Critical Perspectives for Integrated Design...2007/01/15 · authors, talked over the many...

Architecture and Sustainability:Critical Perspectives for Integrated Design

Generating Sustainability concepts from Architectural Perspectives

Ahmed Z. Khan and Karen Allacker

Architecture and Sustainability A

hmed Z. K

han and Karen A

llacker

KU Leuven Faculty of Architecture Campus Sint-Lucas Ghent/Brussels 9 789462 920880

asbook_test_20x263_cover_2.indd 232 7/01/15 12:37

3233232

Table of content

ARCHITECTURE and SUSTAINABILITY:

Critical Perspectives for Integrated Design


TABLE OF CONTENT

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

PREFACE

INTRODuCTION

Architecture and Sustainability: Critical Perspectives for Integrated Design


Part-1

INtEGratED DESIGN IN tHEOrY aND PraCtICE

1.0 Integrated Design in Theory and Practice: An Introduction

Karen Allacker and Ahmed Z. Khan

1.1 Enframed Perspectives: the Social Construction of Sustainability and the Canon of Architecture

Steven A. Moore

1.2 D x E = C

Philippe Samyn

1.3 Sustainable Architecture: Towards Integrated Strategies from urban design to Building component

Emmanuel Rey

1.4 Forward to the Past / Back to the Future – the Vernacular Prospect of Connected Architecture

Andy van den Dobbelsteen

1.5 Sustainable architecture: In search for a Multitude of Empathic Solutions

Griet Verbeeck

3

9

11

13

42

45

49

53

59

63

architecureandsustainability.indd 3 12/12/14 18:08

4 235234

Table of content

Part-2

INtEGratED DESIGN PErSPECtIVES

2.0 understand, Express, Measure, Design and urbanism: An Introduction to Integrated Design Perspectives


uNDERSTAND

2.1 Sustainable Architecture as Ecology: Defining shared systemic priorities of public health and social ethics in places

Anirban Adhya and Philip D. Plowright

2.2 Sustainability in Architecture: An Evolving view of Architecture quadrature

Sílvia Maria do Carmo Alves

2.3 Rethinking Sustainable Architecture: Beyond the Technological Approach

Ahlam Ammar Sharif

2.4 Towards a Soft Model of Sustainability in Architecture

Michele Bonino, Davide Tommaso Ferrando and Zhang Li

2.5 Sustainability and the Toilet Siphon: Transcending Green Architecture.

Carlo Deregibus

EXPRESS

2.6 Strategies for Integrated and Sustainable Renovation: A stronger voice for Architectural Knowledge

Paula Femenias and Liane Thuvander

2.7 A Projet-based approach to Energy Quality as a path towards Sustainability

Geoffrey van Moeseke

69

85

95

103

111

121

133

141

2.8 Cultural Acceptance of Green Building Solutions: The Real Challenge

Muhammad Ashraf Shanjer

2.9 Environmental Quality in Sustainable Building Design: Selective versus Exclusive

Grainne McGill and Greg Keeffe

MEASuRE

2.10 The Limits of LEED

Danish Kurani and Nicolas Rivard

2.11 Assessment and Rating Tools: A guarantee for Sustainable Successes?

Bart Janssens

2.12 Tools for Sustainability not for the Market: A critical analysis of Environmental Assessment Tools

Adriano Magliocco and Maria Canepa

2.13 Comparative analysis of Building Sustainability Assessment Methods for Neighbourhoods

Damien Trigaux, Karen Allacker and Frank De Troyer

2.14 Life Cycle Energy Analysis and Building Design: A comprehensive Multi-scale Framework

André Stephan

2.15 Making the assessment right, or making the right assessment?

Michiel Ritzen, Ronald Rovers, Zeger Vroon and Chris Geurts

DESIGN

2.16 Design-Driven Critique of the “Calculative” Sustainability Concept

Sylvain De Bleeckere and Pieter Cloeckaert

147

153

161

169

177

183

191

199

214


5235234

Table of content

Part-2

INtEGratED DESIGN PErSPECtIVES

2.0 understand, Express, Measure, Design and urbanism: An Introduction to Integrated Design Perspectives


uNDERSTAND

2.1 Sustainable Architecture as Ecology: Defining shared systemic priorities of public health and social ethics in places

Anirban Adhya and Philip D. Plowright

2.2 Sustainability in Architecture: An Evolving view of Architecture quadrature

Sílvia Maria do Carmo Alves

2.3 Rethinking Sustainable Architecture: Beyond the Technological Approach

Ahlam Ammar Sharif

2.4 Towards a Soft Model of Sustainability in Architecture

Michele Bonino, Davide Tommaso Ferrando and Zhang Li

2.5 Sustainability and the Toilet Siphon: Transcending Green Architecture.

Carlo Deregibus

EXPRESS

2.6 Strategies for Integrated and Sustainable Renovation: A stronger voice for Architectural Knowledge

Paula Femenias and Liane Thuvander

2.7 A Projet-based approach to Energy Quality as a path towards Sustainability

Geoffrey van Moeseke

69

85

95

103

111

121

133

141

2.8 Cultural Acceptance of Green Building Solutions: The Real Challenge

Muhammad Ashraf Shanjer

2.9 Environmental Quality in Sustainable Building Design: Selective versus Exclusive

Grainne McGill and Greg Keeffe

MEASuRE

2.10 The Limits of LEED

Danish Kurani and Nicolas Rivard

2.11 Assessment and Rating Tools: A guarantee for Sustainable Successes?

Bart Janssens

2.12 Tools for Sustainability not for the Market: A critical analysis of Environmental Assessment Tools

Adriano Magliocco and Maria Canepa

2.13 Comparative analysis of Building Sustainability Assessment Methods for Neighbourhoods

Damien Trigaux, Karen Allacker and Frank De Troyer

2.14 Life Cycle Energy Analysis and Building Design: A comprehensive Multi-scale Framework

André Stephan

2.15 Making the assessment right, or making the right assessment?

Michiel Ritzen, Ronald Rovers, Zeger Vroon and Chris Geurts

DESIGN

2.16 Design-Driven Critique of the “Calculative” Sustainability Concept

Sylvain De Bleeckere and Pieter Cloeckaert

147

153

161

169

177

183

191

199

214


6 237236

Table of content

2.17 BIM-Based Building Performance Analysis in Architectural Practice: When, Why and How

Ajla Aksamija

2.18 Designing for Sustainability: A Framework for Sustainable Architecture built on the Perspective of universal Design

Jasmien Herssens, Marc Dujardin and Hubert Froyen

2.19 Critical perspectives on Sustainable Development: Reading the Sustainability Pillars in the Architectural Design Process of Wang Shu

Aliki-Myrto Perysinaki and Yann Nussaume

2.20 Sustainability through Design: Stakeholder-based Sustainability concepts for fringe-related Open Space Development

Elke Vanempten and Bruno De Meulder

uRBANISM

2.21 Integrative urban Development Concept: Horizontal and vertical approach to integrative and sustainable urban planning

Emilia Rönkkö

2.22 Biourbanism as new epistemological perspective between Science, Design and Nature

Antonio Caperna and Stefano Serafini

2.23 Sustainable Architecture, Public Space, and the importance of Place-making

Samra Mohsin Khan

2.24 The Pueblo house and the Mobile Home: J.B. Jackson’s Vernacular Landscape and the Sustainable Redevelopment of Suburbia

Bruno Notteboom

2.25 Water sensitive urban design: A speculative exercise for the Brussels Capital Region

Nadia Casabella and Catalina Codruta Dobre

221

231

237

243

255

263

269

279

287

2.26 Leuven, 2012

Rotor and Robert Suermondt

Part-3

EXPLOratIONS tHrOUGH INtEGratED DESIGN

3.0 Explorations through Integrated Design: An Introduction

Ahmed Z. Khan

3.1 Transition Into Eco-Effectiveness Is A Long-Term Process

Claudia Carreras, Katarzyna Jegorow, Michel Jeursen, Colm mac Aoidh, Sis Pillen and Marek Zahradnik

3.2 Learning Ecology: How to use and learn from Ecological Methods?

Angela Cichon, Sandro Govaert, Anna Martinez Falguera, Michala Lietavova, Marine Pirenne and Sandra Schippers

3.3 Scale and Journey in Retroactive design

Jacobo Abril Herrero, Eva Bóková, Sibel Gölemen, Katarzyna Kaźmierczak, Fien Rebry and Sam Verschoren

3.4 Social dimension of up-cycling: Engaging local community in brown field (re)development

Gemma Casellas, Monika Jaskulska, Zuzana Kneznikova, Jérémie Lichtfus, Marieke Senesael and Bram Van den Brande

3.5 Does an Architecture of Good Intentions really matter?

Beste Cakir, Ruben Jannses, Ivana Linderova, Emilie Otté, Silvia Iglesias Santos, Felix Schiettecatte and Mateusz Szymanowski

3.6 Imagining The New Collective

Katherine Seagrief , uuganjargal Batsuuri, Francisco Gómez, Minna Hulkkonen, Adam Lukaźoviź and Eva Meirsschaut

299

309

315

329

341

351

359

367


7237236

Table of content

2.17 BIM-Based Building Performance Analysis in Architectural Practice: When, Why and How

Ajla Aksamija

2.18 Designing for Sustainability: A Framework for Sustainable Architecture built on the Perspective of universal Design

Jasmien Herssens, Marc Dujardin and Hubert Froyen

2.19 Critical perspectives on Sustainable Development: Reading the Sustainability Pillars in the Architectural Design Process of Wang Shu

Aliki-Myrto Perysinaki and Yann Nussaume

2.20 Sustainability through Design: Stakeholder-based Sustainability concepts for fringe-related Open Space Development

Elke Vanempten and Bruno De Meulder

uRBANISM

2.21 Integrative urban Development Concept: Horizontal and vertical approach to integrative and sustainable urban planning

Emilia Rönkkö

2.22 Biourbanism as new epistemological perspective between Science, Design and Nature

Antonio Caperna and Stefano Serafini

2.23 Sustainable Architecture, Public Space, and the importance of Place-making

Samra Mohsin Khan

2.24 The Pueblo house and the Mobile Home: J.B. Jackson’s Vernacular Landscape and the Sustainable Redevelopment of Suburbia

Bruno Notteboom

2.25 Water sensitive urban design: A speculative exercise for the Brussels Capital Region

Nadia Casabella and Catalina Codruta Dobre

221

231

237

243

255

263

269

279

287

2.26 Leuven, 2012

Rotor and Robert Suermondt

Part-3

EXPLOratIONS tHrOUGH INtEGratED DESIGN

3.0 Explorations through Integrated Design: An Introduction

Ahmed Z. Khan

3.1 Transition Into Eco-Effectiveness Is A Long-Term Process

Claudia Carreras, Katarzyna Jegorow, Michel Jeursen, Colm mac Aoidh, Sis Pillen and Marek Zahradnik

3.2 Learning Ecology: How to use and learn from Ecological Methods?

Angela Cichon, Sandro Govaert, Anna Martinez Falguera, Michala Lietavova, Marine Pirenne and Sandra Schippers

3.3 Scale and Journey in Retroactive design

Jacobo Abril Herrero, Eva Bóková, Sibel Gölemen, Katarzyna Kaźmierczak, Fien Rebry and Sam Verschoren

3.4 Social dimension of up-cycling: Engaging local community in brown field (re)development

Gemma Casellas, Monika Jaskulska, Zuzana Kneznikova, Jérémie Lichtfus, Marieke Senesael and Bram Van den Brande

3.5 Does an Architecture of Good Intentions really matter?

Beste Cakir, Ruben Jannses, Ivana Linderova, Emilie Otté, Silvia Iglesias Santos, Felix Schiettecatte and Mateusz Szymanowski

3.6 Imagining The New Collective

Katherine Seagrief , uuganjargal Batsuuri, Francisco Gómez, Minna Hulkkonen, Adam Lukaźoviź and Eva Meirsschaut

299

309

315

329

341

351

359

367


8 239238

3.7 Responsive Design and Governance

Niels Decoster, Yuka Goto, Gema Hernandez Moral, Jagoda Krawczyk, Aditya Nur Pradhana, Michael Sanchez Alfaro and Joeri van Calster

3.8 Affordable Techniques By Design

Thierry Ghijsen, Georgios Ioannou, Barbora Latalova, Maciej Misiaszek, Ou ueno, Alexander Verbeke and Inse Vanneuville

3.9 Thinking in Shades

Simon Matthys, Mohamed Anes Benchaabane, Sato Wakiko, Stephanie Van Lembergen and

Chawapol Watcharasukarn

3.10 Eco-efficient design by reuse and participation

Johannes Alge, Charlotte Bolle, Nissim Geron, Thibaut Luyten, Charles-Antoine Pavy and Evangelos Stavrakakis

3.11 Sustainability consciousness by design

Alejandra Vázquez Luna, Giulia Cenere, Andreas Karamalikis, Jebbe Houttekier, Marosź Somora and Sylvain Auxent

3.12 Fluid interpretation and flexibility in design

Amadé De Moyer, Marzieh Mazrouei Sebdani, Dimitri Meert, Lea Mittelberger, Hannes Monserez, Elze Schuurman and Indre Zuzeviciute

3.13 Participatory design: From doing less bad towards doing more good Stijn Wynants, Ayush Kalra, Thomas Heyndrickx, Lucas Vandeneede, Mauro Calderone, Martijn Verfaillie, Obieromah Tomi and Sam De Dobbeleer

CALL FOR PAPERS

AuTHORS

377

385

393

401

411

423

431

441

443


9

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We would like to express our gratitude to all those people who have helped us in making this book project; to all those who contributed to this book through their work as authors, reviewed the contributions and provided valuable feed-back to the authors, talked over the many intellectual challenges in the conception of this book, provided useful comments for improv-ing the intellectual content of this book, assisted in editing, translating, proofreading, layout and design.

A few people among them need to be named in particular for their help and support: Griet Verbeeck, Anirban Adhiya, Abel Tablada, Arnaud Evrard, André Stephan, and Stefan Boeykens. Moreover, we would also like to thank in particular the contributors to the first part of this book: Steven A. Moore, Philippe Samyn, Emmanuel Rey, Andy van den Dobbelsteen, and again Griet Verbeeck.

Gudrun De Maeyer deserves a special mention: without her unwavering commitment, support, and encouragement this book project would not have been possible. The able assistance provided by Ben Robberechts in the graphic design and layout of the book speaks for itself. In general, we would like to thank all the students and staff of the KU Leuven Faculty of Architecture who participated in this book project.

Above all we would like to thank our respective families for their support and love in pursuing our intellectual endeavours: Hanne and Ayla in the case of Ahmed; Joost, Daan, and Illo in the case of Karen.

We beg forgiveness of all those who have been with us in shaping our intellectual trajectories and whose names we have failed to mention.

Ahmed Z. Khan Karen Allacker


10


113

Preface

PREFACE

Dear reader,

Probably this book is about “Absorbing Sustainability”.

In the same way, Rem Koolhaas has been proposing “Absorbing Modernity 1914–2014” for the contribution of all the pavilions at the 14th International Architecture Exhibition in Venice.

I was somewhat surprised by the response of Brazil to Rem’s question.

Invited by the Bienal de São Paulo Foundation, diplomat and architecture critic André Aranha Corrêa do Lago agreed to curate the Brazilian contribution to the exhibition.

In explaining the pavilion’s intention, the curator stated the following: ‘Brazil is one of the countries that absorbed the precepts of modern architecture in the most interesting ways, and this helped strengthen the national identity. Unlike other countries, which, over the centuries, developed a typical national architecture—recognizable in caricatural form to other people—what we call “Brazilian architecture” is not a legacy of the past, but is actually modern.‘

The exhibition shows that Brazilian architecture has become this relevant thanks to a steady stream of important personalities, many of whom worked closely together: Lucio Costa, Oscar Niemeyer, Roberto Burle Marx, Affonso Reidy, Lina Bo Bardi, Lelé (João Filgueiras Lima) and Paulo Mendes da Rocha.’ Together they form an impressive wealth of talent.

While today in most parts of the world modernity and modernism have a negative connotation in immediate relation to sustainability, André Aranha Corrêa do Lago tells a story in which modern architecture is pushed forward as a “Fundamental” in architecture. Modernity in Brazil is not just a concept or an understanding -at least according to the curator- but an amazingly efficient reality. This is an observation that can be made in time, and for which the meaning of the concept of modernity has barely changed.

Please allow me to try to push sustainability forward in the same manner as a “fundamental”. Is it too early to realize that the ideology of sustainability will ever evolve past the ‘fuss’ surrounding it today into an understanding that envelops a timeless zeitgeist from a historical perspective.

In that very same Venice, I took the picture below during the biennale.

Only recently the city started to consider water more as a traitor to its very existence, rather than an ally and a lifeline. Sustainability, in contrast, has grown from a threat and is now very often and very simply spontaneously transformed into an ally. Aren’t we losing track of something important then?

With thanks to Ahmed Z. Khan, Karen Allacker and all the contributors.

Enjoy the book.

Dag Boutsen

Dean KU Leuven Faculty of Architecture


12


13233


Architecture And SuStAinAbility: criticAl PerSPectiveS for integrAted deSign

introduction


Architecture in its classical meaning is understood as a meaningful integration of the use (utilitas), stability (firmi-tas) and aesthetic beauty (venustas) through design for (re)making and (re)shaping of buildings, urban spaces and the built environment. Sustainability understood as a development paradigm aspires an integrative attitude towards the social, the economic and the environmental concerns to unfold development that “meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” While fully acknowl-edging the diversity of perspectives in both architecture and sustainability discourses, our intention behind this book is to highlight and focus upon the integrative po-tential of architecture and investigate the ways in which it can contribute to the further development of the sustain-ability paradigm. With ‘architecture and sustainability’ in the title of our book, and not ‘sustainable architecture’, we also highlight the importance of the dialectics between the two as a more productive approach: What is the value of sustainability for architecture, and vice versa? in what ways the emergence of sustainability paradigm has influ-enced architecture? What are the architectural perspec-tives on sustainability? With these intentions, our objec-tive in this book is to present, and take stock of, recent developments in research, theory and practice of archi-tecture in response to the challenges of sustainability, and in the process make the case for a rethinking and de-velopment of integrated design for addressing the issues and challenges of the ecological age.

forty-four contributions by over a hundred authors from around the world are assembled in this book as chapters, which offer critical perspectives on architecture and sus-tainability relationships, and in the process, unfold inte-grative pathways. they have been organised into three parts, namely, integrated design in theory and practice, integrated design perspectives, and explorations through integrated design. each of these parts is provided with a detailed introduction, whereas this introduction expands on the intentions and main objectives behind the book, and in the process, presents critical perspectives on ar-chitecture and sustainability relationships.

in this introduction comprising six sections, we start with taking stock of the ways in which architecture and sus-tainability relationships are theorized and highlight the ways in which ‘sustainable architecture’ as a contested notion can be transcended. this is followed by an analysis of the globalised sustainability perspectives that renders sustainability as an evolving paradigm, and architectural perspectives on sustainability. in the latter, we present in more detail the ways in which environmental and social pillars have evolved as specific sensibilities in architec-tural thinking that in some ways prefigures the sustain-ability debate. the fourth section of this introduction aims to go beyond the pillars and makes the case for a rethink-ing of integrated design. in making this case, we present

four perspectives as integrative thematic attitudes: Archi-tecture as Place-making; rethinking Public Space and urbanism(s); research by design; Architecture as life-cycle thinking; and bioclimatism and integrated design. the fifth section, namely, generating Sustainability con-cepts from Architectural Perspectives – recaps the call for papers that this book (and in particular, its first two parts) is based upon, followed by the last section that summa-rizes the structure of the book.

1. Architecture And SuStAinAbility

While sustainability has become a mainstream concern in architectural theory and practice, the debate is frag-mented and the concept of sustainable architecture is increasingly contested. underpinning this debate are a proliferation of sustainability claims and a wide variety of conceptualizations. Although introduced formally as a new concept in 1987, some argue that Sustainability is not a new concern. they posit it was a necessity for cen-turies and after abandoning it due to humankind’s belief in unrestrainedly exploiting the earth’s carrying capacity, largely as a result of the industrial revolution, a concern for our planet has reemerged on an unparalleled scale.1 the diversity of perspectives and competing notions of sustainability is clearly discernable among the prolifer-ating environmental systems, ecologisms, and design approaches championed in practice as a revolutionary ‘change.’2 Sustainability is questioned as a concept that aims at “commodifying nature-society relationships”, at manufacturing scarcity in the “age of abundance”; it is problematized as a ‘hegemonic’ doctrine; it is analyzed as a “shift from mainstream modernism”; and qualified as an “integrative framework”. the proliferation of these com-peting notions of sustainability has led others to argue that sustainability has become an empty box and termed as an “empty signifier”; it seems that sustainability is what you make of it. in the contemporary discourses con-ceptualizing sustainability in architecture and urbanism, a wide variety of definitions exist.3 Whether building upon developments in other disciplines or mobilizing different philosophical frameworks, such conceptualizations show “a remarkably diverse constellation of ideas that defy simple categorization.”4 embedded within this constella-tion are a multitude of competing notions of sustainabil-ity in relation to the use, production, and consumption of space and resources in the built environment: some fo-cus on the performance aspect of systems (sustainability measurement indices, eco-labels, etc.); others qualify the ethical dimension as central to the sustainability debate; and yet others look at design, policy, technology and management as the proper arenas for dealing with sus-tainability in the built environment.5 it gives way to what canizaro and tanzer call the “self-doubt”, wherein “Some are reluctant to act on an incomplete understanding of the environment we study, others on the basis of only pro-


14 235234

visional theory. indeed, some argue that sustainability is not a goal at all, but merely a lens, a way of filtering and acting.” it comes as no surprise then if ‘sustainable’ ar-chitecture and urbanism is increasingly being acknowl-edged as a “contested concept.”6

More importantly, however, a consensus seems to be evolving in the recent architectural scholarship to focus more on ‘ways’ of conceptualizing ‘sustainability’ with a “pluralist imagination” rather than to search for a univer-sal one-size-fit-all type of sustainability.7 this is the point of departure in formulating our approach to transcend ‘sustainable architecture’ as a contested notion, where we start with acknowledging that “to foreclose contes-tation” is not an option.8 While adhering to the ‘pluralist imagination,’ as outlined in our article on ‘design for the ecological age’ in the Journal of Architectural education (JAe), we use the widening gap in the interaction between theory and practice as our main point of departure. for us, theory and practice are the two sides of the same coin, and their interaction provides a dynamic frame of refer-ence. focusing on their interaction is all the more impor-tant given the present trends that “isolate practice from research, and research from practice,” and in which some say that sustainability is a “mainstream concern” in de-sign thinking (theory), while others argue that contempo-rary architectural practice tends to “confuse, rather than reinforce, a progressive image of earth friendly architec-ture.”9 even in the more positivist accounts, a half-dozen competing “logics” are traceable, underlying sustainable practices.10 connected to this interaction is our second point of departure, which is a plea for inter- and trans-dis-ciplinarity; collaboration between architectural practice, academia, other disciplines, the construction and private industry, and the general public is “pivotal to address systemic issues” of sustainability.11 Such collaboration through productive dialogue is pivotal for moving towards a shared understanding of sustainability as a concep-tual model (paradigm). extending this dialogue, our third point of departure, includes perspectives from other disci-plines (e.g. Planning, geography, Social Sciences) as part of a broader paradigmatic change. through these three points of departure, our intention is clearly not to focus on defining what sustainability is or ought to be, rather to recognize the diversity of sustainability discourses and to focus on clarifying connections that shape the relation-ship between architectural design and sustainability.

in clarifying these connections through a dynamic frame-work, our intention is to facilitate a comprehension of the conceptual landscape of sustainability in a way that acknowledges and works with diverse sustainability dis-courses, and provides space for generating new ones.12 in developing such a framework, we use an epistemological lens involving two perspectives: globalized sustainability perspectives (next section) as a bird’s eye view, a view from outside, a top-down conceptualization of sustainability informed by a variety of disciplines, socio-environmental and historical events; and architectural perspectives (the section after next) as a worm’s eye view, a view from within, a bottom up conceptualization of sustainability through green and ecological consciousness within the disci-plines of architecture and urbanism. both perspectives are shaped by a multitude of forces and are continuously changing. the interaction and productive dialogue - as substantiated previously in our article on ‘design for the ecological age’ in JAe - between these two perspectives, we believe, offer a dynamic framework for conceptualizing architecture and sustainability relationships in ways that

would facilitate transcending ‘sustainable architecture’ as a contested notion.

2. ecology, environMentAl criSeS And the globAliZed SuStAinAbility PerSPectiveS

ecology as a concept, as a discipline, and as a way of re-lational thinking is about comprehending the theory of interdependence of all organisms in nature – animals, plants, soils and waters. the term was originally derived from the greek word oikos, or “house”, by the german fol-lower of darwin, ernst haeckel, in 1866. Among the tre-mendous strides made in the development of ecological theory over the last century and a half, 13 there is a pro-phetic claim by haeckel himself that remains a normative framework for many of these developments: he claimed that if men would observe the laws of nature and would accept their place in the great complexity of ecosystems, a ‘harmonious stage’ would emerge.14 in the wake of the environmental crises unfolded by the relentless exploita-tion of nature in the modern industrial age, that harmoni-ous stage is what drives the sustainability discourse and its globalisation across disciplinary fields in academia, practice, politics, civil society, governments i.e. world com-munity at large. Signalled by apocalyptic events (ozone holes, chernobyl, melting polar icecaps, climatic insta-bilities, tsunamis, etc. that have already happened), and acknowledged by scientific evidence from the iPcc and other institutions around the world, the environmental crises are real and their impact has shaken the global intellectual consciousness to the core. like the ‘housing question’ (engels and Marx) that became the central is-sue in the ‘class struggle’ throughout 20th century, today it is already apparent that the ‘ecology question’ and that of ‘natural capital’ (renewable resources and environmen-tal quality)15 will take that role in the political struggles of the future. Already, the consensus has emerged on the goals: achieving a global ecological equilibrium as a very question of survival of humanity on this planet. Means to achieve them are however contested and disputed, which owes, among others, to the ways in which sustainability is understood, conceptualised and practiced.

Sustainability in its globalized perspectives is understood as emerging out of a half-century of “environment-devel-opment” politics, as a brokered synthesis developed by international institutions whose growing awareness is manifest on many fronts in society.16 the environmental movement over the last 5 decades, changing climates with extreme weather conditions, alarming pace of urban-isation (70% urban world by 2050), and several key texts and international conventions - such as, rachel carson’s Silent spring (1962), barbara Ward’s Spaceship earth, the club of rome’s the limits to growth (1972) to the rio conference (1992), the united nations framework con-vention on climate change (1994) and the Kyoto protocol (1997) – have played a crucial role in the globalisation of the sustainability discourse. Widely debated, the most significant step in the shaping of this outlook is the often cited definition of sustainable development by the World commission on environment and development (Wced) in 1987 as: “the development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future gener-ations to meet their own needs.”17 A shared understand-ing of sustainability within these globalized perspectives implies equilibrium between economic growth, environ-mental quality, and social wellbeing. in this sense, sus-tainability calls for a stable relationship between human

activities and the natural world, which does not diminish the prospects for future generations to enjoy a quality of life at least as good as our own.

hailed as a paradigmatic shift in the geo-political con-sciousness that promises to reform the western industrial elite from inside out, sustainability through these global-ized perspectives has become an “esperanto” and a “new enlightenment.”18 Among the multitude of discourses - that are spread through most international media, actors, institutions, conventions, texts, etc. - shaping this new enlightenment, the one championing the need for an ‘eco-logical revolution’ is becoming dominant. discernible from a combination of visions and perspectives, this discourse implies a profound shift towards a sustainable ecological equilibrium in all human activities.19 this ‘new’ discourse is presented as a paradigmatic shift, or break, from ‘old’ optimistic modernist discourses that were based on ideas from the enlightenment, and which stated that humans could conquer nature, that history is a straight positive curve, and that technology is our saviour when things go wrong.20 the new discourse is quite often pitted against the old modernist discourse that is still prevalent in many traditional institutions and it needs a big change of mind to let the new discourse really come through.

A major part of the global development consciousness today draws its references from the old modernist dis-course that was at its prime during 1950s-60s, when eco-nomic growth, industrialization, and prosperity were ap-parent. this discourse that has at its core the vision of a human being who masters the world through technology and optimism, is socialized into a great part of the people still living today. the new discourse aims at altering this vision at 180 degrees, which cannot happen overnight. the transition from one dominant discourse to the next is a gradual evolution and must not be viewed as a black and white opposition, rather a field of tension. the two discourses must also be viewed as generalized obser-vations, in that they are not clearly two fixed entities. in general, they can be observed as such, but in reality there are a lot of intermediate stories, views and perspectives that characterize a state of ambivalence. it is this grey area – the field of tension charactering ambivalence – be-tween the two discourses that needs to be made visible for developing a more nuanced understanding of the sus-tainability paradigm. in this regard, the scheme (figure 1) we present is developed based on an extensive survey of the literature, which intends to highlight the in-between positions characterising the ambiguous landscape of the conceptual understanding of these globalized perspec-tives characterising the sustainability paradigm.

the scheme illustrates our position that the transition from one dominant discourse to the next is a gradual evolution and must not be viewed as a black and white opposition, rather a paradigmatic field. intermediate po-sitions, views and perspectives characterize such a field. for example, on the one hand there are the sustainability skeptics, critics, disciplinary orthodox, climate centrists, cultural essentialist, traditionalists, and so on.21 on the other hand, there are the adherents of hybridism and managerialism that promote transition management, governance, 3P (Planet, People, Prosperity)/3e (environ-ment, equity, economy), and sustainability as an “inte-grative framework.”22 bringing these perspectives into a productive dialogue needs to occur in order to develop a more nuanced understanding of sustainability. through

this premise, we advance a conceptual understanding of sustainability that is not about a set of static values or dimensions that needs to be satisfied or brought into equilibrium in a ‘once and for all way,’ rather it is a con-tinuing social construction; a dynamic and evolving para-digm that is influenced by a multitude of broader societal forces, views, and perspectives.

Within these globalized perspectives on sustainabil-ity, we have observed an emerging consensus regarding the critical position of the built environment at large, but this is not occurring to the same extent in related design fields. for example, unsustainable patterns of urbaniza-tion are identified as the most important challenge for the 21st century.23 however, scientific research on sus-tainability continues to focus mainly on the issues of global-molecular level (e.g. climate-change, ozone deple-tion, acidification) and related techno-scientific fixes, and tends to skip over the multi-dimensional role of design in the built environment.24 the alarming pace of global ur-banisation (30% in 1950, 50% in 2010 and 70% by 2050) and the consequences of the urban space and resource consumption per capita at the micro- meso-, and macro-scales (sprawl, emissions, energy and resource deple-tion, social risks) 25 have established a consensus that the sustainability question is intimately tied to the urban question.26 the correlation between resource consump-tion and concentration of urban form, and the question of providing water, transport and waste management infra-structure in a sustainable way, intimately ties the ques-tion of urban sustainability to that of its form and design. this implies the need for the sustainability question to be asked in terms of urbanism i.e. understanding and ana-lysing (the different models of) urbanisation and urban ways of life, and developing new ways of conceiving the design and planning of future, more sustainable, urban environments.27 this is the architectural challenge of the ecological age, and a concern that has characterised the ecological consciousness within the disciplines of ar-chitecture and urbanism for some time now, and which brings us to the second set of perspectives related to the conceptual landscape and understanding of sustainabil-ity from within the field(s) of architecture.

3. ArchitecturAl PerSPectiveS on SuStAinAbility

our idea behind architectural perspectives on sustain-ability, as a view from within, is an attempt at bringing to the fore the bottom up conceptualization of sustainability through green and ecological consciousness within the disciplines of architecture and urbanism, which repre-sents a distinctive conceptual history and genealogy. Although the first time the word “ecology” entered archi-tectural discourse was with richard neutra in the 1950s, 28 there are several design related concepts and activities prior to this period (e.g. the study of thermal efficiency in 1920s-30s at the bauhaus) that could very well be called ‘sustainable.’ 29An increasingly problematic trend with respect to this view is that the main themes of the con-temporary ecological movement in architecture are often presented as responses to the environmental damage that modern architecture and urbanism have caused. yet many modern architectural traditions displayed both an awareness of the environment and its problems, and the notion that architecture and planning could meaningfully engage the environment at the technical and aesthetic levels.30



15235234

visional theory. indeed, some argue that sustainability is not a goal at all, but merely a lens, a way of filtering and acting.” it comes as no surprise then if ‘sustainable’ ar-chitecture and urbanism is increasingly being acknowl-edged as a “contested concept.”6

More importantly, however, a consensus seems to be evolving in the recent architectural scholarship to focus more on ‘ways’ of conceptualizing ‘sustainability’ with a “pluralist imagination” rather than to search for a univer-sal one-size-fit-all type of sustainability.7 this is the point of departure in formulating our approach to transcend ‘sustainable architecture’ as a contested notion, where we start with acknowledging that “to foreclose contes-tation” is not an option.8 While adhering to the ‘pluralist imagination,’ as outlined in our article on ‘design for the ecological age’ in the Journal of Architectural education (JAe), we use the widening gap in the interaction between theory and practice as our main point of departure. for us, theory and practice are the two sides of the same coin, and their interaction provides a dynamic frame of refer-ence. focusing on their interaction is all the more impor-tant given the present trends that “isolate practice from research, and research from practice,” and in which some say that sustainability is a “mainstream concern” in de-sign thinking (theory), while others argue that contempo-rary architectural practice tends to “confuse, rather than reinforce, a progressive image of earth friendly architec-ture.”9 even in the more positivist accounts, a half-dozen competing “logics” are traceable, underlying sustainable practices.10 connected to this interaction is our second point of departure, which is a plea for inter- and trans-dis-ciplinarity; collaboration between architectural practice, academia, other disciplines, the construction and private industry, and the general public is “pivotal to address systemic issues” of sustainability.11 Such collaboration through productive dialogue is pivotal for moving towards a shared understanding of sustainability as a concep-tual model (paradigm). extending this dialogue, our third point of departure, includes perspectives from other disci-plines (e.g. Planning, geography, Social Sciences) as part of a broader paradigmatic change. through these three points of departure, our intention is clearly not to focus on defining what sustainability is or ought to be, rather to recognize the diversity of sustainability discourses and to focus on clarifying connections that shape the relation-ship between architectural design and sustainability.

in clarifying these connections through a dynamic frame-work, our intention is to facilitate a comprehension of the conceptual landscape of sustainability in a way that acknowledges and works with diverse sustainability dis-courses, and provides space for generating new ones.12 in developing such a framework, we use an epistemological lens involving two perspectives: globalized sustainability perspectives (next section) as a bird’s eye view, a view from outside, a top-down conceptualization of sustainability informed by a variety of disciplines, socio-environmental and historical events; and architectural perspectives (the section after next) as a worm’s eye view, a view from within, a bottom up conceptualization of sustainability through green and ecological consciousness within the disci-plines of architecture and urbanism. both perspectives are shaped by a multitude of forces and are continuously changing. the interaction and productive dialogue - as substantiated previously in our article on ‘design for the ecological age’ in JAe - between these two perspectives, we believe, offer a dynamic framework for conceptualizing architecture and sustainability relationships in ways that

would facilitate transcending ‘sustainable architecture’ as a contested notion.

2. ecology, environMentAl criSeS And the globAliZed SuStAinAbility PerSPectiveS

ecology as a concept, as a discipline, and as a way of re-lational thinking is about comprehending the theory of interdependence of all organisms in nature – animals, plants, soils and waters. the term was originally derived from the greek word oikos, or “house”, by the german fol-lower of darwin, ernst haeckel, in 1866. Among the tre-mendous strides made in the development of ecological theory over the last century and a half, 13 there is a pro-phetic claim by haeckel himself that remains a normative framework for many of these developments: he claimed that if men would observe the laws of nature and would accept their place in the great complexity of ecosystems, a ‘harmonious stage’ would emerge.14 in the wake of the environmental crises unfolded by the relentless exploita-tion of nature in the modern industrial age, that harmoni-ous stage is what drives the sustainability discourse and its globalisation across disciplinary fields in academia, practice, politics, civil society, governments i.e. world com-munity at large. Signalled by apocalyptic events (ozone holes, chernobyl, melting polar icecaps, climatic insta-bilities, tsunamis, etc. that have already happened), and acknowledged by scientific evidence from the iPcc and other institutions around the world, the environmental crises are real and their impact has shaken the global intellectual consciousness to the core. like the ‘housing question’ (engels and Marx) that became the central is-sue in the ‘class struggle’ throughout 20th century, today it is already apparent that the ‘ecology question’ and that of ‘natural capital’ (renewable resources and environmen-tal quality)15 will take that role in the political struggles of the future. Already, the consensus has emerged on the goals: achieving a global ecological equilibrium as a very question of survival of humanity on this planet. Means to achieve them are however contested and disputed, which owes, among others, to the ways in which sustainability is understood, conceptualised and practiced.

Sustainability in its globalized perspectives is understood as emerging out of a half-century of “environment-devel-opment” politics, as a brokered synthesis developed by international institutions whose growing awareness is manifest on many fronts in society.16 the environmental movement over the last 5 decades, changing climates with extreme weather conditions, alarming pace of urban-isation (70% urban world by 2050), and several key texts and international conventions - such as, rachel carson’s Silent spring (1962), barbara Ward’s Spaceship earth, the club of rome’s the limits to growth (1972) to the rio conference (1992), the united nations framework con-vention on climate change (1994) and the Kyoto protocol (1997) – have played a crucial role in the globalisation of the sustainability discourse. Widely debated, the most significant step in the shaping of this outlook is the often cited definition of sustainable development by the World commission on environment and development (Wced) in 1987 as: “the development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future gener-ations to meet their own needs.”17 A shared understand-ing of sustainability within these globalized perspectives implies equilibrium between economic growth, environ-mental quality, and social wellbeing. in this sense, sus-tainability calls for a stable relationship between human

activities and the natural world, which does not diminish the prospects for future generations to enjoy a quality of life at least as good as our own.

hailed as a paradigmatic shift in the geo-political con-sciousness that promises to reform the western industrial elite from inside out, sustainability through these global-ized perspectives has become an “esperanto” and a “new enlightenment.”18 Among the multitude of discourses - that are spread through most international media, actors, institutions, conventions, texts, etc. - shaping this new enlightenment, the one championing the need for an ‘eco-logical revolution’ is becoming dominant. discernible from a combination of visions and perspectives, this discourse implies a profound shift towards a sustainable ecological equilibrium in all human activities.19 this ‘new’ discourse is presented as a paradigmatic shift, or break, from ‘old’ optimistic modernist discourses that were based on ideas from the enlightenment, and which stated that humans could conquer nature, that history is a straight positive curve, and that technology is our saviour when things go wrong.20 the new discourse is quite often pitted against the old modernist discourse that is still prevalent in many traditional institutions and it needs a big change of mind to let the new discourse really come through.

A major part of the global development consciousness today draws its references from the old modernist dis-course that was at its prime during 1950s-60s, when eco-nomic growth, industrialization, and prosperity were ap-parent. this discourse that has at its core the vision of a human being who masters the world through technology and optimism, is socialized into a great part of the people still living today. the new discourse aims at altering this vision at 180 degrees, which cannot happen overnight. the transition from one dominant discourse to the next is a gradual evolution and must not be viewed as a black and white opposition, rather a field of tension. the two discourses must also be viewed as generalized obser-vations, in that they are not clearly two fixed entities. in general, they can be observed as such, but in reality there are a lot of intermediate stories, views and perspectives that characterize a state of ambivalence. it is this grey area – the field of tension charactering ambivalence – be-tween the two discourses that needs to be made visible for developing a more nuanced understanding of the sus-tainability paradigm. in this regard, the scheme (figure 1) we present is developed based on an extensive survey of the literature, which intends to highlight the in-between positions characterising the ambiguous landscape of the conceptual understanding of these globalized perspec-tives characterising the sustainability paradigm.

the scheme illustrates our position that the transition from one dominant discourse to the next is a gradual evolution and must not be viewed as a black and white opposition, rather a paradigmatic field. intermediate po-sitions, views and perspectives characterize such a field. for example, on the one hand there are the sustainability skeptics, critics, disciplinary orthodox, climate centrists, cultural essentialist, traditionalists, and so on.21 on the other hand, there are the adherents of hybridism and managerialism that promote transition management, governance, 3P (Planet, People, Prosperity)/3e (environ-ment, equity, economy), and sustainability as an “inte-grative framework.”22 bringing these perspectives into a productive dialogue needs to occur in order to develop a more nuanced understanding of sustainability. through

this premise, we advance a conceptual understanding of sustainability that is not about a set of static values or dimensions that needs to be satisfied or brought into equilibrium in a ‘once and for all way,’ rather it is a con-tinuing social construction; a dynamic and evolving para-digm that is influenced by a multitude of broader societal forces, views, and perspectives.

Within these globalized perspectives on sustainabil-ity, we have observed an emerging consensus regarding the critical position of the built environment at large, but this is not occurring to the same extent in related design fields. for example, unsustainable patterns of urbaniza-tion are identified as the most important challenge for the 21st century.23 however, scientific research on sus-tainability continues to focus mainly on the issues of global-molecular level (e.g. climate-change, ozone deple-tion, acidification) and related techno-scientific fixes, and tends to skip over the multi-dimensional role of design in the built environment.24 the alarming pace of global ur-banisation (30% in 1950, 50% in 2010 and 70% by 2050) and the consequences of the urban space and resource consumption per capita at the micro- meso-, and macro-scales (sprawl, emissions, energy and resource deple-tion, social risks) 25 have established a consensus that the sustainability question is intimately tied to the urban question.26 the correlation between resource consump-tion and concentration of urban form, and the question of providing water, transport and waste management infra-structure in a sustainable way, intimately ties the ques-tion of urban sustainability to that of its form and design. this implies the need for the sustainability question to be asked in terms of urbanism i.e. understanding and ana-lysing (the different models of) urbanisation and urban ways of life, and developing new ways of conceiving the design and planning of future, more sustainable, urban environments.27 this is the architectural challenge of the ecological age, and a concern that has characterised the ecological consciousness within the disciplines of ar-chitecture and urbanism for some time now, and which brings us to the second set of perspectives related to the conceptual landscape and understanding of sustainabil-ity from within the field(s) of architecture.

3. ArchitecturAl PerSPectiveS on SuStAinAbility

our idea behind architectural perspectives on sustain-ability, as a view from within, is an attempt at bringing to the fore the bottom up conceptualization of sustainability through green and ecological consciousness within the disciplines of architecture and urbanism, which repre-sents a distinctive conceptual history and genealogy. Although the first time the word “ecology” entered archi-tectural discourse was with richard neutra in the 1950s, 28 there are several design related concepts and activities prior to this period (e.g. the study of thermal efficiency in 1920s-30s at the bauhaus) that could very well be called ‘sustainable.’ 29An increasingly problematic trend with respect to this view is that the main themes of the con-temporary ecological movement in architecture are often presented as responses to the environmental damage that modern architecture and urbanism have caused. yet many modern architectural traditions displayed both an awareness of the environment and its problems, and the notion that architecture and planning could meaningfully engage the environment at the technical and aesthetic levels.30



16 237236

Many of the ecological ideas of contemporary designers can be traced back to an environmental consciousness within modernism; themes of nature, climate control, the vernacular, organicism, and sustainable technology were present among the moderns (such as, Patrick geddes, le corbusier and ciAM, hugo haring, frank lloyd Wright, Jean Prouvé, and buckminster fuller) that have been continued in different ways (such as Peter calthorpe, Sim van der ryn, ian Mcharg, thomas herzog, Ken yeang, and renzo Piano). While illustrating these connections, the idea behind our scheme is to build-up a taxonomy of de-sign attitudes that characterize an ecological conscious-ness within architecture and urbanism (figure 2). Such a taxonomy offers a historical perspective on what is con-ceptualized by guy and Moore as the “six competing log-ics of sustainable architecture,” and captures the cyclical process of appearing and reappearing themes.31 closely related to the historical perspective is also the perspec-tives of broader contemporary driving forces and trends that we identify as equally important in comprehending the conceptual landscape of sustainability discourses and practices in architecture and urbanism (figure 3).

As demonstrated in our article on ‘design for the eco-logical age’ in JAe, bringing the globalized sustainabil-ity perspectives and the architectural perspectives – the view from above and below - together allows us to create an open and dynamic field of interaction for productive dialogue (figure 4). it facilitates the construction of new discourses that are critically informed by the diversity of disciplinary standpoints, as well as, a diachronic and synchronic understanding of the evolving nature of the sustainability paradigm. conceptualizing sustainability through such interactions allows for the promotion of dia-logue across theoretical boundaries.

in response to the ecological age, such an interaction underpins the need for the major environmental design and planning disciplines—communication design, indus-trial design, interior design, architecture, engineering, landscape architecture, development, urban design and planning— to come together in a productive dialogue to achieve much greater energy efficiency and conservation in our designed environments. these interactions should go beyond just a productive dialogue among the design disciplines, and include an engagement with broader so-cietal forces to achieve change in the ways we plan, cre-ate, approve, finance, manufacture, construct, maintain, and operate designed objects and environments we use and occupy in our everyday lives. in order to clarify the value of specific architectural perspectives in this broad-er field of interaction – e.g. how the different design sen-sibilities inform / address the sustainability pillars (the social, the environmental, and the economic)? - we focus in the next two sub-sections on outlining two specific sus-tainability pillars as seen from the perspectives of archi-tectural discourse.

3.1 The ‘Social’ pillar in Architecture

in order to characterise and comprehend the diverse landscape of social thinking and concerns in architec-ture, we mobilize the taxonomy of two main design at-titudes: architecture as articulation, and architecture as mediation.

Since the beginning of the 20th century, architecture has been understood by its practitioners as a discipline that

is basically concerned with the articulation of space.32 the proponents of the Modern Movement were indeed fascinated by the utopian notion that architecture could offer the leverage to change society.33 Architecture as articulation of space and society (a certain social order and relations) characterises this modernist (and utopian) sensibility, where the social is seen as (a desired form of) human association through a set of social relations that can be unfolded through a functional (re)organisation of buildings and urban spaces. this attitude owes to an abstract concept of space that appeared, according to colquhoun, towards the end of the nineteenth century, used as ‘a positive entity within which the traditional cate-gories of tectonic form and surface occurred’.34 Modernist architects and planners tried to shape this entity with the help of geometry and technology,35 and thus, using archi-tecture as a tool to change society. Modernists such as bruno taut and ernst May articulated space in their col-lective housing projects with new, transparent and open forms with a view to unfold the ideals of a classless soci-ety to come.36 le corbusier also adhered to this attitude of spatial articulation to change society through his con-cepts of ‘mass’ and ‘surface’, which are shaped through the tool of the ‘plan’.37 his famous dictum “Architecture or revolution” embodied the social promise of modern archi-tecture – to provide decent living conditions for all – aimed at politician that they could re-organize social life in a peaceful way and thus avoid the threat of a violent revolu-tion. this was a modern rationalist epistemology imposed on a complex ontology to give it an idealized order and shape. What determined the relationship between the two was functionality, hence the label functionalism. the way out of this illusion, as Madanipour argues, lays in realiz-ing that the reality was far more diverse and complex than could be so easily simplified and transformed.38

not only in europe, but across the decolonizing world dur-ing the 1950s-60s, many political regimes experimented with this capacity of modern architecture to articulate so-cial change, ‘to fashion people’s lives in new ways’, and ef-fectuate a rapid modernisation of their countries.39 large scale spatial restructuring through the energy, transpor-tation, agriculture and water sectors, with new housing and urban development projects, including the construc-tion of new capital cities, such as chandigarh, brasilia, islamabad, canberra, and Abuja marked a heroic period for architects and architecture. this heroic view of archi-tecture inextricably linked with socio-economic develop-ment, however, has received very strong critique from other disciplines (such as sociology, anthropology, politi-cal science, and geography) in the second half of the 20th century. in particular, the physical determinism inherent in this view has been discredited theoretically as well as empirically.40 however, not only some of these modern-ist projects have received recently rather favourable ac-counts heralding their openness and modernity, but also the inherent assumptions about the neutrality of space, the benevolence of the technical experts, and the func-tional rationale of spatial transformation have remained paramount to this day in many professional discourses.41

concerned with the (socially) reductionist implications of the ‘architecture as articulation’ discourse, ‘architecture as mediation’ attitude implies a different view of the ‘social’ concerns. Prefiguring the critique that the reductive and a-contextual modernist architecture based on functionalism would unfold, major developments within the discipline of architecture during the 2nd half figure 1: the globalized sustainability perspectives characterizing the paradigmatic field of the sustainability paradigm.

Source: Ahmed Z. Khan, han vandevyvere, and Karen Allacker, 2013, JAe 67:2, p. 176.



17237236

Many of the ecological ideas of contemporary designers can be traced back to an environmental consciousness within modernism; themes of nature, climate control, the vernacular, organicism, and sustainable technology were present among the moderns (such as, Patrick geddes, le corbusier and ciAM, hugo haring, frank lloyd Wright, Jean Prouvé, and buckminster fuller) that have been continued in different ways (such as Peter calthorpe, Sim van der ryn, ian Mcharg, thomas herzog, Ken yeang, and renzo Piano). While illustrating these connections, the idea behind our scheme is to build-up a taxonomy of de-sign attitudes that characterize an ecological conscious-ness within architecture and urbanism (figure 2). Such a taxonomy offers a historical perspective on what is con-ceptualized by guy and Moore as the “six competing log-ics of sustainable architecture,” and captures the cyclical process of appearing and reappearing themes.31 closely related to the historical perspective is also the perspec-tives of broader contemporary driving forces and trends that we identify as equally important in comprehending the conceptual landscape of sustainability discourses and practices in architecture and urbanism (figure 3).

As demonstrated in our article on ‘design for the eco-logical age’ in JAe, bringing the globalized sustainabil-ity perspectives and the architectural perspectives – the view from above and below - together allows us to create an open and dynamic field of interaction for productive dialogue (figure 4). it facilitates the construction of new discourses that are critically informed by the diversity of disciplinary standpoints, as well as, a diachronic and synchronic understanding of the evolving nature of the sustainability paradigm. conceptualizing sustainability through such interactions allows for the promotion of dia-logue across theoretical boundaries.

in response to the ecological age, such an interaction underpins the need for the major environmental design and planning disciplines—communication design, indus-trial design, interior design, architecture, engineering, landscape architecture, development, urban design and planning— to come together in a productive dialogue to achieve much greater energy efficiency and conservation in our designed environments. these interactions should go beyond just a productive dialogue among the design disciplines, and include an engagement with broader so-cietal forces to achieve change in the ways we plan, cre-ate, approve, finance, manufacture, construct, maintain, and operate designed objects and environments we use and occupy in our everyday lives. in order to clarify the value of specific architectural perspectives in this broad-er field of interaction – e.g. how the different design sen-sibilities inform / address the sustainability pillars (the social, the environmental, and the economic)? - we focus in the next two sub-sections on outlining two specific sus-tainability pillars as seen from the perspectives of archi-tectural discourse.

3.1 The ‘Social’ pillar in Architecture

in order to characterise and comprehend the diverse landscape of social thinking and concerns in architec-ture, we mobilize the taxonomy of two main design at-titudes: architecture as articulation, and architecture as mediation.

Since the beginning of the 20th century, architecture has been understood by its practitioners as a discipline that

is basically concerned with the articulation of space.32 the proponents of the Modern Movement were indeed fascinated by the utopian notion that architecture could offer the leverage to change society.33 Architecture as articulation of space and society (a certain social order and relations) characterises this modernist (and utopian) sensibility, where the social is seen as (a desired form of) human association through a set of social relations that can be unfolded through a functional (re)organisation of buildings and urban spaces. this attitude owes to an abstract concept of space that appeared, according to colquhoun, towards the end of the nineteenth century, used as ‘a positive entity within which the traditional cate-gories of tectonic form and surface occurred’.34 Modernist architects and planners tried to shape this entity with the help of geometry and technology,35 and thus, using archi-tecture as a tool to change society. Modernists such as bruno taut and ernst May articulated space in their col-lective housing projects with new, transparent and open forms with a view to unfold the ideals of a classless soci-ety to come.36 le corbusier also adhered to this attitude of spatial articulation to change society through his con-cepts of ‘mass’ and ‘surface’, which are shaped through the tool of the ‘plan’.37 his famous dictum “Architecture or revolution” embodied the social promise of modern archi-tecture – to provide decent living conditions for all – aimed at politician that they could re-organize social life in a peaceful way and thus avoid the threat of a violent revolu-tion. this was a modern rationalist epistemology imposed on a complex ontology to give it an idealized order and shape. What determined the relationship between the two was functionality, hence the label functionalism. the way out of this illusion, as Madanipour argues, lays in realiz-ing that the reality was far more diverse and complex than could be so easily simplified and transformed.38

not only in europe, but across the decolonizing world dur-ing the 1950s-60s, many political regimes experimented with this capacity of modern architecture to articulate so-cial change, ‘to fashion people’s lives in new ways’, and ef-fectuate a rapid modernisation of their countries.39 large scale spatial restructuring through the energy, transpor-tation, agriculture and water sectors, with new housing and urban development projects, including the construc-tion of new capital cities, such as chandigarh, brasilia, islamabad, canberra, and Abuja marked a heroic period for architects and architecture. this heroic view of archi-tecture inextricably linked with socio-economic develop-ment, however, has received very strong critique from other disciplines (such as sociology, anthropology, politi-cal science, and geography) in the second half of the 20th century. in particular, the physical determinism inherent in this view has been discredited theoretically as well as empirically.40 however, not only some of these modern-ist projects have received recently rather favourable ac-counts heralding their openness and modernity, but also the inherent assumptions about the neutrality of space, the benevolence of the technical experts, and the func-tional rationale of spatial transformation have remained paramount to this day in many professional discourses.41

concerned with the (socially) reductionist implications of the ‘architecture as articulation’ discourse, ‘architecture as mediation’ attitude implies a different view of the ‘social’ concerns. Prefiguring the critique that the reductive and a-contextual modernist architecture based on functionalism would unfold, major developments within the discipline of architecture during the 2nd half figure 1: the globalized sustainability perspectives characterizing the paradigmatic field of the sustainability paradigm.

Source: Ahmed Z. Khan, han vandevyvere, and Karen Allacker, 2013, JAe 67:2, p. 176.



18 239238

of the 20th century began to rethink and reformulate this functionalist attitude towards a more focus on the context, cultural specificity, historic value, and the value of form and meaning in architecture.42 inspired by semiotics and structuralism, many architectural theorists assembled a body of work that qualified architecture as language of forms, symbols and codes full of social meanings that can be deciphered, and even pronounced the emergence of postmodernism in architecture.43Architecture as mediation attitude owes to many of these developments, where the social – as social practices, everyday life, power relations, etc. – is seen as framed and mediated by spatial structures that produces (social) meanings in the built environment.44 Architecture as mediation implies spatial form or structures as stage or settings that frames, and are framed by, social practices, and can both constrain and enable certain kinds of social life and experience.45 this framing and mediation also highlights the experiential nature of architecture that accumulates, and embodies, different forms of communication.46

Among others, one of the major contribution of architec-ture as mediation attitude is the ‘space syntax’ theory and method of analysis developed by bill hillier and Julienne hanson.47the premise of space syntax is that spatial con-figurations mediate the relation between built spaces and individuals who inhabit and use these spaces, and that it is possible to unravel this connection by studying un-derlying spatial patterns, such as ‘depth’ (the number of thresholds to cross before reaching the innermost space in a building) or ‘axiality’ (the presence of a long visual axis).48 While avoiding a deterministic logic, space syn-tax claims that there is a probabilistic relation between spatial configurations and people’s behaviour, a relation which can be investigated, modelled and hence predict-ed.49

over the last two decades, there is a proliferation of posi-tions developed through architectural and design studies probing into the interrelations between architecture and society.50 taking stock of these positions, hilde heynen has recently proposed the idea of grouping them into three models of conceptualising the interactions between built spaces and social processes / forces: built space seen as receptor, as instrument, or as stage.51in the first of these three models, heynen argues, space is seen as a relatively neutral receptor of socio-economic or cultural processes, the imprint of which can then be detected in spatial appearances. the second model regards spatial configurations as possible instruments to unfold a spatial order with certain desired behaviours, which corresponds to the ‘architecture as articulation’ attitude described above.52 the third model that heynen advocates envis-ages the built environment as a stage on which social processes are played out. in the same way as the stag-ing makes certain actions and interactions possible or impossible within a theatre play, heynen argues that the spatial structure of buildings, neighbourhoods, and towns accommodates and frames social transformations.53 in such a conceptualization, the impact of social forces on architectural and urban patterns is recognized, while at the same time, spatial patterns are seen as modifying and structuring social phenomena.

3.2 The ‘Environmental’ pillar in Architecture

two main theoretical streams, among others, can be dis-tinguished in architectural design thinking about nature and environment: bio-regionalism based nature-culture dialectics and the idea of architecture as second nature. owing to the gedessian legacy, the logic of bio-regional-ism implies that architectural configurations and urban-isation should follow nature’s order.54 this stream has been canonised in design discourse since ian Mcharg’s design with nature (1967, 1995) that makes the case for human cooperation and biological partnership in design and argues that relationship between the built environ-ment and nature can be used to their full potential with-out being detrimental or destructive to each other. this stream remains at the forefront of contemporary design discourse, such as in urban design with nature.55

on the other hand, the idea of architecture as second nature – an intellectual current that is traced back to the renaissance – denotes the assigning of an autonomous discursive formation to the organization of built-space.56 this idea in design implies emulating natural systems rather than conserving or integrating them. in such a conception, architecture and the city become constituent elements of a socially constructed ‘second nature’ dis-tinct from the world as found, or as louis Kahn expressed ‘architecture is what nature cannot make’. this line of thinking crystallised into what the design theorist rey-ner banham (1971, 1999) called the ‘architecture of four ecologies’.

Mitigating this historical paradox – architecture vs. ecol-ogy – of a sort of anti-ecological position in design think-ing are symbolic representation of nature, bio-mimicry and recourse to theories of nature as analogues in de-sign methods.57 transcending this paradox, among oth-ers, is the perspective of ‘learning ecology’ introduced by Kevin lynch that views nature and built environment as part of one ecological whole, which brings back the idea of nature-settlement dialectic to the very core architectural design thinking.58 this perspective has also facilitated championing the integrative potential of architectural de-sign – a notion progressively advanced in design circles for dealing with the integrative endeavours of the sustain-ability paradigm.59 from the ‘learning ecology’ perspec-tive in design, curtailing accelerated entropy is both an ethical (rights of nature) and technological (e.g. inefficient design) matter.60 between them - moral interpretation and concerns for material well-being - and their interaction is where most critical positions on sustainable design and ecological architecture emerge.

these proliferating positions can be differentiated along, for example, what Simon guy and graham farmer (2011) call the six eco-logics: eco-technic, eco-centric, eco-aes-thetic, eco-cultural, eco-medical and eco-social. these logics characterise the philosophic approaches of de-signerly ways of seeing and integrating nature, environ-ment and culture in which the strength of any given de-sign is not of a single dominating logic or world view but a synthesis with ‘pluralist’ (democratic) imagination: a con-sideration of all issues and possible solutions, creating a subtle blend of several of them according to the specific needs of place, which would then produce a better degree of sustainability.61 this position comes quite close to that of ‘design for ecological democracy’ defended and peda-gogically built up by randolph hester (2006). he develops

figure 2: the perspectives from within - paradigmatic field of design attitudes characterizing green consciousness in architecture culture. Source: Ahmed Z. Khan, han vandevyvere, and Karen Allacker, 2013, JAe 67:2, p. 177.



19239238

of the 20th century began to rethink and reformulate this functionalist attitude towards a more focus on the context, cultural specificity, historic value, and the value of form and meaning in architecture.42 inspired by semiotics and structuralism, many architectural theorists assembled a body of work that qualified architecture as language of forms, symbols and codes full of social meanings that can be deciphered, and even pronounced the emergence of postmodernism in architecture.43Architecture as mediation attitude owes to many of these developments, where the social – as social practices, everyday life, power relations, etc. – is seen as framed and mediated by spatial structures that produces (social) meanings in the built environment.44 Architecture as mediation implies spatial form or structures as stage or settings that frames, and are framed by, social practices, and can both constrain and enable certain kinds of social life and experience.45 this framing and mediation also highlights the experiential nature of architecture that accumulates, and embodies, different forms of communication.46

Among others, one of the major contribution of architec-ture as mediation attitude is the ‘space syntax’ theory and method of analysis developed by bill hillier and Julienne hanson.47the premise of space syntax is that spatial con-figurations mediate the relation between built spaces and individuals who inhabit and use these spaces, and that it is possible to unravel this connection by studying un-derlying spatial patterns, such as ‘depth’ (the number of thresholds to cross before reaching the innermost space in a building) or ‘axiality’ (the presence of a long visual axis).48 While avoiding a deterministic logic, space syn-tax claims that there is a probabilistic relation between spatial configurations and people’s behaviour, a relation which can be investigated, modelled and hence predict-ed.49

over the last two decades, there is a proliferation of posi-tions developed through architectural and design studies probing into the interrelations between architecture and society.50 taking stock of these positions, hilde heynen has recently proposed the idea of grouping them into three models of conceptualising the interactions between built spaces and social processes / forces: built space seen as receptor, as instrument, or as stage.51in the first of these three models, heynen argues, space is seen as a relatively neutral receptor of socio-economic or cultural processes, the imprint of which can then be detected in spatial appearances. the second model regards spatial configurations as possible instruments to unfold a spatial order with certain desired behaviours, which corresponds to the ‘architecture as articulation’ attitude described above.52 the third model that heynen advocates envis-ages the built environment as a stage on which social processes are played out. in the same way as the stag-ing makes certain actions and interactions possible or impossible within a theatre play, heynen argues that the spatial structure of buildings, neighbourhoods, and towns accommodates and frames social transformations.53 in such a conceptualization, the impact of social forces on architectural and urban patterns is recognized, while at the same time, spatial patterns are seen as modifying and structuring social phenomena.

3.2 The ‘Environmental’ pillar in Architecture

two main theoretical streams, among others, can be dis-tinguished in architectural design thinking about nature and environment: bio-regionalism based nature-culture dialectics and the idea of architecture as second nature. owing to the gedessian legacy, the logic of bio-regional-ism implies that architectural configurations and urban-isation should follow nature’s order.54 this stream has been canonised in design discourse since ian Mcharg’s design with nature (1967, 1995) that makes the case for human cooperation and biological partnership in design and argues that relationship between the built environ-ment and nature can be used to their full potential with-out being detrimental or destructive to each other. this stream remains at the forefront of contemporary design discourse, such as in urban design with nature.55

on the other hand, the idea of architecture as second nature – an intellectual current that is traced back to the renaissance – denotes the assigning of an autonomous discursive formation to the organization of built-space.56 this idea in design implies emulating natural systems rather than conserving or integrating them. in such a conception, architecture and the city become constituent elements of a socially constructed ‘second nature’ dis-tinct from the world as found, or as louis Kahn expressed ‘architecture is what nature cannot make’. this line of thinking crystallised into what the design theorist rey-ner banham (1971, 1999) called the ‘architecture of four ecologies’.

Mitigating this historical paradox – architecture vs. ecol-ogy – of a sort of anti-ecological position in design think-ing are symbolic representation of nature, bio-mimicry and recourse to theories of nature as analogues in de-sign methods.57 transcending this paradox, among oth-ers, is the perspective of ‘learning ecology’ introduced by Kevin lynch that views nature and built environment as part of one ecological whole, which brings back the idea of nature-settlement dialectic to the very core architectural design thinking.58 this perspective has also facilitated championing the integrative potential of architectural de-sign – a notion progressively advanced in design circles for dealing with the integrative endeavours of the sustain-ability paradigm.59 from the ‘learning ecology’ perspec-tive in design, curtailing accelerated entropy is both an ethical (rights of nature) and technological (e.g. inefficient design) matter.60 between them - moral interpretation and concerns for material well-being - and their interaction is where most critical positions on sustainable design and ecological architecture emerge.

these proliferating positions can be differentiated along, for example, what Simon guy and graham farmer (2011) call the six eco-logics: eco-technic, eco-centric, eco-aes-thetic, eco-cultural, eco-medical and eco-social. these logics characterise the philosophic approaches of de-signerly ways of seeing and integrating nature, environ-ment and culture in which the strength of any given de-sign is not of a single dominating logic or world view but a synthesis with ‘pluralist’ (democratic) imagination: a con-sideration of all issues and possible solutions, creating a subtle blend of several of them according to the specific needs of place, which would then produce a better degree of sustainability.61 this position comes quite close to that of ‘design for ecological democracy’ defended and peda-gogically built up by randolph hester (2006). he develops

figure 2: the perspectives from within - paradigmatic field of design attitudes characterizing green consciousness in architecture culture. Source: Ahmed Z. Khan, han vandevyvere, and Karen Allacker, 2013, JAe 67:2, p. 177.



20 241240

new principles for (urban) design starting from the power-ful forces of ecology and democracy: stressing the driving force of freedom to build ecological communities and cit-ies, the approach anchors design in the processes of the building of bottom-up initiatives and governance systems to create ecologically sustainable communities.

4. beyond the PillArS: toWArdS A rethinKing of integrAted deSign

both the environmental and the social thinking in archi-tecture continue to unfold the different dimensions and integrative approaches to understand and address, and in some ways also to go beyond, sustainability issues in the built environment. from here on, we particularly fo-cus on introducing five distinct streams of architectural perspectives - Architecture as Place-making, rethinking Public Space and urbanism(s), research by design, Ar-chitecture as life-cycle thinking, bioclimatic Architecture and integrated design - that aim to go beyond and tran-scend the sustainability thinking through pillars by mobil-ising the integrative potential of design. it is in the narra-tion of these five streams as critical perspectives that we posit our case for a rethinking of integrated design.

4.1 Architecture as Place-making

inclusive and participatory design has fastly emerged as principle approach to integrate spatial, ecological and environmental issues with societal needs and concerns in the processes of (re)shaping and (re)making places in the built environment. Socio-spatially innovative and ecological place-making can be seen as a normative and integrative framework for achieving sustainability in the built environment, which requires a relational and multi-dimensional understanding of the interaction between spatial and social constellations.62 in understanding these interactions, a variety of disciplines have engaged with lefebvre’s famous reassertion of ‘social production of space’ perspective.63 in architecture and urban design, lefebvre’s perspective together with the increasing im-pact of social exclusion, accessibility, equity and gender studies, and the influence of post-colonial theories and the dissemination of actor-network theory have unfolded the shift towards a relational approach to understand-ing the dialectics of spatial form and social processes, which is discernible from a growing body of work.64 in this shift, the emphasis on inclusive and participatory design through the concept of ‘place-making’ is central.65

Place-making implies a double focus simultaneously: fo-cus on ‘every day life’ and ‘lived experiences’ as a body of knowledge for design; and ‘participation’ as the norma-tive framework for unfolding sustainable transformative practices in the (re)making and (re)shaping of places.66 in the concept of place-making, the role of design is seen as a ‘necessary societal function’, ‘means to serve pub-lic good’, and in producing ‘responsive, democratic and meaningful’ public spaces.67 the place-making concep-tion brings two aspects together: the view of ‘spatial form’ as a ‘stage set’ that can be changed, with that of the ‘focus on the concept of public life’.68 Seeing place-making as an interaction between (urban) design and public life – a cru-cial link for broadening the concept of spatial quality - has a specific conceptual history in the theory of architecture and urbanism. As argued by Montgomery (1998), theories

of spatial form and physical determinism (cullen, 1961) and those stressing the psychology of place (Alexander, 1979; lynch, 1960) have been progressively synthesized by focusing on the ‘street life and activity’ (Jacobs, 1961) and ‘life between buildings’ (gehl, 1987), which led Peter buchanan to comment that: ‘urban design is essentially about place-making, where places are not just a specific space, but all the activities and events which made it pos-sible’.69

the concept of architecture as ‘place-making’ also of-fers a productive dialogue across disciplines.70 it brings ‘space’ central to socio-spatial analysis as a ‘layered con-cept’ that is ‘always specific, unique and in the making’.71 Moreover, it confronts lefebvre’s notion of space with the importance of ‘materialities’ that take part in producing connectivity and meaning through ‘embodied senso-rial experiences’ in urban public space.72 Space, place and use, thus, are increasingly seen as an interwoven socio-spatial process the dialectics of which ‘influence each other, co-producing space in a dialectical move-ment where the experiencing human being is in a cen-tral position’.73 these theoretical developments show the futility of isolating the spatial from the social and design from politics in conceptualizing architecture and sustain-ability relationships.74 they also promise the broadening of the concept of (social) sustainability by analyzing the socio-spatial dialectics of ‘place-making’ and ‘social capi-tal formation’ through introducing analytical categories such as, ‘accessibility and inclusiveness’, ‘experiential quality’, ‘atmospheres’, ‘sensorial experiences and image’ and ‘publicness and co-production’ in architectural and urban design theories and practices.75

4.2 Rethinking Public Space and Urbanism(s)

As an integrative way of working towards sustainable built environments, rethinking public space and urbanism(s) implies taking stock of the contemporary spatial reality of our built environment from different perspectives, and develop new models, approaches and transformations in the ways we design, plan and build our cities. by taking stock of several perspectives, as substantiated in a previ-ous publication in the Journal of urban design (Jud), we propose ‘integrative spatial quality’ as a normative and integrative framework for rethinking public space and urbanism(s).

types of public spaces and models of urbanism(s) are co-related in many ways. from a public space perspective in urbanism, the concept of sustainability implies inclusive and accessible public space constituted by networks of streets, plazas, squares, parks and other open spaces that support human interaction, social cohesion, and environmental protection.76 A coherent network of such spaces is conceptualised as a ‘socio-morphological’ sys-tem that produces ‘urbanity’ and the ‘city’ as an ‘artefact’ - the user’s common historical heritage.77 Also concep-tualized as ‘collective space’,78 their presence is crucial for social and environmental movements that struggle to deepen the roots of democracy and environmental con-sciousness and new, more egalitarian forms of sociality and environmental sensibility.79 Such spaces impart so-cial, ecological and symbolic values, by contributing to psychological well-being, or more broadly by furthering the possibility for “democratic ideals, good citizenship, a sense of freedom, civic pride and responsibilities”.80 un-derstanding architecture and sustainability relationships

figure 3: the competing logics - ‘eco-logics’ - of sustainable architecture in relation to the perspectives of driving forces of discourse development in the ecological age. Source: Ahmed Z. Khan, han vandevyvere, and Karen Allacker, 2013, JAe 67:2, p. 178.

figure 4: bringing the globalized sustainability perspectives and architectural perspectives on sustainability for a productive dialogue across paradigmatic fields. Source: Ahmed Z. Khan, han vandevyvere, and Karen Allacker, 2013, JAe 67:2, p. 179.



21241240

new principles for (urban) design starting from the power-ful forces of ecology and democracy: stressing the driving force of freedom to build ecological communities and cit-ies, the approach anchors design in the processes of the building of bottom-up initiatives and governance systems to create ecologically sustainable communities.

4. beyond the PillArS: toWArdS A rethinKing of integrAted deSign

both the environmental and the social thinking in archi-tecture continue to unfold the different dimensions and integrative approaches to understand and address, and in some ways also to go beyond, sustainability issues in the built environment. from here on, we particularly fo-cus on introducing five distinct streams of architectural perspectives - Architecture as Place-making, rethinking Public Space and urbanism(s), research by design, Ar-chitecture as life-cycle thinking, bioclimatic Architecture and integrated design - that aim to go beyond and tran-scend the sustainability thinking through pillars by mobil-ising the integrative potential of design. it is in the narra-tion of these five streams as critical perspectives that we posit our case for a rethinking of integrated design.

4.1 Architecture as Place-making

inclusive and participatory design has fastly emerged as principle approach to integrate spatial, ecological and environmental issues with societal needs and concerns in the processes of (re)shaping and (re)making places in the built environment. Socio-spatially innovative and ecological place-making can be seen as a normative and integrative framework for achieving sustainability in the built environment, which requires a relational and multi-dimensional understanding of the interaction between spatial and social constellations.62 in understanding these interactions, a variety of disciplines have engaged with lefebvre’s famous reassertion of ‘social production of space’ perspective.63 in architecture and urban design, lefebvre’s perspective together with the increasing im-pact of social exclusion, accessibility, equity and gender studies, and the influence of post-colonial theories and the dissemination of actor-network theory have unfolded the shift towards a relational approach to understand-ing the dialectics of spatial form and social processes, which is discernible from a growing body of work.64 in this shift, the emphasis on inclusive and participatory design through the concept of ‘place-making’ is central.65

Place-making implies a double focus simultaneously: fo-cus on ‘every day life’ and ‘lived experiences’ as a body of knowledge for design; and ‘participation’ as the norma-tive framework for unfolding sustainable transformative practices in the (re)making and (re)shaping of places.66 in the concept of place-making, the role of design is seen as a ‘necessary societal function’, ‘means to serve pub-lic good’, and in producing ‘responsive, democratic and meaningful’ public spaces.67 the place-making concep-tion brings two aspects together: the view of ‘spatial form’ as a ‘stage set’ that can be changed, with that of the ‘focus on the concept of public life’.68 Seeing place-making as an interaction between (urban) design and public life – a cru-cial link for broadening the concept of spatial quality - has a specific conceptual history in the theory of architecture and urbanism. As argued by Montgomery (1998), theories

of spatial form and physical determinism (cullen, 1961) and those stressing the psychology of place (Alexander, 1979; lynch, 1960) have been progressively synthesized by focusing on the ‘street life and activity’ (Jacobs, 1961) and ‘life between buildings’ (gehl, 1987), which led Peter buchanan to comment that: ‘urban design is essentially about place-making, where places are not just a specific space, but all the activities and events which made it pos-sible’.69

the concept of architecture as ‘place-making’ also of-fers a productive dialogue across disciplines.70 it brings ‘space’ central to socio-spatial analysis as a ‘layered con-cept’ that is ‘always specific, unique and in the making’.71 Moreover, it confronts lefebvre’s notion of space with the importance of ‘materialities’ that take part in producing connectivity and meaning through ‘embodied senso-rial experiences’ in urban public space.72 Space, place and use, thus, are increasingly seen as an interwoven socio-spatial process the dialectics of which ‘influence each other, co-producing space in a dialectical move-ment where the experiencing human being is in a cen-tral position’.73 these theoretical developments show the futility of isolating the spatial from the social and design from politics in conceptualizing architecture and sustain-ability relationships.74 they also promise the broadening of the concept of (social) sustainability by analyzing the socio-spatial dialectics of ‘place-making’ and ‘social capi-tal formation’ through introducing analytical categories such as, ‘accessibility and inclusiveness’, ‘experiential quality’, ‘atmospheres’, ‘sensorial experiences and image’ and ‘publicness and co-production’ in architectural and urban design theories and practices.75

4.2 Rethinking Public Space and Urbanism(s)

As an integrative way of working towards sustainable built environments, rethinking public space and urbanism(s) implies taking stock of the contemporary spatial reality of our built environment from different perspectives, and develop new models, approaches and transformations in the ways we design, plan and build our cities. by taking stock of several perspectives, as substantiated in a previ-ous publication in the Journal of urban design (Jud), we propose ‘integrative spatial quality’ as a normative and integrative framework for rethinking public space and urbanism(s).

types of public spaces and models of urbanism(s) are co-related in many ways. from a public space perspective in urbanism, the concept of sustainability implies inclusive and accessible public space constituted by networks of streets, plazas, squares, parks and other open spaces that support human interaction, social cohesion, and environmental protection.76 A coherent network of such spaces is conceptualised as a ‘socio-morphological’ sys-tem that produces ‘urbanity’ and the ‘city’ as an ‘artefact’ - the user’s common historical heritage.77 Also concep-tualized as ‘collective space’,78 their presence is crucial for social and environmental movements that struggle to deepen the roots of democracy and environmental con-sciousness and new, more egalitarian forms of sociality and environmental sensibility.79 Such spaces impart so-cial, ecological and symbolic values, by contributing to psychological well-being, or more broadly by furthering the possibility for “democratic ideals, good citizenship, a sense of freedom, civic pride and responsibilities”.80 un-derstanding architecture and sustainability relationships

figure 3: the competing logics - ‘eco-logics’ - of sustainable architecture in relation to the perspectives of driving forces of discourse development in the ecological age. Source: Ahmed Z. Khan, han vandevyvere, and Karen Allacker, 2013, JAe 67:2, p. 178.

figure 4: bringing the globalized sustainability perspectives and architectural perspectives on sustainability for a productive dialogue across paradigmatic fields. Source: Ahmed Z. Khan, han vandevyvere, and Karen Allacker, 2013, JAe 67:2, p. 179.



22 243242

in the framework of urban design, therefore, implies un-derstanding the concept of ‘public space and public life’ relationship (as urbanism) and the ways in which both the public and private realms are implicated in producing value, image, experience, and meaning in the built envi-ronment.

urbanism as ‘public space and public life’ relation-ship in the design discourse, as mentioned earlier, is increasingly inspired by lefebvre’s notion of the ‘social production of space’.81 lefebvrian analysts argue that the discourses of spatiality are confined to a conceptual triad of spatial practices, representations of space and spaces of representation.82 this triad allows understanding the way value and meaning are produced in public space.83 in the design discourse, Amos rapoport has developed a similar line of thinking through his large body of work on ‘environment - behaviour’ systems, where he argues that “socio-cultural schemata are the primary determi-nants of form and in turn affect the images and schemata that mediate between environment and people”.84 taking into account these dialectics, urban design is seen as a field that engages and enquires into ‘the human experi-ence that the built environment evokes’ throughout op-positional realms (from private properties to the public realm) and across scales (from the street to the regional landscape).85 this experiential quality of the built en-vironment and landscapes has been characterised by diverse value attributes such as: comfort, human scale, variety, complexity, urbanity, inclusiveness, meaningful-ness, imageability, enclosure, transparency, continuity, coherence, congeniality, playfulness, safety and security, mystery and awe, and so on, to liveable streets and neigh-borhoods, a minimum residential density and intensity of use, integration of activities, and buildings that define public spaces, etc..86 these value attributes are, however, the outcome of complex socio-spatial, cognitive and psy-chological naming and framing, and cannot be estranged from their particular socio-economic, historical, environ-mental and local but also wider spatial cultural contexts.87 Moreover, and in particular, sustainability and climate change related challenges are increasingly seen as fun-damentally redefining the values and qualities that are sought through the theory, practice and process of urban design and planning.

designing spatial articulations and strategies for the (re)making and (re)shaping of these experiential values in an integrative way is considered to be the core ambition and aim of ‘urban design’, a field that Mathew carmona (2014) rightly identifies as a ‘mongrel discipline’, that according to José louis Sert emerged out of the will “to find the com-mon base for the joined work of the Architect, the land-scape Architect, and the city Planner”. While being wider than the scope of these three professions,88 urban design has been praised “as an integrative force, deliberately straddling and helping to connect the silo-based disci-plines of the past”.89 on the other hand, there has also been criticism about the ‘vagueness’ of urban design, about the lack of a cohesive and robust ‘diagnostic and analytical apparatus’ of the discipline, as well as, a series of thoughtful reflections that have pleaded to also broad-en the scope of urban design, beyond physical design, programming and use of public space, to address the new challenges of the ecological age related to sustainability, climate change, sea level rise, large scale transportation infrastructure, etc.90 the experiential valuation, critique and concerns about sustainability have given way to a

series of thoughtful reconceptualization and rethinking (the growing movement to re-: rethink, reduce, repair, reuse, recycle, & reimagine the ways in which we inhabit our planet) of urban design / urbanism.91

rethinking urbanism(s) implies analysing the current modes and models of urbanisation and developing new approaches and models of urban design to address new challenges and accommodate the “new urban condi-tions”.92 in this rethinking, variegated fields of knowledge and practices are employed whose aims, among others, range from the revival of some pre-modern conceptions of the art of urban composition to reinterpretations of the modernist urbanism, from (means for) codified control of urban form to (critiques on) speculative sprawl and sub-urbanisation, from post-modernist positioning vis-a`-vis to neo-structural criticism of spatial organization, to ad-dressing environmental degradation, resources deple-tion, energy crises, and so on. examples are ‘new urban-ism’ (cozens 2008) and its reviving of traditional urban qualities; ‘landscape urbanism’, “in which landscape re-places architecture as the basic building block of urban-ism”;93 ‘ecological urbanism’ aiming at “more just as well as more pleasurable futures”;94 or ‘infrastructural urban-ism’ where “form matters, but more for what it can do than for what it looks like”.95 While moving beyond the focus on three-dimensional urban form making, therefore, a grow-ing need is felt for an integrative approach. this implies not only acknowledging the simultaneously material and social character of spatial relations and the agencies (re)producing them, and addressing urban environmental issues and challenges of the ecological age. it also im-plies developing diagnostic and analytical capabilities in urban design to deliver social, economic, aesthetic, and environmental values and benefits for a diversity of stakeholders (investors, developers, designers, inhabit-ants, users, public authorities and the community, and the future generations) in integrated and sustainable ways.

in rethinking urbanism in integrated ways, it is important to recognize that these urban spatial values and benefits can be seen from different perspectives. for example, Ali Madanipour has analyzed them from the perspective of the interests of producers, regulators and users of urban space.96 however, as he argues, “the three perspectives, and differences within each perspective, can be at odds with each other, creating tensions and incompatibili-ties”.97 Seeing these values from a more integrative per-spective, ernest Sternberg proposes the thesis that the constituents of the “human experience of the built form” (Kevin lynch’s ‘sensuous qualities’) are ‘noncommodifi-able’.98 he proposes ‘non-commodifiability’ as a concep-tual and ‘intellectual foundation’ that would seek out the integrative principles underlying the human experience of the built form. building upon gordon cullen’s (1961) ‘art of relationships’ and edmund bacon’s (1974) ‘expe-riential continuity’, Sternberg’s argument is pertinent for urban design: it requires concepts through which one can recognize and work with the cohesive interrelationships that constitute the built environment, and the intellectual principles through which they can recognize, sustain, and reconstitute environmental integrity. he identifies four such principles through which urban environments can transcend commodification: good form, legibility, vitality and meaning.99 More recently, in an attempt to postulate a cohesive theory of urban design as a ‘place-shaping continuum’, carmona brings in ‘process’ as an integra-tive perspective on these values. he sees urban design

as “a continuous integrated process or continuum” that is “informed by its historical place-based modes of opera-tion” and “shape(s) the experience of space” through the “combined outcomes and interactions between design, development, use and management”.100

building upon these perspectives, and as substantiated in a previous article for the Jud,101 we propose ‘integrative spatial quality’ as a holistic and dynamic imperative for rethinking urbanisms and urban design that cuts across the values of ‘non-commodifiability’ (Sternberg 2000), of central importance to ‘producers, regulators and users’ (Madanipour 2006), and permeates through all the ‘four interrelated process dimensions’ (carmona 2014) that shape the human experience of space and built form. the proposition of integrative spatial quality is intended to work for the full range of urban design situations: from public space, historic preservation, neighborhood revi-talization and community development, to large scale spatial (re)structuring, new towns and infrastructure (re)developments, sustainability and climatic change related adaptation, such as facing up to rising sea levels and car-bon emissions, energy crises, depleting resources and ecosystem services, urban heat island effects, integrated coastal zones and protected areas management, and so on.

4.3 Research by Design

design scholarship over the last decade – based on the experiences and methodological developments in the practice of design charrette, and aided by theoretical re-flections on design theory and designerly ways of know-ing / enquiry 102 - has unfolded ‘research by design’ (or design-based research) as an emerging scholarly field of enquiry for its diagnostic and analytical capabilities and values. they include exploring spatial potentialities and limitations of a particular site or area for creatively (re)defining projects, conceiving strategies for change and transformations, building and testing scenarios, and as a powerful interactive tool for collective decision-making for the spatial organization and construction of places.103 the major intellectual shift underlying research by de-sign (rbd), however, has been underway since 1980s and 1990s.

While the earlier modernist conception of space, and even the ‘good design’ debate “revolved around issues of how the form of objects could enhance the quality of life” the emphasis is now reversed.104 objects remain important as a symbolic location of experience, but the focus is on the “psychological, social and cultural contexts that give meaning and value to products and the discipline of de-sign practice”. this reversal represents a broadening of the scope of design as research with an increasing focus on synthesis: the ways in which design integrates diverging requirements and interests, but adds in pass-ing also conditions leading to new consequences for use and experiencing, thus offering new possibilities for in-clusive design, not to be described ex ante and often not in words.105 this way of making research and synthesis follows abduction - a situated logic through which design-ers and users of space become responsible for what they learn to see.106 rbd relies on an evolving interaction be-tween a context or environment and competing agendas, theory and practice, and different scale levels to endow spatial interventions with an enriched substance in tune with a broader notion of spatial quality.107 in research

by design, design is no longer seen as the application of abstract knowledge but a “principal method used by society to envision how we want to live in the future”.108 thus, design-based research has become more ‘society-feasible’ through a greater involvement of different types of users and stakeholders, opening up an opportunity to live design as a social learning process and as a cultural practice of place-making.109

for unfolding socio-spatially innovative and ecological practices in architecture and urban design, rbd typically employs inter- and transdisciplinary methods that are ca-pable of exploring interpretive as well as transformative capacities of our socio-spatial environment in spatially integrative ways. these methods are based on combin-ing normative and scientific stances derived from differ-ent disciplines and fields of knowledge with stakeholders sensibilities, critical reasoning, and practical experiences connecting research to explorations of transformative capacities in a social learning experience.110A participa-tory rbd process is characterized by creative-abductive reasoning that fits with the methodological logic of prag-matism understood as a social philosophy of collective action and knowledge-building.111 the process would typ-ically involve a collaborative development of diagnostic, analytical, and projective capabilities for understanding, (re)thinking, and (re)visioning a project-based or an area-based approach to spatial development that is inherently scale-sensitive and context-specific. not only architects, planners, landscapers, sociologists, anthropologists, ecologists, and technical experts in general, but also policy-makers, public administrations, real estate actors, and private investors involved in the spatial transforma-tion are part of the (decision) making processes. these actors, together with researchers, civil society organiza-tions, local residents, and users in general of the area in question, are seen as stakeholders and participants in the rbd process. While engaging with the complexity of the socio-spatial context, and dealing with the wicked nature of (spatial) problems (rittel 1973; verma 2011), as a critical pragmatic form of knowledge-building and so-cial learning (forester 1999), an rbd process raises a full set of disciplinary and ethical issues, such as democratic participation, legitimacy of the decision-making and im-plementation process, and quality of the physical result. rbd is thus advanced as a heuristic process for co-pro-duction of knowledge about specific characteristics and potentialities of socio-spatial contexts in order to critically conceive transformative strategies, actions, plans and programs.

in developing the methodological capabilities of rbd, many scholars and practitioners stress its spatially in-tegrative potential, abductive reasoning and the creative capacity. rbd does not aim at the elaboration of an ideal formal model for a spatial context, but at the identifica-tion and the assessment of (re)new(ed) socio-physical features and their practical effects in the light of possible environmental, socio-cultural, economic, and institutional developments. Sharing spatial interpretations, concepts, and creative solutions for the built environment through rbd among experts and stakeholders is not only a mat-ter of legitimacy and ethics but also of meaningful and integrated conceptualization of transformative hypoth-eses. the integrated transformative propositions defined through community interest, environmental concerns, and tailored to the socio-spatial and environmental po-tentialities and characteristics of the context, the gather-



23243242

in the framework of urban design, therefore, implies un-derstanding the concept of ‘public space and public life’ relationship (as urbanism) and the ways in which both the public and private realms are implicated in producing value, image, experience, and meaning in the built envi-ronment.

urbanism as ‘public space and public life’ relation-ship in the design discourse, as mentioned earlier, is increasingly inspired by lefebvre’s notion of the ‘social production of space’.81 lefebvrian analysts argue that the discourses of spatiality are confined to a conceptual triad of spatial practices, representations of space and spaces of representation.82 this triad allows understanding the way value and meaning are produced in public space.83 in the design discourse, Amos rapoport has developed a similar line of thinking through his large body of work on ‘environment - behaviour’ systems, where he argues that “socio-cultural schemata are the primary determi-nants of form and in turn affect the images and schemata that mediate between environment and people”.84 taking into account these dialectics, urban design is seen as a field that engages and enquires into ‘the human experi-ence that the built environment evokes’ throughout op-positional realms (from private properties to the public realm) and across scales (from the street to the regional landscape).85 this experiential quality of the built en-vironment and landscapes has been characterised by diverse value attributes such as: comfort, human scale, variety, complexity, urbanity, inclusiveness, meaningful-ness, imageability, enclosure, transparency, continuity, coherence, congeniality, playfulness, safety and security, mystery and awe, and so on, to liveable streets and neigh-borhoods, a minimum residential density and intensity of use, integration of activities, and buildings that define public spaces, etc..86 these value attributes are, however, the outcome of complex socio-spatial, cognitive and psy-chological naming and framing, and cannot be estranged from their particular socio-economic, historical, environ-mental and local but also wider spatial cultural contexts.87 Moreover, and in particular, sustainability and climate change related challenges are increasingly seen as fun-damentally redefining the values and qualities that are sought through the theory, practice and process of urban design and planning.

designing spatial articulations and strategies for the (re)making and (re)shaping of these experiential values in an integrative way is considered to be the core ambition and aim of ‘urban design’, a field that Mathew carmona (2014) rightly identifies as a ‘mongrel discipline’, that according to José louis Sert emerged out of the will “to find the com-mon base for the joined work of the Architect, the land-scape Architect, and the city Planner”. While being wider than the scope of these three professions,88 urban design has been praised “as an integrative force, deliberately straddling and helping to connect the silo-based disci-plines of the past”.89 on the other hand, there has also been criticism about the ‘vagueness’ of urban design, about the lack of a cohesive and robust ‘diagnostic and analytical apparatus’ of the discipline, as well as, a series of thoughtful reflections that have pleaded to also broad-en the scope of urban design, beyond physical design, programming and use of public space, to address the new challenges of the ecological age related to sustainability, climate change, sea level rise, large scale transportation infrastructure, etc.90 the experiential valuation, critique and concerns about sustainability have given way to a

series of thoughtful reconceptualization and rethinking (the growing movement to re-: rethink, reduce, repair, reuse, recycle, & reimagine the ways in which we inhabit our planet) of urban design / urbanism.91

rethinking urbanism(s) implies analysing the current modes and models of urbanisation and developing new approaches and models of urban design to address new challenges and accommodate the “new urban condi-tions”.92 in this rethinking, variegated fields of knowledge and practices are employed whose aims, among others, range from the revival of some pre-modern conceptions of the art of urban composition to reinterpretations of the modernist urbanism, from (means for) codified control of urban form to (critiques on) speculative sprawl and sub-urbanisation, from post-modernist positioning vis-a`-vis to neo-structural criticism of spatial organization, to ad-dressing environmental degradation, resources deple-tion, energy crises, and so on. examples are ‘new urban-ism’ (cozens 2008) and its reviving of traditional urban qualities; ‘landscape urbanism’, “in which landscape re-places architecture as the basic building block of urban-ism”;93 ‘ecological urbanism’ aiming at “more just as well as more pleasurable futures”;94 or ‘infrastructural urban-ism’ where “form matters, but more for what it can do than for what it looks like”.95 While moving beyond the focus on three-dimensional urban form making, therefore, a grow-ing need is felt for an integrative approach. this implies not only acknowledging the simultaneously material and social character of spatial relations and the agencies (re)producing them, and addressing urban environmental issues and challenges of the ecological age. it also im-plies developing diagnostic and analytical capabilities in urban design to deliver social, economic, aesthetic, and environmental values and benefits for a diversity of stakeholders (investors, developers, designers, inhabit-ants, users, public authorities and the community, and the future generations) in integrated and sustainable ways.

in rethinking urbanism in integrated ways, it is important to recognize that these urban spatial values and benefits can be seen from different perspectives. for example, Ali Madanipour has analyzed them from the perspective of the interests of producers, regulators and users of urban space.96 however, as he argues, “the three perspectives, and differences within each perspective, can be at odds with each other, creating tensions and incompatibili-ties”.97 Seeing these values from a more integrative per-spective, ernest Sternberg proposes the thesis that the constituents of the “human experience of the built form” (Kevin lynch’s ‘sensuous qualities’) are ‘noncommodifi-able’.98 he proposes ‘non-commodifiability’ as a concep-tual and ‘intellectual foundation’ that would seek out the integrative principles underlying the human experience of the built form. building upon gordon cullen’s (1961) ‘art of relationships’ and edmund bacon’s (1974) ‘expe-riential continuity’, Sternberg’s argument is pertinent for urban design: it requires concepts through which one can recognize and work with the cohesive interrelationships that constitute the built environment, and the intellectual principles through which they can recognize, sustain, and reconstitute environmental integrity. he identifies four such principles through which urban environments can transcend commodification: good form, legibility, vitality and meaning.99 More recently, in an attempt to postulate a cohesive theory of urban design as a ‘place-shaping continuum’, carmona brings in ‘process’ as an integra-tive perspective on these values. he sees urban design

as “a continuous integrated process or continuum” that is “informed by its historical place-based modes of opera-tion” and “shape(s) the experience of space” through the “combined outcomes and interactions between design, development, use and management”.100

building upon these perspectives, and as substantiated in a previous article for the Jud,101 we propose ‘integrative spatial quality’ as a holistic and dynamic imperative for rethinking urbanisms and urban design that cuts across the values of ‘non-commodifiability’ (Sternberg 2000), of central importance to ‘producers, regulators and users’ (Madanipour 2006), and permeates through all the ‘four interrelated process dimensions’ (carmona 2014) that shape the human experience of space and built form. the proposition of integrative spatial quality is intended to work for the full range of urban design situations: from public space, historic preservation, neighborhood revi-talization and community development, to large scale spatial (re)structuring, new towns and infrastructure (re)developments, sustainability and climatic change related adaptation, such as facing up to rising sea levels and car-bon emissions, energy crises, depleting resources and ecosystem services, urban heat island effects, integrated coastal zones and protected areas management, and so on.

4.3 Research by Design

design scholarship over the last decade – based on the experiences and methodological developments in the practice of design charrette, and aided by theoretical re-flections on design theory and designerly ways of know-ing / enquiry 102 - has unfolded ‘research by design’ (or design-based research) as an emerging scholarly field of enquiry for its diagnostic and analytical capabilities and values. they include exploring spatial potentialities and limitations of a particular site or area for creatively (re)defining projects, conceiving strategies for change and transformations, building and testing scenarios, and as a powerful interactive tool for collective decision-making for the spatial organization and construction of places.103 the major intellectual shift underlying research by de-sign (rbd), however, has been underway since 1980s and 1990s.

While the earlier modernist conception of space, and even the ‘good design’ debate “revolved around issues of how the form of objects could enhance the quality of life” the emphasis is now reversed.104 objects remain important as a symbolic location of experience, but the focus is on the “psychological, social and cultural contexts that give meaning and value to products and the discipline of de-sign practice”. this reversal represents a broadening of the scope of design as research with an increasing focus on synthesis: the ways in which design integrates diverging requirements and interests, but adds in pass-ing also conditions leading to new consequences for use and experiencing, thus offering new possibilities for in-clusive design, not to be described ex ante and often not in words.105 this way of making research and synthesis follows abduction - a situated logic through which design-ers and users of space become responsible for what they learn to see.106 rbd relies on an evolving interaction be-tween a context or environment and competing agendas, theory and practice, and different scale levels to endow spatial interventions with an enriched substance in tune with a broader notion of spatial quality.107 in research

by design, design is no longer seen as the application of abstract knowledge but a “principal method used by society to envision how we want to live in the future”.108 thus, design-based research has become more ‘society-feasible’ through a greater involvement of different types of users and stakeholders, opening up an opportunity to live design as a social learning process and as a cultural practice of place-making.109

for unfolding socio-spatially innovative and ecological practices in architecture and urban design, rbd typically employs inter- and transdisciplinary methods that are ca-pable of exploring interpretive as well as transformative capacities of our socio-spatial environment in spatially integrative ways. these methods are based on combin-ing normative and scientific stances derived from differ-ent disciplines and fields of knowledge with stakeholders sensibilities, critical reasoning, and practical experiences connecting research to explorations of transformative capacities in a social learning experience.110A participa-tory rbd process is characterized by creative-abductive reasoning that fits with the methodological logic of prag-matism understood as a social philosophy of collective action and knowledge-building.111 the process would typ-ically involve a collaborative development of diagnostic, analytical, and projective capabilities for understanding, (re)thinking, and (re)visioning a project-based or an area-based approach to spatial development that is inherently scale-sensitive and context-specific. not only architects, planners, landscapers, sociologists, anthropologists, ecologists, and technical experts in general, but also policy-makers, public administrations, real estate actors, and private investors involved in the spatial transforma-tion are part of the (decision) making processes. these actors, together with researchers, civil society organiza-tions, local residents, and users in general of the area in question, are seen as stakeholders and participants in the rbd process. While engaging with the complexity of the socio-spatial context, and dealing with the wicked nature of (spatial) problems (rittel 1973; verma 2011), as a critical pragmatic form of knowledge-building and so-cial learning (forester 1999), an rbd process raises a full set of disciplinary and ethical issues, such as democratic participation, legitimacy of the decision-making and im-plementation process, and quality of the physical result. rbd is thus advanced as a heuristic process for co-pro-duction of knowledge about specific characteristics and potentialities of socio-spatial contexts in order to critically conceive transformative strategies, actions, plans and programs.

in developing the methodological capabilities of rbd, many scholars and practitioners stress its spatially in-tegrative potential, abductive reasoning and the creative capacity. rbd does not aim at the elaboration of an ideal formal model for a spatial context, but at the identifica-tion and the assessment of (re)new(ed) socio-physical features and their practical effects in the light of possible environmental, socio-cultural, economic, and institutional developments. Sharing spatial interpretations, concepts, and creative solutions for the built environment through rbd among experts and stakeholders is not only a mat-ter of legitimacy and ethics but also of meaningful and integrated conceptualization of transformative hypoth-eses. the integrated transformative propositions defined through community interest, environmental concerns, and tailored to the socio-spatial and environmental po-tentialities and characteristics of the context, the gather-



24 245244

ing of interests (and a sense of ownership) around new forms of spatial configurations and at the same time the disclosing of alternative transformative forces in local in-novation and co-production processes are the core stra-tegic factors of rbd for pragmatically gearing built envi-ronments towards sustainability.

4.4 Architecture as Life-Cycle thinking

Another integrative way of moving towards a sustainable built environment is approaching it from a life cycle per-spective. instead of focusing on solely the operational phase of the built environment (e.g. nearly zero energy buildings), or only on the construction phase, a more holistic approach is used by considering the whole life cycle. life cycle thinking is not a new concept. life cycle costing (lcc) is an economic accounting method which is typically used to rank different investment alternatives in terms of cost reduction during life time. the approach was introduced in the british building industry during the 1950s, using the term ‘costs-in-use’ and replaced by the term lcc through the work of flanagan and norman in 1983.112 Since the end of 1960s, the life cycle thinking ap-proach has also been applied to assess environmental impacts. the first environmental life cycle assessment was made to investigate the most preferred material for bottling coca cola beverages, at that time (1969) re-ferred to as “resource and environmental profile analy-sis (rePA)“.113 departing from this first implementation, life cycle assessment (lcA) is to date a broadly accepted decision-supporting method. this broad acceptance is amongst others reflected in the international standards, i.e. the iSo 14040 series regarding environmental Man-agement – life cycle Assessment, establishing a common framework for this analytical approach of environmental assessment.114

in europe, life cycle thinking has become more prominent during the past decade, not only in the scientific field, but also in the context of environmental labelling of products (e.g. cradle-to-cradle label, environmental Product dec-larations).115 this emerging trend is reflected in several recent communications from the european commission which refer to the life cycle thinking approach. two im-portant ones to mention are (a) the communication of the roadmap to a resource efficient europe in 2011 explicitly mentioning the life cycle thinking principle for providing accurate information on environmental impacts to help guide consumption decisions; and (b) the communica-tion and recommendation on the use of the ec Product and organisation environmental footprint in April 2013 within the context of building the Single Market for green Products.116 Within this development, a shift is noticed from a simplified single-impact approach to a more com-prehensive approach, e.g. the evolution from carbon to environmental footprinting. these more comprehensive approaches have been developed in order to avoid bur-den shifting from one impact category to another and have proved to potentially lead to different decision tak-ing.117

in the context of architecture, the life cycle approach has emerged both in the context of environmental standards, tools, labels, databases and certification schemes as in the context of architectural practice. focusing on the former we see a proliferation of sustainability assess-ment methods, certification schemes and labels related to buildings and construction products based on the life cy-

cle approach. this proliferation reflects the complexity of the sustainability issue as these sustainability measure-ment schemes all aim at grasping this complex issue by translating sustainability into a set of indicators or even a single index. examples are the ecological footprint of Wackernagel and rees (i.e., representing the productive land and sea area in hectares necessary to provide the resources and to assimilate the associated waste in sup-port of a specified level of consumption), the eco-indicator (i.e., multi-criteria environmental impact assessment al-lowing the expression of a whole range of environmental categories in a single score through normalization and weighting), and externalities (i.e., expressing environ-mental impacts in monetary values).118 the higher the ag-gregation level, the higher the subjectivity, but the easier straightforward decisions can be made.119 Subjectivity hereby mainly derives from the weighting factors being applied to aggregate the different sustainability indica-tors.

this multitude of assessment methods, tools and labels adds to the confusion regarding the already complex is-sue of sustainability. As a reaction to this confusion, at-tempts are being made to evolve towards a harmonised method and labelling system in europe. At least two im-portant initiatives are worth mentioning. the first is relat-ed to the work of the european committee for Standardi-sation (cen) technical committee (tc) 350, in terms of the development of the en 15804 [Sustainability of construc-tion works – environmental product declarations – core rules for the product category of construction products] and en 15978 [Sustainability of construction works – As-sessment of environmental performance of buildings – calculation method].120 both are based on the lcA meth-od and prescribe very specific methodological rules and requirements at construction product and building level respectively. based on the en 15804 a more harmonised environmental labelling of construction products has ap-peared. A second initiative are the construction related pilot cases which have been started up in 2013 to test the recently developed ec Pef method and strive for har-monisation of environmental assessment, labelling and benchmarking of specific groups of construction prod-ucts.

life cycle thinking in architectural practice is reflected on different scale levels. on the lowest levels, several initia-tives are taken to reduce the life cycle impact of building materials and products. this is amongst others reflected in two types of environmental labels according to the iSo 14024 standard which take into account the whole life cy-cle of the product. the first type are labels which take into account the whole life cycle but are not necessarily based on lcA. examples are the c2c (‘cradle-to-cradle’) label de-veloped in 2005, the naturePlus label (2001) and the euro-pean ecolabel - eu flower since 1992. the second group of labels (the type three environmental labels according to iSo 14024) are based on the lcA approach and con-sist of the environmental Product declarations (ePds). on the level of the building element (e.g. outer walls, floors, pitched roof, etc) several databases exist with environ-mental data based on the lcA method. examples of such databases are nibe (nl), ovAM:MMg (be), inieS (fr), the green guide to Specification (uK), baubook (At), etc.121 At the building level life cycle thinking has been approached from different angles, ranging from the design perspec-tive, over the development of sustainability assessment tools and certification systems. the increasing number of

labelled buildings is an indication of this important trend. despite this current focus on life cycle thinking, also in the built environment it is not a new concept. edo (tokyo) is a clear historic example of the recently revived concept of circular economy and is often seen as the example of the sustainable city.

4.5 Bioclimatic Architecture and Integrated Design

the modern field of ‘bioclimatic architecture or design’ appeared in response mainly due to the exposure of mod-ernist architects to the tropical conditions (1940s-50s) in late colonialism and, more specifically to the modern environmental movement (1960s-) and the energy crises (post 1973 era). this has also been previously known as tropical architecture, and solar, passive, and lately green architecture. there are, however, also claims that bio-climatic design is something which, aside from modern technologies, has existed to a greater or lesser extent from primordial times,122 evolved and embedded in the vernacular architecture to this day,123 and has been de-veloping at least over a span of several centuries before the industrial revolution. however, it was the work of two brothers - victor and olgyay (since 1951) spanning over a decade and finally put together and published for the first time in 1962 (design With climate: A bioclimatic Ap-proach to Architectural regionalism) - who began to ap-ply the term ‘bioclimatic approach to architecture’. today, bioclimatism in architecture as a notion implies buildings that are inspired by nature, which have a clear strategy for minimizing environmental degradation and which encourage a sense of well-being (in the broadest sense of the word). in this sense, it is currently viewed as indis-pensable for environmental sustainability, something which without a doubt involves viable economic and so-cially acceptable reckoning.124 Among the many issues identified by scholars that must be addressed in the de-sign of bioclimatic buildings and settings, three of them are considered essential: energy; health and well-being; and sustainability.125

in the contemporary understanding of the bioclimatic design as a field, three broad disciplines are implicated: climate, design, and bio (or biology, nature, and ecology). the first one (climate), as mentioned earlier, has its roots in the tropical architecture movement of the 1940s, but cli-mate had also been a specific concern of the modernists in the context of bauhaus (dating back to early 1920s). from victor and olgyay’s opening up of the field in terms of design with ‘climate’, via environmental movement and the genesis of sustainability paradigm (1987), climate and particularly climate change (iPcc and their exposi-tion of scientific evidence over the last 2 decades) has become one of the most central global agenda. Although, since 1960s, the main scientific agenda through ‘climate’ in the framework of bioclimatic architecture has been dominated by the idea or concept of improving ‘thermal comfort’, amelioration of micro-climatic conditions, under-standing of how the climatic parameters and variables work, its global and local factors, etc.. however, at the turn of the 21st century, climate change has become an over-arching paradigm that not only the entire spectrum of the fields and disciplines of knowledge are concerned with, it is the most significant global consciousness that is widely shared across societal, economic, and political spheres, as important as the industrial revolution was at the turn of the 20th century. in this sense, climatology and climate studies have transcended the traditional disciplinary

boundaries in becoming an inter- and transdisciplinary field of its own with proliferating developments and tre-mendous expansion in the knowledge and our insight into the working of climate and its multi-scalar and multi-dimensional effects. this puts tremendous demands and challenges on bioclimatic design experts, academics and researchers to be abreast with the state of the art in this field, which is widening and deepening by every passing day, which in turn legitimizes the working together with climatologist, and other related experts (computer model-ing and simulations, etc.) in order to advance the field of bioclimatic design.

now turning to the second and third disciplines – design and bio / nature / ecology – involved in bioclimatic de-sign, we observe that there is a sea change in the per-ception about linkages of these two fields (design and biology) with respect to the by now scientifically proven capacity of the linkage to unfold resilience.126 As the ar-chitectural theorist christopher Alexander proclaimed that “Architectural design can be founded on scientific principles that are analogous to structural laws in theo-retical physics and biology”.127design is indeed about life and, at a time of accelerated technological evolution and dramatic political, environmental, demographic, and eco-nomic concerns, the future designers have a huge task at their hands. As in the late 1960s, ettore Sottsass declared design ‘is a way of discussing society, politics, …….a way of building up a possible figurative utopia or metaphor about life’.128 to fix our broken relationship with nature, as Antonelli argues ‘Architects working on wet buildings that adapt to changing environmental conditions and levels of occupancy, almost as if they were living organisms; de-signers concocting new diagnostic and therapeutic tools and rely on animals and plants; engineers devising new, self-healing construction materials.’129 thus, bio- in biocli-matic design implies, ‘a radical approach to design that draws on biological tenets and even incorporates the use of living materials into structures, objects, and tools’.130 variations on the theme of bio- (or more generally ‘na-ture’, ‘environment’) in design abound: biomimicry, cradle to cradle, green, sustainable, landscape, ecological and integrated design.131biomimicry among them deserves special attention, which has been considered as one of the main tools that will facilitate the “transition from the industrial age to the ecological age of mankind”.132

As ‘the abstraction of good design from nature’ (J. vincent) and ‘the conscious emulation of nature’s genius’ (J. beny-us), biomimetic design implies mimicking the genius of na-ture (viewed as “model, mentor, and measure”) to develop innovation i.e. nature inspired, biologically informed and ecologically integrated design.133 biomimetics in architec-ture is thus defined as an approach that transfers the bi-ological characteristics of life onto the built environment and thus architecture.134 in architecture, after decades of postmodernism, attention has been refocused on nature’s morphologies, although still limited in extent up until a decade ago – often relying on frequently cited examples, such as termite mounds and spider webs.135 biomimetism in architecture can be traced back to, among others, the rediscovery of the work of d’Arcy Wentworth thompson (1860-1948),136ian Mcharg’s design with nature, buck-minster fuller’s nature inspired design innovations, and the work of metabolists movement in Japan. beyond ar-chitecture, biomimicry is developing rapidly in other fields, such as industrial design, engineering and manufactur-ing and even in medicine and fashion. the premise for



25245244

ing of interests (and a sense of ownership) around new forms of spatial configurations and at the same time the disclosing of alternative transformative forces in local in-novation and co-production processes are the core stra-tegic factors of rbd for pragmatically gearing built envi-ronments towards sustainability.

4.4 Architecture as Life-Cycle thinking

Another integrative way of moving towards a sustainable built environment is approaching it from a life cycle per-spective. instead of focusing on solely the operational phase of the built environment (e.g. nearly zero energy buildings), or only on the construction phase, a more holistic approach is used by considering the whole life cycle. life cycle thinking is not a new concept. life cycle costing (lcc) is an economic accounting method which is typically used to rank different investment alternatives in terms of cost reduction during life time. the approach was introduced in the british building industry during the 1950s, using the term ‘costs-in-use’ and replaced by the term lcc through the work of flanagan and norman in 1983.112 Since the end of 1960s, the life cycle thinking ap-proach has also been applied to assess environmental impacts. the first environmental life cycle assessment was made to investigate the most preferred material for bottling coca cola beverages, at that time (1969) re-ferred to as “resource and environmental profile analy-sis (rePA)“.113 departing from this first implementation, life cycle assessment (lcA) is to date a broadly accepted decision-supporting method. this broad acceptance is amongst others reflected in the international standards, i.e. the iSo 14040 series regarding environmental Man-agement – life cycle Assessment, establishing a common framework for this analytical approach of environmental assessment.114

in europe, life cycle thinking has become more prominent during the past decade, not only in the scientific field, but also in the context of environmental labelling of products (e.g. cradle-to-cradle label, environmental Product dec-larations).115 this emerging trend is reflected in several recent communications from the european commission which refer to the life cycle thinking approach. two im-portant ones to mention are (a) the communication of the roadmap to a resource efficient europe in 2011 explicitly mentioning the life cycle thinking principle for providing accurate information on environmental impacts to help guide consumption decisions; and (b) the communica-tion and recommendation on the use of the ec Product and organisation environmental footprint in April 2013 within the context of building the Single Market for green Products.116 Within this development, a shift is noticed from a simplified single-impact approach to a more com-prehensive approach, e.g. the evolution from carbon to environmental footprinting. these more comprehensive approaches have been developed in order to avoid bur-den shifting from one impact category to another and have proved to potentially lead to different decision tak-ing.117

in the context of architecture, the life cycle approach has emerged both in the context of environmental standards, tools, labels, databases and certification schemes as in the context of architectural practice. focusing on the former we see a proliferation of sustainability assess-ment methods, certification schemes and labels related to buildings and construction products based on the life cy-

cle approach. this proliferation reflects the complexity of the sustainability issue as these sustainability measure-ment schemes all aim at grasping this complex issue by translating sustainability into a set of indicators or even a single index. examples are the ecological footprint of Wackernagel and rees (i.e., representing the productive land and sea area in hectares necessary to provide the resources and to assimilate the associated waste in sup-port of a specified level of consumption), the eco-indicator (i.e., multi-criteria environmental impact assessment al-lowing the expression of a whole range of environmental categories in a single score through normalization and weighting), and externalities (i.e., expressing environ-mental impacts in monetary values).118 the higher the ag-gregation level, the higher the subjectivity, but the easier straightforward decisions can be made.119 Subjectivity hereby mainly derives from the weighting factors being applied to aggregate the different sustainability indica-tors.

this multitude of assessment methods, tools and labels adds to the confusion regarding the already complex is-sue of sustainability. As a reaction to this confusion, at-tempts are being made to evolve towards a harmonised method and labelling system in europe. At least two im-portant initiatives are worth mentioning. the first is relat-ed to the work of the european committee for Standardi-sation (cen) technical committee (tc) 350, in terms of the development of the en 15804 [Sustainability of construc-tion works – environmental product declarations – core rules for the product category of construction products] and en 15978 [Sustainability of construction works – As-sessment of environmental performance of buildings – calculation method].120 both are based on the lcA meth-od and prescribe very specific methodological rules and requirements at construction product and building level respectively. based on the en 15804 a more harmonised environmental labelling of construction products has ap-peared. A second initiative are the construction related pilot cases which have been started up in 2013 to test the recently developed ec Pef method and strive for har-monisation of environmental assessment, labelling and benchmarking of specific groups of construction prod-ucts.

life cycle thinking in architectural practice is reflected on different scale levels. on the lowest levels, several initia-tives are taken to reduce the life cycle impact of building materials and products. this is amongst others reflected in two types of environmental labels according to the iSo 14024 standard which take into account the whole life cy-cle of the product. the first type are labels which take into account the whole life cycle but are not necessarily based on lcA. examples are the c2c (‘cradle-to-cradle’) label de-veloped in 2005, the naturePlus label (2001) and the euro-pean ecolabel - eu flower since 1992. the second group of labels (the type three environmental labels according to iSo 14024) are based on the lcA approach and con-sist of the environmental Product declarations (ePds). on the level of the building element (e.g. outer walls, floors, pitched roof, etc) several databases exist with environ-mental data based on the lcA method. examples of such databases are nibe (nl), ovAM:MMg (be), inieS (fr), the green guide to Specification (uK), baubook (At), etc.121 At the building level life cycle thinking has been approached from different angles, ranging from the design perspec-tive, over the development of sustainability assessment tools and certification systems. the increasing number of

labelled buildings is an indication of this important trend. despite this current focus on life cycle thinking, also in the built environment it is not a new concept. edo (tokyo) is a clear historic example of the recently revived concept of circular economy and is often seen as the example of the sustainable city.

4.5 Bioclimatic Architecture and Integrated Design

the modern field of ‘bioclimatic architecture or design’ appeared in response mainly due to the exposure of mod-ernist architects to the tropical conditions (1940s-50s) in late colonialism and, more specifically to the modern environmental movement (1960s-) and the energy crises (post 1973 era). this has also been previously known as tropical architecture, and solar, passive, and lately green architecture. there are, however, also claims that bio-climatic design is something which, aside from modern technologies, has existed to a greater or lesser extent from primordial times,122 evolved and embedded in the vernacular architecture to this day,123 and has been de-veloping at least over a span of several centuries before the industrial revolution. however, it was the work of two brothers - victor and olgyay (since 1951) spanning over a decade and finally put together and published for the first time in 1962 (design With climate: A bioclimatic Ap-proach to Architectural regionalism) - who began to ap-ply the term ‘bioclimatic approach to architecture’. today, bioclimatism in architecture as a notion implies buildings that are inspired by nature, which have a clear strategy for minimizing environmental degradation and which encourage a sense of well-being (in the broadest sense of the word). in this sense, it is currently viewed as indis-pensable for environmental sustainability, something which without a doubt involves viable economic and so-cially acceptable reckoning.124 Among the many issues identified by scholars that must be addressed in the de-sign of bioclimatic buildings and settings, three of them are considered essential: energy; health and well-being; and sustainability.125

in the contemporary understanding of the bioclimatic design as a field, three broad disciplines are implicated: climate, design, and bio (or biology, nature, and ecology). the first one (climate), as mentioned earlier, has its roots in the tropical architecture movement of the 1940s, but cli-mate had also been a specific concern of the modernists in the context of bauhaus (dating back to early 1920s). from victor and olgyay’s opening up of the field in terms of design with ‘climate’, via environmental movement and the genesis of sustainability paradigm (1987), climate and particularly climate change (iPcc and their exposi-tion of scientific evidence over the last 2 decades) has become one of the most central global agenda. Although, since 1960s, the main scientific agenda through ‘climate’ in the framework of bioclimatic architecture has been dominated by the idea or concept of improving ‘thermal comfort’, amelioration of micro-climatic conditions, under-standing of how the climatic parameters and variables work, its global and local factors, etc.. however, at the turn of the 21st century, climate change has become an over-arching paradigm that not only the entire spectrum of the fields and disciplines of knowledge are concerned with, it is the most significant global consciousness that is widely shared across societal, economic, and political spheres, as important as the industrial revolution was at the turn of the 20th century. in this sense, climatology and climate studies have transcended the traditional disciplinary

boundaries in becoming an inter- and transdisciplinary field of its own with proliferating developments and tre-mendous expansion in the knowledge and our insight into the working of climate and its multi-scalar and multi-dimensional effects. this puts tremendous demands and challenges on bioclimatic design experts, academics and researchers to be abreast with the state of the art in this field, which is widening and deepening by every passing day, which in turn legitimizes the working together with climatologist, and other related experts (computer model-ing and simulations, etc.) in order to advance the field of bioclimatic design.

now turning to the second and third disciplines – design and bio / nature / ecology – involved in bioclimatic de-sign, we observe that there is a sea change in the per-ception about linkages of these two fields (design and biology) with respect to the by now scientifically proven capacity of the linkage to unfold resilience.126 As the ar-chitectural theorist christopher Alexander proclaimed that “Architectural design can be founded on scientific principles that are analogous to structural laws in theo-retical physics and biology”.127design is indeed about life and, at a time of accelerated technological evolution and dramatic political, environmental, demographic, and eco-nomic concerns, the future designers have a huge task at their hands. As in the late 1960s, ettore Sottsass declared design ‘is a way of discussing society, politics, …….a way of building up a possible figurative utopia or metaphor about life’.128 to fix our broken relationship with nature, as Antonelli argues ‘Architects working on wet buildings that adapt to changing environmental conditions and levels of occupancy, almost as if they were living organisms; de-signers concocting new diagnostic and therapeutic tools and rely on animals and plants; engineers devising new, self-healing construction materials.’129 thus, bio- in biocli-matic design implies, ‘a radical approach to design that draws on biological tenets and even incorporates the use of living materials into structures, objects, and tools’.130 variations on the theme of bio- (or more generally ‘na-ture’, ‘environment’) in design abound: biomimicry, cradle to cradle, green, sustainable, landscape, ecological and integrated design.131biomimicry among them deserves special attention, which has been considered as one of the main tools that will facilitate the “transition from the industrial age to the ecological age of mankind”.132

As ‘the abstraction of good design from nature’ (J. vincent) and ‘the conscious emulation of nature’s genius’ (J. beny-us), biomimetic design implies mimicking the genius of na-ture (viewed as “model, mentor, and measure”) to develop innovation i.e. nature inspired, biologically informed and ecologically integrated design.133 biomimetics in architec-ture is thus defined as an approach that transfers the bi-ological characteristics of life onto the built environment and thus architecture.134 in architecture, after decades of postmodernism, attention has been refocused on nature’s morphologies, although still limited in extent up until a decade ago – often relying on frequently cited examples, such as termite mounds and spider webs.135 biomimetism in architecture can be traced back to, among others, the rediscovery of the work of d’Arcy Wentworth thompson (1860-1948),136ian Mcharg’s design with nature, buck-minster fuller’s nature inspired design innovations, and the work of metabolists movement in Japan. beyond ar-chitecture, biomimicry is developing rapidly in other fields, such as industrial design, engineering and manufactur-ing and even in medicine and fashion. the premise for



26 247246

studying biological concepts of evolution and adaptation as a new way of looking at the functional aspects of na-ture for translations into developing solutions in architec-ture and urban design is that biological organisms can be seen as embodying technologies that are equivalent to those invented by humans, and in many cases they have solved the same problems with far greater economy of means. in a more integrated sense, biomimicry seeks to link complexity, biodiversity and coexistence, using them as precedents for principles of design where, even a sin-gular element, its development is understood as part of a whole system that interrelates natural and man-made components, allowing for a beneficial coexistence.137 to a much more sophisticated understanding of the need for integration, balance and reciprocity between ourselves and the rest of the living world, recent scholarship in bio-mimicry is opening up that search for a new balance, and calls for going “beyond the aesthetic or functional, and …. explore the conceptually strategic (e.g. restoration of natural systems, which could become a significant con-tribution of architecture)”, and mimicking the “functional basis of biological forms, processes and systems to pro-duce sustainable solutions”. through experimentation, imagination and creativity, biomimetic design is emerging as a new direction in which to discover and transform the way we, and our built world, relate to the natural world.138

bio- together with climatic and design, thus provides a unifying, integrated and sustainable approach to building (and urban) design, which is driving increased inter- and transdisciplinarity in the form of collaboration between engineers, designers, architects, builders, biologists, ecologists, and societal actors. bioclimatism, thus, by and large, has given way to the evolution of solar, passive, green, sustainable, ecological to what is unfolding as ‘in-tegrated design’. Although integrated design is theorized and practiced in many different ways (see introduction to part 2 of this book), we see it as an overarching theme to develop novel ways for addressing the issues and chal-lenges of the ecological age: achieving radical increases in resource efficiency, shifting from a fuel-based economy to a solar economy and transforming from a linear waste-ful and polluting way of using resources to a completely closed-loop model in which all resources are stewarded in cycles and nothing is lost as waste. We see it thus as a theme that governs energy, resources, and environmen-tal quality decisions and strategies at building scale139 to that of systems integration (horizontal and vertical) at lo-cal, urban, regional and global scales, through processes that requires intense balance – and a path of priorities – to work towards a sustainable built environment and restore the global ecological balance.140 because of this processual nature of bioclimatic, integrated and sustain-able design, every design decision produces a cascade of multiple effects, thus achieving success requires un-derstanding of the relationship of each material, system, and spatial element141 to energy, climate, water, and so on, i.e. a shift from modernist rationality towards holistic, rela-tional and ecological thinking in design.

based on the aforementioned, we posit bioclimatic inte-grated design as an architectural perspective where the use of energy, water, and construction materials must be considered in relation to their impact on the environment and the society, whilst remaining true to contemporary aesthetic ideals, engineering, construction and design principles. from this perspective, we introduce biocli-matic integrated design as the design of buildings and

spaces (interior, exterior, outdoor, public and semi-public open / green spaces) in harmony with, and in response to the local bio-climatic and socio-spatial conditions for providing thermal and visual comfort, and improvement in social relations, in a sustainable way. three main princi-ples are fundamental in this understanding: making use of renewable energy and local bio-climatic / environmen-tal sources (air, sun, wind, vegetation, water, soil, daylight, etc.) in ways that the use and dependency on consump-tive non-renewable energy sources is minimized; design-ing for re-use so as to “minimize the use of new resources and, at the end of its life, to form the resources for other architecture”;142and designing to “live lightly on the earth” (more human powered and less resource intensive buildings and lifestyle) so that there will be quality and re-sources remaining for generations to come.

More rigidly defined, bioclimatic integrated design is about gaining optimum thermal and visual comfort through (minimum active and mainly) passive means – as applied bio-climatological science. bioclimatic integrated design can be seen as a responsive (re)configuration of the relationship between three elements - climatic/bio-ecological conditions of a specific context, the site, and the building(s) - to provide visual and thermal comfort, and create a symbiotic, sustainable, energy efficient and embedded-in-place environment. in such a (re)configura-tion, the knowledge and understanding of climate (Sun and solar geometry, air and temperature, wind, humidity, etc.), Site bio-configurations (topography, orientation, soil, water, vegetation, building and street morphology, etc.), Material properties (3rs, embodied energy, etc.), Passive systems and design strategies (energy, heat & air flow, shading, ventilation, light, etc.) for minimizing resource and energy use are central. bioclimatic integrated de-sign is a transition toward revitalizing, revamping and reinventing our existing environments. our emphasis on the ‘integrated’ is to provide an opportunity for designers of both new and old construction to shift their focus and sensibilities from modernist/post-modernist rationality towards a relational view based on ecological rationality, i.e. from developing buildings in isolation to considering them as a component of the larger network of systems intertwined with the multitude of factors making up the environment as a whole.

5. generAting SuStAinAbility concePtS froM ArchitecturAl PerSPectiveS

in the call for papers for this book project, we highlighted, on the one hand, the confusion and fragmentation that characterises the proliferating architectural discourses on sustainability, which has unfolded the need for pro-ductive dialogue across theoretical boundaries for devel-oping more integrated approaches. on the other hand, we pointed towards the emerging consensus on the need to focus more on ‘ways’ of conceptualizing ‘sustainability’ with a “pluralist imagination” rather than to search for a universal one-size-fit-all type of sustainability notion that is contended to have caused “both the discourse and practice of sustainability” to suffer.

building upon these needs and consensus, and cogni-zant of the potential of architectural design perspectives in making sustainability topics experienceable, our call for papers was centered around one main question: how to generate sustainability concepts from architectural perspectives? underpinning this question, and as sub-

stantiated in the narration of architectural perspectives on sustainability in the previous section, is our under-standing of sustainability that is not a static notion or a fixed ideal or a set of principles / attributes that can be simply added onto a conventional design process, build-ing or a city. rather our premise is that sustainability ought to be an intrinsic value as a dynamic integrative framework with evolving concepts that must be redefined and reassessed with each new design process / project as an opportunity to do so. Sustainability, thus, is seen as an integrative framework, and (architectural and urban) design as one of the most appropriate (synthesis) field for exploring and dealing with this integrative endeavor. Sub-stantiating our case in the call for papers for this book, we argued that it is in the act of designing that integrating “material” sustainability issues like lower energy and ma-terials consumption comes along with “immaterial” sus-tainability aspects like public-private articulations, social integration / cohesion, architectural / cultural expression and spatial quality concerns. Sustainable design in our view, thus, begins with change of ‘attitude’, followed by ‘re-thinking’ of existing paradigms and the development of new strategies. this implies using issues of sustainability, ecology and energy as catalyst for creatively ‘rethinking’ conventional notions of ‘enclosure, tectonics, and pro-gram,’ and thereby, generate new / alternative concep-tions and expressions of sustainability.

based on the aforementioned, we formulated the objec-tive of our ‘call for papers’ as to solicit papers that demon-strate such rethinking as architectural ways of exploring and generating sustainability concepts. More generally, we invited papers that demonstrate critical thinking and reflection on the evolving sustainability discourses in re-lation to architectural design thinking, and develop a spe-cific position on sustainability. in particular, we welcomed case-based research by design papers that examine new / innovative design theories, concepts, principles, ap-proaches, strategies and projects that aim and demon-strate dealing with sustainability. in order to provide a structure for comprehending the debates on architecture and sustainability relationships through specific contri-butions, we proposed that the papers should address / fit-in or cover explicitly one or more of the following broader thematic strands:

• Architectural (re)interpretation(s) of the 3 sustainability pillars (social, economic & environmental)

• historical-critical reviews of green consciousness in architecture-culture

• An appraisal of contemporary sustainable design practices

• reviewing critical perspectives in the bioclimatic design, energy and performance discourses

• rethinking the role/position of lcA (life cycle Assessment) & sustainability assessment frameworks (leed, breeAM, etc.) in architectural design

• reconciling architectural expression (form-making, aesthetics) & sustainability performance (operation)

• interdisciplinary theoretical explorations of the intersection between design, technology and nature discourses

• explorative papers on sustainability through research by design

After going through a rigorous process of selection and peer reviews, the final contributions to this book have been organised in five thematic strands in the part 2 of this book. they include: understand – contributions re-lated to architectural theory; express – contributions exploring architectural expression and representation; Measure – contributions related to sustainability assess-ment and performance; design – contributions dedicated to architectural research by design for exploring different scenarios of sustainability; and urbanism – contributions exploring sustainability in urban design and planning. these thematic strands can be seen as integrative atti-tudes that not only provide opportunities for developing more integrated approaches within each thematic area, but also working on their interrelations offer promising opportunities for advancing integrated design to engage with and address the different dimensions, cycles and scales of sustainability issues in the built environment.

6. Structure of the booK

over all, the whole book is organised in three main parts. the first part – namely, integrated design in theory and practice – aims to bring together perspectives of eminent theorists and practitioners on architecture and sustain-ability relationships. the second part dedicated to inte-grated design perspectives presents contributions from the world of research that are organised in five integrative attitudes. explorations through integrated design as the third part shares contributions that show the pedagogical potential of investigating architecture and sustainability relationships through integrated design approaches. the first, second and third part comprises five, twenty-six and thirteen chapters respectively. An introductory chapter is provided at the beginning of each part that discusses the specific contributions in relation to their integrative atti-tude and the overall thematic focus of the respective part.

Part-I: Integrated Design in Theory and Practice

in Part i several eminent scholars and practitioners of sustainable architecture and urbanism provide their perspectives on sustainable architecture. five interna-tional experts address the main question how to generate sustainability concepts from architectural perspectives? their contributions form the five chapters of this part, which reflect on architecture and sustainability and form an important positioning of the sustainability paradigm in current discussion forums on architectural theory and practice. through the topics raised by these experts, the floor is opened to more in depth discussions in the more elaborated second part of the book.

Part-II: Integrated Design Perspectives

departing from the acknowledgment that ‘sustainable architecture’ is a “contested concept”, several experts from the academic research community across the world have explored and generated their perspectives on the sustainability concepts. the twenty-six chapters in this



27247246

studying biological concepts of evolution and adaptation as a new way of looking at the functional aspects of na-ture for translations into developing solutions in architec-ture and urban design is that biological organisms can be seen as embodying technologies that are equivalent to those invented by humans, and in many cases they have solved the same problems with far greater economy of means. in a more integrated sense, biomimicry seeks to link complexity, biodiversity and coexistence, using them as precedents for principles of design where, even a sin-gular element, its development is understood as part of a whole system that interrelates natural and man-made components, allowing for a beneficial coexistence.137 to a much more sophisticated understanding of the need for integration, balance and reciprocity between ourselves and the rest of the living world, recent scholarship in bio-mimicry is opening up that search for a new balance, and calls for going “beyond the aesthetic or functional, and …. explore the conceptually strategic (e.g. restoration of natural systems, which could become a significant con-tribution of architecture)”, and mimicking the “functional basis of biological forms, processes and systems to pro-duce sustainable solutions”. through experimentation, imagination and creativity, biomimetic design is emerging as a new direction in which to discover and transform the way we, and our built world, relate to the natural world.138

bio- together with climatic and design, thus provides a unifying, integrated and sustainable approach to building (and urban) design, which is driving increased inter- and transdisciplinarity in the form of collaboration between engineers, designers, architects, builders, biologists, ecologists, and societal actors. bioclimatism, thus, by and large, has given way to the evolution of solar, passive, green, sustainable, ecological to what is unfolding as ‘in-tegrated design’. Although integrated design is theorized and practiced in many different ways (see introduction to part 2 of this book), we see it as an overarching theme to develop novel ways for addressing the issues and chal-lenges of the ecological age: achieving radical increases in resource efficiency, shifting from a fuel-based economy to a solar economy and transforming from a linear waste-ful and polluting way of using resources to a completely closed-loop model in which all resources are stewarded in cycles and nothing is lost as waste. We see it thus as a theme that governs energy, resources, and environmen-tal quality decisions and strategies at building scale139 to that of systems integration (horizontal and vertical) at lo-cal, urban, regional and global scales, through processes that requires intense balance – and a path of priorities – to work towards a sustainable built environment and restore the global ecological balance.140 because of this processual nature of bioclimatic, integrated and sustain-able design, every design decision produces a cascade of multiple effects, thus achieving success requires un-derstanding of the relationship of each material, system, and spatial element141 to energy, climate, water, and so on, i.e. a shift from modernist rationality towards holistic, rela-tional and ecological thinking in design.

based on the aforementioned, we posit bioclimatic inte-grated design as an architectural perspective where the use of energy, water, and construction materials must be considered in relation to their impact on the environment and the society, whilst remaining true to contemporary aesthetic ideals, engineering, construction and design principles. from this perspective, we introduce biocli-matic integrated design as the design of buildings and

spaces (interior, exterior, outdoor, public and semi-public open / green spaces) in harmony with, and in response to the local bio-climatic and socio-spatial conditions for providing thermal and visual comfort, and improvement in social relations, in a sustainable way. three main princi-ples are fundamental in this understanding: making use of renewable energy and local bio-climatic / environmen-tal sources (air, sun, wind, vegetation, water, soil, daylight, etc.) in ways that the use and dependency on consump-tive non-renewable energy sources is minimized; design-ing for re-use so as to “minimize the use of new resources and, at the end of its life, to form the resources for other architecture”;142and designing to “live lightly on the earth” (more human powered and less resource intensive buildings and lifestyle) so that there will be quality and re-sources remaining for generations to come.

More rigidly defined, bioclimatic integrated design is about gaining optimum thermal and visual comfort through (minimum active and mainly) passive means – as applied bio-climatological science. bioclimatic integrated design can be seen as a responsive (re)configuration of the relationship between three elements - climatic/bio-ecological conditions of a specific context, the site, and the building(s) - to provide visual and thermal comfort, and create a symbiotic, sustainable, energy efficient and embedded-in-place environment. in such a (re)configura-tion, the knowledge and understanding of climate (Sun and solar geometry, air and temperature, wind, humidity, etc.), Site bio-configurations (topography, orientation, soil, water, vegetation, building and street morphology, etc.), Material properties (3rs, embodied energy, etc.), Passive systems and design strategies (energy, heat & air flow, shading, ventilation, light, etc.) for minimizing resource and energy use are central. bioclimatic integrated de-sign is a transition toward revitalizing, revamping and reinventing our existing environments. our emphasis on the ‘integrated’ is to provide an opportunity for designers of both new and old construction to shift their focus and sensibilities from modernist/post-modernist rationality towards a relational view based on ecological rationality, i.e. from developing buildings in isolation to considering them as a component of the larger network of systems intertwined with the multitude of factors making up the environment as a whole.

5. generAting SuStAinAbility concePtS froM ArchitecturAl PerSPectiveS

in the call for papers for this book project, we highlighted, on the one hand, the confusion and fragmentation that characterises the proliferating architectural discourses on sustainability, which has unfolded the need for pro-ductive dialogue across theoretical boundaries for devel-oping more integrated approaches. on the other hand, we pointed towards the emerging consensus on the need to focus more on ‘ways’ of conceptualizing ‘sustainability’ with a “pluralist imagination” rather than to search for a universal one-size-fit-all type of sustainability notion that is contended to have caused “both the discourse and practice of sustainability” to suffer.

building upon these needs and consensus, and cogni-zant of the potential of architectural design perspectives in making sustainability topics experienceable, our call for papers was centered around one main question: how to generate sustainability concepts from architectural perspectives? underpinning this question, and as sub-

stantiated in the narration of architectural perspectives on sustainability in the previous section, is our under-standing of sustainability that is not a static notion or a fixed ideal or a set of principles / attributes that can be simply added onto a conventional design process, build-ing or a city. rather our premise is that sustainability ought to be an intrinsic value as a dynamic integrative framework with evolving concepts that must be redefined and reassessed with each new design process / project as an opportunity to do so. Sustainability, thus, is seen as an integrative framework, and (architectural and urban) design as one of the most appropriate (synthesis) field for exploring and dealing with this integrative endeavor. Sub-stantiating our case in the call for papers for this book, we argued that it is in the act of designing that integrating “material” sustainability issues like lower energy and ma-terials consumption comes along with “immaterial” sus-tainability aspects like public-private articulations, social integration / cohesion, architectural / cultural expression and spatial quality concerns. Sustainable design in our view, thus, begins with change of ‘attitude’, followed by ‘re-thinking’ of existing paradigms and the development of new strategies. this implies using issues of sustainability, ecology and energy as catalyst for creatively ‘rethinking’ conventional notions of ‘enclosure, tectonics, and pro-gram,’ and thereby, generate new / alternative concep-tions and expressions of sustainability.

based on the aforementioned, we formulated the objec-tive of our ‘call for papers’ as to solicit papers that demon-strate such rethinking as architectural ways of exploring and generating sustainability concepts. More generally, we invited papers that demonstrate critical thinking and reflection on the evolving sustainability discourses in re-lation to architectural design thinking, and develop a spe-cific position on sustainability. in particular, we welcomed case-based research by design papers that examine new / innovative design theories, concepts, principles, ap-proaches, strategies and projects that aim and demon-strate dealing with sustainability. in order to provide a structure for comprehending the debates on architecture and sustainability relationships through specific contri-butions, we proposed that the papers should address / fit-in or cover explicitly one or more of the following broader thematic strands:

• Architectural (re)interpretation(s) of the 3 sustainability pillars (social, economic & environmental)

• historical-critical reviews of green consciousness in architecture-culture

• An appraisal of contemporary sustainable design practices

• reviewing critical perspectives in the bioclimatic design, energy and performance discourses

• rethinking the role/position of lcA (life cycle Assessment) & sustainability assessment frameworks (leed, breeAM, etc.) in architectural design

• reconciling architectural expression (form-making, aesthetics) & sustainability performance (operation)

• interdisciplinary theoretical explorations of the intersection between design, technology and nature discourses

• explorative papers on sustainability through research by design

After going through a rigorous process of selection and peer reviews, the final contributions to this book have been organised in five thematic strands in the part 2 of this book. they include: understand – contributions re-lated to architectural theory; express – contributions exploring architectural expression and representation; Measure – contributions related to sustainability assess-ment and performance; design – contributions dedicated to architectural research by design for exploring different scenarios of sustainability; and urbanism – contributions exploring sustainability in urban design and planning. these thematic strands can be seen as integrative atti-tudes that not only provide opportunities for developing more integrated approaches within each thematic area, but also working on their interrelations offer promising opportunities for advancing integrated design to engage with and address the different dimensions, cycles and scales of sustainability issues in the built environment.

6. Structure of the booK

over all, the whole book is organised in three main parts. the first part – namely, integrated design in theory and practice – aims to bring together perspectives of eminent theorists and practitioners on architecture and sustain-ability relationships. the second part dedicated to inte-grated design perspectives presents contributions from the world of research that are organised in five integrative attitudes. explorations through integrated design as the third part shares contributions that show the pedagogical potential of investigating architecture and sustainability relationships through integrated design approaches. the first, second and third part comprises five, twenty-six and thirteen chapters respectively. An introductory chapter is provided at the beginning of each part that discusses the specific contributions in relation to their integrative atti-tude and the overall thematic focus of the respective part.

Part-I: Integrated Design in Theory and Practice

in Part i several eminent scholars and practitioners of sustainable architecture and urbanism provide their perspectives on sustainable architecture. five interna-tional experts address the main question how to generate sustainability concepts from architectural perspectives? their contributions form the five chapters of this part, which reflect on architecture and sustainability and form an important positioning of the sustainability paradigm in current discussion forums on architectural theory and practice. through the topics raised by these experts, the floor is opened to more in depth discussions in the more elaborated second part of the book.

Part-II: Integrated Design Perspectives

departing from the acknowledgment that ‘sustainable architecture’ is a “contested concept”, several experts from the academic research community across the world have explored and generated their perspectives on the sustainability concepts. the twenty-six chapters in this



28 249248

second part of the book demonstrate critical thinking and reflections on the evolving sustainability discourses in relation to architectural design thinking. the focus is on case-based research by design that examine new / inno-vative design theories, concepts, principles, approaches, strategies and projects that aim and demonstrate dealing with sustainability. five thematic strands as integrative attitudes organises the contributions in this part: under-stand, express, measure, (research by) design and urban-ism.

the first thematic strand as integrative attitude with five chapters focuses on “understanding” sustainability as an intrinsic value in architecture and this from very di-verse perspectives. the second strand “express” with four chapters is related to the big challenge of reconciling architectural expression and sustainability performance. the multi-dimensionality and complexity of sustainability have resulted in a proliferation of measurement approach-es and certification systems. the third strand “measure” with six chapters focuses on this topic and helps in con-textualising this proliferation as a base for a better under-standing of these in the overall aim to use these in a more appropriate way. this brings us to the fourth theme which explores sustainability through research by design in five chapters. the contributing authors approach this from different perspectives ranging from the research aspects over the role of computation tools as biM and universal design. in the final thematic strand having five chapters, the focus is shifted to the higher scale levels as engag-ing and mobilizing integrated design for sustainable ur-banism offers a profound basis for productive dialogue across disciplines.

Part-III: Explorations through Integrated Design

Part iii shares the experience of an exploration of the pedagogical potential to approach architecture and sustainability relationships through integrated design approaches. it combines the discussion on the learning outcomes and the output by the students of a specifically designed course for the first year Masters students of the Master in Architecture program at the Ku leuven faculty of Architecture. the overarching intention behind this course was to impart learning among students to think critically about sustainability as it relates to architecture, and develop their capacity for generating sustainability concepts from the integrative potential of architectural design perspectives. the experience of employing an in-tegrative approach is discussed and through an assem-bly of thirteen chapters young voices share their perspec-tives on sustainable architecture.

bibliogrAPhy

Allacker, Karen, and frank de troyer. “Moving towards a more sustainable belgian dwelling stock: the passive standard as the next step?” Journal of green building 8, no. 2 (2013): 112-132.

Allen, S. “Points þ lines: diagrams and Projects for the city.” Princeton Architectural Press, new york, 1999.

Appleby, Paul. “integrated Sustainable design of buildings.” earthscan, london, 2011.

Avermaete, tom. “Another Modern: the Postwar Architecture and urbanism of candilis-Josic-Woods.” nAi Publisheres, rotterdam, 2005.

banerjee, t. “the future of Public Space: beyond invented Streets and reinvented Places.” Journal of the American Planning Association 67, no. 1 (2001): 9–24.

bare, Jane c., Patrick hofstetter, david W. Pennington, and helias A. udo de haes. “life cycle impact Assessment Workshop Summary - Midpoints versus endpoints: the Sacrifices and benefits.” international Journal of life cycle Assessment 5, no.6 (2000): 319–326.

barnett, J. “do not define urban design too narrowly.” Journal of urban design 19, no. 1 (2014): 49–52.

bentley, i. “urban design as an Anti-Profession.” urban design Quarterly 65 (1998): 15.

bertilsson, t. M. “the elementary forms of Pragmatism: on different types of Abduction.” european Journal of Social theory 7, no. 3 (2004): 371–389.

brenda, l., ed. “design research: Methods and Perspectives.” Mit Press, cambridge, 2003.

brundtland, gro harlem. ed. “our common future.” oxford university Press, new york, 1987.

buchanan, Peter. “What city? A Plea for Place in the Public realm.” Architectural review 1101 (1988): 31–41.

canizaro, vincent, and Kim tanzer. “introduction.” Journal of Architectural education 60, no. 4 (2007): 4-8.

carmona, Mathew. “the Place-Shaping continuum: A theory of urban design Process.” Journal of urban design 19, no. 1 (2014): 2–36.

carr, S., M. francis, l. rivlin, and A. M. Stone. “Public Space.” cambridge university Press, cambridge, 1992.

cen. “en:15804:2012+A1:2013. Sustainability of construction works - environmental product declarations - communication format business-to-business.” european committee for Standardisation, 2012+2013

cen. “en:15978 Sustainability of construction works – Assessment of environmental performance of buildings – calculation method.” european committee for Standardisation; 2011.

choay, f. “the rule and the Model: on the theory of Architecture and urbanism.” Mit Press, cambridge, 1997.

christopher Alexander. “the nature of order: An essay on the Art of building and the nature of the universe (book 3).” the centre for environmental Structure, california, 2004.

colquhoun, Alan. “Modernity and the classical tradition:

Architectural essays 1980–1987.” Mit Press, cambridge; 1989.

crawford, M. “contesting the Public realm: Struggles over Public Space in los Angeles.” Journal of Architectural education 49, no. 1 (1995): 4–9.

crawford, M. “blurring the boundaries: Public Space and Private life.” in: everyday urbanism, edited by J. chase, M. crawford, M. and K. John, Monacelli, new york, 1999.

cross, nigel. “designerly Ways of Knowing.” design Studies 3, no. 4 (1982): 221–227.

cross, nigel. “designerly Ways of Knowing.” Springer-verlag, london, 2006.

crysler, g., S. cairns, and hilde heynen. eds. “handbook Architectural theory.” Sage, london, 2012.

degen, M. M., and g. rose. “the Sensory experiencing of urban design: the role of Walking and Perceptual Memory.” urban Studies 49, no. 15 (2012): 3271–3287.

de Jong, M., and J. M. van der voordt, eds. “Ways to Study and research urban, Architectural and technical design.” delft university Press, delft, 2002.

de Sola`-Morales, Manuel. “A Matter of things.” nAi Publishers, rotterdam, 2008.

dormer, P. “What is a designer?” in: design Since 1945, thames & hudson, london, 1993.

dovey, Kim. “framing Places. Mediating Power in built form.” routledge, london, 1999.

dunay, robert, and Joseph Wheeler, robert Schubert. “no compromise: the integration of technology and Aesthetics,” Journal of Architectural education 60, no. 2 (2006): 8-17.

european commission. “coM(2011) 21: communication from the european commission. resource efficient europe.” ec, brussels, 2011.

european commission. “coM(2013) 196 final: communication from the commission to the european Parliament and the council: “building the Single Market for green Products - facilitating better information on the environmental performance of products and organisations.” ec, brussels, 2013.

european commission. “Annex ii: Product environmental footprint (Pef) guide to the commission recommendation on the use of common methods to measure and communicate the life cycle environmental performance of products and organisations.” ec, brussels, 2013.

evenson, norma. “the indian Metropolis. A view toward the West.” yale university Press, new haven, 1989.

farr, douglas., “Sustainable urbanism: urban design with nature.” John Wiley and Sons, new Jersey, 2008.

forty, Adrian. “Words and buildings. A vocabulary of Modern Architecture.” thames and hudson, london, 2000.

franck, K.A. “exorcising the ghost of Physical determinism.” environment and behavior 16, no. 4 (1984): 411-435.

gauzin-Müller, dominique. “Sustainable architecture and urbanism.”, birkhäuser, basel, 2002.

gordon, harry. “Sustainable design goes Mainstream,” and James Wines, “the Art of Architecture in the Age of ecology,” in



29249248

second part of the book demonstrate critical thinking and reflections on the evolving sustainability discourses in relation to architectural design thinking. the focus is on case-based research by design that examine new / inno-vative design theories, concepts, principles, approaches, strategies and projects that aim and demonstrate dealing with sustainability. five thematic strands as integrative attitudes organises the contributions in this part: under-stand, express, measure, (research by) design and urban-ism.

the first thematic strand as integrative attitude with five chapters focuses on “understanding” sustainability as an intrinsic value in architecture and this from very di-verse perspectives. the second strand “express” with four chapters is related to the big challenge of reconciling architectural expression and sustainability performance. the multi-dimensionality and complexity of sustainability have resulted in a proliferation of measurement approach-es and certification systems. the third strand “measure” with six chapters focuses on this topic and helps in con-textualising this proliferation as a base for a better under-standing of these in the overall aim to use these in a more appropriate way. this brings us to the fourth theme which explores sustainability through research by design in five chapters. the contributing authors approach this from different perspectives ranging from the research aspects over the role of computation tools as biM and universal design. in the final thematic strand having five chapters, the focus is shifted to the higher scale levels as engag-ing and mobilizing integrated design for sustainable ur-banism offers a profound basis for productive dialogue across disciplines.

Part-III: Explorations through Integrated Design

Part iii shares the experience of an exploration of the pedagogical potential to approach architecture and sustainability relationships through integrated design approaches. it combines the discussion on the learning outcomes and the output by the students of a specifically designed course for the first year Masters students of the Master in Architecture program at the Ku leuven faculty of Architecture. the overarching intention behind this course was to impart learning among students to think critically about sustainability as it relates to architecture, and develop their capacity for generating sustainability concepts from the integrative potential of architectural design perspectives. the experience of employing an in-tegrative approach is discussed and through an assem-bly of thirteen chapters young voices share their perspec-tives on sustainable architecture.

bibliogrAPhy

Allacker, Karen, and frank de troyer. “Moving towards a more sustainable belgian dwelling stock: the passive standard as the next step?” Journal of green building 8, no. 2 (2013): 112-132.

Allen, S. “Points þ lines: diagrams and Projects for the city.” Princeton Architectural Press, new york, 1999.

Appleby, Paul. “integrated Sustainable design of buildings.” earthscan, london, 2011.

Avermaete, tom. “Another Modern: the Postwar Architecture and urbanism of candilis-Josic-Woods.” nAi Publisheres, rotterdam, 2005.

banerjee, t. “the future of Public Space: beyond invented Streets and reinvented Places.” Journal of the American Planning Association 67, no. 1 (2001): 9–24.

bare, Jane c., Patrick hofstetter, david W. Pennington, and helias A. udo de haes. “life cycle impact Assessment Workshop Summary - Midpoints versus endpoints: the Sacrifices and benefits.” international Journal of life cycle Assessment 5, no.6 (2000): 319–326.

barnett, J. “do not define urban design too narrowly.” Journal of urban design 19, no. 1 (2014): 49–52.

bentley, i. “urban design as an Anti-Profession.” urban design Quarterly 65 (1998): 15.

bertilsson, t. M. “the elementary forms of Pragmatism: on different types of Abduction.” european Journal of Social theory 7, no. 3 (2004): 371–389.

brenda, l., ed. “design research: Methods and Perspectives.” Mit Press, cambridge, 2003.

brundtland, gro harlem. ed. “our common future.” oxford university Press, new york, 1987.

buchanan, Peter. “What city? A Plea for Place in the Public realm.” Architectural review 1101 (1988): 31–41.

canizaro, vincent, and Kim tanzer. “introduction.” Journal of Architectural education 60, no. 4 (2007): 4-8.

carmona, Mathew. “the Place-Shaping continuum: A theory of urban design Process.” Journal of urban design 19, no. 1 (2014): 2–36.

carr, S., M. francis, l. rivlin, and A. M. Stone. “Public Space.” cambridge university Press, cambridge, 1992.

cen. “en:15804:2012+A1:2013. Sustainability of construction works - environmental product declarations - communication format business-to-business.” european committee for Standardisation, 2012+2013

cen. “en:15978 Sustainability of construction works – Assessment of environmental performance of buildings – calculation method.” european committee for Standardisation; 2011.

choay, f. “the rule and the Model: on the theory of Architecture and urbanism.” Mit Press, cambridge, 1997.

christopher Alexander. “the nature of order: An essay on the Art of building and the nature of the universe (book 3).” the centre for environmental Structure, california, 2004.

colquhoun, Alan. “Modernity and the classical tradition:

Architectural essays 1980–1987.” Mit Press, cambridge; 1989.

crawford, M. “contesting the Public realm: Struggles over Public Space in los Angeles.” Journal of Architectural education 49, no. 1 (1995): 4–9.

crawford, M. “blurring the boundaries: Public Space and Private life.” in: everyday urbanism, edited by J. chase, M. crawford, M. and K. John, Monacelli, new york, 1999.

cross, nigel. “designerly Ways of Knowing.” design Studies 3, no. 4 (1982): 221–227.

cross, nigel. “designerly Ways of Knowing.” Springer-verlag, london, 2006.

crysler, g., S. cairns, and hilde heynen. eds. “handbook Architectural theory.” Sage, london, 2012.

degen, M. M., and g. rose. “the Sensory experiencing of urban design: the role of Walking and Perceptual Memory.” urban Studies 49, no. 15 (2012): 3271–3287.

de Jong, M., and J. M. van der voordt, eds. “Ways to Study and research urban, Architectural and technical design.” delft university Press, delft, 2002.

de Sola`-Morales, Manuel. “A Matter of things.” nAi Publishers, rotterdam, 2008.

dormer, P. “What is a designer?” in: design Since 1945, thames & hudson, london, 1993.

dovey, Kim. “framing Places. Mediating Power in built form.” routledge, london, 1999.

dunay, robert, and Joseph Wheeler, robert Schubert. “no compromise: the integration of technology and Aesthetics,” Journal of Architectural education 60, no. 2 (2006): 8-17.

european commission. “coM(2011) 21: communication from the european commission. resource efficient europe.” ec, brussels, 2011.

european commission. “coM(2013) 196 final: communication from the commission to the european Parliament and the council: “building the Single Market for green Products - facilitating better information on the environmental performance of products and organisations.” ec, brussels, 2013.

european commission. “Annex ii: Product environmental footprint (Pef) guide to the commission recommendation on the use of common methods to measure and communicate the life cycle environmental performance of products and organisations.” ec, brussels, 2013.

evenson, norma. “the indian Metropolis. A view toward the West.” yale university Press, new haven, 1989.

farr, douglas., “Sustainable urbanism: urban design with nature.” John Wiley and Sons, new Jersey, 2008.

forty, Adrian. “Words and buildings. A vocabulary of Modern Architecture.” thames and hudson, london, 2000.

franck, K.A. “exorcising the ghost of Physical determinism.” environment and behavior 16, no. 4 (1984): 411-435.

gauzin-Müller, dominique. “Sustainable architecture and urbanism.”, birkhäuser, basel, 2002.

gordon, harry. “Sustainable design goes Mainstream,” and James Wines, “the Art of Architecture in the Age of ecology,” in



30 251250

d.e. brown, et al., eds., Sustainable Architecture, earth Pledge, new york, 2000.

guy, Simon and, graham farmer. “reinterpreting Sustainable Architecture: the Place of technology.” Journal of Architectural education 54, no. 3 (2001).gruber, Petra. “biomimetics in Architecture: Architecture of life and buildings.” Springer, Wien-new york, 2011.

heartfield, J. “green capitalism: Manufacturing Scarcity in an Age of Abundance.” Mute, london, 2008.

heynen, hilde. “Architecture and Modernity. A critique.” Mit Press, london, 1999.

heynen, hilde. “Space as receptor, instrument or Stage: notes on the interaction between Spatial and Social constellations.” international Planning Studies 18, no. 4 (2013).

hillier, bill. “Space is the Machine. A configurational theory of Architecture.” cambridge university Press), cambridge, 1996.

hillier, bill, and J. hanson. “the social logic of space.” cambridge university Press, cambridge, 1984.

holston, J. “the modernist city. An Anthropological critique of brasília.” university of chicago Press, chicago, 1989.

inam, Aseem. “Meaningful urban design: teleological/catalytic/relevant.” Journal of urban design 7, no. 1 (2002): 35–58.

ingersoll, richard. “Sprawltown.” Princeton Architectural Press, new york, 2006.

Jarzombek, Mark. “Molecules, Money, and design: Sustainability’s role in Architectural Academe.” thresholds 18 (1999): 32-38.

Jarzombek, Mark. “Sustainability, Architecture, and “nature”.” thresholds 26 (2003): 54-56.

Jarzombek, Mark. “on JAe’s Sustainability issue,” Journal of Architectural education 62, no. 1 (2008).

Jencks, c. “the language of Post-Modern Architecture.” Academy, london, 1978.

Jenks, Mike, et al. “future forms and design for Sustainable cities.” Architectural Press, oxford, 2005.

Jones, d. l. “Architecture and the environment: bioclimatic building design.” laurence King Publishing, london, 1998.

Keeler, M., and b. burke. “fundamentals of integrated design for Sustainable building.” Wiley, new Jersey, 2009.

Khan, Ahmed Z. “constantinos A. doxiadis’ Plan for islamabad: the making of a ‘city of the future’.” Phd dissertation, Ku leuven, 2008.

Khan, Ahmed Z. “rethinking doxiadis’ ekistical urbanism: Sustainability and globalization as a dialectical framework for design.” Positions 1 (2010): 6–39.

Khan, Ahmed Z. “towards Sustainable built environment: understanding Sustainability Prospects in a Metropolitan framework.” Journal of research in Architecture & Planning 11, no. 2, (2011): 31-55.

Khan, Ahmed Z. “When history becomes the corpus for designerly Way of thinking.” in: historiography of Architecture, edited by P. vandal, et al., 23–29. lahore: thAAP, 2011.

Khan, Ahmed Z. “on design and Politics of co-Producing Public

Space.” international Journal of islamic Architecture 2, no. 1 (2013): 125–156.

Khan, Ahmed Z., Karen Allacker, and han vandevyvere. “design for the ecological Age: rethinking the role of Sustainability in Architectural education.” Journal of Architectural education 67, no. 2 (2013): 7–17.

Khan, Ahmed Z., frank Moulaert, and Jan Schreurs. “epistemology of Space: exploring relational Perspectives in Planning, urbanism, and Architecture.” international Planning Studies 18, no. 3–4 (2013): 287 – 303.

Knox, Paul l. “cities and design.” routledge, london, 2011.

Khan, Ahmed Z., frank Moulaert, Jan Schreurs and Konrad Miciukiewicz. “integrative Spatial Quality: A relational epistemology of Space and transdisciplinarity in urban design and Planning.” Journal of urban design 19, no.4 (2014): 393-411.

flanagan, r., g. norman, J. Meadows, and g. robinson. “life cycle costing: theory and Practice.” bSP Professional books, oxford, uK, 1989.

hunt, robert g. and William e. franklin. “lcA – how it came about: Personal reflections on the origin and the development of lcA in the uSA.” the international Journal of lcA 1, no. 1 (1996): 4-7.

iSo. “iSo 14040:2006 – environmental Management – life cycle Assessment – Principles and framework.” international Standard organisation, 2006a.

iSo. “iSo 14044:2006 – environmental Management – life cycle Assessment – requirements and guidelines.” international Standard organisation, 2006b.

Krieger, Alex. “Where and how does urban design happen?”, p. 114, in: urban design, edited by Alex Krieger and William S. Saunders, 113–130. Minneapolis/london: university of Minnesota, 2009.

latour, b. and A. yaneva. “An Ant’s view of Architecture.” in: explorations in Architecture. teaching design research, edited by r. geiser, 80–89. birkhäuser, basel, 2008.

lawson, b. “What designers Know.” Architectural Press, oxford, 2004.

leach, n. “Architecture and revolution. contemporary Perspectives on central and eastern europe.” routledge, london, 1999.

le corbusier. “towards a new Architecture.” dover Publications, new york, 1986.

lefebvre, henry. “la production de l’espace.” Anthropos, Paris, 1974. “the production of space.” blackwell, oxford, 1991.

lehmann, Steffen. “the principles of green urbanism.” earthscan, london, 2010.

lehtovuori, P. “towards experiential urbanism.” critical Sociology 38, no. 1 (2012): 71–87.

low, S. “on the Plaza: the Politics of Public Space and culture.” university of texas Press, Austin, texas, 2000.

loukaitou-Sideris, A. “Addressing the challenges of urban landscapes: normative goals for urban design.” Journal of urban design 17, no. 4 (2012): 467–484.

lu, d. (ed.) “third World Modernism: Architecture, development and identity.” routledge, london, 2010.

lynch, Kevin. “good city form.” Mit Press, cambridge, ([1981] 1984).

Madanipour, Ali. “roles and challenges of urban design.” Journal of urban design 11, no.2 (2006):.

Madanipour, Ali., ed. “Whose Public Space?” routledge, london, 2010.

Madanipour, Ali. “researching Space, transgressing epistemic boundaries.” international Planning Studies 18, no. 4 (2013): .

Margolin, v., and r. buchanan. “the idea of design.” cambridge, MA: the Mit Press, 1995.

Marshall, S. “Science, Pseudo-Science and urban design.” urban design international 17, no. 4 (2012): 257 – 271.

Massey, d. “for Space.” Sage, london, 2005.

Mazzoleni, i., and S. Price. “Architecture follows nature: biomimetic principles for innovative design.” crc Press / taylor & francis group, 2013.

Mccann, eugene J. “race, Protest and Public Space.” Antipode 31, no.2 (1999): 163–184.

Mcdonough, William. “the next industrial revolution.” in: Atlantic Monthly, october 1998.

Meta Pont, b., et al., “Spacematrix.” nAi Publishers, rotterdam, 2010.

Minguet, J. M. “bioclimatic Architecture.” (barcelona: Monsa; bilingual edition), 2009.

Moe, Kiel. “compelling yet unreliable theories of Sustainability.” Journal of Architectural education 60, no. 4 (2007).

Montgomery, J. “Making a city: urbanity, vitality and urban design.” Journal of urban design 3, no. 1 (1998): 95–97.

Moore, Steven, and Simon guy. “Sustainable Architecture and the Pluralist imagination,” JAe 60, no. 4 (2007): 15–23.

Moore, Steven, and A. Karvonen. “Sustainable Architecture in context: StS and design thinking.” Science Studies 21, no. 1 (2008): 29–46.

Mostafavi, M., and g. doherty, eds. “ecological urbanism.” lars Muller Publishers, baden, 2010.

Myers, W. “bio design: nature, Science, creativity.” thames & hudson, london, 2012.

naison d. M., “Scaling new heights” urban World 1, no. 4 (2009): 16-24.

norberg-Schulz, c. “Meaning in Western Architecture.” Studio vista, london, 1975.

norberg-Schulz, c. “genius loci. towards a Phenomenology of Architecture.” Academy, london, 1980.

oberg, Mats. “integrated life cycle design - Applied to Swedish concrete multi-dwelling buildings.” Phd dissertation, lund institute of technology, 2005.

Pawlyn, M. “biomimicry in Architecture.” ribA Publishing, london, 2011.

Pelletier, nathan, Karen, Allacker, rana, Pant, Simone, Manfredi. the european commission organisation environmental

footprint Method: comparison with other Methods, and rationales for Key requirements. the international Journal of life cycle Assessment, 19 (2014): 387-404.

Peters, t. “experimental green Strategies.” Ad & Wiley, london, 2011.

Pickett, S.t.A., M.l. cadenasso, brian Mcgrath. “resilience in ecology and urban design: linking theory and Practice for Sustainable cities.” future city series, Springer, 2014.

Pyla, Panayiota. “counter-histories of Sustainability.” volume 18 (2008): 14-17.

Pyla, Panayiota. “ekistics, Architecture, and environmental Politics, 1945- 1976: A Prehistory of Sustainable development.” Phd dissertation, Mit, cambridge, 2002.

rapoport, A. “the Meaning of the built environment: A nonverbal communication Approach.” Sage Publications, beverly hills, 1982.

rossi, Aldo. “the Architecture of the city.” Mit Press, cambridge, [1966] 1982.

ruano, Miguel. “ecourbanism.” gustavo gili, barcelona, 2000.

Schön, d. “designing: rules, types and Worlds.” in: design Studies: A reader, edited by h. clark, and d. brody. berg, oxford, 1988.

Scheer, b. “Metropolitan form and landscape urbanism.” in: companion to urban design, edited by t. banerjee and A. loukaitou-Sideris, 611–618. routledge, london, 2011.

Schreurs, Jan. “communicating Quality: Words and images.” Architectural research Quarterly 11, no. 3–4 (2007): 325 – 333.

Scott, J.c. “Seeing like a State: how certain Schemes to improve the human condition have failed.” yale university Press, new haven, 1998.

Sert, Jose luis. “can our cities Survive? An Abc of urban Problems, their Analysis, their Solution.” harvard university Press, cambridge, 1944.

Servillo, loris, and Jan Schreurs. “Pragmatism and research by design: epistemological virtues and Methodological challenges.” international Planning Studies 18, no. 3–4 (2013): 358–371.

Southworth, M. “Public life, Public Space, and the changing Art of city design.” Journal of urban design 19, no. 1 (2014): 37–40.

Sternberg, e. “An integrative theory of urban design.” Journal of the American Planning Association 66 no. 3 (2000): 265–278.

thompson, catharine W. “urban open Space in the 21st century.” landscape and urban Planning 60 (2002).

un-cSd, united nations commission on Sustainable development, http://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/csd.html

un-habitat, State of the World’s cities 2010/2011

vale, robert and brenda vale. “the Autonomous house: design and Planning for Self-Sufficiency.” thames & hudson, london, 1975 (2002).

vale, lawrence J. “Architecture, Power, and national identity.” yale university Press, new haven, 1992.

van rompaey, A, and S Schmitz et al. “landscape capacity and social attitudes.” Science for a Sustainable development, belgian Science Policy, brussels, 2009.



31251250

d.e. brown, et al., eds., Sustainable Architecture, earth Pledge, new york, 2000.

guy, Simon and, graham farmer. “reinterpreting Sustainable Architecture: the Place of technology.” Journal of Architectural education 54, no. 3 (2001).gruber, Petra. “biomimetics in Architecture: Architecture of life and buildings.” Springer, Wien-new york, 2011.

heartfield, J. “green capitalism: Manufacturing Scarcity in an Age of Abundance.” Mute, london, 2008.

heynen, hilde. “Architecture and Modernity. A critique.” Mit Press, london, 1999.

heynen, hilde. “Space as receptor, instrument or Stage: notes on the interaction between Spatial and Social constellations.” international Planning Studies 18, no. 4 (2013).

hillier, bill. “Space is the Machine. A configurational theory of Architecture.” cambridge university Press), cambridge, 1996.

hillier, bill, and J. hanson. “the social logic of space.” cambridge university Press, cambridge, 1984.

holston, J. “the modernist city. An Anthropological critique of brasília.” university of chicago Press, chicago, 1989.

inam, Aseem. “Meaningful urban design: teleological/catalytic/relevant.” Journal of urban design 7, no. 1 (2002): 35–58.

ingersoll, richard. “Sprawltown.” Princeton Architectural Press, new york, 2006.

Jarzombek, Mark. “Molecules, Money, and design: Sustainability’s role in Architectural Academe.” thresholds 18 (1999): 32-38.

Jarzombek, Mark. “Sustainability, Architecture, and “nature”.” thresholds 26 (2003): 54-56.

Jarzombek, Mark. “on JAe’s Sustainability issue,” Journal of Architectural education 62, no. 1 (2008).

Jencks, c. “the language of Post-Modern Architecture.” Academy, london, 1978.

Jenks, Mike, et al. “future forms and design for Sustainable cities.” Architectural Press, oxford, 2005.

Jones, d. l. “Architecture and the environment: bioclimatic building design.” laurence King Publishing, london, 1998.

Keeler, M., and b. burke. “fundamentals of integrated design for Sustainable building.” Wiley, new Jersey, 2009.

Khan, Ahmed Z. “constantinos A. doxiadis’ Plan for islamabad: the making of a ‘city of the future’.” Phd dissertation, Ku leuven, 2008.

Khan, Ahmed Z. “rethinking doxiadis’ ekistical urbanism: Sustainability and globalization as a dialectical framework for design.” Positions 1 (2010): 6–39.

Khan, Ahmed Z. “towards Sustainable built environment: understanding Sustainability Prospects in a Metropolitan framework.” Journal of research in Architecture & Planning 11, no. 2, (2011): 31-55.

Khan, Ahmed Z. “When history becomes the corpus for designerly Way of thinking.” in: historiography of Architecture, edited by P. vandal, et al., 23–29. lahore: thAAP, 2011.

Khan, Ahmed Z. “on design and Politics of co-Producing Public

Space.” international Journal of islamic Architecture 2, no. 1 (2013): 125–156.

Khan, Ahmed Z., Karen Allacker, and han vandevyvere. “design for the ecological Age: rethinking the role of Sustainability in Architectural education.” Journal of Architectural education 67, no. 2 (2013): 7–17.

Khan, Ahmed Z., frank Moulaert, and Jan Schreurs. “epistemology of Space: exploring relational Perspectives in Planning, urbanism, and Architecture.” international Planning Studies 18, no. 3–4 (2013): 287 – 303.

Knox, Paul l. “cities and design.” routledge, london, 2011.

Khan, Ahmed Z., frank Moulaert, Jan Schreurs and Konrad Miciukiewicz. “integrative Spatial Quality: A relational epistemology of Space and transdisciplinarity in urban design and Planning.” Journal of urban design 19, no.4 (2014): 393-411.

flanagan, r., g. norman, J. Meadows, and g. robinson. “life cycle costing: theory and Practice.” bSP Professional books, oxford, uK, 1989.

hunt, robert g. and William e. franklin. “lcA – how it came about: Personal reflections on the origin and the development of lcA in the uSA.” the international Journal of lcA 1, no. 1 (1996): 4-7.

iSo. “iSo 14040:2006 – environmental Management – life cycle Assessment – Principles and framework.” international Standard organisation, 2006a.

iSo. “iSo 14044:2006 – environmental Management – life cycle Assessment – requirements and guidelines.” international Standard organisation, 2006b.

Krieger, Alex. “Where and how does urban design happen?”, p. 114, in: urban design, edited by Alex Krieger and William S. Saunders, 113–130. Minneapolis/london: university of Minnesota, 2009.

latour, b. and A. yaneva. “An Ant’s view of Architecture.” in: explorations in Architecture. teaching design research, edited by r. geiser, 80–89. birkhäuser, basel, 2008.

lawson, b. “What designers Know.” Architectural Press, oxford, 2004.

leach, n. “Architecture and revolution. contemporary Perspectives on central and eastern europe.” routledge, london, 1999.

le corbusier. “towards a new Architecture.” dover Publications, new york, 1986.

lefebvre, henry. “la production de l’espace.” Anthropos, Paris, 1974. “the production of space.” blackwell, oxford, 1991.

lehmann, Steffen. “the principles of green urbanism.” earthscan, london, 2010.

lehtovuori, P. “towards experiential urbanism.” critical Sociology 38, no. 1 (2012): 71–87.

low, S. “on the Plaza: the Politics of Public Space and culture.” university of texas Press, Austin, texas, 2000.

loukaitou-Sideris, A. “Addressing the challenges of urban landscapes: normative goals for urban design.” Journal of urban design 17, no. 4 (2012): 467–484.

lu, d. (ed.) “third World Modernism: Architecture, development and identity.” routledge, london, 2010.

lynch, Kevin. “good city form.” Mit Press, cambridge, ([1981] 1984).

Madanipour, Ali. “roles and challenges of urban design.” Journal of urban design 11, no.2 (2006):.

Madanipour, Ali., ed. “Whose Public Space?” routledge, london, 2010.

Madanipour, Ali. “researching Space, transgressing epistemic boundaries.” international Planning Studies 18, no. 4 (2013): .

Margolin, v., and r. buchanan. “the idea of design.” cambridge, MA: the Mit Press, 1995.

Marshall, S. “Science, Pseudo-Science and urban design.” urban design international 17, no. 4 (2012): 257 – 271.

Massey, d. “for Space.” Sage, london, 2005.

Mazzoleni, i., and S. Price. “Architecture follows nature: biomimetic principles for innovative design.” crc Press / taylor & francis group, 2013.

Mccann, eugene J. “race, Protest and Public Space.” Antipode 31, no.2 (1999): 163–184.

Mcdonough, William. “the next industrial revolution.” in: Atlantic Monthly, october 1998.

Meta Pont, b., et al., “Spacematrix.” nAi Publishers, rotterdam, 2010.

Minguet, J. M. “bioclimatic Architecture.” (barcelona: Monsa; bilingual edition), 2009.

Moe, Kiel. “compelling yet unreliable theories of Sustainability.” Journal of Architectural education 60, no. 4 (2007).

Montgomery, J. “Making a city: urbanity, vitality and urban design.” Journal of urban design 3, no. 1 (1998): 95–97.

Moore, Steven, and Simon guy. “Sustainable Architecture and the Pluralist imagination,” JAe 60, no. 4 (2007): 15–23.

Moore, Steven, and A. Karvonen. “Sustainable Architecture in context: StS and design thinking.” Science Studies 21, no. 1 (2008): 29–46.

Mostafavi, M., and g. doherty, eds. “ecological urbanism.” lars Muller Publishers, baden, 2010.

Myers, W. “bio design: nature, Science, creativity.” thames & hudson, london, 2012.

naison d. M., “Scaling new heights” urban World 1, no. 4 (2009): 16-24.

norberg-Schulz, c. “Meaning in Western Architecture.” Studio vista, london, 1975.

norberg-Schulz, c. “genius loci. towards a Phenomenology of Architecture.” Academy, london, 1980.

oberg, Mats. “integrated life cycle design - Applied to Swedish concrete multi-dwelling buildings.” Phd dissertation, lund institute of technology, 2005.

Pawlyn, M. “biomimicry in Architecture.” ribA Publishing, london, 2011.

Pelletier, nathan, Karen, Allacker, rana, Pant, Simone, Manfredi. the european commission organisation environmental

footprint Method: comparison with other Methods, and rationales for Key requirements. the international Journal of life cycle Assessment, 19 (2014): 387-404.

Peters, t. “experimental green Strategies.” Ad & Wiley, london, 2011.

Pickett, S.t.A., M.l. cadenasso, brian Mcgrath. “resilience in ecology and urban design: linking theory and Practice for Sustainable cities.” future city series, Springer, 2014.

Pyla, Panayiota. “counter-histories of Sustainability.” volume 18 (2008): 14-17.

Pyla, Panayiota. “ekistics, Architecture, and environmental Politics, 1945- 1976: A Prehistory of Sustainable development.” Phd dissertation, Mit, cambridge, 2002.

rapoport, A. “the Meaning of the built environment: A nonverbal communication Approach.” Sage Publications, beverly hills, 1982.

rossi, Aldo. “the Architecture of the city.” Mit Press, cambridge, [1966] 1982.

ruano, Miguel. “ecourbanism.” gustavo gili, barcelona, 2000.

Schön, d. “designing: rules, types and Worlds.” in: design Studies: A reader, edited by h. clark, and d. brody. berg, oxford, 1988.

Scheer, b. “Metropolitan form and landscape urbanism.” in: companion to urban design, edited by t. banerjee and A. loukaitou-Sideris, 611–618. routledge, london, 2011.

Schreurs, Jan. “communicating Quality: Words and images.” Architectural research Quarterly 11, no. 3–4 (2007): 325 – 333.

Scott, J.c. “Seeing like a State: how certain Schemes to improve the human condition have failed.” yale university Press, new haven, 1998.

Sert, Jose luis. “can our cities Survive? An Abc of urban Problems, their Analysis, their Solution.” harvard university Press, cambridge, 1944.

Servillo, loris, and Jan Schreurs. “Pragmatism and research by design: epistemological virtues and Methodological challenges.” international Planning Studies 18, no. 3–4 (2013): 358–371.

Southworth, M. “Public life, Public Space, and the changing Art of city design.” Journal of urban design 19, no. 1 (2014): 37–40.

Sternberg, e. “An integrative theory of urban design.” Journal of the American Planning Association 66 no. 3 (2000): 265–278.

thompson, catharine W. “urban open Space in the 21st century.” landscape and urban Planning 60 (2002).

un-cSd, united nations commission on Sustainable development, http://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/csd.html

un-habitat, State of the World’s cities 2010/2011

vale, robert and brenda vale. “the Autonomous house: design and Planning for Self-Sufficiency.” thames & hudson, london, 1975 (2002).

vale, lawrence J. “Architecture, Power, and national identity.” yale university Press, new haven, 1992.

van rompaey, A, and S Schmitz et al. “landscape capacity and social attitudes.” Science for a Sustainable development, belgian Science Policy, brussels, 2009.



32 253252

venturi, r., d. Scott brown and S. izenour. “learning from las vegas. the forgotten Symbolism of Architectural form.” Mit Press, london, 1991.

Wackernagel, Mathis, and William rees. “our ecological footprint.” new Society, gabriola island, bc, canada, 1996.

Waldheim, c., ed. “the landscape urbanism reader.” Princeton Architectural Press, new york, 2006.

Weber, W., and yannas, S. (eds.) “lessons from vernacular Architecture.” earthscan from routledge, oxon & new york, 2014.

William et al., eds., “Achieving Sustainable urban form.” Spon Press, london, 2000.

Williams, d. e. “Sustainable design: ecology, Architecture, and Planning.” John Wiley & Sons, new Jersey, 2007.

yaneva, A. “Mapping controversies in Architecture.” Ashgate, farnham, 2012.

endnoteS

1 dominique gauzin-Müller, Sustainable architecture and urbanism (basel: birkhäuser, 2002); vincent canizaro and Kim tanzer, “introduction,” Journal of Architectural education [hereafter JAe] 60, no. 4 (May 2007), p. 4.

2 ibid.; Paul Appleby, integrated Sustainable design of buildings (london: earthscan, 2011).

3 Kiel Moe, “compelling yet unreliable theories of Sustainability,” JAe 60, no. 4 (2007), p. 24; Panayiota Pyla, “counter-histories of Sustainability,” volume 18 (2008): 14-17.

4 Steven Moore and Simon guy. “Sustainable Architecture and the Pluralist imagination,” JAe 60, no. 4 (2007): 15.

5 Ahmed Z. Khan, “towards Sustainable built environment: understanding Sustainability Prospects in a Metropolitan framework,” Journal of research in Architecture & Planning 11, no. 2, (2011): 31-55.

6 Simon guy and graham farmer, “reinterpreting Sustainable Architecture: the Place of technology,” JAe 54, no. 3 (2001), p. 140.

7 canizaro and tanzer, “introduction,” p. 4, 6; guy and Moore, “Sustainable Architecture,” pp. 15-17.

8 Mark Jarzombek, “on JAe’s Sustainability issue,” JAe 62, no. 1 (2008), p. 66.

9 guy and Moore, “Sustainable Architecture,” p. 22; harry gordon, “Sustainable design goes Mainstream,” and James Wines, “the Art of Architecture in the Age of ecology,” in d.e. brown, et al., eds., Sustainable Architecture (new york: earth Pledge, 2000), pp. 11, 12–18, 34.

10 guy and farmer, “reinterpreting Sustainable,” p. 141.

11 robert dunay, Joseph Wheeler, robert Schubert, “no compromise: the integration of technology and Aesthetics,” JAe 60, no. 2 (2006): 8-17.

12 guy and farmer, “reinterpreting Sustainable,” p. 146; guy and Moore, “Sustainable Architecture,” p. 18-19.

13 Among the many seminal works on ecological philosophy and theory, elucidating the developments in ecological debate,

there are works by rachel carson, Arne naess, Aldo leopold, luc ferry, and ulrich beck.

14 for the claim, see richard ingersoll, Sprawltown (new york: Princeton Architectural Press, 2006), p. 137.

15 hawkens, lovics, and lovins 1999

16 Panayiota Pyla. ekistics, Architecture, and environmental Politics, 1945- 1976: A Prehistory of Sustainable development (cambridge: Mit - Phd diss., 2002); Paul, l. Knox, cities and design (london: routledge, 2011).

17 gro harlem brundtland, ed., our common future (new york: oxford university Press, 1987), p. 8.

18Mark Jarzombek, “Molecules, Money, and design: Sustainability’s role in Architectural Academe,” thresholds 18 (1999): 32-38; Mark Jarzombek, “Sustainability, Architecture, and “nature”,” thresholds 26 (2003): 54-56.

19 ingersoll, Sprawltown; A. van rompaey, S. Schmitz, et al., landscape capacity and social attitudes, Science for a Sustainable development (brussels: belgian Science Policy, 2009): 84.

20 ibid.

21 J. heartfield, green capitalism: Manufacturing Scarcity in an Age of Abundance (london: Mute, 2008); Jarzombek, “Sustainability, Architecture,”; Pyla, “counter-histories,”; ingersoll, Sprawltown.

22 un-cSd, Sustainable development; Steffen lehmann, the principles of green urbanism (london: earthscan, 2010).

23 un-habitat, State of the World’s cities 2010/2011; naison d. M., “Scaling new heights” urban World, 1, no. 4 (2009): 16-24.

24 Mark Jarzombek, “Molecules, Money,”; Miguel ruano, ecourbanism (barcelona: gustavo gili, 2000); d. farr, Sustainable urbanism: urban design with nature (new Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, 2008).

25 in the european context, the situation is even more alarming: 83% of the european population will be urban by 2050, urban sprawl expands faster than population rise - 8000 km2 land [size of luxembourg] became urbanised in just 10 years [1990-2000].

26 un-habitat, State of the World’s cities; ingersoll, Sprawltown; Meta Pont b., et al., Spacematrix (rotterdam: nAi Publishers, 2010).

27 William et al., eds., Achieving Sustainable urban form (london: Spon Press, 2000); Mike Jenks, et al., future forms and design for Sustainable cities (oxford: Architectural Press, 2005).

28 [ingersoll, 2006, p. 140]

29 even it is pointed out that “less is known about sustainability as a social and historical phenomenon, leaving important questions unanswered and much room for research. is sustainability a recent concept or a key component in some ancient or traditional societies? (vincent canizaro and Kim tanzer, 2007, p. 4).

30 Ahmed Z. Khan, “rethinking doxiadis´ ekistical urbanism,” Positions 1 (2010): 6-39.


32 forty, A. (2000) Words and buildings. A vocabulary of Modern Architecture (london: thames and hudson).

33 heynen, h. 2013. “Space as receptor, instrument or Stage: notes on the interaction between Spatial and Social constellations.” international Planning Studies 18 (4).

34 colquhoun, Alan. 1989. Modernity and the classical tradition: Architectural essays 1980–1987. cambridge, MA: Mit Press, p. 225.

35 Sert, Jose luis. 1944. can our cities Survive? An Abc of urban Problems, their Analysis, their Solution. cambridge, MA: harvard university Press.

36 heynen, h. (1999) Architecture and Modernity. A critique (london: Mit Press).

37 le corbusier. 1986. towards a new Architecture. new york: dover Publications, pp. 2-3.

38 Madanipour, A. 2013. “researching Space, transgressing epistemic boundaries.” international Planning Studies 18 (4).

39 heynen, h. 2013. “Space as..”

40 leach, n. (1999) Architecture and revolution. contemporary Perspectives on central and eastern europe (london: routledge); Scott, J.c. (1998) Seeing like a State: how certain Schemes to improve the human condition have failed (new haven: yale university Press); evenson, n. (1989) the indian Metropolis. A view toward the West (new haven: yale university Press); holston, J. (1989) the modernist city. An Anthropological critique of brasília (chicago: university of chicago Press); franck, K.A. (1984) exorcising the ghost of Physical determinism, environment and behavior, 16(4), pp. 411-435; dovey, K. (1999) framing Places. Mediating Power in built form (london: routledge); lu, d. (ed.) (2010) third World Modernism: Architecture, development and identity (london: routledge).

41 Madanipour, A. 2013. “researching Space,..”

42 from the critique of ciAM by team-X and others leading to several shifts defining the post WW-ii architecture culture, and to the contributions by Aldo rossi, Kevin lynch, venturi, norberg-Schulz, and colin rowe and so on. See Ahmed Z. Khan, 2008. constantinos A. doxiadis’ Plan for islamabad: the making of a ‘city of the future’, Kuleuven: Phd dissertation; tom Avermaete, 2005. Another Modern: the Postwar Architecture and urbanism of candilis-Josic-Woods, rotterdam: nAi Publishers.

43 heynen, h. 2013. “Space as..”; venturi, r., d. Scott brown & S. izenour (1991) learning from las vegas. the forgotten Symbolism of Architectural form [1972] (london: Mit Press); Jencks, c. (1978) the language of Post-Modern Architecture (london: Academy); norberg-Schulz, c. (1975) Meaning in Western Architecture (london: Studio vista); norberg-Schulz, c. (1980) genius loci. towards a Phenomenology of Architecture (london: Academy).

44 dovey, K. (1999) framing Places. lawrence J. vale, 1992. Architecture, Power, and national identity. new haven: yale university Press.

45 dovey, K. (1999) framing Places.

46 heynen, h. 2013. “Space as..”.

47 hillier, b. (1996) Space is the Machine. A configurational theory of Architecture (cambridge: cambridge university Press); hillier, b. & J. hanson (1984) the social logic of space (cambridge: cambridge university Press).


49 hillier, b. (1996) Space is.

50 crawford, M. 1995. “contesting the Public realm: Struggles over Public Space in los Angeles.” Journal of Architectural education 49 (1): 4–9; dovey, K. (1999) framing Places; Madanipour, A., eds. 2010. Whose Public Space? london: routledge; crysler, g., S. cairns, and h. heynen, eds. 2012. handbook Architectural theory. london: Sage; yaneva, A. 2012. Mapping controversies in Architecture. farnham: Ashgate; Khan, A. Z. 2013. “on design and Politics of co-Producing Public Space.” international Journal of islamic Architecture 2 (1): 125–156.


52 for exampls, oscar newman’s defensible Space, 1975; foucault’s analysis of bentham’s design for a panopticon prison, 1991.

53 latour, b. and A. yaneva. 2008. “An Ant’s view of Architecture.” in explorations in Architecture. teaching design research, edited by r. geiser, 80–89. basel: birkha ̈user. yaneva, A. 2012. Mapping… .

54 ingersoll, Sprawltown

55 d. farr, Sustainable urbanism: urban design with nature (hoboken, nJ: John Wiley, 2008).

56 choay, f. 1997. the rule and the Model: on the theory of Architecture and urbanism. cambridge, MA: the Mit Press.


58 lynch, K. ([1981] 1984). good city form. cambridge, MA: the Mit Press.

59 Khan, A. Z., K. Allacker, and h. vandevyvere. 2013. “design for the ecological Age: rethinking the role of Sustainability in Architectural education.” Journal of Architectural education 67 (2): 7–17.



62 Khan, Ahmed Z., f. Moulaert, and J. Schreurs. 2013. “epistemology of Space: exploring relational Perspectives in Planning, urbanism, and Architecture.” international Planning Studies 18 (3–4): 287 – 303.

63 ranging from human geography, architecture, urban, and regional planning, to sociology, political science, anthropology, and cultural studies, see Khan et al. “epistemology of…”.

64 this is evidenced through a growing body of work that addresses social questions from an architectural perspective — or architectural questions from a social perspective, e.g. crysler, et al. handbook Architectural theory; crawford, M. “contesting the..”; dovey, K. (1999) framing Places; Madanipour, A., eds. 2010. Whose Public Space?; yaneva, A., Mapping… ; Khan, “on design and..”.

65 Khan, “on design and..”; Khan et al. “epistemology of…”.

66 crawford, M. “contesting the..”; banerjee, t. 2001. “the future of Public Space: beyond invented Streets and reinvented Places.” Journal of the American Planning Association 67 (1): 9–24.

67 carr, S., M. francis, l. rivlin, and A. M. Stone. 1992. Public Space. cambridge: cambridge university Press; crawford, M. 1999. “blurring the boundaries: Public Space and Private life.” in everyday urbanism, edited by J. chase, M. crawford, and K. John, 22–35. new york, ny: Monacelli.



33253252

venturi, r., d. Scott brown and S. izenour. “learning from las vegas. the forgotten Symbolism of Architectural form.” Mit Press, london, 1991.

Wackernagel, Mathis, and William rees. “our ecological footprint.” new Society, gabriola island, bc, canada, 1996.

Waldheim, c., ed. “the landscape urbanism reader.” Princeton Architectural Press, new york, 2006.

Weber, W., and yannas, S. (eds.) “lessons from vernacular Architecture.” earthscan from routledge, oxon & new york, 2014.

William et al., eds., “Achieving Sustainable urban form.” Spon Press, london, 2000.

Williams, d. e. “Sustainable design: ecology, Architecture, and Planning.” John Wiley & Sons, new Jersey, 2007.

yaneva, A. “Mapping controversies in Architecture.” Ashgate, farnham, 2012.

endnoteS

1 dominique gauzin-Müller, Sustainable architecture and urbanism (basel: birkhäuser, 2002); vincent canizaro and Kim tanzer, “introduction,” Journal of Architectural education [hereafter JAe] 60, no. 4 (May 2007), p. 4.

2 ibid.; Paul Appleby, integrated Sustainable design of buildings (london: earthscan, 2011).

3 Kiel Moe, “compelling yet unreliable theories of Sustainability,” JAe 60, no. 4 (2007), p. 24; Panayiota Pyla, “counter-histories of Sustainability,” volume 18 (2008): 14-17.

4 Steven Moore and Simon guy. “Sustainable Architecture and the Pluralist imagination,” JAe 60, no. 4 (2007): 15.

5 Ahmed Z. Khan, “towards Sustainable built environment: understanding Sustainability Prospects in a Metropolitan framework,” Journal of research in Architecture & Planning 11, no. 2, (2011): 31-55.

6 Simon guy and graham farmer, “reinterpreting Sustainable Architecture: the Place of technology,” JAe 54, no. 3 (2001), p. 140.

7 canizaro and tanzer, “introduction,” p. 4, 6; guy and Moore, “Sustainable Architecture,” pp. 15-17.

8 Mark Jarzombek, “on JAe’s Sustainability issue,” JAe 62, no. 1 (2008), p. 66.

9 guy and Moore, “Sustainable Architecture,” p. 22; harry gordon, “Sustainable design goes Mainstream,” and James Wines, “the Art of Architecture in the Age of ecology,” in d.e. brown, et al., eds., Sustainable Architecture (new york: earth Pledge, 2000), pp. 11, 12–18, 34.


11 robert dunay, Joseph Wheeler, robert Schubert, “no compromise: the integration of technology and Aesthetics,” JAe 60, no. 2 (2006): 8-17.

12 guy and farmer, “reinterpreting Sustainable,” p. 146; guy and Moore, “Sustainable Architecture,” p. 18-19.

13 Among the many seminal works on ecological philosophy and theory, elucidating the developments in ecological debate,

there are works by rachel carson, Arne naess, Aldo leopold, luc ferry, and ulrich beck.

14 for the claim, see richard ingersoll, Sprawltown (new york: Princeton Architectural Press, 2006), p. 137.

15 hawkens, lovics, and lovins 1999

16 Panayiota Pyla. ekistics, Architecture, and environmental Politics, 1945- 1976: A Prehistory of Sustainable development (cambridge: Mit - Phd diss., 2002); Paul, l. Knox, cities and design (london: routledge, 2011).

17 gro harlem brundtland, ed., our common future (new york: oxford university Press, 1987), p. 8.

18Mark Jarzombek, “Molecules, Money, and design: Sustainability’s role in Architectural Academe,” thresholds 18 (1999): 32-38; Mark Jarzombek, “Sustainability, Architecture, and “nature”,” thresholds 26 (2003): 54-56.

19 ingersoll, Sprawltown; A. van rompaey, S. Schmitz, et al., landscape capacity and social attitudes, Science for a Sustainable development (brussels: belgian Science Policy, 2009): 84.

20 ibid.

21 J. heartfield, green capitalism: Manufacturing Scarcity in an Age of Abundance (london: Mute, 2008); Jarzombek, “Sustainability, Architecture,”; Pyla, “counter-histories,”; ingersoll, Sprawltown.

22 un-cSd, Sustainable development; Steffen lehmann, the principles of green urbanism (london: earthscan, 2010).

23 un-habitat, State of the World’s cities 2010/2011; naison d. M., “Scaling new heights” urban World, 1, no. 4 (2009): 16-24.

24 Mark Jarzombek, “Molecules, Money,”; Miguel ruano, ecourbanism (barcelona: gustavo gili, 2000); d. farr, Sustainable urbanism: urban design with nature (new Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, 2008).

25 in the european context, the situation is even more alarming: 83% of the european population will be urban by 2050, urban sprawl expands faster than population rise - 8000 km2 land [size of luxembourg] became urbanised in just 10 years [1990-2000].

26 un-habitat, State of the World’s cities; ingersoll, Sprawltown; Meta Pont b., et al., Spacematrix (rotterdam: nAi Publishers, 2010).

27 William et al., eds., Achieving Sustainable urban form (london: Spon Press, 2000); Mike Jenks, et al., future forms and design for Sustainable cities (oxford: Architectural Press, 2005).

28 [ingersoll, 2006, p. 140]

29 even it is pointed out that “less is known about sustainability as a social and historical phenomenon, leaving important questions unanswered and much room for research. is sustainability a recent concept or a key component in some ancient or traditional societies? (vincent canizaro and Kim tanzer, 2007, p. 4).

30 Ahmed Z. Khan, “rethinking doxiadis´ ekistical urbanism,” Positions 1 (2010): 6-39.


32 forty, A. (2000) Words and buildings. A vocabulary of Modern Architecture (london: thames and hudson).

33 heynen, h. 2013. “Space as receptor, instrument or Stage: notes on the interaction between Spatial and Social constellations.” international Planning Studies 18 (4).

34 colquhoun, Alan. 1989. Modernity and the classical tradition: Architectural essays 1980–1987. cambridge, MA: Mit Press, p. 225.

35 Sert, Jose luis. 1944. can our cities Survive? An Abc of urban Problems, their Analysis, their Solution. cambridge, MA: harvard university Press.

36 heynen, h. (1999) Architecture and Modernity. A critique (london: Mit Press).

37 le corbusier. 1986. towards a new Architecture. new york: dover Publications, pp. 2-3.

38 Madanipour, A. 2013. “researching Space, transgressing epistemic boundaries.” international Planning Studies 18 (4).

39 heynen, h. 2013. “Space as..”

40 leach, n. (1999) Architecture and revolution. contemporary Perspectives on central and eastern europe (london: routledge); Scott, J.c. (1998) Seeing like a State: how certain Schemes to improve the human condition have failed (new haven: yale university Press); evenson, n. (1989) the indian Metropolis. A view toward the West (new haven: yale university Press); holston, J. (1989) the modernist city. An Anthropological critique of brasília (chicago: university of chicago Press); franck, K.A. (1984) exorcising the ghost of Physical determinism, environment and behavior, 16(4), pp. 411-435; dovey, K. (1999) framing Places. Mediating Power in built form (london: routledge); lu, d. (ed.) (2010) third World Modernism: Architecture, development and identity (london: routledge).

41 Madanipour, A. 2013. “researching Space,..”

42 from the critique of ciAM by team-X and others leading to several shifts defining the post WW-ii architecture culture, and to the contributions by Aldo rossi, Kevin lynch, venturi, norberg-Schulz, and colin rowe and so on. See Ahmed Z. Khan, 2008. constantinos A. doxiadis’ Plan for islamabad: the making of a ‘city of the future’, Kuleuven: Phd dissertation; tom Avermaete, 2005. Another Modern: the Postwar Architecture and urbanism of candilis-Josic-Woods, rotterdam: nAi Publishers.

43 heynen, h. 2013. “Space as..”; venturi, r., d. Scott brown & S. izenour (1991) learning from las vegas. the forgotten Symbolism of Architectural form [1972] (london: Mit Press); Jencks, c. (1978) the language of Post-Modern Architecture (london: Academy); norberg-Schulz, c. (1975) Meaning in Western Architecture (london: Studio vista); norberg-Schulz, c. (1980) genius loci. towards a Phenomenology of Architecture (london: Academy).

44 dovey, K. (1999) framing Places. lawrence J. vale, 1992. Architecture, Power, and national identity. new haven: yale university Press.

45 dovey, K. (1999) framing Places.


47 hillier, b. (1996) Space is the Machine. A configurational theory of Architecture (cambridge: cambridge university Press); hillier, b. & J. hanson (1984) the social logic of space (cambridge: cambridge university Press).


49 hillier, b. (1996) Space is.

50 crawford, M. 1995. “contesting the Public realm: Struggles over Public Space in los Angeles.” Journal of Architectural education 49 (1): 4–9; dovey, K. (1999) framing Places; Madanipour, A., eds. 2010. Whose Public Space? london: routledge; crysler, g., S. cairns, and h. heynen, eds. 2012. handbook Architectural theory. london: Sage; yaneva, A. 2012. Mapping controversies in Architecture. farnham: Ashgate; Khan, A. Z. 2013. “on design and Politics of co-Producing Public Space.” international Journal of islamic Architecture 2 (1): 125–156.


52 for exampls, oscar newman’s defensible Space, 1975; foucault’s analysis of bentham’s design for a panopticon prison, 1991.

53 latour, b. and A. yaneva. 2008. “An Ant’s view of Architecture.” in explorations in Architecture. teaching design research, edited by r. geiser, 80–89. basel: birkha ̈user. yaneva, A. 2012. Mapping… .


55 d. farr, Sustainable urbanism: urban design with nature (hoboken, nJ: John Wiley, 2008).

56 choay, f. 1997. the rule and the Model: on the theory of Architecture and urbanism. cambridge, MA: the Mit Press.


58 lynch, K. ([1981] 1984). good city form. cambridge, MA: the Mit Press.

59 Khan, A. Z., K. Allacker, and h. vandevyvere. 2013. “design for the ecological Age: rethinking the role of Sustainability in Architectural education.” Journal of Architectural education 67 (2): 7–17.



62 Khan, Ahmed Z., f. Moulaert, and J. Schreurs. 2013. “epistemology of Space: exploring relational Perspectives in Planning, urbanism, and Architecture.” international Planning Studies 18 (3–4): 287 – 303.

63 ranging from human geography, architecture, urban, and regional planning, to sociology, political science, anthropology, and cultural studies, see Khan et al. “epistemology of…”.

64 this is evidenced through a growing body of work that addresses social questions from an architectural perspective — or architectural questions from a social perspective, e.g. crysler, et al. handbook Architectural theory; crawford, M. “contesting the..”; dovey, K. (1999) framing Places; Madanipour, A., eds. 2010. Whose Public Space?; yaneva, A., Mapping… ; Khan, “on design and..”.

65 Khan, “on design and..”; Khan et al. “epistemology of…”.

66 crawford, M. “contesting the..”; banerjee, t. 2001. “the future of Public Space: beyond invented Streets and reinvented Places.” Journal of the American Planning Association 67 (1): 9–24.

67 carr, S., M. francis, l. rivlin, and A. M. Stone. 1992. Public Space. cambridge: cambridge university Press; crawford, M. 1999. “blurring the boundaries: Public Space and Private life.” in everyday urbanism, edited by J. chase, M. crawford, and K. John, 22–35. new york, ny: Monacelli.



34 255254

68 banerjee, t. “the future..”.

69 Montgomery, J. 1998. “Making a city: urbanity, vitality and urban design.” Journal of urban design 3 (1): 95–97; buchanan, Peter. 1988. “What city? A Plea for Place in the Public realm.” Architectural review 1101(november): 31–41.

70 low, S. (2000) on the Plaza: the Politics of Public Space and culture (Austin, texas: university of texas Press).

71 Massey, d. 2005. for Space. london: Sage.

72 degen, M. M., and g. rose. 2012. “the Sensory experiencing of urban design: the role of Walking and Perceptual Memory.” urban Studies 49 (15): 3271–3287; lehtovuori, P. 2012. “towards experiential urbanism.” critical Sociology 38 (1): 71–87.

73 lehtovuori, P. 2012. “towards experiential…”.

74 Khan, “on design and..”;

75 ibid.

76 ibid.

77 rossi, A. [1966] 1982. the Architecture of the city. cambridge, MA: the Mit Press.

78 de Sola`-Morales, M. 2008. A Matter of things. rotterdam: nAi Publishers, 184–190.

79 catharine W. thompson, ‘urban open Space in the 21st century’, landscape and urban Planning 60 (2002): 60.

80 banerjee, “the future of….”; Ali Madanipour, ‘roles and challenges of urban design’, Journal of urban design 11.2 (2006): 183.

81 eugene J. Mccann, ‘race, Protest and Public Space’, Antipode 31.2 (1999): 163–84; Montgomery, “Making a city..”; Khan, “on design and..”.

82 the ‘spatial practices’ of perceived space represent the practical or physical basis of the perception of the outside world. the ‘conceived space’ then is referred to as the ‘representations of space’ of the architects, researchers, cartographers or designers where according to lefebvre (1991) the practices of social and political power take place. And finally the ‘lived space’ as the space of imagination capable of refiguring the balance of popular ‚perceived space’ and official ‚conceived space’.

83 lefebvre, h. 1974. la production de l’espace (Paris: Anthropos). (1991) the production of space (oxford: blackwell).

84 rapoport, A. 1982. the Meaning of the built environment: A nonverbal communication Approach. beverly hills, cA: Sage Publications, p. 128.

85 Sternberg, e. 2000. “An integrative theory of urban design.” Journal of the American Planning Association 66 (3): 265–278.

86 See Ahmed Z. Khan, frank Moulaert, Jan Schreurs & Konrad Miciukiewicz (2014) integrative Spatial Quality: A relational epistemology of Space and transdisciplinarity in urban design and Planning, Journal of urban design, 19:4, 393-411.

87 Khan et al. “epistemology of…”.

88 Krieger, Alex. 2009. “Where and how does urban design happen?”, p. 114, in urban design, edited by Alex Krieger and William S. Saunders, 113–130. Minneapolis/london: university of Minnesota.

89 bentley, i. 1998. “urban design as an Anti-Profession.” urban design Quarterly 65: 15.

90 inam, A. 2002. “Meaningful urban design: teleological/catalytic/relevant.” Journal of urban design 7 (1): 35–58; Marshall, S. 2012. “Science, Pseudo-Science and urban design.” urban design international 17 (4): 257 – 271; Sternberg, “An integrative…”; loukaitou-Sideris, A. 2012. “Addressing the challenges of urban landscapes: normative goals for urban design.” Journal of urban design 17 (4): 467–484; carmona, M. 2014. “the Place-Shaping continuum: A theory of urban design Process.” Journal of urban design 19 (1): 2–36; Southworth, M. 2014. “Public life, Public Space, and the changing Art of city design.” Journal of urban design 19 (1): 37–40; barnett, J. 2014. “do not define urban design too narrowly.” Journal of urban design 19 (1): 49–52.

91 Sternberg, “An integrative…”; banerjee, “the future of….”; Madanipour, ‘roles and challenges..”; carmona, “the Plac-shaping…”; Khan, et al., “integrative spatial…”.

92 Madanipour, ‘roles and challenges..”, p. 191.

93 Waldheim, c., ed. 2006. the landscape urbanism reader. new york, ny: Princeton Architectural Press; Scheer, b. 2011. “Metropolitan form and landscape urbanism.” in companion to urban design, edited by t. banerjee and A. loukaitou-Sideris, 611–618. london: routledge, p. 612.

94 Mostafavi, M., and g. doherty, eds. 2010. “ecological urbanism.” baden: lars Muller Publishers.

95 Allen, S. 1999. Points þ lines: diagrams and Projects for the city. new york: Princeton Architectural Press, p. 57.

96 for the producers, it reflects a new division of labour among the stakeholders, shapes the built environment, co-ordinates and leads the development process, stabilizes the market conditions, and markets the development. for the regulators, it helps making the city more competitive, shapes the future of the city, manages its environmental change, and contributes towards good governance by bringing together different actors to participate in the process of developing and implementing a vision for the city. for the users of the city, it improves how the place functions and enhances its symbolic values, even though such values are always contested. Madanipour, ‘roles and challenges..”.

97 Madanipour, ‘roles and challenges..”, p.191.

98 Sternberg, “An integrative…”.

99 good form is about proportions and interrelations between parts & the whole. legibility as an integrative principle underlying the urban inhabitant’s experience of the city (lynch’s “sensuous qualities” or simply “sense” of place – banerjee & Sothworth, 1991, p. 6) – through elements such as paths, edges, nodes, landmarks, districts (own identifiable character) – that is crucial in the ‘interrelationship of parts into a whole’. vitality refers to the concepts of mixed use, fine grain, high density, and permeability as important sources of urban vitality that is a pervasive consideration in urban design. Meaning implies identity, local / indigenous culture, history, etc. i.e. design to make diversity cohere. Sternberg, “An integrative…”, pp. 270-275.

100 carmona (2014, 33) argues that “it is necessary to understand the creation, re-creation and performance of the built environment across four interrelated process dimensions, self-consciously and un-self-consciously using design processes to knowingly and unknowingly shape place (figure 12). thus it is not just design, nor even development processes, that shape the experience of space, but instead the combined outcomes and interactions between: design—the key aspirations and vision, and contextual and stakeholder influences for a particular project or set of proposals. development—the power relationships, and processes of negotiation, regulation and delivery for a particular project or set of proposals. Space (or place) in use—who uses a

particular place, how, why, when and with what consequences and conflicts. Management—the place-based responsibilities for stewardship, security, maintenance and ongoing funding. Moreover, this is not a series of discrete episodes and activities as we often attempt to understand them from our siloed standpoints, but instead a continuous integrated process or continuum from history to and through each of the place- shaping processes of today and on to tomorrow.” carmona, “the Place-Shaping…”, p. 33.

101 Khan, et al, “integrative Spatial…”.

102 cross, n. 1982. “designerly Ways of Knowing.” design Studies 3 (4): 221–227; cross, n. 2006. designerly Ways of Knowing. london: Springer-verlag; de Jong, M., and J. M. van der voordt, eds. 2002. Ways to Study and research urban, Architectural and technical design. delft: delft university Press; lawson, b. 2004. What designers Know. oxford: Architectural Press; Scho ̈n, d. 1988. “designing: rules, types and Worlds.” in design Studies: A reader, edited by h. clark, and d. brody, 110–114. oxford: berg; Moore, S. A., and A. Karvonen. 2008. “Sustainable Architecture in context: StS and design thinking.” Science Studies 21 (1): 29–46; Servillo, l., and J. Schreurs. 2013. “Pragmatism and research by design: epistemological virtues and Methodological challenges.” international Planning Studies 18 (3–4): 358–371; Khan et al., “epistemology of…”.

103 de Jong et al., Ways to… .; brenda, l., ed. 2003. design research: Methods and Perspectives. cambridge: Mit Press. Khan, A. Z. 2011. “When history becomes the corpus for designerly Way of thinking.” in historiography of Architecture, edited by P. vandal, et al., 23–29. lahore: thAAP.

104 Margolin, v., and r. buchanan, 1995. the idea of design. cambridge, MA: the Mit Press, 1995.

105 de Jong et al., Ways to… , pp. 22, 25.

106 Moore and Karvonen. “Sustainable Architecture…”; Servillo and Schreurs, “Pragmatism and research..”.

107 Khan, A. Z. 2010. “rethinking doxiadis’ ekistical urbanism: Sustainability and globalization as a dialectical framework for design.” Positions 2010 (1): 6–39.

108 Moore and Karvonen. “Sustainable Architecture…”; Khan, “When history….”.

109 lawson, What designers.. ; Schreurs, J. 2007. “communicating Quality: Words and images.” Architectural research Quarterly 11 (3–4): 325 – 333; Khan, “When history….”.

110 Khan et al., “integrative Spatial…”.

111 bertilsson, t. M. 2004. “the elementary forms of Pragmatism: on different types of Abduction.” european Journal of Social theory 7 (3): 371–389.

112 r. flanagan, g. norman, J. Meadows, and g. robinson. “life cycle costing: theory and Practice.” bSP Professional books, oxford, uK, 1989; Mats oberg. “integrated life cycle design - Applied to Swedish concrete multi-dwelling buildings.” Phd dissertation, lund institute of technology, 2005.

113 r. g. hunt, W. e. franklin. “lcA – how it came about: Personal reflections on the origin and the development of lcA in the uSA.” the international Journal of lcA 1, no. 1 (1996): 4-7.

114 the iSo 14040 series consists of several standards providing a framework for environmental Management – life cycle Assessment. the two most important standards for the methodological issues are the iSo 14040 and iSo 14044. iSo. “iSo 14040:2006 – environmental Management – life cycle Assessment – Principles and framework.” international Standard organisation, 2006; iSo. “iSo 14044:2006 – environmental

Management – life cycle Assessment – requirements and guidelines.” international Standard organisation, 2006.

115 the cradle-to-cradle (c2c) label is a well-known label and is an example of a type i environmental label of products according to iSo 14024, taking into account the whole life cycle of the product (based on lcA or other method); the ePds (environmental Product declarations) are the type iii environmental labels and are based on lcA (iSo 14025 and iSo 21930).

116 ec (2011a) communication from the european commission. resource efficient europe (coM(2011)21); ec. coM(2013) 196 final: communication from the commission to the european Parliament and the council: „building the Single Market for green Products - facilitating better information on the environmental performance of products and organisations.” brussels, 2013; ec. “Annex ii: Product environmental footprint (Pef) guide to the coMMiSSion recoMMendAtion on the use of common methods to measure and communicate the life cycle environmental performance of products and organisations.” european commission, 2013.

117 n. Pelletier, Allacker, K., Pant, r., Manfredi, S. the european commission organisation environmental footprint Method: comparison with other Methods, and rationales for Key requirements. the international Journal of life cycle Assessment, 19 (2014); K. Allacker, and f. de troyer. (2013). Moving towards a more sustainable belgian dwelling stock: the passive standard as the next step? Journal of green building. vol. 8, no. 2: 112-132.

118 Mathis Wackernagel and William rees, our ecological footprint (gabriola island, bc, canada: new Society, 1996); Mark goedkoop and renilde Spriensma, the eco-indicator 99 (Amersfoort, the netherlands: Pré consultants, 2001)

119 Jane c. bare, Patrick hofstetter, david W. Pennington, and helias A. udo de haes, “life cycle impact Assessment Workshop Summary - Midpoints versus endpoints: the Sacrifices and benefits,” international Journal of life cycle Assessment 5, no.6 (2000): 319–26.

120 cen. “en:15804:2012+A1:2013. Sustainability of construction works - environmental product declarations - communication format business-to-business.” european committee for Standardisation, 2012+2013; cen. “en:15978 Sustainability of construction works – Assessment of environmental performance of buildings – calculation method.” european committee for Standardisation; 2011.

121 nibe: www.nibe.org/nl (accessed october 2014); inieS: www.base-inies.fr/inies/default.aspx (accessed october 2014); ovAM:MMg www.ovam.be/duurzame-kringlopen/materiaalkringlopen/materiaalbewust-bouwen-in-kringlopen/materiaalprestatie-gebouwen (accessed october 2014); the green guide to Specification: www.bre.co.uk/greenguide/podpage.jsp?id=2126 (accessed october 2014), baubook: www.baubook.at/ (accessed october 2014).

122 Minguet, J. M., (2009). bioclimatic Architecture (barcelona: Monsa; bilingual edition), p. 6.

123 Weber, W., & yannas, S. (eds.) (2014). lessons from vernacular Architecture (oxon & new york: earthscan from routledge).

124 Minguet, bioclimatic Architecture, p. 6.

125 Jones, d. l., (1998). Architecture and the environment: bioclimatic building design (london: laurence King Publishing), p. 35.

126 S.t.A. Pickett, M.l. cadenasso, brian Mcgrath, (2013). resilience in ecology and urban design: linking theory and



35255254

68 banerjee, t. “the future..”.

69 Montgomery, J. 1998. “Making a city: urbanity, vitality and urban design.” Journal of urban design 3 (1): 95–97; buchanan, Peter. 1988. “What city? A Plea for Place in the Public realm.” Architectural review 1101(november): 31–41.

70 low, S. (2000) on the Plaza: the Politics of Public Space and culture (Austin, texas: university of texas Press).

71 Massey, d. 2005. for Space. london: Sage.

72 degen, M. M., and g. rose. 2012. “the Sensory experiencing of urban design: the role of Walking and Perceptual Memory.” urban Studies 49 (15): 3271–3287; lehtovuori, P. 2012. “towards experiential urbanism.” critical Sociology 38 (1): 71–87.

73 lehtovuori, P. 2012. “towards experiential…”.

74 Khan, “on design and..”;

75 ibid.

76 ibid.

77 rossi, A. [1966] 1982. the Architecture of the city. cambridge, MA: the Mit Press.

78 de Sola`-Morales, M. 2008. A Matter of things. rotterdam: nAi Publishers, 184–190.

79 catharine W. thompson, ‘urban open Space in the 21st century’, landscape and urban Planning 60 (2002): 60.

80 banerjee, “the future of….”; Ali Madanipour, ‘roles and challenges of urban design’, Journal of urban design 11.2 (2006): 183.

81 eugene J. Mccann, ‘race, Protest and Public Space’, Antipode 31.2 (1999): 163–84; Montgomery, “Making a city..”; Khan, “on design and..”.

82 the ‘spatial practices’ of perceived space represent the practical or physical basis of the perception of the outside world. the ‘conceived space’ then is referred to as the ‘representations of space’ of the architects, researchers, cartographers or designers where according to lefebvre (1991) the practices of social and political power take place. And finally the ‘lived space’ as the space of imagination capable of refiguring the balance of popular ‚perceived space’ and official ‚conceived space’.

83 lefebvre, h. 1974. la production de l’espace (Paris: Anthropos). (1991) the production of space (oxford: blackwell).

84 rapoport, A. 1982. the Meaning of the built environment: A nonverbal communication Approach. beverly hills, cA: Sage Publications, p. 128.

85 Sternberg, e. 2000. “An integrative theory of urban design.” Journal of the American Planning Association 66 (3): 265–278.

86 See Ahmed Z. Khan, frank Moulaert, Jan Schreurs & Konrad Miciukiewicz (2014) integrative Spatial Quality: A relational epistemology of Space and transdisciplinarity in urban design and Planning, Journal of urban design, 19:4, 393-411.

87 Khan et al. “epistemology of…”.

88 Krieger, Alex. 2009. “Where and how does urban design happen?”, p. 114, in urban design, edited by Alex Krieger and William S. Saunders, 113–130. Minneapolis/london: university of Minnesota.

89 bentley, i. 1998. “urban design as an Anti-Profession.” urban design Quarterly 65: 15.

90 inam, A. 2002. “Meaningful urban design: teleological/catalytic/relevant.” Journal of urban design 7 (1): 35–58; Marshall, S. 2012. “Science, Pseudo-Science and urban design.” urban design international 17 (4): 257 – 271; Sternberg, “An integrative…”; loukaitou-Sideris, A. 2012. “Addressing the challenges of urban landscapes: normative goals for urban design.” Journal of urban design 17 (4): 467–484; carmona, M. 2014. “the Place-Shaping continuum: A theory of urban design Process.” Journal of urban design 19 (1): 2–36; Southworth, M. 2014. “Public life, Public Space, and the changing Art of city design.” Journal of urban design 19 (1): 37–40; barnett, J. 2014. “do not define urban design too narrowly.” Journal of urban design 19 (1): 49–52.

91 Sternberg, “An integrative…”; banerjee, “the future of….”; Madanipour, ‘roles and challenges..”; carmona, “the Plac-shaping…”; Khan, et al., “integrative spatial…”.

92 Madanipour, ‘roles and challenges..”, p. 191.

93 Waldheim, c., ed. 2006. the landscape urbanism reader. new york, ny: Princeton Architectural Press; Scheer, b. 2011. “Metropolitan form and landscape urbanism.” in companion to urban design, edited by t. banerjee and A. loukaitou-Sideris, 611–618. london: routledge, p. 612.

94 Mostafavi, M., and g. doherty, eds. 2010. “ecological urbanism.” baden: lars Muller Publishers.

95 Allen, S. 1999. Points þ lines: diagrams and Projects for the city. new york: Princeton Architectural Press, p. 57.

96 for the producers, it reflects a new division of labour among the stakeholders, shapes the built environment, co-ordinates and leads the development process, stabilizes the market conditions, and markets the development. for the regulators, it helps making the city more competitive, shapes the future of the city, manages its environmental change, and contributes towards good governance by bringing together different actors to participate in the process of developing and implementing a vision for the city. for the users of the city, it improves how the place functions and enhances its symbolic values, even though such values are always contested. Madanipour, ‘roles and challenges..”.

97 Madanipour, ‘roles and challenges..”, p.191.

98 Sternberg, “An integrative…”.

99 good form is about proportions and interrelations between parts & the whole. legibility as an integrative principle underlying the urban inhabitant’s experience of the city (lynch’s “sensuous qualities” or simply “sense” of place – banerjee & Sothworth, 1991, p. 6) – through elements such as paths, edges, nodes, landmarks, districts (own identifiable character) – that is crucial in the ‘interrelationship of parts into a whole’. vitality refers to the concepts of mixed use, fine grain, high density, and permeability as important sources of urban vitality that is a pervasive consideration in urban design. Meaning implies identity, local / indigenous culture, history, etc. i.e. design to make diversity cohere. Sternberg, “An integrative…”, pp. 270-275.

100 carmona (2014, 33) argues that “it is necessary to understand the creation, re-creation and performance of the built environment across four interrelated process dimensions, self-consciously and un-self-consciously using design processes to knowingly and unknowingly shape place (figure 12). thus it is not just design, nor even development processes, that shape the experience of space, but instead the combined outcomes and interactions between: design—the key aspirations and vision, and contextual and stakeholder influences for a particular project or set of proposals. development—the power relationships, and processes of negotiation, regulation and delivery for a particular project or set of proposals. Space (or place) in use—who uses a

particular place, how, why, when and with what consequences and conflicts. Management—the place-based responsibilities for stewardship, security, maintenance and ongoing funding. Moreover, this is not a series of discrete episodes and activities as we often attempt to understand them from our siloed standpoints, but instead a continuous integrated process or continuum from history to and through each of the place- shaping processes of today and on to tomorrow.” carmona, “the Place-Shaping…”, p. 33.

101 Khan, et al, “integrative Spatial…”.

102 cross, n. 1982. “designerly Ways of Knowing.” design Studies 3 (4): 221–227; cross, n. 2006. designerly Ways of Knowing. london: Springer-verlag; de Jong, M., and J. M. van der voordt, eds. 2002. Ways to Study and research urban, Architectural and technical design. delft: delft university Press; lawson, b. 2004. What designers Know. oxford: Architectural Press; Scho ̈n, d. 1988. “designing: rules, types and Worlds.” in design Studies: A reader, edited by h. clark, and d. brody, 110–114. oxford: berg; Moore, S. A., and A. Karvonen. 2008. “Sustainable Architecture in context: StS and design thinking.” Science Studies 21 (1): 29–46; Servillo, l., and J. Schreurs. 2013. “Pragmatism and research by design: epistemological virtues and Methodological challenges.” international Planning Studies 18 (3–4): 358–371; Khan et al., “epistemology of…”.

103 de Jong et al., Ways to… .; brenda, l., ed. 2003. design research: Methods and Perspectives. cambridge: Mit Press. Khan, A. Z. 2011. “When history becomes the corpus for designerly Way of thinking.” in historiography of Architecture, edited by P. vandal, et al., 23–29. lahore: thAAP.

104 Margolin, v., and r. buchanan, 1995. the idea of design. cambridge, MA: the Mit Press, 1995.

105 de Jong et al., Ways to… , pp. 22, 25.

106 Moore and Karvonen. “Sustainable Architecture…”; Servillo and Schreurs, “Pragmatism and research..”.

107 Khan, A. Z. 2010. “rethinking doxiadis’ ekistical urbanism: Sustainability and globalization as a dialectical framework for design.” Positions 2010 (1): 6–39.

108 Moore and Karvonen. “Sustainable Architecture…”; Khan, “When history….”.

109 lawson, What designers.. ; Schreurs, J. 2007. “communicating Quality: Words and images.” Architectural research Quarterly 11 (3–4): 325 – 333; Khan, “When history….”.

110 Khan et al., “integrative Spatial…”.

111 bertilsson, t. M. 2004. “the elementary forms of Pragmatism: on different types of Abduction.” european Journal of Social theory 7 (3): 371–389.

112 r. flanagan, g. norman, J. Meadows, and g. robinson. “life cycle costing: theory and Practice.” bSP Professional books, oxford, uK, 1989; Mats oberg. “integrated life cycle design - Applied to Swedish concrete multi-dwelling buildings.” Phd dissertation, lund institute of technology, 2005.

113 r. g. hunt, W. e. franklin. “lcA – how it came about: Personal reflections on the origin and the development of lcA in the uSA.” the international Journal of lcA 1, no. 1 (1996): 4-7.

114 the iSo 14040 series consists of several standards providing a framework for environmental Management – life cycle Assessment. the two most important standards for the methodological issues are the iSo 14040 and iSo 14044. iSo. “iSo 14040:2006 – environmental Management – life cycle Assessment – Principles and framework.” international Standard organisation, 2006; iSo. “iSo 14044:2006 – environmental

Management – life cycle Assessment – requirements and guidelines.” international Standard organisation, 2006.

115 the cradle-to-cradle (c2c) label is a well-known label and is an example of a type i environmental label of products according to iSo 14024, taking into account the whole life cycle of the product (based on lcA or other method); the ePds (environmental Product declarations) are the type iii environmental labels and are based on lcA (iSo 14025 and iSo 21930).

116 ec (2011a) communication from the european commission. resource efficient europe (coM(2011)21); ec. coM(2013) 196 final: communication from the commission to the european Parliament and the council: „building the Single Market for green Products - facilitating better information on the environmental performance of products and organisations.” brussels, 2013; ec. “Annex ii: Product environmental footprint (Pef) guide to the coMMiSSion recoMMendAtion on the use of common methods to measure and communicate the life cycle environmental performance of products and organisations.” european commission, 2013.

117 n. Pelletier, Allacker, K., Pant, r., Manfredi, S. the european commission organisation environmental footprint Method: comparison with other Methods, and rationales for Key requirements. the international Journal of life cycle Assessment, 19 (2014); K. Allacker, and f. de troyer. (2013). Moving towards a more sustainable belgian dwelling stock: the passive standard as the next step? Journal of green building. vol. 8, no. 2: 112-132.

118 Mathis Wackernagel and William rees, our ecological footprint (gabriola island, bc, canada: new Society, 1996); Mark goedkoop and renilde Spriensma, the eco-indicator 99 (Amersfoort, the netherlands: Pré consultants, 2001)

119 Jane c. bare, Patrick hofstetter, david W. Pennington, and helias A. udo de haes, “life cycle impact Assessment Workshop Summary - Midpoints versus endpoints: the Sacrifices and benefits,” international Journal of life cycle Assessment 5, no.6 (2000): 319–26.

120 cen. “en:15804:2012+A1:2013. Sustainability of construction works - environmental product declarations - communication format business-to-business.” european committee for Standardisation, 2012+2013; cen. “en:15978 Sustainability of construction works – Assessment of environmental performance of buildings – calculation method.” european committee for Standardisation; 2011.

121 nibe: www.nibe.org/nl (accessed october 2014); inieS: www.base-inies.fr/inies/default.aspx (accessed october 2014); ovAM:MMg www.ovam.be/duurzame-kringlopen/materiaalkringlopen/materiaalbewust-bouwen-in-kringlopen/materiaalprestatie-gebouwen (accessed october 2014); the green guide to Specification: www.bre.co.uk/greenguide/podpage.jsp?id=2126 (accessed october 2014), baubook: www.baubook.at/ (accessed october 2014).

122 Minguet, J. M., (2009). bioclimatic Architecture (barcelona: Monsa; bilingual edition), p. 6.

123 Weber, W., & yannas, S. (eds.) (2014). lessons from vernacular Architecture (oxon & new york: earthscan from routledge).

124 Minguet, bioclimatic Architecture, p. 6.

125 Jones, d. l., (1998). Architecture and the environment: bioclimatic building design (london: laurence King Publishing), p. 35.

126 S.t.A. Pickett, M.l. cadenasso, brian Mcgrath, (2013). resilience in ecology and urban design: linking theory and



36 257256

Practice for Sustainable cities (future city series, Springer).

127 c. Alexander, 2004, the nature of order: An essay on the Art of building and the nature of the universe (book 3). california: the centre for environmental Structure.

128 dormer, P., (1993). What is a designer?, in design Since 1945 (london: thames & hudson), p. 10.

129 Myers, W., (2012). bio design: nature, Science, creativity (london: thames & hudson), p. 7.

130 ibid., p. 8.

131 Mazzoleni, i., & Price, S., (2013). Architecture follows nature: biomimetic principles for innovative design (crc Press / taylor & francis group); Peters, t., (2011). experimental green Strategies (london: Ad & Wiley); Williams, d. e., (2007). Sustainable design: ecology, Architecture, and Planning (new Jersey: John Wiley & Sons). William Mcdonough, “the next industrial revolution,” in Atlantic Monthly (october 1998): pp. 82-92; Keeler, M., and burke, b., (2009). fundamentals of integrated design for Sustainable building (new Jersey: Wiley); Pawlyn, M., (2011). biomimicry in Architecture (london: ribA Publishing).

132 Peter head, chair AruP, 2011, cited in Pawlyn, biomimicry in Architecture.

133 Janine M. benyus, 1997, biomimicry : innovation inspired by nature. new york: harpercollins. origins and use of the term ‘biomimetics’ & ‘bionik’ since 1960s: otto h. Schmitt defined it in 1960 as “biology + technology” and applied it mainly within the field of engineering (Mazzoleni and Price, Architecture follows..); bioniK (the german term) comes from the english word ‘bionics’, which was coined by J. e. Steele (uSAf Major) at a conference entitled “bionics symposium: living prototypes – the key to new technology” in 1960 (supposedly as a combination of the words “biology” & “technics” or “electronics” (Petra gruber, 2011. biomimetics in Architecture: Architecture of life and buildings. Wien-new york: Springer). in scientific literature, ‘biomimetics’ appeared in 1962, and grew in usage particularly amongst material scientist in the 1980s (Pawlyn, biomimicry in Architecture, p. 2.

134 gruber, 2011. biomimetics in Architecture, p. 7.

135 Pawlyn, biomimicry in Architecture; Mazzoleni and Price, Architecture follows.. .

136 the rediscovery of the 1917 book ‘on growth and form” by the mathematician has influenced generations of architects and designers…..meticulous work looked at the correlations between biological forms & mechanical phenomena, and his descriptions of the interrelationship between form & growth helped biologists, architects, & engineers find fruitful starting grounds for collaborative explorations. Mazzoleni and Price, Architecture follows.., p. 12.

137 ibid., p. 39.

138 Pawlyn, biomimicry in Architecture, p. 1-2.

139 Keeler and burke, fundamentals of integrated.., p. 1.

140 Khan, “towards Sustainable built environment…”; Khan, “rethinking…”; Khan, et al., “integrative Spatial…”

141 Keeler and burke, fundamentals of integrated.

142 robert & brenda vale, 1975 (2002), the Autonomous house: design and Planning for Self-Sufficiency. london: thames & hudson.



37


38


39233232

Part 1

INTEGRATED DESIGN in THEORY and PRACTICE

1.0 Integrated Design in Theory and Practice: An Introduction Karen Allacker and Ahmed Z. Khan

1.1 Enframed Perspectives: the Social Construction of Sustainability and the Canon of ArchitectureSteven A. Moore

1.2 D x E = CPhilippe Samyn

1.3 Sustainable Architecture: Towards Integrated Strategies from Urban design to Building componentEmmanuel Rey

1.4 Forward to the Past / Back to the Future – the Vernacular Prospect of Connected ArchitectureAndy van den Dobbelsteen

1.5 Sustainable architecture: In search for a Multitude of Empathic SolutionsGriet Verbeeck

1


40


41233

Integrated Design in Theory and Practice: An Introduction

PART – 1

INTRODUCTION

1.0 Integrated Design in Theory and Practice: An Introduction

Karen Allacker and Ahmed Z. Khan

This first part of the book is dedicated to contributions of eminent experts in the field of Sustainable Architecture. The expertise of the authors of this first part is based on a long practice in Sustainable Architecture and/or on an academic career in architecture including involvement in design studios for many years. Their contributions reflect on architecture and sustainability and form an important positioning of the sustainability paradigm in current dis-cussion forums and architectural practice. We will then proceed to part 2 of this book with some more in depth discussions/reflections elaborating further the issues raised by the five authors of this first part.

Five authors share their experiences and ideas in an open and challenging way. They hence not only emphasise on-going discussions but also discuss their own insights and perspectives on the architecture and sustainability rela-tionships. We believe and hope that these chapters work in an inspiring way to both current practitioners and fu-ture architects and hence form an important contribution towards broadening the field of sustainable architecture and urbanism.

ENFRAMED PERSPECTIVES: THE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF SUSTAINABILITY AND THE CANON OF ARCHITECTURE, BY STEVEN MOORE

The importance of sustainable architecture is acknowl-edged by Steven Moore based on the current responsibil-ity of buildings to the GHG emissions and future impacts based on the predicted number of buildings to be built in the coming decades. He however doubts the insinua-tion in the title of the book that there is only one archi-tectural perspective – which would be nice as this could then clear up the sustainability complexity and current mess. Instead he argues that like the definition of “sus-tainability” also the definition of “architecture” is highly contested. This plurality of perspectives should however be embraced as each of these perspectives contributes something positive to our understanding of architecture and how to conjure up a sustainable future. Accepting this suggests that the meaning of both sustainability and architecture are socially constructed. This aware-ness and appreciation will help architects to be far better equipped to envision sustainable futures.

D X E = C, BY PHILIP SAMYN

Sustainable Architecture according to Philip Samyn is only possible through a holistic combination of a broad set of skills and pluralistic knowledge in combination with personal experience and observation. He furthermore sees construction as an interface of several organisms, machines and conducts of the environment. Samyn de-scribes two diametrically opposed approaches, i.e. dura-ble (D) and efficient (E) constructions. Based on these two notions he introduces the formula D x E = C, where C de-notes a usefulness constant. According to Samyn, useful constructions should be strived for. These are in tune with the environment and the progress of humankind. Archi-tects should take care of these and strive for an increased value of the constant C throughout their work. This is not only a theoretical discourse as in his daily practice, Sa-myn tries to get closer to his so-called ‘useful construc-tions’.

SUSTAINABLE ARCHITECTURE: TOWARDS INTEGRATED STRATEGIES FROM URBAN DESIGN TO BUILDING COMPONENT, BY EMANUEL REY

In this chapter, Emmanuel Rey departs from the triple P concept of sustainability and sees sustainable archi-tecture and urbanism as a long-term balance between the environmental, socio-cultural and economic pillar. To achieve this, he pleas for coherent strategies which are technically appropriate, environmentally friendly, economically viable and value adding on a socio-cultural level. According to Rey, multi-dimensional optimization

1.0


42 235234

will be needed as it is usually not possible to simultane-ously address the divers dimensions at their highest level. He furthermore sees buildings as part of a larger urban ecosystem instead of individual bodies. Besides the inte-gration of the various dimensions of sustainability, Rey identifies hence a second axis of integration, i.e. the in-tegration of the different scale levels of the built environ-ment. A third and final axis of integration mentioned by the author is the coordination between the constitutive elements of the architectural project. According to Rey, this integration is only possible through interdisciplinary collaborations which goes beyond a simple addition of sectorial logics. He finally stresses the added value of an evaluative approach as this provides additional informa-tion on the project.

FORWARD TO THE PAST / BACK TO THE FUTURE – THE VERNACULAR PROSPECT OF CONNECTED ARCHITECTURE, BY ANDY VAN DEN DOBBELSTEEN

Andy van den Dobbelsteen defines sustainable archi-tecture as architecture for the next generations, which demands a totally different attitude towards architecture and urban planning than when building for itself solely. Although the future is uncertain, there are some condi-tions that need to be taken into account: climate change and depleting resources, with fossil fuels in particular. The latter makes clear we need to avoid excessive use of energy by architectural and urban means. To achieve this lessons can be learned from vernacular architecture and apply its principles in modern design. Van den Dobbels-teen hence pleas for smart and bioclimatic design and for connectedness. The latter means we cannot think any-more in individual architecture but we should consider connections within the urban context.

SUSTAINABLE ARCHITECTURE: IN SEARCH FOR A MULTITUDE OF EMPATHIC SOLUTIONS, BY GRIET VERBEECK

During her 20 years of research on energy efficiency and sustainability in buildings, Griet Verbeeck noticed a shift in the perception of sustainability: from a noble objective, over something that is in favour of everyone’s interest to a subject of discussion. A second shift was noticed by Ver-beeck: from ignoring and minimizing the environmental problems to a general acceptance with focus on solutions for these problems. Several solutions were offered in the past, ranging from a so-called ecologist approach to an engineer approach. However, many buildings which claim to be sustainable do not respond to the occupants’ and/or building professionals’ expectations. Listening more to the expectations of these stakeholders seems important to Verbeeck in order to create a different attitude and to achieve truly sustainable architecture. Such an approach would result in a multitude of empathic solutions instead of standard concepts and in a larger acceptance of the sustainability concept. Verbeeck moreover sees sustain-ability as a dynamic process where we are only at the be-ginning of the learning curve.

Integrated Design in Theory and Practice: An Introduction 1.0


43235234

will be needed as it is usually not possible to simultane-ously address the divers dimensions at their highest level. He furthermore sees buildings as part of a larger urban ecosystem instead of individual bodies. Besides the inte-gration of the various dimensions of sustainability, Rey identifies hence a second axis of integration, i.e. the in-tegration of the different scale levels of the built environ-ment. A third and final axis of integration mentioned by the author is the coordination between the constitutive elements of the architectural project. According to Rey, this integration is only possible through interdisciplinary collaborations which goes beyond a simple addition of sectorial logics. He finally stresses the added value of an evaluative approach as this provides additional informa-tion on the project.

FORWARD TO THE PAST / BACK TO THE FUTURE – THE VERNACULAR PROSPECT OF CONNECTED ARCHITECTURE, BY ANDY VAN DEN DOBBELSTEEN

Andy van den Dobbelsteen defines sustainable archi-tecture as architecture for the next generations, which demands a totally different attitude towards architecture and urban planning than when building for itself solely. Although the future is uncertain, there are some condi-tions that need to be taken into account: climate change and depleting resources, with fossil fuels in particular. The latter makes clear we need to avoid excessive use of energy by architectural and urban means. To achieve this lessons can be learned from vernacular architecture and apply its principles in modern design. Van den Dobbels-teen hence pleas for smart and bioclimatic design and for connectedness. The latter means we cannot think any-more in individual architecture but we should consider connections within the urban context.

SUSTAINABLE ARCHITECTURE: IN SEARCH FOR A MULTITUDE OF EMPATHIC SOLUTIONS, BY GRIET VERBEECK

During her 20 years of research on energy efficiency and sustainability in buildings, Griet Verbeeck noticed a shift in the perception of sustainability: from a noble objective, over something that is in favour of everyone’s interest to a subject of discussion. A second shift was noticed by Ver-beeck: from ignoring and minimizing the environmental problems to a general acceptance with focus on solutions for these problems. Several solutions were offered in the past, ranging from a so-called ecologist approach to an engineer approach. However, many buildings which claim to be sustainable do not respond to the occupants’ and/or building professionals’ expectations. Listening more to the expectations of these stakeholders seems important to Verbeeck in order to create a different attitude and to achieve truly sustainable architecture. Such an approach would result in a multitude of empathic solutions instead of standard concepts and in a larger acceptance of the sustainability concept. Verbeeck moreover sees sustain-ability as a dynamic process where we are only at the be-ginning of the learning curve.

Integrated Design in Theory and Practice: An Introduction 1.0


44 235234

1.1Enframed Perspectives: the Social Construction of Sustainability and the Canon of Architecture

Enframed Perspectives: the Social Construction of Sustainability and the Canon of Architecture

Steven A. Moore

The editors of this volume stated quite clearly in their query that the concept of sustainability is a highly “con-tested concept,” one that relies on “a remarkably diverse constellation of ideas.” There is little disagreement here. Elsewhere I have made the same argument—holding that a fundamental benefit of the sustainability discourse is its very pluralism and diversity.1 In the pages of this book, however, the editors have also asked the contributors to consider “How to generate sustainability concepts from an architectural perspective?” The first assumption in this question is that the pluralism of sustainability may not be a good thing after-all. Rather, the editors seem to suggest that undisciplined ideas gathered under the broad umbrella of sustainability might be given more cer-tain or effective shape through the discipline of architec-ture. There is certainly good reason to make such a sug-gestion.

According to the U.S. Department of Energy, the construc-tion and operation of architecture accounts for almost half of all greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and almost half of North America’s annual energy consumption. This amount is twice that contributed by the transportation sector. These statistics are put in a critical context by a Brookings Institution study (2004) which projects that by 2030 about half of the buildings in which Americans live, work, and shop will have been built after 2000.2 If we as-sume that these projections are even remotely reliable, it suggests that the construction and operation of archi-tecture could ironically become the world’s single largest threat to public health, safety, welfare, and security. If ar-chitecture is the single greatest source of unsustainabil-ity, it stands to reason that the two fields of action—build-ing and sustaining--are indelibly connected.

There is a second assumption at the bottom of the edi-tors’ well-intended proposal “to generate sustainabil-ity concepts from an architectural perspective” (note the singular form of “perspective”). If sustainability is a con-tested mess, the editors imply, the canon of architecture is a single, coherent and accepted set of concepts that might discipline that mess. From inside a particular frame of interpretation, that proposal does make sense, but unfortunately, nothing could be further from reality. Like the definition of “sustainability,” the definition of “archi-tecture” too is highly contested—it is not a single concept or ideal. If we consult just a few recent, significant texts, the point is made: McDonough and Braungart3 employ the perspective of ecological modernization to define sus-tainable architecture. Thorpe4 employs the perspective of critical theory. In contrast, Hosey relies on a positivist per-spective,5 Leatherbarrow’s6 definition derives from art his-tory, Guy7 employs pragmatist lenses, and Michael Hays8 now employs a mix of Freud and Marx initiated by Jacque Lacan to interpret architecture. My point in categorizing these texts is not to pigeon-hole their authors, but to iden-tify the too often unstated assumptions that inform their

work. To be clear, I do not argue that one of these perspec-tives is superior to the others, but that each perspective contributes something positive to our understanding of architecture. Even if we thought it to be desirable, there is no pure or singular architectural perspective available that might discipline sustainability.

If we can avoid ideological rigidity and accept the insights that each perspective offers, it suggests the meaning of both sustainability and architecture is unstable and so-cially constructed. My argument is that meaning itself is the artifact of a particular social group. I will not pause here to articulate how this claim is not simple relativism, because I have done that elsewhere.9 But I will briefly of-fer two concepts that offer a route away from both relativ-ism—the notion that all truth claims are equally true--and absolutism--the idea that only one truth claim, that of the architectural canon, can discipline sustainability. These concepts are “enframement” and “co-evolution”.

ENFRAMEMENT

The Canadian sociologist, Erving Goffman (1922-1982), in-troduced the concept of “frame analysis” in the 1970s. By the concept of “frame” he meant that we all interpret what goes on around us through a set of three-dimensional fil-ters, or sense-making tools that are learned though our participation within particular social groups—families, schools, sports teams, mosques, etc—as we grow up. Our learned frames of interpretation not only help us to make sense of “what is going on” around us, but also to “guide our doings,” our actions and involvement within the frame and elsewhere.10 Our frames teach us to expect certain kinds of behavior deemed appropriate by our group and reject others.

Goffman’s observations are relevant to this discussion because he also recognized that some individuals, typi-cally those who are considered to be the most esteemed by a social group, say the “star architects” of design cul-ture, become “enframed” by the values of the group. For example, in his now famous interview with Fareed Zakaria (2011), Frank Gehry demonstrated that it was impossible for him to imagine that the concept of “sustainability” is in any way relevant to architectural excellence.11 It is impossible because Gehry could not imagine a world in which his own interests and works were not central. The irony is that his position at the center of the canon limits his interpretive capacity, yet he has a great deal of power to change the canon, if he could choose to do so. In con-trast, a “lesser talent” may be able to appreciate multiple frames of interpretation, but has considerably less power to do so. Gehry is literally “enframed” by the canon in see-ing the world only through its values and hierarchies.

If Gehry’s egocentric frame of interpretation is synony-


45235234

1.1Enframed Perspectives: the Social Construction of Sustainability and the Canon of Architecture


Steven A. Moore

The editors of this volume stated quite clearly in their query that the concept of sustainability is a highly “con-tested concept,” one that relies on “a remarkably diverse constellation of ideas.” There is little disagreement here. Elsewhere I have made the same argument—holding that a fundamental benefit of the sustainability discourse is its very pluralism and diversity.1 In the pages of this book, however, the editors have also asked the contributors to consider “How to generate sustainability concepts from an architectural perspective?” The first assumption in this question is that the pluralism of sustainability may not be a good thing after-all. Rather, the editors seem to suggest that undisciplined ideas gathered under the broad umbrella of sustainability might be given more cer-tain or effective shape through the discipline of architec-ture. There is certainly good reason to make such a sug-gestion.

According to the U.S. Department of Energy, the construc-tion and operation of architecture accounts for almost half of all greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and almost half of North America’s annual energy consumption. This amount is twice that contributed by the transportation sector. These statistics are put in a critical context by a Brookings Institution study (2004) which projects that by 2030 about half of the buildings in which Americans live, work, and shop will have been built after 2000.2 If we as-sume that these projections are even remotely reliable, it suggests that the construction and operation of archi-tecture could ironically become the world’s single largest threat to public health, safety, welfare, and security. If ar-chitecture is the single greatest source of unsustainabil-ity, it stands to reason that the two fields of action—build-ing and sustaining--are indelibly connected.

There is a second assumption at the bottom of the edi-tors’ well-intended proposal “to generate sustainabil-ity concepts from an architectural perspective” (note the singular form of “perspective”). If sustainability is a con-tested mess, the editors imply, the canon of architecture is a single, coherent and accepted set of concepts that might discipline that mess. From inside a particular frame of interpretation, that proposal does make sense, but unfortunately, nothing could be further from reality. Like the definition of “sustainability,” the definition of “archi-tecture” too is highly contested—it is not a single concept or ideal. If we consult just a few recent, significant texts, the point is made: McDonough and Braungart3 employ the perspective of ecological modernization to define sus-tainable architecture. Thorpe4 employs the perspective of critical theory. In contrast, Hosey relies on a positivist per-spective,5 Leatherbarrow’s6 definition derives from art his-tory, Guy7 employs pragmatist lenses, and Michael Hays8 now employs a mix of Freud and Marx initiated by Jacque Lacan to interpret architecture. My point in categorizing these texts is not to pigeon-hole their authors, but to iden-tify the too often unstated assumptions that inform their

work. To be clear, I do not argue that one of these perspec-tives is superior to the others, but that each perspective contributes something positive to our understanding of architecture. Even if we thought it to be desirable, there is no pure or singular architectural perspective available that might discipline sustainability.

If we can avoid ideological rigidity and accept the insights that each perspective offers, it suggests the meaning of both sustainability and architecture is unstable and so-cially constructed. My argument is that meaning itself is the artifact of a particular social group. I will not pause here to articulate how this claim is not simple relativism, because I have done that elsewhere.9 But I will briefly of-fer two concepts that offer a route away from both relativ-ism—the notion that all truth claims are equally true--and absolutism--the idea that only one truth claim, that of the architectural canon, can discipline sustainability. These concepts are “enframement” and “co-evolution”.

ENFRAMEMENT

The Canadian sociologist, Erving Goffman (1922-1982), in-troduced the concept of “frame analysis” in the 1970s. By the concept of “frame” he meant that we all interpret what goes on around us through a set of three-dimensional fil-ters, or sense-making tools that are learned though our participation within particular social groups—families, schools, sports teams, mosques, etc—as we grow up. Our learned frames of interpretation not only help us to make sense of “what is going on” around us, but also to “guide our doings,” our actions and involvement within the frame and elsewhere.10 Our frames teach us to expect certain kinds of behavior deemed appropriate by our group and reject others.

Goffman’s observations are relevant to this discussion because he also recognized that some individuals, typi-cally those who are considered to be the most esteemed by a social group, say the “star architects” of design cul-ture, become “enframed” by the values of the group. For example, in his now famous interview with Fareed Zakaria (2011), Frank Gehry demonstrated that it was impossible for him to imagine that the concept of “sustainability” is in any way relevant to architectural excellence.11 It is impossible because Gehry could not imagine a world in which his own interests and works were not central. The irony is that his position at the center of the canon limits his interpretive capacity, yet he has a great deal of power to change the canon, if he could choose to do so. In con-trast, a “lesser talent” may be able to appreciate multiple frames of interpretation, but has considerably less power to do so. Gehry is literally “enframed” by the canon in see-ing the world only through its values and hierarchies.

If Gehry’s egocentric frame of interpretation is synony-


46 237236


mous with the single “architectural perspective” pro-posed by the editors, then the discipline of architecture is in grave danger of becoming not only irrelevant to other social groups, but capable of doing measurable harm to them. Fortunately I don’t think this is the case. What, then, is the alternative to rejecting the core values of the archi-tectural canon?

COEVOLUTION

The concept of coevolution is central, not only to the natu-ral sciences, but also to the social sciences. Many scien-tists have observed that no individual, or system, changes in isolation. Rather, related organisms act, and in the pro-cess trigger systemic responses. Science and technology (STS) scholars have, for example, documented coevolu-tionary cycles with regard to sustainable human behavior and technological change.12 It is not that new technolo-gies change human behavior, or that human behaviors require new technologies to appear, but that technologies and behaviors coevolve. Applying these observations to the current discussion suggests that “sustainability,” in and of itself, will not transform, or reframe, “architecture.” Nor will any singular “architectural perspective” trans-form, reframe, or discipline sustainability. Rather, the competing interests of the social groups that inhabit each competing frame will continue to engage in conflict. In that process, both will coevolve. It is such conflict--action and reaction--that bends the trajectory of history in one direction or another. Unfortunately, there is no blueprint or formula with which to map the trajectory of history. We might, however, seek to better understand the frames in-habited by those who promote sustainability, and those who inhabit the canon, so that we might “align” their inter-ests and thereby bend history in a way that benefits and transforms both.13

CONCLUSION

The closest thing to a common perspective that the disci-pline of architecture might have is our cognitive capacity for design-thinking: the ability to tell compelling, yet com-peting stories about how it is that we want to live in the future.14 If architects can come to appreciate that there are multiple, competing frames through which to conjure up a sustainable future, and that each one contributes something to our ability to make sound judgments, then we will be far better equipped to envision it. The first step will be to reframe the canon itself to be, not a space to honor exemplary individuals and artifacts, but a space of public conversation concerning the co-construction of a sustainable future.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Brand, Ralf. Synchronizing Science and Technology with Human Behavior. London and Sterling, VA: Earthscan, 2005.

Goffman, Erving. Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience with a New, Foreword by Bennet, Berger. Boston: Northeastern University Press, 1974.

Guy, Simon. “Pragmatic ecologies: situating sustainable building.” Architectural Science Review 53, no. 1(2010): 21-28.

Guy, Simon and Moore, Steven A. Sustainable Architectures: Natures and Cultures in Europe and North America. London, UK: Routledge/Spon, 2005.

Hays, K. Michael. Public Lecture, 26 September 2013. The University of Texas at Austin.

Hosey, L. The Shape of Green: Aesthetics, Ecology and Design. Washington, DC: Island Press, 2012.

Leatherbarrow, David. “Architecture’s Unscripted Performance.” In, Branko and Ali M. Malkawi Kolarevic (Ed.), Performative Architecture: Beyond Instrumentality. New York and London: Spon Press, 2005 [2010].

McDonough, William and Michael Braungart. The Upcycle: Beyond Sustainability--Designing for Abundance. New York: Farrar/North Point, 2013.

Moore, Steven A. Alternative Routes to the Sustainable City: Austin, Curitiba and Frankfurt. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, Rowman & Littlefield, 2007.

Moore, Steven A. and Karvonen Andrew. “Sustainable Architecture in Context: STS and Design Thinking.” Science Studies 21, no. 1(2007): 29-46.

Moore, Steven A. and Barbara B. Wilson. Questioning Architectural Judgment: The Problem with Codes in the United States. London: Routledge, 2013.

Nelson, A. C. Toward a New Metroplolis: The Opportunity to Rebuild America. Metropolitan Policy Program. Washington, DC, Brookings Institution, 2004.

Thorpe, Ann. Architecture and Design versus Consumerism: How Design Activism Confronts Growth. London and New York: Earth Scan; Taylor & Francis, 2012.

Zakaria, Fareed (Writer). A Conversation with Frank Gehry. How to Innovate: Inside the Mind of Master Architect Frank Gehry [Video], 2011.

ENDNOTES

1 Simon Guy and Steven A. Moore. Sustainable Architectures: Natures and Cultures in Europe and North America. London, UK: Routledge/Spon, 2005.

2 A. C. Nelson, Toward a New Metroplolis: The Opportunity to Rebuild America. Metropolitan Policy Program. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, 2004.

3 William McDonough and Michael Braungart. The Upcycle: Beyond Sustainability--Designing for Abundance. New York: Farrar/North Point, 2013.

4 Ann Thorpe. Architecture and Design versus Consumerism: How Design Activism Confronts Growth. London and New York: Earth Scan; Taylor & Francis, 2012.

5 L. Hosey. The Shape of Green: Aesthetics, Ecology and Design. Washington, DC: Island Press, 2012.

6 David Leatherbarrow. “Architecture’s Unscripted Performance.” In, Branko and Ali M. Malkawi Kolarevic (Ed.), Performative Architecture: Beyond Instrumentality. New York and London: Spon Press, 2005 (2010).

7 Simon Guy. “Pragmatic ecologies: situating sustainable building.” Architectural Science Review 53, no. 1(2010): 21-28.

8 Michael K. Hays. Public Lecture, 26 September. The University of Texas at Austin, 2013.

9 Steven A. Moore and Andrew Karvonen. “Sustainable Architecture in Context: STS and Design Thinking.” In, Science Studies 21, no. 1(2007): 29-46.

10 Erving Goffman. Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience with a New, Foreword by Bennet Berger: p. 12, Boston: Northeastern University Press, 1974.

11 Fareed Zakaria. A Conversation with Frank Gehry. How to Innovate: Inside the Mind of Master Architect Frank Gehry (Video), 2011.

12 Ralf Brand. Synchronizing Science and Technology with Human Behavior. London and Sterling, VA: Earthscan, 2005.

13 Steven A. Moore and Barbara B. Wilson. Questioning Architectural Judgment: The Problem with Codes in the United States. London: Routledge, 2013.

14 Steven A. Moore. Alternative Routes to the Sustainable City: Austin, Curitiba and Frankfurt. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, Rowman & Littlefield, 2007.

1.1


47237236


mous with the single “architectural perspective” pro-posed by the editors, then the discipline of architecture is in grave danger of becoming not only irrelevant to other social groups, but capable of doing measurable harm to them. Fortunately I don’t think this is the case. What, then, is the alternative to rejecting the core values of the archi-tectural canon?

COEVOLUTION

The concept of coevolution is central, not only to the natu-ral sciences, but also to the social sciences. Many scien-tists have observed that no individual, or system, changes in isolation. Rather, related organisms act, and in the pro-cess trigger systemic responses. Science and technology (STS) scholars have, for example, documented coevolu-tionary cycles with regard to sustainable human behavior and technological change.12 It is not that new technolo-gies change human behavior, or that human behaviors require new technologies to appear, but that technologies and behaviors coevolve. Applying these observations to the current discussion suggests that “sustainability,” in and of itself, will not transform, or reframe, “architecture.” Nor will any singular “architectural perspective” trans-form, reframe, or discipline sustainability. Rather, the competing interests of the social groups that inhabit each competing frame will continue to engage in conflict. In that process, both will coevolve. It is such conflict--action and reaction--that bends the trajectory of history in one direction or another. Unfortunately, there is no blueprint or formula with which to map the trajectory of history. We might, however, seek to better understand the frames in-habited by those who promote sustainability, and those who inhabit the canon, so that we might “align” their inter-ests and thereby bend history in a way that benefits and transforms both.13

CONCLUSION

The closest thing to a common perspective that the disci-pline of architecture might have is our cognitive capacity for design-thinking: the ability to tell compelling, yet com-peting stories about how it is that we want to live in the future.14 If architects can come to appreciate that there are multiple, competing frames through which to conjure up a sustainable future, and that each one contributes something to our ability to make sound judgments, then we will be far better equipped to envision it. The first step will be to reframe the canon itself to be, not a space to honor exemplary individuals and artifacts, but a space of public conversation concerning the co-construction of a sustainable future.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Brand, Ralf. Synchronizing Science and Technology with Human Behavior. London and Sterling, VA: Earthscan, 2005.

Goffman, Erving. Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience with a New, Foreword by Bennet, Berger. Boston: Northeastern University Press, 1974.

Guy, Simon. “Pragmatic ecologies: situating sustainable building.” Architectural Science Review 53, no. 1(2010): 21-28.

Guy, Simon and Moore, Steven A. Sustainable Architectures: Natures and Cultures in Europe and North America. London, UK: Routledge/Spon, 2005.

Hays, K. Michael. Public Lecture, 26 September 2013. The University of Texas at Austin.

Hosey, L. The Shape of Green: Aesthetics, Ecology and Design. Washington, DC: Island Press, 2012.

Leatherbarrow, David. “Architecture’s Unscripted Performance.” In, Branko and Ali M. Malkawi Kolarevic (Ed.), Performative Architecture: Beyond Instrumentality. New York and London: Spon Press, 2005 [2010].

McDonough, William and Michael Braungart. The Upcycle: Beyond Sustainability--Designing for Abundance. New York: Farrar/North Point, 2013.

Moore, Steven A. Alternative Routes to the Sustainable City: Austin, Curitiba and Frankfurt. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, Rowman & Littlefield, 2007.

Moore, Steven A. and Karvonen Andrew. “Sustainable Architecture in Context: STS and Design Thinking.” Science Studies 21, no. 1(2007): 29-46.

Moore, Steven A. and Barbara B. Wilson. Questioning Architectural Judgment: The Problem with Codes in the United States. London: Routledge, 2013.

Nelson, A. C. Toward a New Metroplolis: The Opportunity to Rebuild America. Metropolitan Policy Program. Washington, DC, Brookings Institution, 2004.

Thorpe, Ann. Architecture and Design versus Consumerism: How Design Activism Confronts Growth. London and New York: Earth Scan; Taylor & Francis, 2012.

Zakaria, Fareed (Writer). A Conversation with Frank Gehry. How to Innovate: Inside the Mind of Master Architect Frank Gehry [Video], 2011.

ENDNOTES

1 Simon Guy and Steven A. Moore. Sustainable Architectures: Natures and Cultures in Europe and North America. London, UK: Routledge/Spon, 2005.

2 A. C. Nelson, Toward a New Metroplolis: The Opportunity to Rebuild America. Metropolitan Policy Program. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, 2004.

3 William McDonough and Michael Braungart. The Upcycle: Beyond Sustainability--Designing for Abundance. New York: Farrar/North Point, 2013.

4 Ann Thorpe. Architecture and Design versus Consumerism: How Design Activism Confronts Growth. London and New York: Earth Scan; Taylor & Francis, 2012.

5 L. Hosey. The Shape of Green: Aesthetics, Ecology and Design. Washington, DC: Island Press, 2012.

6 David Leatherbarrow. “Architecture’s Unscripted Performance.” In, Branko and Ali M. Malkawi Kolarevic (Ed.), Performative Architecture: Beyond Instrumentality. New York and London: Spon Press, 2005 (2010).

7 Simon Guy. “Pragmatic ecologies: situating sustainable building.” Architectural Science Review 53, no. 1(2010): 21-28.

8 Michael K. Hays. Public Lecture, 26 September. The University of Texas at Austin, 2013.

9 Steven A. Moore and Andrew Karvonen. “Sustainable Architecture in Context: STS and Design Thinking.” In, Science Studies 21, no. 1(2007): 29-46.

10 Erving Goffman. Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience with a New, Foreword by Bennet Berger: p. 12, Boston: Northeastern University Press, 1974.

11 Fareed Zakaria. A Conversation with Frank Gehry. How to Innovate: Inside the Mind of Master Architect Frank Gehry (Video), 2011.

12 Ralf Brand. Synchronizing Science and Technology with Human Behavior. London and Sterling, VA: Earthscan, 2005.

13 Steven A. Moore and Barbara B. Wilson. Questioning Architectural Judgment: The Problem with Codes in the United States. London: Routledge, 2013.

14 Steven A. Moore. Alternative Routes to the Sustainable City: Austin, Curitiba and Frankfurt. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, Rowman & Littlefield, 2007.

1.1


48 239238

D x E = C

D x E = C

Philippe Samyn

THE THEORETICAL TOOL

Sustainable construction is conceived with discernment and in empathy with the ‘Genius Loci’. It requires the mas-tery of drawing, geometrical composition and the theory of architecture as well as the study of arts, sciences and the

techniques required for material dimensioning.

The study, comprehension and assimilation of the only proven theory of numbers ruling space ‘het plastische getal’ (The Plastic Number) of Dom Hans van der Laan, as well as the theory of architecture of Vitruvius, extend-ed by ‘A Pattern Language’ of Christophe Alexander et al. are prerequisites for any builder that is sincerely en-gaged with the topic. This goes in pair with the exercise of freehand drawing, technical calculations and learning construction details. This exercise is enriched by expe-rience and personal observation, the discovery of new knowledge, in order to answer in an authentic manner to the ever new questions posed, and to resist copying and repetition fiercely.

The ‘inspirational’ driver of this authentic response can-not be commanded, tamed or ‘sought’; it can only be ar-dently wished for. Talent would therefore be this aptitude to see this inspiration appear in an unexpected and fur-tive manner.

Finally, observation teaches us that construction, com-posed of inert matter (or rendered inert matter), is static and is subject to dynamic actions. It is neither a living or-ganism (it does not grow, does not walk, swim or fly), nei-ther a machine (it does not roll, not more than it navigates, flies, transforms energy or manufactures objects) neither a conduct (pipe, cable or wire) transporter of fluid or en-ergy.

It is the interface of these organisms, machines and con-ducts of the environment, developed by man or nature, which it contains or that surrounds it.

DURABLE CONSTRUCTION

A stone, brick or wood construction, as it was at the begin-ning of the 20th century, without steel, reinforced concrete, large glazed frames, is made to last, even if paradoxically it can be disassembled. Its volumes and proportions allow it to respond to the changing needs of society. It is durable (D), produced and privileged by prosperous societies, in peace, and having the capacity to invest and capitalise.

Other constructions, using twigs, branches, straw, ani-mal skins and tissues are ephemeral, but less costly and made to respond in an efficient manner (E) to the immedi-ate needs. They don’t leave ruins, their components get consumed or recycled.

The search of materiel durability leads actually to hierar-chise construction in four parts: substructure, envelope, systems and finishes. Substructure, or more precisely the bearing structure, should be drawn with an autonomous geometry, in a way to resist the test of time (one or many centuries, or so they say) and is built with durable materi-als with low energy content. This substructure is destined to become a ‘useful’ ruin.

The envelope, which from the rise of the industrial era has acquired its independency by gradually separating itself from the substructure, rarely has a useful life of more than 30 or 40 years. In addition to resisting climatic influ-ences, it has to face the mood change of society. It hardly resists the period of disenchantment that occurs when the memory of the construction disappears with the client, who is a partner of the architect. With substructures how-ever, it constitutes the most durable exterior expression of the architectural style and the social context that pre-sided its elaboration. Its renovation should therefore be attempted before any transformation, which would lead to the loss of its memory.

Building systems, machines and ducts are the working parts and should be maintained and replaced regularly. Their demountability and accessibility are therefore cru-cial.

Finishes, touched and used by the occupants, have dif-ferent fates according to their quality and their capacity to stay in place when systems change.

EFFICIENT CONSTRUCTION

This hierarchy that is apparented to the mineral world, does not always lead to the most efficient response to the architectural program of the building and does not guar-antee, alone, the adequacy of the building to the chang-ing needs of society. Therefore nowadays like before, numerous constructions, generally of smaller size, are, conceived very differently: elements which parts combine and intertwine in a compact manner to improve the imme-diate efficiency of the whole. The largest economy is also sought as eliminating all that is not perceived as useful for meeting the requirements set at the time of building. These constructions become therefore ephemeral in a material sense, without being less significant for the mind. These present a more organic character and, while remaining static, are apparent to the living or mechanic world, to complex ecosystems. Present in our prosperous societies for ephemeral or specialised programs, these are often the rule for all constructions in precarious so-cieties or those little concerned with material durability. These constructions do not produce any ruin, since all their components are consumed or recycled. These are simply immediately efficient.

1.2


49239238

D x E = C

D x E = C

Philippe Samyn

THE THEORETICAL TOOL

Sustainable construction is conceived with discernment and in empathy with the ‘Genius Loci’. It requires the mas-tery of drawing, geometrical composition and the theory of architecture as well as the study of arts, sciences and the

techniques required for material dimensioning.

The study, comprehension and assimilation of the only proven theory of numbers ruling space ‘het plastische getal’ (The Plastic Number) of Dom Hans van der Laan, as well as the theory of architecture of Vitruvius, extend-ed by ‘A Pattern Language’ of Christophe Alexander et al. are prerequisites for any builder that is sincerely en-gaged with the topic. This goes in pair with the exercise of freehand drawing, technical calculations and learning construction details. This exercise is enriched by expe-rience and personal observation, the discovery of new knowledge, in order to answer in an authentic manner to the ever new questions posed, and to resist copying and repetition fiercely.

The ‘inspirational’ driver of this authentic response can-not be commanded, tamed or ‘sought’; it can only be ar-dently wished for. Talent would therefore be this aptitude to see this inspiration appear in an unexpected and fur-tive manner.

Finally, observation teaches us that construction, com-posed of inert matter (or rendered inert matter), is static and is subject to dynamic actions. It is neither a living or-ganism (it does not grow, does not walk, swim or fly), nei-ther a machine (it does not roll, not more than it navigates, flies, transforms energy or manufactures objects) neither a conduct (pipe, cable or wire) transporter of fluid or en-ergy.

It is the interface of these organisms, machines and con-ducts of the environment, developed by man or nature, which it contains or that surrounds it.

DURABLE CONSTRUCTION

A stone, brick or wood construction, as it was at the begin-ning of the 20th century, without steel, reinforced concrete, large glazed frames, is made to last, even if paradoxically it can be disassembled. Its volumes and proportions allow it to respond to the changing needs of society. It is durable (D), produced and privileged by prosperous societies, in peace, and having the capacity to invest and capitalise.

Other constructions, using twigs, branches, straw, ani-mal skins and tissues are ephemeral, but less costly and made to respond in an efficient manner (E) to the immedi-ate needs. They don’t leave ruins, their components get consumed or recycled.

The search of materiel durability leads actually to hierar-chise construction in four parts: substructure, envelope, systems and finishes. Substructure, or more precisely the bearing structure, should be drawn with an autonomous geometry, in a way to resist the test of time (one or many centuries, or so they say) and is built with durable materi-als with low energy content. This substructure is destined to become a ‘useful’ ruin.

The envelope, which from the rise of the industrial era has acquired its independency by gradually separating itself from the substructure, rarely has a useful life of more than 30 or 40 years. In addition to resisting climatic influ-ences, it has to face the mood change of society. It hardly resists the period of disenchantment that occurs when the memory of the construction disappears with the client, who is a partner of the architect. With substructures how-ever, it constitutes the most durable exterior expression of the architectural style and the social context that pre-sided its elaboration. Its renovation should therefore be attempted before any transformation, which would lead to the loss of its memory.

Building systems, machines and ducts are the working parts and should be maintained and replaced regularly. Their demountability and accessibility are therefore cru-cial.

Finishes, touched and used by the occupants, have dif-ferent fates according to their quality and their capacity to stay in place when systems change.

EFFICIENT CONSTRUCTION

This hierarchy that is apparented to the mineral world, does not always lead to the most efficient response to the architectural program of the building and does not guar-antee, alone, the adequacy of the building to the chang-ing needs of society. Therefore nowadays like before, numerous constructions, generally of smaller size, are, conceived very differently: elements which parts combine and intertwine in a compact manner to improve the imme-diate efficiency of the whole. The largest economy is also sought as eliminating all that is not perceived as useful for meeting the requirements set at the time of building. These constructions become therefore ephemeral in a material sense, without being less significant for the mind. These present a more organic character and, while remaining static, are apparent to the living or mechanic world, to complex ecosystems. Present in our prosperous societies for ephemeral or specialised programs, these are often the rule for all constructions in precarious so-cieties or those little concerned with material durability. These constructions do not produce any ruin, since all their components are consumed or recycled. These are simply immediately efficient.

1.2


50 241240

USEFUL CONSTRUCTION

Two diametrically opposed construction approaches have been described. The first seeks durability and incites to organise constructions in a way that confers reciprocal independence to their parts. The ruin of one part does not result in the others ruin, and each has its own space in the whole. The building naturally takes space and results in a plan that is highly hierarchised and imprinted with moral values. Traditional forms and dimensions are used, in abstraction of current cultural values, in the hope or con-viction of being able to reach for future values. The more solid component is preferred to those with more immedi-ate usefulness. Constructions are generally heavy and in-spiration resides in the mineral constructions of the past. The reflexion that underpins the architectural plan seeks to be foreseeing, tries to envisage probable evolutions of needs and often leads to investing for the future.

Contrarily, the second approach aims to seek a more efficient construction, in a way to satisfy all building requirements at the lowest cost and using the smallest possible volume. It leads to intertwine the different parts in a same integrated and compact constructive system. Each is necessary and useful to the other, the ruin of one part leads to the ruin of all others. All forms and dimensions are used, whether these are induced by past or present cultural values. All components are chosen for the immediate usefulness, with an economy of matter. The reflexion that underpins this plan seeks efficiency to respond to immediate needs without investing in the future; the construction is light.

The aforementioned notions invite us to think that the re-quired conditions to ensure durability D of a construction are opposed to those required to increase its efficiency E, as defined above. The formula D x E = C could therefore be suggested if the characteristics symbolised by D and E were quantifiable. In this formula the value C would be the usefulness constant that corresponds to the maximum usefulness that a given society can request from its con-structions at a given time of its evolution.

Represented in an orthogonal system of axes with D in ab-scissa and E in ordinates, this hyperbolic curve describes the line of useful constructions towards which we should tend, from the most ephemeral to the most durable ac-cording to our wishes. It would define the limited domain of possible constructions but less useful, because it is less durable for a constant efficiency or less efficient for a constant durability. It would also define the domain of the impossible: that of constructions that are more efficient and durable than possible in a given state of knowledge and technology in a society. But the world evolves and the progress that results from discoveries and inventions of men should increase the value of the constant C in time, with the condition of peace and democracy. The archi-tect explores these ‘impossible territories’ by seeking to advance constructions processes and to extract more usefulness from these. This has not really been the case in the last century. It is probably the recent raise in aware-ness of the limited character of the resources of our plan-et that forces the architect today to take care again, like his ancestors, of useful constructions. These are in tune with the environment and the progress of humankind and lead to increase the value of the constant C.

SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

The whole meaning of this reflexion on sustainable devel-opment in architecture is to increase efficiency (E3 > E2 > E1) at a constant durability or to increase durability (D3 > D2 > D1) at constant efficiency.

Sustainable architecture does not integrate enough the tools produced by sciences and developed in the last two centuries, while these tools are necessary. It is these tools that are often considered as alien to architecture and useful to engineers, whom the architect considers as aux-iliary. These engineers are asked to consider these tools after the design of the project. It is therefore urgent, if we want to increase the value of the constant C, to integrate these tools in the theory of architecture, with order and method. This implies to map the ‘prime’ theoretical books that are universally accepted for their rigor and their pertinence and to transform them to ISO norms, while rel-egating all books with a lesser value on the same topic to second rank. These ‘prime’ books should be taught as an integral part of the theory of architecture that is neces-sary for original design.

The increase of C would represent the moral progress of a society and the scientific and technical progresses of humankind. The first, moral, is the task of the client. This responsibility gives him a central role. The second pro-gresses, namely scientific and technical, are related to the builder. These are insignificant without the first.

ENDNOTE

My own trials: Each of my projects has been, and still is, a tentative to get closer to “useful constructions” as the following website testifies www.samynandpartners.com.

Figure 1 : D x E = C

Source : Illustration by the author.

D x E = C 1.2

4/4

Figure 1 : D x E = C Source : Illustration by the author.


51241240

USEFUL CONSTRUCTION

Two diametrically opposed construction approaches have been described. The first seeks durability and incites to organise constructions in a way that confers reciprocal independence to their parts. The ruin of one part does not result in the others ruin, and each has its own space in the whole. The building naturally takes space and results in a plan that is highly hierarchised and imprinted with moral values. Traditional forms and dimensions are used, in abstraction of current cultural values, in the hope or con-viction of being able to reach for future values. The more solid component is preferred to those with more immedi-ate usefulness. Constructions are generally heavy and in-spiration resides in the mineral constructions of the past. The reflexion that underpins the architectural plan seeks to be foreseeing, tries to envisage probable evolutions of needs and often leads to investing for the future.

Contrarily, the second approach aims to seek a more efficient construction, in a way to satisfy all building requirements at the lowest cost and using the smallest possible volume. It leads to intertwine the different parts in a same integrated and compact constructive system. Each is necessary and useful to the other, the ruin of one part leads to the ruin of all others. All forms and dimensions are used, whether these are induced by past or present cultural values. All components are chosen for the immediate usefulness, with an economy of matter. The reflexion that underpins this plan seeks efficiency to respond to immediate needs without investing in the future; the construction is light.

The aforementioned notions invite us to think that the re-quired conditions to ensure durability D of a construction are opposed to those required to increase its efficiency E, as defined above. The formula D x E = C could therefore be suggested if the characteristics symbolised by D and E were quantifiable. In this formula the value C would be the usefulness constant that corresponds to the maximum usefulness that a given society can request from its con-structions at a given time of its evolution.

Represented in an orthogonal system of axes with D in ab-scissa and E in ordinates, this hyperbolic curve describes the line of useful constructions towards which we should tend, from the most ephemeral to the most durable ac-cording to our wishes. It would define the limited domain of possible constructions but less useful, because it is less durable for a constant efficiency or less efficient for a constant durability. It would also define the domain of the impossible: that of constructions that are more efficient and durable than possible in a given state of knowledge and technology in a society. But the world evolves and the progress that results from discoveries and inventions of men should increase the value of the constant C in time, with the condition of peace and democracy. The archi-tect explores these ‘impossible territories’ by seeking to advance constructions processes and to extract more usefulness from these. This has not really been the case in the last century. It is probably the recent raise in aware-ness of the limited character of the resources of our plan-et that forces the architect today to take care again, like his ancestors, of useful constructions. These are in tune with the environment and the progress of humankind and lead to increase the value of the constant C.

SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

The whole meaning of this reflexion on sustainable devel-opment in architecture is to increase efficiency (E3 > E2 > E1) at a constant durability or to increase durability (D3 > D2 > D1) at constant efficiency.

Sustainable architecture does not integrate enough the tools produced by sciences and developed in the last two centuries, while these tools are necessary. It is these tools that are often considered as alien to architecture and useful to engineers, whom the architect considers as aux-iliary. These engineers are asked to consider these tools after the design of the project. It is therefore urgent, if we want to increase the value of the constant C, to integrate these tools in the theory of architecture, with order and method. This implies to map the ‘prime’ theoretical books that are universally accepted for their rigor and their pertinence and to transform them to ISO norms, while rel-egating all books with a lesser value on the same topic to second rank. These ‘prime’ books should be taught as an integral part of the theory of architecture that is neces-sary for original design.

The increase of C would represent the moral progress of a society and the scientific and technical progresses of humankind. The first, moral, is the task of the client. This responsibility gives him a central role. The second pro-gresses, namely scientific and technical, are related to the builder. These are insignificant without the first.

ENDNOTE

My own trials: Each of my projects has been, and still is, a tentative to get closer to “useful constructions” as the following website testifies www.samynandpartners.com.

Figure 1 : D x E = C

Source : Illustration by the author.

D x E = C 1.2

4/4

Figure 1 : D x E = C Source : Illustration by the author.


Dit boek is online te koop (klik hier)

https://www.acco.be/nl-be/items/9789462920880/Architecture-and-sustainability--critical-perspectives-for-integrated-design

Architecture and Sustainability:Critical Perspectives for Integrated Design



Architecture and Sustainability A

hmed Z. K

han and Karen A

llacker

KU Leuven Faculty of Architecture Campus Sint-Lucas Ghent/Brussels 9 789462 920880

asbook_test_20x263_cover_2.indd 232 7/01/15 12:37

Critical Perspectives for Integrated Design...2007/01/15 · authors, talked over the many...

Documents

Transcript of Critical Perspectives for Integrated Design...2007/01/15 · authors, talked over the many...