nachhaltiges Bauen
Building Services – the CIBSE Journal 163 (DGNB), Germany 109
Building the Education Revolution (2009), Devillard,Valérie 105
Australia 157 Dewey, John 4, 10, 12
Building Use Studies Ltd (BUS) 162 “diagramatization” of architecture 73
built environment 9, 14, 15, 16; analysis of diagrams and images 134–6
111; architectural criticism 111–13; building Diderot, Denis 24–6, 29
performance evaluation of 113–18; built digital design and fabrication 245
environment factors (BEF) 230, 236–8, 241 DiMaggio, Paul 80
Bürolandschaft 129 Display Energy Certificates (DECs) 166
disruptive technologies 141–2, 203
Cairene heritage park 92, 98 division of labor 59, 62
Calder, Alexander 55–6 Duffy Eley Giffone Worthington (DEGW) 129
celebratory monographs 49 Duffy, Frank 141, 195, 198
Chaslin, François 108
classical music, architecture in 84–5 Eames, Charles 265
classroom design, for alertness 195–6 ecological psychology 13
climate change 164; design inquiry in age egalitarian urbanism, poetics of 26–7
of 202–3 Egan Report 163
collective knowledge 252, 256, 262 Eight Goals of Universal Design 246
colonial settlements 59 Eisenman, Peter 84, 271–4
commodity’s fetishism 62 emotional disability 53
community of practice 261 Encyclopaedia Universalis 104–5
concept of operations (CONOPS) manual 242 Energy Conservation Law (1976) 114
Conquergood, Dwight 77 Energy Consumption Guides 162
 Index 281

energy efficiency: building technologies 202; Ferraz, Geraldo 54

development of policy for 114; energy Ferro, Sergio 53–4, 59–63
performance certificate 114; evaluation of fetishism, Marx’s theory of 62
113–15; First Energy Conservation Law (1976) Filler, Martin 40
114; nearly zero-energy buildings 114; policies Fisher, Thomas 26, 253
in United Kingdom 161 Flying Blind (2001) 163–4
Energy Efficiency Office (EEO), United Focus Groups 117
Kingdom 162 Form-based Code Institute (FBCI) 217
Energy Independence and Security Act (2007), form-based codes (FBC): design guidelines 217–
United States 157 18; juxtaposition versus complementarity 221;
energy performance: certificate for 114–15, 166; outcomes of 219–20; performance criteria/
evaluation for 115; of new buildings 114 measures 218–19; post-occupancy evaluations
Energy Performance of Buildings Directive (POE) 218
(EPBD) 114, 166 Foster, Hal 30, 49
Energy Policy Act (2005), United States 157 Foster, Norman 172
energy savings, requirements for 114 Frampton, Kenneth 135
Energy Technology Support Unit (ETSU),
United Kingdom 161 Geddes, Patrick 39
energy use 157, 161, 166 geographic information systems 84
Enlightenment 25, 27, 80, 131, 275 German Heat Insulation Ordinance 114
environmental design, objectives for 3, 6, 10, 13, Gibson, William 84–5, 247
14, 109, 189, 211 Goals Achievement Matrix 126
Environmental Design Research Association 141 Goldberger, Paul 28, 39, 226
environmental impact assessments 15 Gorz, Andre 62
environmentally sustainable building 14–15 Graeff , Edgar 54
environmental psychology 9, 13, 113, 141, 207, Greater Philadelphia Innovation Cluster (GPIC)
246–7, 249 for Energy Efficient Buildings 202
environment, quality of 6 Great Revolution in the Brain World, A (1995) 184
Equal Areas (1977) 67–8 green architects 197
ergonomics 197, 246–9 “green building” movement 14–15
European Union’s Energy Performance of green building rating systems 254, 257, 259
Buildings Directive 166 greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions 200
Evelina Children’s Hospital, United Greensburg Regenerative Design Dialogue 258–9
Kingdom 186–7 Gregotti,Vittorio 133–4
evidence-based design (EBD) 184, 187, 203, 230, Gung Ho Communications 173–4
232, 247 gypsum 69
evidence-based planning tools 241
executive architects 72–3 habitability: levels of 9; psychological comfort and
exhibition-making: architectural exhibitions, satisfaction 10
rise of 48–9; celebratory character of 51; habitability framework: chronology of 6;
and cultural programs 47; institutions 50; as definition of 6; elements of 5, 6–12; human
means to construct worldviews 50; Milano behavior and physical environment 12–13; life-
Architecture Triennale (1968) exhibition 49; cycle stages of 9; for minimizing adverse effects
notion of 46; value of 47 of environment 6
Expo Shanghai Group (ESG) 174–5 habitability research: milestones in evolution of
7–8; on psychological comfort and satisfaction
facility programming and design, assessment of level 10
154 Habitat (1954) 54
Faculty of Architecture and Urbanism at the Haruyama, S. 184
University of São Paulo (FAU-USP) 59 Haute Qualité Environnementale (HQE),
Fairclough, J. 164, 168 France 109
Faraday, Michael 138 Headrick, Darin 259
Farid, Soheir 94 health care architecture, assessment of: evidence-
Federal Facilities Council (FCC) 152, 225 based design 232; lessons learned 240–2;
Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy Level One Assessment 234–5, 238; military
and Economic Performance program, United health system, case study of 232–9; POE
States 157 framework for 234–7; POE methodology for
282 Index

238; POE metrics and tools for 238–9; quality Jannière, Hélène 104–5, 224
improvement approach to conduct 233–4 Jefferson, Thomas 138
health, safety, and welfare (HSW) 244 Jerusalem Center for Multi-Handicapped Visually
Heatherwick, Thomas 173 Impaired Children 152
Herzog, Jacques 138 Johnson, Philip 48–9
Hess, Thomas B. 68 Journal of Japan Institute of Healthcare Architecture (1968) 184
highbrow architecture 84
Historic American Buildings Survey 44 Kampschroer, Kevin 157
Historic Cairo (HC): Alam El-Benaa (AB) “Käthe Kollwitz and the Social Tendencies in
magazine 123; Architectural Heritage Art” (1933) 55
Preservation Committee 122; conservation Katta Public General Hospital, Japan 183,
process of 121, 125; cost-benefit analyses 186–7, 191
of 126; cost-effectiveness assessments of King, Julia 262
126; critical commentary by professionals Knoxville International Exposition 212
124; criticism for awareness by professionals Koolhaas, Rem 29–30, 46, 134, 136, 140, 273
124–5; critics and channels of criticism 122–4; Körmeling, John 172
Historic Cairo Restoration Centre (HCRC)
122; local channels of criticism 123; Medina landscaping projects 108–9
Magazine (MM) 123–4; public criticism by language, use of 276
non-professionals 125–6; Supreme Council of Larson, Magali Sarfatti 201
Antiquities (SCA) 121–2; trends of criticism in Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design
the local literature 124–6; urban conservation (LEED), United States 109, 115, 157, 200, 262;
of 121–2, 126–7; as World Heritage Site 122 Advanced Commissioning and Measurement
hospital bed rooms 188–91; design of 189–91; and Verification credits 157; Platinum green
personal belongings 188–9; single-bed and building standard 258–9; rating system 257
multi-bed rooms 188–9 Lefèvre, Rodrigo 59
hospitals, as a city 184 Lemos, Carlos 54
housing rehabilitation and renovation 94 Lewis, Michael J. 84
Hsia,Victor 147 Library of Congress (Washington, DC) 55
Huet, Bernard 105 life-cycle of building 6, 73, 141, 152, 197; energy
human–environment problems 14 performance evaluation and 115; performance
humanistic needs, designs of 6 concept in 113
human organism, interacting processes and Living Environments in Natural, Social, and
forces in 12 Economic Systems (LENSES) 262
Huxtable, Ada Louise 27–8, 39 London School of Hygiene & Tropical
Hydrocal 69 Medicine’s Hygiene Centre 196
Loos, Adolf 135
Ibrahim, Abdel Baky 125
Ibrashy, May 125 Mace, Ron 246
ICBC World Expo Exhibition and Convention McLaughlin, Herb 150
Center 173, 176 macro-economy, effect on architects 73
industrial production 67 Malevich, Kazimir 28; modern buildings 28
InformeDesign, establishment of 230 Mamluk architectural motifs and themes 94
Ingles, Bjarke 134–5 man–environment relations see person–
Institute of Civil Engineers 167 environment relationships
Institutional Review Board (IRB) 233 Manhattan Transcripts (1995) 76
integrated architectural criticism: emerging manzara (roofed overlook porch) 94
models of 142–3; integrated design and Martin, David 174
practice 140–2 Maslow’s human needs hierarchy 9
intelligent designs, of buildings 157 masonry 67
International Association of Art Critics in Brazil 57 mass communications 56
Islamic gardens: experiential quality of 94; material groupings 67, 73–4
Mamluk architectural motifs and themes 94; materials, architectural: economy 73–4;
style and principles of 94 manipulation of 66–7; proportions 67–8;
techniques 69–72
Jackson, Kenneth 133 Medina Magazine (MM) 123–4
Jacobs, Jane 81 mediocre mass cultural values 5
 Index 283

Menand, Louis 265 O Canteiro e o Desenho (The Building Site and

microfinance 94–5 the Design, 1979) 62
Milano Architecture Triennale (1968) exhibition 49 Ockman, Joan 133–4
military health system (MHS): case study of Office for Metropolitan Architecture (OMA) 13
232–9; departmental interrelationships 233; oil crisis in 1973 113
health care facility assessments 233–4; Level Onin War (1467–77) 185
One Assessment 234–5, 238; medical facilities operative criticism, tradition of 49
for 232; POE framework for assessing quality Ouroussoff, Nicolai 28–9
of 234–7; POE methodology for assessing
quality of 238; POE performance framework Palladio, Andrea 138, 255
237; quality assessments of 232–9; quality Pancho Guedes, An Alternative Modernist (2007) 51
improvement POE levels 234; Walter Reed parametric design 84
Army Medical Center 232 Partners in Innovation (PiI), United
Miller, J. G. 13 Kingdom 163–4
mimicking of life 77–8 Partners in Technology (PiT), United
modernity, concept of 48, 53, 55, 62–3, 111 Kingdom 163
modernization, benefits of 61 Pedrosa, Mario 53–7, 59, 63
Modern Movement 48, 54 performance cycle 78
Moe, Kiel 142–3 performance evaluation: aesthetic performance
Mohamed Ali Mosque 100 5–6; building delivery and life-cycle 14;
Montaner, Joseph Maria 105 juxtaposing criticism and 4–6; reasons for
Montreal’s Centre for Canadian Architecture 49 conducting 5; social science concepts for 6;
Moscavici, Claudia 25–6 toward building 152
Moses, Robert 134 Performance Gap 164
Motta, Flavio 54 performing arts, architecture in 75, 76–7;
Mumford, Lewis 26–7, 38–9, 135, 254, 262 activities of 80; enabling, knowing, and
Museum of Modern Art (MoMA), New York 46, judging 78–80; “enlightenment” performances
48, 55; 9+1 Ways of Being Political exhibition 80; explaining, revealing, and story-telling
at 50–1 80; ideas about 77; mimicking, making, and
moving 77–8; modes of 79; and new role for
National Academy of Sciences 151–2 the critic 81–2; performance characters and
National Architectural Accrediting Board 79; performance cycle of 78; performance
(NCARB), United States 142 roles 81
National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) 202 Perry, David 265
National Institute of Building Sciences person–environment relationships: concept of 6;
(NIBS) 233 emergence of 13; information gathering and
National Organization for Urban Harmony analysis 6; interacting forces in 12; levels of
(NOUH), Cairo 122 habitability 9
National Science Foundation (NSF) 202 Pieranunzi, Danielle 257
nearly zero-energy buildings 114 place-based conversation 255–7
New York 2000: Architecture and Urbanism Between Plan of Work, for design team operation 130,
the Bicentennial and the Millennium (2006) 134 132, 160–1
Nghia,Vo Trong 172 Playa Viva, Mexico 259–61
Niemeyer, Oscar 54, 58 playwright 76, 81
Nightingale, Florence 186 pop-populism 28–30
Nightingale Ward, rediscovery of: Evelina Portinari, Candido 55–7
Children’s Hospital, United Kingdom 186–7; post-occupancy evaluation (POE), of buildings
Katta Public General Hospital, Japan 186; 5, 15, 104, 106, 108–9, 111, 117, 193, 225,
privacy versus supervision 187 232, 246; architectural critics within 197;
Niemeyer, Oscar 58; 9+1 Ways of Being Political categories for 151; defining of 193–4;
exhibition (2012) 50–1 evolution of 147–52; form-based codes
non-linear Modernism 51 (FBC) 218; fundamental purpose of 195;
normative criticism, building codes as a in-house and external influences through
form of 44 the use of 150, 153; key components of 151;
Nouvel, Jean 273 in North America 160; stakeholder-centred
Nova Arquitetura group 60 194; strategies and techniques 152; toward
novelty, notion of 85, 133, 136, 212 building performance evaluation 152
284 Index

Private Finance Initiative (PFI) 164, 168, 184 Santelli, Serge 92

problem solving 14, 125, 240, 244 Sartre, Jean-Paul 24
product design 247 Sauerbruch, Matthias 116
product life-cycle management 84 schematic and design development,
program for design (PFD) 242 phases of 72
Progressive Architecture (1994) 41–3 Schramm, Ulrich 141, 235
proletarian art 55 Schuyler, Montgomery 37–8
Pruitt-Igoe housing complex project 244 Seifert, Richard 275
public bathrooms 69–70, 72 Sennett, Richard 134–5, 141
public buildings, global investor acquisition of Serageldin, Ismail 125
198 Shanghai Expo Center 176
public–private partnerships 198 Silo Concepts (2003) 51
Simon, Herbert 266
quality assessments, in health care environments: Sites International 92
approach to conduct 233–4; evidence-based slums, clearance of 94, 95
design 232; lessons learned for 240–2; Level Snow, C. P. 83
One Assessment 234–5, 238; POE framework Social Economic Environmental Design (SEED)
for 234–7; POE methodology for 238; POE network 262
metrics and tools for 238–9 Socialist Realism 55
quality improvement (QI) 233, 240 social justice, principles of 247, 250
Quirk,Vanessa 226 social media 85, 117, 198
social networks 157–8
Rabat, Nasser 124 social reality 201
Ramsauer, Peter 117 socio-cultural context, of architectural criticism:
rapid prototyping 141 definition of 225–8; profession, criticism,
real estate developers and contractors 85 and evaluation dialogue 229; recent trends in
regenerative design: community of practice 224–5; recognizing of 228–30
in 261; and crisis of architectural judgment socio-economic development 95, 102
254–5; decentralized sewerage system 261; socio-physical technology 13
definition of 252, 255; integrated public Soft Landings process 166–7
conversations 256–7; interrelated concepts of Solar Decathlon program 200
253; Potty Project 260; in practice 257–62; solar thermal systems 261
precepts of 253–4; scholarship 258; “Story of Spivack, M. 9
Place” methodology 259 Stage M, rise and fall of 129–32
REGENESIS company 258–62 stakeholders’ experiences of buildings 194;
Remnick, David 84 architectural criticism 196–7; learning lessons
renaissance 60, 105, 255 195–6; recommendations for improvements
REN Building, China 135 195; universal set of 196
renewable energy sources 261 starchitect, phenomenon of 49, 108
renovation of building 78 Stern, Robert A. M. 133–4
reposition architecture 46 “Story of Place” methodology 259
resource allocation 6 story-telling 80, 259
‘Restoration Projects Critiqued’ 124 “Stuttgart 21” project 117
Rethinking Construction Innovation and Research Supreme Council of Antiquities (SCA),
(2002) 163 Cairo 121–2
RIBA Plan of Work (RIBA 1963) 130, 132 sustainable buildings 111; building performance
Rohdewald, Thomas 172 evaluation for 115–17, 155–7; certification
Roman marble temple 67 systems for 112, 115–16; design for federal
Rorty, Richard 265 buildings 157; federal assessment system for
Round Tables 117 116–17
Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) sustainable development 104, 108–10, 117, 167
129–30, 160–1, 195 swagger building 84
Rykwert, Joseph 40, 141
Tagliabue, Miralles 172
Sabbagh, Juan Carlos 172 Technology Strategy Board, United Kingdom
sanitation system 94; decentralized 262 165–6
 Index 285

tectonic resolution 73 Usable Buildings Trust (UBT), United Kingdom

teletechnology 85, 141 165–6, 167
Thatcher, Margaret 162 US Department of Energy 200, 202
thermodynamics, principle of 142–3, 202 user satisfaction, criteria of 116–17, 247
3D printing 141 US Green Buildings Council (USGBC) 157, 200
Tokyo Metropolitan Fuchu Medical Plaza 183
Tschumi, Bernard 76, 273 Vago, Pierre 105–6
Turner,Victor 77 Van der Ryn, Sim 147
Vasconcelos, Silvio de 53–5
Ulrich, Roger 141, 184, 187 Venice Architecture Biennale 49
United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Venturi, Robert 81
Cultural Organization (UNESCO) 122 verbal rating scales 210
United States Green Building Council (USGBC) Virginia Tech 147
261 virtual reality 84–5, 210
universal architecture 14 Vitruvius, Pollio 5, 9, 255
universal design (UD) movement 245; conceptual vocational occupations 275
diagram 249; Eight Goals of Universal Design vocational training 84
246; legal and aesthetic “codes” 248–9; Vygotsky, L. S. 226
philosophical flank of 247; philosophy and
science of 246–8; universal design practice, Wang, Lily 69, 70
illustration of 246 Wang, Shu 172
university dormitories 147 wash hand basin, design of 196
urban conservation: of Historic Cairo 126–7; Wasmuth portfolio 23
process of 98, 121–4 weight and volume, sense of 66–7
urban flow, qualities of 73 Wigley, Mark 49
urbanism in Shanghai: Expo 2010 171–3; Expo Wolfe, Tom 133
Shanghai Group (ESG) 174; planning the Wolf, Jack 133, 142
Expo site 174–6; post-expo buildings 173–4; workplace protocols 75–6
Pudong, redevelopment in 176–80; Puxi, Wright, Frank Lloyd 23, 248
redevelopment in 180–1
urban planning 112 Yasushi, Nagasawa 184
urban renewal 39, 81 Yoshimasa, Ashikaga 185
urban transformations 51 Yung, Ho Chang 172
 POLICY
POLICY
POLICY
POLICYPOLICY
POLICY
POLICY
POLICY POLICY
POLICY
POLICY
Add to your library's digital collection Choose from a range of subject\;'
today with Taylor & Francis eBooks. packages or create your own!
We have over 45,000 eBooks in Benefits for you
the Humanities, Social Sciences, Free MARC records
Behavioural Sciences, Built COUNTER-compliant usage statistics
Environment and Law, from leading Flexible purchase and pricing options
imprints, including Routledge, 70% approx of our eBooks are n o w
Focal Press and Psychology Press. DRM-free.

Benefits for your user

POLICY
POLICY W
Off-site, anytime access via Athens
or referring URL

POLICY Print or copy pages or chapters

POLICY W
Full content search
Bookmark, highlight and annotate
We offer free trials to qualifying academic,
POLICY
corporate and government customers.
text
Access t o thousands of pages o i
quality research at the click of a
button.

ecollections
Choose from 20 different subject
POLICY
We have 16 cutting-edge interdisciplinary
ecollections, including: collections, including:

+
1 Asian Studies -*;$ POLICY
POLICY
Health Studies POLICY
POLICY
~
POLICY
or more information, pricing enquiries or to order a free trial,
please contact your local sales team:
UK/Rest of World: [email protected]
USA/Canada/Latin America: [email protected]
East/SoutheastAsia: [email protected]
India: [email protected]

POLICY
POLICY