ARCHITECTURAL PRECEDENT ANALYSIS

topsalmonIA et Robotique

23 févr. 2014 (il y a 3 années et 4 mois)

150 vue(s)

Ali Guney, architect; lecturer in precedent analysis at the Faculty of Architecture, TUDelft


1

ARCHITECTURAL PRECEDENT ANALYSIS

A Cognitive Approach to Morphological Analysis of Buildings in relation to design process


Ali Guney, architect; lecturer in precedent analysis at the Faculty of Architecture, TUDelft


2


CONTENT:
................................
................................
........................

3

1)

Introduction

................................
................................
................................
.......................

3

2)

Cognitive Relevance to Architectural Precedent Analysis

................................
..........

5

Cognition, Affordances, Knowledge, Analysis, S
ynthesis, Metaphor, Analogy

................................
..

5

3)

Some Basic Concepts Related to Morphological Analysis of Architectural
Precedents

................................
................................
................................
................................
.

8

Morphology

................................
................................
................................
................................
.

8

Morpheme

................................
................................
................................
................................
...

8

Topology

................................
................................
................................
................................
.....

8

4)

How to Analyze (morphologically) a Bu
ilding (complex)

................................
...........

10

Spatial Relations, Spatial Organizations, topological representation of Spaces (hierarchically)

.........
10

5)

How to

represent all these decomposed basic units/ and or elements with a
pleasantly surprising method.

................................
................................
...............................

14

F(M)
-

O
-

P (analysis)

................................
................................
................................
.........................
14

6)

A Cognitive Structure of Design Process

................................
................................
....

16

P
-

O
-

F(M) (design)

................................
................................
................................
...........................
16

Constrain:

................................
................................
................................
................................
...
16

Recursive:

................................
................................
................................
................................
...
16

Iterative processes:

................................
................................
................................
.....................
16

7)

Conclusion

................................
................................
................................
......................

19

8)

Key Words:

................................
................................
................................
......................

20

9)

References

................................
................................
................................
......................

20



Ali Guney, architect; lecturer in precedent analysis at the Faculty of Architecture, TUDelft


3

CONTENT
:

1)

Introduction

Many people, not only philosophers and other professionals, have been busy with the
epist
emological issues; diverse approaches are presented, discussed, implemented, etc. A lot of
attempt has been made to do discover what human minds’ mechanisms, properties and abilities
would be to understand what ‘knowing’ is. Some believes in respecting app
earances
1
, and some
in structures. This is an ongoing project and there are many controversial ideas about it.


Among all approaches (which I am not going to write down here all philosophical styles
and others since it is written already in many books and
are well known issues), I am more
convinced with the traditional idea of knowledge as ‘Justified true belief’ which needs empirical
support as well. I used the term ‘convincing’ because I can not imagine an absolute truth,
although I can understand that of

an ‘absolute belief’
2

which can not convince me, at all.
Nevertheless, human being acts one way or the other; some times it does it, consciously; and
some times by instinct or by intuition. Thus, we all do something in either case, whether if we are
aware

of what we are doing or not.


I understand that human kind can only know something just to a certain level; because to
know everything of anything means, not only knowing every data of it
3

but also all relational other
properties
4
, thereof; is it really
possible to know everything about an object (factual or
conceptual)? In principle, it has a conflict with human mind to think that possible since we think
there is always more to find out. Thus, this is also an open set; still an ongoing process.


Fortunat
ely, human mind has many faculties; among others, she/he can perceive
external and internal objects, save them, operate on them by reason, and represent them one
way or the other; language is one them. I will
try to treat

this reasoning

in turn

when necess
ary.


We

all know and complain

th
at several academicians use terminologies with their
different meanings; Therefore, I want to explain some basic ones here and also explain how they
are used within this frame of architectural morphological analysis, includ
ing “architectural
precedent analysis”.

Besides, I take into account that this article is also meant for students at
TUDelft
-

Faculty of Architecture who can also understand Dutch; that is why some explanations

are written in Dutch, as well.


Through this

view
, I will try to expose some ways to morphological analysis of
architectural precedents.




1

My tendency is to take logical notions at face value, instead of trying to reduce them to something else. As elsewhere
in philosophy, I believe in respecting the
appearances.

(McGinn, 20
00)

2

Absolute belief in the sense of unjustified (by human rati
onality) belief

3

“To know something, you must know all data of it”
-

J.S.
Doorman (during lectures for ph
d students of AIIA
, 1994
)

4

“In order to really know an object, it is necessary to comprehend, to study all sides of it, and all its internal and
exter
nal connectivities”
-

Lenin in Problems of contemporary architecture,

in Tzonis, 1987.

Ali Guney, architect; lecturer in precedent analysis at the Faculty of Architecture, TUDelft


4

In
part

2
,
I will treat some basic concepts related to architecture, so that we can have a common
ground to exchange ideas about the cog
nitive structure of archit
ectural knowledge; like:
Cognition, Cognitive Affordances, Knowledge, Analysis, Synthesis, Metaphor and Analogy
.


In
part

3,

some crucial concepts will be clarified concerning the morphological analysis of
architectural precedents, and some related basic i
ssues like: Morphology, Morpheme,
Topological Representation of Spaces


In
part

4,

here I will present some methods for analysis of architectural morphology with some
examples, and explain some basic relevant terminology like: Spatial Relations, Spatial
Or
ganizations, topological representation of Spaces (hierarchically)


In
part

5,
All mentioned methods will be represented by a pleasant way, so that these interrelated
issues make more sense in analyzing buildings.


In
part

6
,
I will make an intensive attem
pt to interpret the cognitive structure of architectural
design process by a mechanical representation of it and relevant concepts, like Constrains,
Recursive and Iterative processes;

In short:

P
-

O
-

F(M)


In
part

7,
some inferences and implications wil
l be explained as conclusion.


The rest of it speaks itself.


Ali Guney, architect; lecturer in precedent analysis at the Faculty of Architecture, TUDelft


5

2)

Cognitive Relevance to Architectural Precedent Analysis

Cognition,
Affordances, Knowledge, Analysis, Synthesis
, Metaphor,
Analogy



Ons
gevoel

registreert en oordeelt.

5


Maar is het gevoel fei
lloos? Laten we ons niet meeslepen door vooroordelen, eigenbelang, modieuze
trends, status?
Zou de
rede
een bemiddelende rol kunnen spelen?”
6


When we look at an object(s), hear sounds, touch, smell or taste something, we get some
impression about them and

then we process this information, then we combine it with our present
knowledge and presuppositions.
Through this process
, human being conceives an idea about all
this information. Some information is received even without being aware of it, and also comb
ined
with other saved informati
on that we are not aware of it.


More over, we evaluate them by reason and by our individual subjective prejudgment;
even perceive them through our presuppositions. After all, all people have some representations
of all entit
ies, object(s)
-

either factual or conceptual
-
, external and internal world of their own. We
can describe this as “
Distributed cognition”



Distributed cognition
, in our view, is a term for a branch of cognitive science that is concerned with a
special typ
e of cognitive systems whose structures and processes are distributed between internal minds and external
environment, across a group of individual minds, and across space and time. From the distribute cognition perspective,
the unit of

analysis is the int
eraction between

the components of the system, not the components themselves.


7



However, communication (in its widest sense) is possible; either with your self and
everyone or with anything else. Nevertheless, no one shares every impression as the same

with
that of others; yet our minds has the ability to do so to some extend, thanks to our cognitivedevice
built in it.


The term
cognition

(
Latin
:
cognoscere
, "to know") is used in several loos
ely related ways to refer to a
faculty for the human
-
like processing of
information
, applying knowledge and changing preferences.”

“…Recently, advanced cognitive researchers have bee
n especially focused on the capacities of
abstraction
,
generalization,
concretization
/specialization a
nd meta
-
reasoning which descriptions involve such concepts as beliefs,
knowledge
, desires,
preferences

and intenti
ons of intelligent individuals/
objects
/
agents
/
systems


8


Briefly, human mind constructs a human subjects and human objects; human object is
that we all have a similar representation of anything and human subject is that of the private
unshared one.
9


We use also metaphors
10

while

analyzing/ understanding and designing anything to find
out their analogical
11

resemblances also in architectural processes in its widest sense.





5

Kleijer, 2004

6

Ibid
.

7

Distributed Cognition, Representation, and Affordance Jiajie Zhang, In press:
Cognition & Pragmatics,
00
, 000
-
000.

Wikipedia
, October 2006.

8

W
ikipedia, October 2006.

9

Serial lectures about Kant, J.S.Doorman
, 1994

10

Merriam
-
Webster’s unabridged dictionary

11

Ibid
, 2b and 3

Ali Guney, architect; lecturer in precedent analysis at the Faculty of Architecture, TUDelft


6

Architects are supposed to create spaces within some harmonious compositions, so that
functions will be realiz
ed very naturally; these spaces, compositions would have some
affordances
12

which could
make us feel invited naturally.


All these issues show that cognitive approach to architectural precedent analysis and to
design process is an intrinsic issue about arch
itectural world in a wider sense.


Finally, to build up the cognitive structure of architectural knowledge
13
, we have to
analyze architectural precedents, so that we can use this knowledge to go on with the synthetic
process.



Analysis:

it is a kind of re
presentation of breaking up a whole into its components on such a way
that the elements do not have to be broken down into more ‘unnecessary’ (due to some criteria) details;
besides, the structural and semantic relations between components must be preserve
d and exposed. This
“… unnecessary details…” will lead us to the term ‘morpheme’ in morphological analysis of architectural
design.”
14


“Synthesis:

bringing the ‘undividable’ (according to some criteria
-

morpheme) components into a
possible whole(s) within
their mutual structural and semantic relationships. This is, of course, a very short
explanation of synthesis in general. Later on I will, further, explain what possible combinative mutual
structure and semantic is in architectural compositions through the
ir components or morphemes /and or:
combination of morphemes (objects).”

15


Designer should be aware of the cognitive explanation of knowledge to be aware of what
they do in all phases of creative design process.


We can classify knowledge in three sorts
16
:


KNOWLEDGE:


1
-
Declarative knowledge

fact
-
like nature of representations; data structures:

a

-

language
-
like representations; PROPOSITIONS

b

-

perception
-
like representations; IMAGES

2
-
Procedural knowledge

knowing how.

3
-
Tacit knowledge


“...Cognitive pe
netration is difficult to assess (
vaststellen

in Dutch) because subjects may not be aware of
the knowledge that they are bringing to bear on a task. They may strive to perform an imagery task in a
way that is natural and feels like seeing without being abl
e to articulate how they did it. In such cases
subjects are said to be using
tacit
knowledge.”
17


Is it fruitful to know what “knowledge” is or which knowledge it is? I think it is b
ecause
, at
least, it helps us to organize our all kind o
f representations o
f the issues so that we can use them
when necessary, effectively and efficiently. Much of our entire impressions and presuppositions
can even be simulated, artificially. We can share knowledge by well defined representations and
submit it to the human kind

to use. Professionals can make use of this above mentioned



12

An
affordance

of anything is the "specific combination of the properties of its substance and its surfaces taken with
refer
ence to an animal" (Gibson, 1977, p.67). Since Don Norman's use of the term, namely as perceived affordances, it
has been used predominantly to describe features of the immediate environment, which indicates how to interact with
that object or feature. The

empty space within an open doorway, for instance, affords movement across that threshold.
A
couch

affords the possibility of sitting down on it.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

13

Justifi
ed true belief

14

Guney
,
2007

15

Ibid.

16

Stillings et al. (1987)

17

Ibid.

Ali Guney, architect; lecturer in precedent analysis at the Faculty of Architecture, TUDelft


7

representation of what knowledge is to share and exchange it more properly than a paralyzing set
of loosen information.


Although it seems to us as if mostly visual information is the representati
on of external
world, but it is deeper than that; because it is only one of five sensorial information instruments
helps us to receive information to process and save in our semantic long term memory. After all,
not the single by single data by itself but
a theoretical system of it can only be representation.


“I claim that if a species as smart as human beings had been irrevocably blind, it would have got
on fine with auditory and tactile representations, for to represent is part of our very nature. Since
we have
eyes, most of the first representations were visual, but representation is not of its essence visual
.
”…

“Theories, not individual sentences are representations.”
18


After we construct some representations of objects,
environmen
t w
hatsoe
ver in our
co
gnitive device, thus have some knowledge of them; and then it needs to be represented to
others to communicate and share. There are several knowledge representation technics, but I will
not treat them all, here; yet there is one which is useful to note sin
ce in later parts I will use it.


Conceptual scheme is sometimes a very clear and useful representation in architectural
morphological analysis; it tells us about much of essential characteristics of the artifact(s). How is
the artefact’s structure and wh
at the elements are; which are its syntax and semantics. This will
be applied to represent the major units of buildings in part 4, 5 and 6.


“…A knowledge representation scheme is a system of formal conventions
-
sometimes called its syntax
-
together with a w
ay to interpret what the conventions mean
-
sometimes called its semantics.

19



Why would analys
is be fruitful to design process? Is it possible that architects could ever
design without analyzing and thus without knowing the basic elements to produce more c
omplex
objects or complexes? It seems to me intangible to be able to design something at all, unless you
have the necessary cognitive instruments to think, to reason, to infer, to operate on, etc.


“Ontwerpers kunnen niet ontwerpen

zonder onafgebroken te a
nalyseren.Aan mijn observaties ligt
de stelling ten grondslag dat de elementen die we moeten hanteren om architectuur te analyseren en te
toetsen dezelfde zijn als de elementen die architecten inzetten bij het ontwerpen van
architectuur.Achitecten zetten a
rchitectonische elementen, dat wil zeggen architectonische middelen, in om
architectonische doelen te bereiken.”
20



In

English: “
Designer can not design without
analyzing, continuously. To my observation, basic
proposition is that the elements which we mus
t manipulate to analyze and test the architecture are the same
as that of the elements the architects use during designing architecture. Architects set the architectonic
elements, that is to say architectural means, to achieve the ends.






18

Ian Hacking, 1
993,
p133
-
134

19

Stillings et al., 1987, Chapter 4.2

20

Kleijer, 2004

Ali Guney, architect; lecturer in precedent analysis at the Faculty of Architecture, TUDelft


8

3)

Some Basic Conce
pts Related to
Morphological
Analysis

of
Architectural Precedent
s

These concepts

described below,

are crucial to
morphological analysis of architectural
precedents, without a clear understanding of these terminology, we might risk the clarity of our
analys
is and its representation.


I, of course, adopt these terminologies to architecture by analogy; in part 4, 5 and 6, I will
explain them with examples.


Nevertheless, in my forthcoming book,
21

all concepts in this article will be implemented bye
case studie
s, in detail.

Morphology


“Morphology (
architecture
), the study of the shape and form of buildings”
22

“Morphology

studies morphemes, and i
ncludes the study of inflectional as well as lexical units.

23

“Morphology
-

t
he study of the forms of things, in partic
ular:

-

Biology: the branch of
biology

that deals with the form of living organisms, and with relationships
between their structures.

-

Linguistics: the study of the forms of words, in particular inflected forms.

In
linguistics
,
morphology

is
the study of word structure”
24

Morpheme

“Morpheme: The minimal unit of grammar.
Free forms of morphemes are those that can occur as separate
words; bound forms are items such as suffixes that m
ust be recognized as components of grammatical
structure.

25

“A morpheme is the smallest meaningful unit in the grammar of a language.”
26

“M
orfeem
:

kleinste betekenisdragende eenheid”
27

“Morpheme: De kleinste eenheid van vorm en betekenis in de linguistiek.

Het kan vrij zijn(bijv. ‘boek’, ‘eet’) of gebonden zij
n, in de zi
n dat het niet kan

worden gebruikt zonder een
ander morfeem

(voorbeelden: on
-
,
-
heid).”
28


Morpheme: 2
-

a meaningful linguistic unit whether a free form (as pin, child, load, pray) or a bound
form
(as the
-
s of pins, the
-
hood of childhood, the un
-

and
-
er of unloader, and the
-
ed of prayed) that contains
no smaller meaningful parts.”
29

Topology

“The word “topology” is derived from the Greek word “[tau][omicron][pi][omicron][varsigma],” which
me
ans “position” or “location.” A simplified and thus partial definition has often been used (Croom, 1989,

page 2): “topology deals with geometric properties which are dependent only upon the relative positions of
the components of figures and not upon such
concepts as length, size, and magnitude.” Topology deals with
those properties of an object that remain invariant under continuous transformations (specifically bending,
stretching, and squeezing, but not breaking or tearing).
30





21

A.Guney


Forthcoming
-

architectural precedent analysis and its implications through design process
, 2007

22

Wikipedia, October 2006

23

Oxford Grand Dictionary, 2002

24

Ibid.

25

Ibid.

26

Wikipedia
, October 2006

27

Grote van Dale, 2005

28

Reber, A.S; Woordenboek van de psychologie

29

Merriam Webster
-
unabridged
(druk, jaar?)

30

Braha,
2000

Ali Guney, architect; lecturer in precedent analysis at the Faculty of Architecture, TUDelft


9

“Topological properties, ar
e based on proximity

(contiguity), succession, closure(inside
-
outside), and
continuity.””…The universe of graphs is very simple, it contains only two elements; points and links.
Points stand for locations, links for circulation access.(Note that even the o
utside of the building is also
represented as a point.) Weather in a matrix form or in a graph, the information contained is the same,
concerning

the
existence

of access between locations and the overall structure of relationships of adjacency
or in

betwee
nness of location.”
31





31

Tzonis, A.; Oorschot,
L., (1987)

Ali Guney, architect; lecturer in precedent analysis at the Faculty of Architecture, TUDelft


10

4)

How to Analyze (morphologically) a Building (complex)

Spatial Relations, Spatial Organizations, topological representation of
Spaces (hierarchically)

There are many
ways to analyze architectural objects and many aspects of the
m

as w
ell.
I will limit myself within some ways to do it by some sketches, so that we can
refer to them while
presenting.

First, there need to be enough documents about the artifacts, like all necessary drawings
or buildings themselves so that we can examine the
m as a whole, physically including physical
(site) context.

Then, try to discern the major units of the object(s) which form the total form of the
building(s), if there are, of course, more than one unit; if not, then go to study sub units, like
staircases
, elevator cores or the like. Afterwards, we go on with this process into lower scale; into
the level of internal division of the major units.
32

After that, we study the aspects of other properties like: ligh
t, m
e
ssing (
shape)
33
, geometry,
structure, circula
tion to use, symmetry and balance and, finally, parti (
the basic general scheme

of an architectural design (M.W.)
“...dominant underlying idea.))
.
34

Finally, after we complete this process, we examine their spatial relations, special
organization and we repr
esent them with a conceptual scheme including their topological
relations.
35

Later on, in part 5, I will assemble this partial analysis into consistent representation; the
so called ‘F(M)
-
O
-
P.

I wan to begin with an example which is one of many examples I u
se in my seminars for
“the bridge semester of HTO students” to describe, schematically, what the “spatial relations” and
“spatial organizations” are:




Figure
1
. Spatial relationships and spatial organizations.
36




32

Lectures by A. Guney for “HTO bridge semester to master class” students, the so called ‘Method of Ching’ in
http://team.bk.tudelft.nl/

33

“…Of course, we would specify the shape of an object before its colour or texture; shape is nearly always

the more
defining char
acteristic.” Stillings et al, 1987

34

Lectures by A. Guney for “HTO bridge semester to master class” students, the so called ‘
Method of Clark & Pause’
o
n http:/
/team.bk.tudelft.nl/

35

Lectures by A. Guney for “HTO bridge semester to m
aster class” students, the s
o called ‘Method of Steadman’ o
n
http://team.bk.tudelft.nl/

Ali Guney, architect; lecturer in precedent analysis at the Faculty of Architecture, TUDelft


11



Figure
2
. A schematic representation of a fictional building. This is, of course, a grid organization.


Figure above shows an illustration, where I use a schematic representation of a fictional
project to explain how to relate the major units

(
we can analogically compare this abstraction as
geons
-

geometrical ions

(
Figure
3
)
37

with their certain relational characteristics (spatial
relationships, spatial organizations and topology of accessibility. This
fictional project, I assume
as studied well and abstractly represented to this level; because to bring it to this schematic level
is a question of carefully examination of a building. But after this level, there comes the essen
ce
of what I wanted to explai
n.


Figure
3
.








36

In the spirit of

Ching
,
1996

37

Biederman, 1993

Ali Guney, architect; lecturer in precedent analysis at the Faculty of Architecture, TUDelft


12

Nevertheless, there are more issues to treat but that is again a question of labor; yet the
essential properties of all major, minor units and of the related elements must be noted so that we
can complete our morpho
logical analysis at this level. We can, certainly, go into last level, to that
of morpheme when necessary, but it is not within the frame of this paper since it would require
pages. Any how, it all be

treated in my forthcoming book.
38



The graphical repres
entation of this building which is illustrated on the next page shows
all the basic principals of all morphological relations. It is a kind of schema sometimes called
semantic network. N
onetheless
, without the properties of shown units, there is no complet
e
semantic network, because they are the frames of it. Any way, semantic networks have nodes
with relations, these nodes are its frames
39

without which is not complete.


“A frame is a collection of slots and slot fillers that describe a stereotypical item.
A frame has
slot to capture different aspects of what is being represented. The filler that goes into a slot can be an
actual value, a default value, an attached procedure, or even another frame (that is, the name of or a
pointer to another frame)”

“…In ge
neral, a default value is a value that we assume to be true unless we are told otherwise.”


Finally, by assuming the presence of their necessary properties, we have a semantic
network by that of figure below.




38

Guney, 2007

39

Stillings et al.
,
1987

Ali Guney, architect; lecturer in precedent analysis at the Faculty of Architecture, TUDelft


13



Ali Guney, architect; lecturer in precedent analysis at the Faculty of Architecture, TUDelft


14

5)

How to represent all these decomposed basic

units/ and or
elements with a pleasantly surprising method.

F(M)
-

O
-

P (analysis)


There are
several kinds of methods and techniques for morphological analysis and
representations of design artifacts. This is one of them which I understand as the most

comprehensive, clear and consistent. If we can apply it to our analysis properly, we have a great
chance to achieve a surveyable representation of the analyzed artefact.


These

illustrations below show how Tzonis analyzes
Le Corbusier's Unite d' Habitatio
n
.

I will follow the same cognitively mechanical constraint of the interrelated process with a slight
alteration concerning causality vs affordability (read notes on affordances). Like in the realm of
the science of ecology, I believe there is also a very
powerful idea of affordances in that of the
design.


We all know from our experiences that when we see or get any kind of sensorial contact
with an artifact, we guess what it might be; by noting, of course, we also have our own
prejudgments and cultural se
mantic network. Yet, because of the common sense of human being
we can all have a shared idea about some basic expectations. I try to give a simple example to
clarify what I mean. Suppose we walk in the sun on a desert and we see some shelter like object;
wouldn’t we all expect that this artifact is something to go in and get rid of the hot sun? I think
nearly all people would. Like the Grand Master says:



From

form it predicts operation, and from operation performance”
40


Figure
4
.
“The design frame, graphically expressed, looks like that:”

41





What I attempt to present that of with a small alteration is also valid for
part 6
.




40

Tzonis,
1990

41

Idd.

Ali Guney, architect; lecturer in precedent analysis at the Faculty of Architecture, TUDelft


15



Figure
5
.


We could also follow the opposite direction; either by guess
ing what was expected to reach
as performance, or we can find out what the norms are.

For example: “what operation would afford to this performance; or
-
if we find out the
expected performance


What I attempt to present that of with a small alteration is a
lso valid for
part 6
.


Ali Guney, architect; lecturer in precedent analysis at the Faculty of Architecture, TUDelft


16

6)

A Cognitive Structure of Design Process

P
-

O
-

F(M)

(
d
esign)

Constrain:

“1 a : to force by stricture, restriction, or limitation imposed by nature, oneself, or circumstances and
exigencies”
42


Design by constrains can help us to ach
ieve our goals more effectively and efficiently.

C
onst
r
a
ins

are crucial in design process; if we know them, we will not be hindered by
unnecessary and uninteresting repeated faults; otherwise we repeat the same mistakes.

Recursive:


“2
: the solution of a
problem by means of a procedure that uses a copy of itself as one of its steps so
that the problem is simplified with each execution of the procedure until a simplest case is reached for
which the solution has been defined and the basic solution is applied

to complete the solutions of the more
complex versions”
43


Like in many other disciplines,

there are many recursive processes in design activities
;
especially when complicated.

Iterative processes
:

A process “1: marked by or involving repetition or reitera
tion or repetitiousness or recurrence”
44


While designing, we
repeat and test our instructions until getting a reasonably satisfactory
solution or a set of solutions. This is an iterative process.


What is actually needed
for a design activity
, what are the

minimum

requirements to begin,
at all?

Designer must have a basic knowledge and skills of the relevant issue. Program of
requirements should approximately be clear and also context analysis

is essential; without it there
can not be suitable satisfactory
design solution.



We finally consider all the above, form, operation, performance of a design product, in reference to the
context within which the artefact is to be realized.

45


“Form, operation, performance and context are interrelated. This interrelati
onship can be expressed in
constraints that state which performance of a building may result from which operation and, in turn, which
operation may result form which form, a rule chain whose links are neither deterministic nor closed. The
performance of an

artifact may depend on external conditions, conditions that apply to its operation, as the
operation itself may depend on external conditions attached to the artifact's form.”
46


Besides what the customer wants as program of desires, as const
rains; profess
ionals
should also anticipate and participate in this process, so that there can be c
onstructed more
reasonable set of requirements.





42

Merriam Webster
-
unabridged

43

I
bid
.

44

I
bid
.

45

Tzonis,
199
0

46

I
bid
.

Ali Guney, architect; lecturer in precedent analysis at the Faculty of Architecture, TUDelft


17

I made a scheme, which is placed on the next page, to make an attempt to express the
program of requirements; it is not an

absolute scheme but it might help.



Figure
6
.


Finally,
after having all these requisites, designer can begin to a cognitive adventure to
achieve their goals. Tzonis has observed intelligent designers cognitive activities and ha
s
construct a representation of them, it in detail.
47



How does this mechanic representation of the cognitive structure of design process work?
Is it possible to achieve the performance required by it? What kind of process is it that sounds as
if it is a m
athematical formula? Can architects make use of it like a design instrument? How
creative is it to understand the mechanic structure of it?


“In design practice predictions are used in the evaluation of artifacts. That means, given an artifact's
form and o
peration, to forecast how close the expected performance of the artifact is to the normative one,
as specified by the design program; or, how an artifact ranks in relation to that of another artifact in respect
to an expected performance.”
48



I want to ope
n up a discussion about these above mentioned anxiety by using the same
graphic as in part 5 but symmetrically. We will see then that insecurity might vanish if we carefully
look at it.





47

Tzonis
,
1990

48

Ibid
.

Ali Guney, architect; lecturer in precedent analysis at the Faculty of Architecture, TUDelft


18

Here is the scheme:



Figure
7
.



Besides
all their abilities, if designers are alert enough they can link performancial
demands to operation, and operation to form since these are all interrelated.

If and only if designers make effort to discern this process with its background, that is to
say: a
ll sub issues of these three interrelated aspects of the future design solution, then this
constraining mechanical cognitive machine will help them. Nevertheless, this a not a linear
process only, but also recursive and iterative as well.


Ali Guney, architect; lecturer in precedent analysis at the Faculty of Architecture, TUDelft


19

7)

Conclusion

NOG
INVOEGEN




Ali Guney, architect; lecturer in precedent analysis at the Faculty of Architecture, TUDelft


20

8)

Key Words:

Constrains, Recursive and Iterative processes, Spatial Relations, Spatial Organizations,
topological representation of Spaces (hierarchically),Morphology, Morpheme, Topological
Representation of Spaces, Cognition, Cognitive Affordan
ces, knowledge, Analysis, Synthesis,
Metaphor, Analogy

9)

References

Biederman, I. (1993) Visual Object Recognition in: A. I. Goldman Readings in Philosophy and Cognitive
Science (Cambridge, Mass.) The MIT Press

Braha, Dan (2000) Special Section: Topological
representation and reasoning in design and
manufacturing. In: Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing,
Volume 14 , Issue 5, Pages: 355
-

358

Ching, Francis D.K. (1996)
Architecture: Form, Space, and Order

(Stad) Uitgever

Goldman, A.I., Ed. (1993) Readings in Philosophy and Cognitive Science (Cambridge, Mas
s.) The MIT
Press

Guney, A.

Forthcoming
-

architectural precedent analysis and its implications through design process,
2007

Hacking, Ian (1993) Representing and Intervening (Cambridge)
Uitgever

Kleijer, E. (2004) Instrumenten van de architectuur (Amsterda
m) SUN

Krasil’nikov
-
Sovremennaya, Nikolai (1928)
Lenin in Problems of contemporary architecture, Arhitektura,
1928, number 6, 170
-

176

McGinn, Colin, Logical Properties
-

Oxford, 2000
-

preface

Reber, A.S. (1994) Woordenboek van de psychologie (Amsterdam) U
itgeverij Bert Bakker

Steadman, J.P. (1989) Architectural Morphology (London) Pion

Stillings, N.A.; Feinstein, M.A.; Garfield, J.L.; Rissland, E.L.; Rosenbaum, D.A. (1987) Introduction to
Cognitive Science
(Stad) Uitgever

Tzonis, A.; Oorschot, L. (1987) F
rames, Plans, Representations
(Stad) Uitgever

Tzonis, A., Faculty of Architecture, Huts, ships and bottleracks: Design by analogy for architects and/or
machines. The Netherlands A first version of this paper appeared in: Tzonis, A. 1990.

"Hütten, Schiffe,

und Flaschengestelle" Archithese 20 (3), pp 16
-

27

Winston, P.H. (1993) Artificial Intelligence (Massachusetts, California New York, Ontario, England
Amsterdam, Bonn, Sydney, Singapore, Tokyo Madrid, San Juan, Milan, Paris) Addison
-
Wesley
Publishing comp
any