See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/221105975

The system-user paradox: Do we need models or should we grow ecologies?

Conference Paper · January 2005

DOI: 10.1145/1122935.1122937 · Source: DBLP

CITATIONS READS
7 7,557

1 author:

Alan Penn
University College London
174 PUBLICATIONS 7,669 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

PEMETH: Planning and Evaluation Methodologies for Mental Healthcare Buildings View project

Cityware: Urban Design & Pervasive Computing View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Alan Penn on 05 February 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 The system-user paradox:
Do we need models or should we grow ecologies?
Alan Penn
Professor of Architectural and Urban Computing,
The Bartlett School of Graduate Studies,
University College London

ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: THE HISTORY OF DESIGN METHODS
One of the fundamental aims of system design is to make
IN ARCHITECTURE
the user unaware of a system’s presence. You only become During the first three quarters of the 20th century
aware of something when it has gone wrong. And yet there architectural culture in Europe went through a period of
is a paradox here. In order to design a system that is continuous and massive change. This can be seen as
transparent to the user we seem to need to be completely
paralleled by changes in other fields of art and design, and
aware of it and of its deep structure. This paradox is
in part as a consequence of the 19th century emergence and
associated with what is known as the ‘problem of
success of engineering design and its allied knowledgebase
mapping’. This is the problem of how to move from in the physical sciences. Modernism took the machine as
abstract representations of tasks, knowledge and data emblematic: “the house is a machine for living in” wrote
structures to a concrete representation of the structure of Le Corbusier (1923). If that were so, and form followed
dialogues and interactions required for a specific function, then surely methods of analysis needed to be
implementation. In this paper I review some of the history applied in architectural design, much as they were in
of a different field of design – architecture – in its search engineering. This thinking underlay much of the
for design methodologies. Using that history I suggest that development of architectural theory in the immediate
underlying the paradox lies a paradigm – a set of ideas that postwar period, and during the 1960’s and ‘70’s it
we think with rather than of – in which some of our most underpinned much of the early application of computing to
deeply held assumptions may be at fault. In particular I
architectural design.
suggest that the established task modelling approach
assumes as basic the distinction between user and system, The hopes were that the formalised methods of operational
while for any ‘well working’ system the user must actually research and logistics that had been so effective in military
become literally embedded. That is, the distinction between planning during the war could be applied to the peacetime
user and system should, from the user’s point of view, activity of reconstruction and bring some logic to what had
effectively disappear. I suggest that this sort of formerly been seen as an intuitive activity (Rittel, Webber,
disappearance can result from consideration of design in 1973). The concern that design methods (as this field
terms of designing and managing ecologies. I illustrate this became known) might stifle creativity was countered by the
with studies of health buildings. This suggestion seems to incorporation of brainstorming into the process (Jones,
be in line with recent thinking in both philosophy and Thornley, 1963).
cognitive science, however it does raise serious questions
It was only a few years after the 1963 Oxford Conference
for methodology in engineering design – by which I mean
on Design Methods however, that even those most closely
in the broadest sense, systems which appear purposive. I
involved in its development were challenging its basis. The
conclude that as computing becomes pervasive, methods in
importance of precedent in design, and formally the notion
which design is considered as a form of ‘reflective practice’
of design typologies, was developed by Alan Colquhoun
may need to be adopted in systems design.
(1967). Hillier developed a critique based on the
epistemology of design in comparison to Popper’s analysis
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for of science (Hillier, Musgrove, et al., 1972; Hillier, Leaman,
personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are 1974). He proposed that architectural knowledge was of the
not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that effects of local design moves on global outcomes. A similar
copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. To copy position was followed by Herbert Simon who noted that
otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists,
requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. architectural design was characterised, like chess, by
TAMODIA’05, September 26–27, 2005, Gdansk, Poland. problems that are “well structured in the small but ill
Copyright 2005 ACM 1-59593-220-8/00/0000…$5.00. structured in the large” (Simon, 1973).

1
It seemed that the iterative nature of design processes and THE USER-SYSTEM PARADIGM AND ITS PARADOX
the need to make decisions against a background of poorly The contention that formalised procedural methods would
defined knowledge required a quite new understanding of bring rationality to what were seen as intuitive (and
the architectural design process as a kind of ‘soft system’ therefore unscientific and irrational) design processes in
(Checkland, 1981; Checkland, Scholes, 1990). It was architecture met its end in the pragmatic 1980’s in the UK.
becoming clear that rather than a design resulting as a As the large government architectural programmes of the
solution to a well posed problem, as often as not the welfare state, in health, education and housing, were
definition of the problem was also a result of the design successively privatised, the organisational capacity required
process. The two, the problem definition and the design to sustain methodological procedures rapidly disappeared to
solution, proceeded hand in hand (Rittel, Webber, 1973). be replaced by what the market would supply. Although
As Simon had noted whilst in detail it is often possible to this might seem to be a retrograde step, at least part of the
give a well constrained definition of the design problem, it reason for it was that in all these areas the result of
is often impossible to do so for a whole design (Simon, functionalism and its rational design basis had been some
1973). Design processes, it seemed, were not open to highly dysfunctional architecture. Public housing was
characterisation as simple linear causal chains in which widely perceived to be socially disastrous (Young &
analysis of performance requirements could lead to design Wilmott, 1967; Coleman, 1985), open plan schools had
solutions, nor were buildings simple systems in which local come under criticism for failing to deliver open schooling
solutions would necessarily give rise to satisfactory global (Bernstein, 1977) and despite a number of generations of
outcomes. Against the background of these difficulties it hospital buildings each successive generation appeared to
seemed that a more complex framework was required to deliver a worse environment for healthcare. How could this
explain what was going on in the architectural design be?
process. How was it possible for anything ever to get built? I suspect that one answer lies in a basic assumption adopted
The distinction between design considered as a mechanical by functionalist architects in the postwar period. This is the
procedure and as a cognitive activity had been noted by assumption that buildings are there to fulfil a ‘programme’,
Hillier (Hillier, Musgrove, et al., 1972), however it was and that a programme entails a series of tasks that will be
Donald Schoen at MIT who tackled the issue most engaged in by building users. On this view, the designer’s
successfully. Taking an essentially Heideggerian position, job is first to establish what these tasks are and the relations
Schoen characterised design as a ‘reflective practice’ in between them (the briefing problem), and then to define a
which knowledge was expressed (and acquired) through building plan that will support their efficient execution (the
action. Essential components of this practice lay in the design problem). On the face of it this may seem like an
dialogue developed between the designer and media – entirely reasonable assumption, however a closer inspection
sketches, drawings and maquettes – through which she shows that it is based on making a strong distinction
manifested ideas for buildings and by means of which she between the ‘user’ and the ‘environment’. Here I suspect
bridged between the field of possible design solutions and lies a fundamental problem – if the aim of designing the
the specificity of design requirements (Schoen, 1983). environment is to transparently support the activities of the
Architectural education under this view was a process of user, then this becomes possible to the degree that the user
transfer of ‘know-how’ and made effective use of a range of is no longer consciously aware of the fact that they are
techniques including the design project and the review for present in the environment.
example to train the reflective practitioner in the exercise of If this aim is to be pursued then a more integrated
‘knowledge in action’ (Schoen, 1987). understanding is required in which users and environment
In a space of less than 25 years understanding of design are considered as a single ‘ecological’ system. This requires
processes in architecture had moved from a systematic, a paradigmatic shift in our understanding of the relations
causal and more or less automatable process (Alexander between users and systems, from each considered as
1961), to a fuzzy, iterative, context bound and cognitive separate entities with inputs (perceptions) and outputs
activity. By the 1980’s even those who had been the (actions), to one in which the boundary between user and
originators of the Design Methods movement had system dissolves. To elaborate this point it may be helpful
completely reversed their positions: “in the seventies I to refer to some of Heidegger’s notions of embedding in the
reacted against design methods. I dislike the machine world and to distinguish these from the view of the human
language, the behaviourism, the continual attempt to fix the subject as distinct from their environment1. It has been
whole of life into a logical framework.” (Jones, 1977); argued by Dreyfus (1991) and most cogently by Wheeler
“Jacobson: In what areas should future work centre in (2005), that the predominant ideas behind our
design methodology? Alexander: I think I should be
consistent here. I would say forget it, forget the whole
thing.” (Alexander, 1971). 1
I am indebted here to Michael Wheeler’s incisive analysis
of Cartesian and Heideggerian views on cognition
(Wheeler, 2005).

2
understanding of human cognition are Cartesian in contains toilets. The blocks are constructed of fair faced
structure. For Descartes the primary distinction between the brickwork, a material familiar on building exteriors. The
mental and the corporeal were mirrored in the modes of space defined by the placement of the formal blocks in
thought and extension that attach to each. This duality is relation to each other is more complex both in shape and in
repeated in cognitive science in the notion that cognitive its function. The main area of this space is used as a patient
processes entail a cycle of perception, representation, waiting area, however, its shape is not easily described
processing and action. Under this view the mind creates since we have no words for anything other than the simplest
representations of the environment which it then uses to and most regular of spatial morphologies. The best that can
compute the actions needed in order to achieve its be done is to describe the experience of moving through or
objectives. For Heidegger however the division between inhabiting it.
mental and corporeal is itself false and should be subsumed
The entrance to this space is through a glazed lobby formed
in the notion of ‘being in the world’. The mind is
between two of the rectangular blocks: the treatment room
‘embodied’ in that for a large class of our interactions with
and reception. These two are staggered in echelon, and the
the world we use tacit understanding and know-how rather
external and internal doors from the lobby define a diagonal
than any form of explicit representation and processing.
route between the blocks directing the visitor towards the
This is because the human agent finds themselves in a
waiting area. The reception block has a window
world which they make meaningful to themselves through
overlooking the front exterior area, a door opening onto the
their ability to act in it. Objects in our environment become
entrance lobby itself, and a reception counter opening onto
appropriated for use – the rock becomes a hammer through
the waiting area. The visitor is therefore directed past the
the way we use it to hit a nail – and so can be thought of as
reception counter towards the waiting area. The waiting
‘equipment’ that become meaningful through their
area itself is contained by a glazed external wall with
purposive use. In this appropriation the distinction between
benched seating facing back towards the entrance and
the arm, hand and rock disappear into the act of hammering.
reception counter, by parts of the fair faced brick exterior of
At a subconscious level, then, the relation between user and
the formal blocks and by occluded but open space ‘around
environment dissolves. However, if the hammer breaks then
corners’. The circular toilet block is carefully aligned so
we become aware of its dysfunction – it becomes an object
that it substantially blocks the view from the waiting area of
in our environment of which we are conscious.
the two stub corridors leading to the consulting and
The distinction between those aspects of the world in which treatment rooms, hiding their doorways, and defining a
we are fully embedded and those in which we are circulation corridor giving access to all five blocks without
consciously aware is of importance in the context of this passing through the waiting area. Although glimpses of
paper. When we become problem solvers – either as movement along this route will be given to those in the
scientists aiming to explain the world, or as designers waiting area, the doctors can move between the two
aiming to intervene in it – it seems that we must make this consulting rooms completely unseen.
transition to awareness. And yet for the designer the aim is
to create ‘equipment’ that others will use in a fully
embedded and subconscious manner. This is the paradox of
system design.

ARCHITECTURE: PROVIDING ENVIRONMENTS FOR

SOCIAL APPROPRIATION
Amongst the main distinctions between architectural
practice and other fields of design is the social nature of its
function. Buildings and cities act essentially as mechanisms
for generating and controlling interactions between people.
In this the design of the physical and spatial artefact lies at
one step removed from its functional outcome. A simple
example may help to explain. Figure 1. shows the plan of a
small doctor’s surgery. Although it is only a simple
building, it captures some very basic aspects of medical
practice considered in terms of social interfaces. The plan
can be seen to be constructed of four rectangular and one Figure 1. General practitioner’s surgery in Buckinghamshire
circular rooms, the spaces between these rooms and the by Aldington, Craig and Collinge.
surrounding exterior space. Each of the rooms can be
considered as both a formal ‘block’ from the outside and as The description I have given here is of a series of the
an interior space containing a specific social function: two material, formal and spatial properties of the building,
are doctor’s consulting rooms, one a treatment room, one however, it is clear that whilst the material and formal
houses the reception and records, and the circular block properties are relatively easily conveyed through language,

3
the spatial properties require both a description in terms of differences is present in a plan prior to its occupation, and it
what it is like to ‘be there’ and continual reference to the is this potential which is appropriated for social acts. It is in
illustration in order to be understood. This is not just this sense that architectural design can be considered as the
chance. The point is that the construction of space is construction of potential spatial relations that can be
essentially relational, where any ‘move’ takes on meaning appropriated for specific social acts and thus become
only in relation to all others. It is the relation between four meaningful to those involved.
similar rectangles and a circle that creates the complex
Although the doctor’s surgery is only small, it demonstrates
contained space of the waiting and circulation area.
the complexity that arises as soon as spatial relations enter
There is however another (Heideggerian) level at which the picture. However, as buildings get larger two new issues
spatial morphology takes on meaning. This is at the level of arise. First, there is the problem of how to move from a set
its appropriation as an environment for essentially social of locally constructed social interfaces to a much larger
acts-in-the-world. Here what appear to matter are the scale building complex. Second, completely different types
distinctions between different social categories and the of social potential appear as the scale of a built complex
relations constructed between these. For example, those increases. Figure 2 shows the plan of a much larger health
who are granted access to the interior rooms within the centre designed by the same architects as Figure 1, and
formal blocks: doctors, nurse, receptionist (and patients clearly using many of the same design principles. However,
when called into consultation with the doctor); and the it is easy to see that a simple process of duplication of the
waiting patients who remain between the blocks in the elementary surgery unit can only be carried so far before a
waiting area. To take the latter, the waiting area is larger scale logic needs to be applied in order to stop the
overlooked by the receptionist’s counter, and so is building becoming an unintelligible maze.
‘watched-over’, but can itself see no doorways apart from
the building entrance lobby. When a patient is called in to
see the doctor they are taken into the interior of a ‘formal
block’ and their move into that interior is out of sight of the
other waiting patients. Here they are brought into a one-to-
one consultation with the doctor in some degree of isolation
from others present in the building. In each of these
situations spatial relations are used to construct quite
specific relations between the different social categories
involved.
It would of course be wrong to suggest that all social
categories are equal in their power to appropriate space.
Clearly, the medical professionals as primary inhabitants of
the facility are in a position of power to dictate the way that
spaces will be used. However, it is the potential use of
space and its relations of accessibility and visibility that
gives meaning to its appropriation. If a doorway cannot be
seen from the waiting area then it deprives whoever is in
that space of the power to ‘watch over’. In the case of the Figure 2. Health Centre Plan
receptionist although the ‘watching over’ could be thought
Hospital buildings face a severe problem in maintaining
of as acting in both directions, this fact is modified in two
respects. First, the receptionist sitting closer to the counter intelligibility as they get larger. Figure 3 shows the ground
opening can see more of the waiting area than the patient floor plan of the first whole hospital designed by the
can see of the receptionist’s space. Second, while the National Heath Service in the UK at Greenwich. Figure 4
receptionist can see both the waiting area and its entrances, shows a more recent Nucleus standard hospital designed
the patient sitting in the waiting area cannot see the some 20 years later, and the culmination of decades of
receptionist’s doorway. In this way, although the systematic and rational design development. Although in
receptionist is watched, their means of access is not, and parts of each hospital elements of the same type of spatial
this maintains a key differential in power. potentials present in the doctor’s surgery can be found, the
two buildings show quite different approaches to the
Spatial relations are thus both complex and asymmetric and generation of intelligibility. The first uses a relatively
this makes it important to understand the rights of different simple grid of ‘streets’ to bring together a series of
social groups to occupy specific locations in a building. It is departments. The second uses a t-shaped template to house
also important to understand how these patterns of departments, with this template being duplicated either side
occupancy and movement vary over time since there is of a single main ‘street’. The spatial structure that results
often a temporal programme associated with space could not be more different. Where the first is characterised
utilisation. However, the potential inherent in these by a grid of large scale circulation rings that pass through

4
 Figure 3. Greenwich District General Hospital, Ground
floor plan.

Figure 5. Summary of significant correlations between

different categories of people in the two hospitals.
First, to describe the research methodology. The two
buildings were subject of observation studies in which an
observer walked on a fixed route throughout the circulation
space of each building, including main circulation and
Figure 4. Newham District General Hospital, Ground circulation within departments and a sample of wards, but
Floor Plan.
excluding restricted departments such as ITU and Operating
epartments and wards, and where the boundaries between Theatres. As the observer walked they recorded for each
departments more or less disappear, the latter is almost space they passed through the number of people present;
entirely ‘tree like’ with each department template only whether those people were moving or static; and, the
accessible from the single hospital street. There is in fact category of person determined by uniform or dress code. In
only one large scale ring of circulation in the building this way a distinction could be made between nurses,
linking the X-Ray and Accident and Emergency templates. doctors, medical technical staff, medical records clerks,
hospital porters, patients and visitors to patients or
The difference between the two space structures is of accompanying family members. The observation walk was
interest because it can help illustrate the way that hospital repeated 20 times at different times of day and on different
design (and building design more generally) is related to the days of the week. The relative numbers of each category of
production of different probabilities of encounter between person in each observation space on the route were then
different categories of people. These effects are different in entered into a statistical analysis program, and a correlation
nature to the interfaces between doctor and patient that take matrix was constructed describing the degree to which
place in the consulting room in that they appear to arise as a different categories were co-present in space. A summary
by-product of the buildings spatial configuration and of this matrix is given in Figure 5.
allocation of functional spaces. In this sense the effects of The correlation matrices showed that medical (doctors and
the large scale spatial structure of the whole building appear nurses) and non-medical (porters and medical records) staff
to be probabilistic rather than programmatic in nature. form two distinct groups in terms of co-presence in space.
The latter are co-present with visitors in Greenwich and
medical records with patients in Newham.

5
All observed spaces

Clinic waiting areas only

Non-clinic circulation areas

Non-clinic circulation areas on their own scale (r=.98 p<.0001)

Newham Hospital Greenwich hospital
Figure 6. Static patients are separated from moving people in general circulation areas in Newham, but are
brought together with others in Greenwich .

6
These differences are a result of the communal use made of certainty in this, it is that the individuals, structures and
the cafeteria and main circulation in Greenwich and the tasks that a building will need to support in the long term
placement of medical records staff as receptionists in will not be those present at its inception. What we are
waiting areas in Newham. The main result here is that, engaged in as designers is therefore something like
despite their morphological differences, the two buildings designing an ecological system. A building is an
appear to give rise to very similar structures of co-presence environment within which complex and unforeseen
(and absence) between different categories of user. A more structures will emerge. Our job then, is to make these
detailed examination however shows a startling difference appropriable by organisations and users over the lifetime of
in the way that this arises. Figure 6 shows scattergrams the building. There are of course generic aspects to the way
representing the correlation between static patients that these ecologies work. I have described some – the
(horizontally) and all categories of moving people relationship of movement to co-presence; the effect of
(vertically) for Newham on the left and Greenwich on the spatial configuration in bringing people together and
right. keeping them apart; the power relations inherent in
visibility and visual control of access. These are the stuff
In both cases there is a negative correlation (top row),
with which we work in designing buildings to support
however this is made up of two classes of spaces; those
spatial cultures.
containing clinic waiting areas in which large numbers of
static patients are present (second row), and the remaining Donald Schoen’s analysis of how this is done, and
general circulation areas (third row). When we examine the particularly of the role of design education in training the
relationship between static patients and all movement in reflective practitioner, is useful. As I read it, over the long
these general circulation areas plotted on their own scale term, the specialist designer has to become a part of the
(bottom row) it becomes clear that while the tree structure ecology itself. As buildings grow and change and are
of Newham’s circulation system systematically separates operated through their life, designers intervene to correct
patients from others moving through space, the large scale problems and to help users appropriate the affordances built
grid structure at Greenwich leads to an informal and in in-principle to a design. The specialist knowledge of how
probabilistic interface in which patients and others are spatial morphology relates to social action forms a
brought into contact. This appears to account at least in part necessary component in making the ecology flourish.
for the friendly and non-clinical atmosphere of that hospital
Where does this leave system design? In my view what we
– it feels more like an airport or a shopping centre to visit,
are seeing at the moment is a radical transition in
than a hospital. The circulation spaces are appropriated for
methodology. As computing and communications systems
socialisation and informal interaction, not merely for
become pervasive the difference between them and the stuff
utilitarian traffic.
of architecture is beginning to dissolve. We can see this
It seems to me to be telling that after 20 years of refinement through the ubiquity of the phone and the networked PC –
the result of standardisation and a rational and they have become a part of the architectural infrastructure
methodological approach to hospital design had moved by which social groups cohere, and through which they
from Greenwich’s whole hospital approach to the Nucleus reproduce and transform themselves. In a similar fashion to
standard plan. The advantage of the Nucleus ‘template’ architecture they carry generic potential – we can be
concept was that it allowed the elimination of what were ‘watched’ through communications systems as well as
seen as unwanted ‘externalities’ of neighbouring through space, and this carries similar power relations. As
departments. A standard plan could be developed that these systems become pervasive they also cease to be
would fit the needs of a specific department almost ideally. bounded – either in space or in time. One can no longer
In programmatic terms these template designs are highly assume that a system will operate in isolation, or that it is
sophisticated and resolve many design requirements in an possible to control the versions of other systems with which
elegant form. The Nucleus standard ward is a case in point, it interacts. Radical modularity – the equivalent of the
and is difficult to improve upon. However, in eliminating Nucleus template – will cease to be an option for the
these external interdepartmental relations the whole hospital designer. The lack of the ability to control ones
reduces to a tree structure in which part is isolated from environment, and the need to make as few assumptions as
part. This appears to be at the core of the radically different possible about the future, will put systems design into the
spatial cultures of the two buildings. same territory as architecture. I am drawn to conclude that
it will need to adopt some of the practices, and especially
DESIGN AS GARDENING: AN ECOLOGICAL the educational forms, developed in architecture. Systems
APPROACH analysis and design will need to become both more
For me, this is the nature of architectural design. We are reflective in its practice, and will need to develop the design
designing environments which will be taken over and and prototyping media with which to ‘reflect in action’.
appropriated by users and organisations. If there is one

7
 Research and Practice, University of California Press,
REFERENCES
1. Alexander, C., 1961, Information and an Organized Los Angeles.
Process of Design, Proceedings of the BRT, 11. Hillier, B. & Leaman, A., 1974, How is design
Washington, Spring, 1961, pp. 115-124. possible?, Journal of Architectural Research, 3, 4-11.
2. Alexander, C., 1971, The State of the Art in Design 12. Jones, C., 1963, “A Method of Systematic Design”, in:
Methodology, (replies to questions by M.Jacobson), Jones and Thornley (eds.) Conference on Design
DMG Newsletter, p.3-7. Methods, Pergamon, Oxford.
3. Bernstein, B., Class, Codes and Control, Volume 3: 13. Jones, C., 1977, “How My Thoughts about Design have
Towards a Theory of Educational Transmissions, 2nd Changed During the Years”, Design Methods and
Edition, RKP, London, 1977. Theories, 11(1), p.50-62.
4. Coleman, A.,1985, Utopia on Trial: Vision and reality 14. Rittel, H., and M. Webber, 1973, “Dilemmas in a
in planned housing, London: Shipman General Theory of Planning”, Policy Sciences, 4,
5. Checkland, P., 1981, Systems Thinking, Systems Elsevier, Amsterdam, p. 155-169.
Practice, John Wiley and Sons, Chichester. 15. Schoen, D.A., 1983, The reflective practitioner: how
6. Checkland, P., and J. Scholes, 1990, Soft Systems professionals think in action, Harper Collins, New
Methodology in Action, John Wiley and Sons, York.
Chichester. 16. Schoen, D.A., 1987, Educating the reflective
7. Colquhoun, A., 1967, “Typology and Design Method”, practitioner, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
Arena, 83, p.11-14. 17. Simon, H., 1973, “The structure of ill-structured
8. Dreyfus, H.L., 1991, Being-in-the-world: A problems”, Artificial Intelligence, 4, p.181-202.
commentary on Heidegger’s Being and Time, division 18. Wheeler, M., (2005), Reconstructing the Cognitive
1. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass. Mind: the next step, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
9. Le Corbusier, 1923, Vers une Architecture, Fondation 19. Young, M. & Wilmott, P., Family and Kinship in East
Le Corbusier, Paris, 1977. London, Pelican, New York, 1967.
10. Hillier B., J. Musgrove, and P. O'Sullivan, 1972,
"Knowledge and Design", in Environmental Design

View publication stats