Architects play a vital role in the implementation of future technologies and appliances in the AEC industry. The role of the architect has long been debated internally in the architecture discipline, whether it is indispensable or not, and how it will change. What is evident, is that architectural discipline will have to be prepared to evolve, as it has done throughout architectural history. When evolving, the design process and architectural discipline can progress to a new stature. The focus should embody creativity and inspire designs that reflect innovation, while simultaneously, being conscious of the environmental and societal needs for architecture. This should be done both in practise and through architectural theory. When looking at the history of the architectural discipline, there have been many “stepping stones” that lay the foundation of where we are now. By learning from our past, we can look to the future. 

 

I am drawn to the works of Leon Batista Alberti (1404-72) who wrote about how he could learn from the past: 

 

“There was not the least Remain of any ancient Structure that had any Merit in it, but when I went and examined, to see if any Thing was to be learnt from it. Thus I was continuously searching, considering, measuring and making Drafts of every Thing I could hear of, till such Time as I had made myself perfect Master of every Contrivance or Invention that had been used in those ancient Remains; and thus I alleviated the Fatigue of writing, by the Thirst and Pleasure of gaining Information” (Alberti, 1955, p.112)

 

Alberti made several reflections that still apply today, with the foundation being based on the written work by Vitruvius and the remains of Roman architecture. He acknowledged that there were qualities in previous architecture that was exceptional through the way it interacted with people and the way it was built. As a criteria to architecture, and more specifically architectural plans, Alberti names the criterias to be functionality, aesthetics and use (De Zurko, 1957). Portraying a connection between the built environment and the people who use it. He understood that, with the access to the measurements of the Roman buildings, he would learn how they were built and how they function in society. He could use the findings to implement in his own architectural designs and form his own idea of what architecture is. 

 

Filarete (1400-69) follows Alberti’s theory in his book about his relationship to gothic building geometry by saying that architecture can in many ways be a representation of humans: 

 

 

“I will show you that a building is really a living being, and you will see that it thus needs nourishment in order to live, just as man does, that it sickens and dies, and also, that it can be cured of illness by a good doctor… you might say that a building does not sicken and die like a man, and I would reply that Indeed it does just that : it falls ill when undernourished, that is, when it is not maintained, and little by little falls into decline, just as a man, when he goes without food, will eventually drop dead. A building does just the same. But if it has a good doctor when it falls ill, a master builder who repairs and cures it, it will stay in good condition for a long time.” -Filarete (Kruft, H-W 1994, pp. 53-54)

 

There is evidently a human relationship to buildings through the works of Alberti and Filarete in terms of measurements and terminology that relate to human beings. Already in the 1400s it is evident that the representation of measurements allows for architects to elongate the lives of existing buildings and create new designs using previous knowledge or ideas, while implementing their own take on what they have learned. This gives an understanding and classification of what makes the design great. Vignola (1507-52) further continues to classify and give accurate measurements of the five Orders (columns) in architecture, the Tuscan, Dorian, Ionic, Corinthian and Composite Orders (Kruft, H-W 1994). Essentially these function as rules, through measurements and proportions, to produce aesthetically pleasing and “correct” Orders if one were to design classical architecture.

 

We can see that architectural theory and practice since the medieval times, until now, relate to an understanding of past architectural works through scale, proportions and measurements. While simultaneously, not forgetting their strength, utility and beauty as defined by Vitruvius (Kruft, H-W 1994). Essentially, this means that in order to increase life of a building, we need to look at what makes it great, and use this to our advantage in the design process. The architectural discipline should be able to view all aspects of an building in retrospect without losing a part of its history or integrity, similar to how linguistic research never had a bad impact on a language (Hillier, B. & Leaman, A., 1976). The numerical laws of the past functioned as rules to create beautiful architecture to a human scale, in terms of social aspects and space, in their time. In many ways the practice of analysing beauty has been forgotten in my architectural generation and has rather become an idea of what someone “likes” and “dislikes”. 

 

While relating back to my work about LiDAR, scanning can therefore help to quantify what is beautiful and what is not, together with the opinions of the public. The accessibility of the quantification of the measurements makes buildings easier to learn from. The numerical teachings can then be used to argue for a specific design solution through quantifiable data. Being able to organise architecture in such a way gives the ability to showcase what works, and therefore, come across in the AEC industry, and to the public, as architects who base their designs through knowledge and not “simply” a design idea. Architects and the public can view and reflect on the buildings allowing us to bring forth what evidently works by evaluating them through a certain set of criteria, whether it be “societal” or “architectural”. This leads to today’s architectural post avant-garde theory of evolutionary design and parametricism. 

 

“Parametricism links elements, architecture and urbanism as a set of design criteria which forms a complete “system” of values, that might include the way people move through the building, their frequency of encounter, their dwell times, and so on” (Designbuildings, 2020). With the basis of the built environment together with parametric tools and software, we can make designs that have incremental differentiations in designs due to a set of values or criteria (parameters) that we set, regardless of architectural style and scale. This would mean that if we use a post-modern building from the 1970s and we know the necessary added insulation required to be able to satisfy todays requirements, we can make design changes that are efficient and lean towards a new design, keeping the original functional space intact. The new designs will allow for malleability, meaning that the origin of the design will be based on the information rich scan with the physical properties inherently placed within the new design. The addition or otherwise change to the original building is then only generated through the criteria set as parameters in a generative design process. “In principle every property of every element or complex is subject to parametric variation. The key technique for handling this variability is the scripting of functions that establish associations between the properties of the various elements” (Schumacher, 2014). “Contemporary process models such as formation, evolution, performance-based; and generative process models of design have been demonstrated as holistic processes of design thinking from conception to production.” (Oxman, 2017, p. 36) Designers and architects have almost always had a “trial and error” approach to design, the outcome is therefore a direct result of the amount tried and the time invested in testing and solution-finding, together with previous accumulated experience. If we are able to generate several principles of design to test and evaluate through a given criteria, and even better, allowing the computational power to eliminate “poor” options, we can generate and design new ideas that become innovational and functional. 

 

The theory of “Parametricism pursues the very general aim to organize and articulate the increasing diversity and complexity of social institutions and life processes within the most advanced centre of post-fordist network society” (Schumacher, 2014). In order to organise complex scans and fully embrace the information found in the scans, we can look to the theory of Parametricism. Being able to integrate parametric design processes can allow for a way to quantify the social aspects of living (Schumacher, 2016), through the spaces we register by scanning them. As an example, Marnix de Nijs (2013) gave a preview of how crowdsourcing can lead to value when he compounded information from photos taken in a global urban environment. With photos gathered on social media, and the GPS tags included in them, he constructed 3D point clouds of the buildings from the four hundred most photographed locations in the world (de Nijs, Marnix, 2013). These four hundred locations hold a certain stature in society, because of historic value, location and/or aesthetics. 

 

Crowdsourcing different scans with their inherent perceived success in terms of space, beauty, function and societal function, can give us the parameters needed to be able to analyse and respond to the existing built environment in a way that the architecture reflects the public needs. This gathering and use of crowdsourced information may build bridges with disciplines we otherwise would not have encountered. With the analysis from different disciplines, architecture would be evaluated through different layers of knowledge, meaning that different disciplines can relate their findings of the crowdsourced data back into architecture. This allows for architectural data to be processed and utilised at a micro or macro scale, depending on the need. In turn, making an impact on how we design through knowledge. Through time and data, we would then comprehend parametric criteria that would allow architects to further their ability to design and create great architecture. The architectural discipline will therefore be correlated to society; as society progresses, so will the architectural discipline and through iteration, architecture. 

 

What we then get is yet a divide in terms of the architectural discipline where one part is looking at the past to bring forth a future in conjunction with societal needs in a network of buildings. The other discipline, will do as we have done for centuries, and look at what is there, find a new design solution through testing, selecting, and implementing it. Effectively, the former, applies a cognitive process, together with computational power, to make informed decisions on how to design. 

 

To be able to move forward and evolve, as in the past, architects need to change certain parts of their design process. Being a part of the ongoing digital transition can allow for information rich decisions and informative architecture. The architectural role and process may thus, in the future, embody a spectrum of roles even more diverse than they are today. Being a part of implementing an information rich design process will be necessary to be able to affect and determine the parameters for the future built environment. Designing architecture with pen and paper will still be possible and designing using the pen as a thinking tool will be very much relevant. However, digitisation will be necessary to evolve in order to comply with points mentioned in chapters 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3.

 

The paradigm shift possible will require the ability to embrace change through technology, and thus giving forth a new kind of architecture. The intersection between these can provide a search for something new, something very interesting.

 

 

 

 

 

Alberti, 1955. The ten books on architecture, VI. I; tr James Leoni, ed. Joseph Rykwert, London 1955, p.112

 

De Zurko, Edward Robert, 1957. The attempt (“Alberti’s Theory of Form and Function”), The art bulletin XXXIX, p. 142- 45

 

Kruft, H.-W., 1994. A history of architectural theory : from Vitruvius to the present, London: Zwemmer. p. 53-54 (On Filarete’s relationship to gothic building geometry, cf. Tigler (1963) p. 29)

 

Hillier, B. & Leaman, Adrian. (1976). Architecture as a discipline. Journal of Architectural Research. 5. 28-32. 

 

Designbuildings, 2020. Parametricism. Parametricism - Designing Buildings Wiki. Available at: https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/Parametricism [Accessed May 13, 2021]. 

​

Schumacher, P., 2014. Design parameters to parametric design. Available at: https://patrikschumacher.com/Texts/Design%20Parameters%20to%20Parametric%20Design.html [Accessed April 12, 2021]. 

​

de Nijs, M., 2013. Exploded Views 2.0 - work by Marnix de Nijs. Available at: http://marnixdenijs.nl/exploded-views-2.htm [Accessed May 18, 2021]. 

​

Schumacher, Patrik, 2016. Advancing Social Functionality Via Agent‐Based Parametric Semiology. Architectural design, 86(2), pp.108–113.

​

​

​

Further reading:

​

​

Schumacher, Patrik, 2018. Stereotomy 2.0: High-Performance Eloquence. Nexus network journal, 20(3), pp.515–517.