Proceeding  of  International  Conference  on  Adaptation  and  Movement  in  Architecture  (ICAMA2013)  Ryerson  University,  Department  of    Architectural  Science,  Toronto,  Canada,  11-­‐12  October  2013  

1  

Dynamic Building Program: A new method to produce building programs with the implementation of time relevant factors

Konstantinos-Alketas Oungrinis 1, Stylianos Kokkalis2 1 School of Architecture, Technical University of Crete, 127 El. Venizelou street, 73133, Chania, Greece,

kugrinis@gmail.com 2 8 Sifaka Street, 73132, Chania, Greece, geppeto@gmail.com

ABSTRACT

Typical building programs rest on assigning a certain amount of square footage per function or space type. Years of architectural research have concluded to some general attributes and characteristics that provide the groundwork for such an approach. Architects have been practicing this method, creating in many cases their own ‘interpretation’. While the aesthetics of their buildings differ significantly, every solution is closely related to the surface distribution and the design principles directed by the seminal work of Ernst Neufert.

This paper introduces the concept of the "Dynamic Building Program" as a tool to address the aforementioned issues and moreover to include time as a factor that can greatly affect the spatial requirements of any building program. This new method regards human activity as a basic component, based on the fact that it has scarcely been noted to present an 'average'. Since the surface and volume requirements within a structure are changing over time, the qualities a building must uphold could not be secured through a single value as time passes by (day or season). Manifested through a digital application, the presented process is controlled by the designers and allows them to identify the critical parameters for their scheme, to follow them in time and to create a visual representation of how the building program requirements change over time. The application incorporates all the parameters that affect a building both quantitatively and qualitatively and simulates their fluctuations based on the designer’s observations and input.

The capabilities provided by contemporary software development tools removed quite a bit of the complexity involved in the study of diverse spatial characteristics and relationships, and provided a fertile ground for including parameters such as "People’s presence," "Type of activity" and "Related activity spaces." Each parameter can be given a range of values that affect the overall requirements and change the representation accordingly. An increase in the number of people that perform an intensive task, for example, requires more surface for functional reasons and either a larger volume or bigger openings to facilitate ventilation. The proposed application was designed in such a way so that after inserting the proper input, it produces an animation that reveals to the designers the spatial and temporal fluctuations and especially the critical deviations that highlight the necessity for a transformable building. The Dynamic Building Program is an enhancement of the traditional method and while useful for every architect it is essential for the design of an adaptable structure which can actively and successfully address the time-related issues.

Key Words: Activity-based design; dynamic building program; architecture - computer science

collaboration; spatial economy; time-related spatial analysis.

2  

1. INTRODUCTION

This paper has two goals. The first one is to introduce an architectural application and through this, a new method for creating, analysing and fine-tuning a building program, based on human activity, qualitative and quantitative parameters and, more importantly, the timeframe relevant to their occurrence. There is a prodigality observed in the typical assignment of surface and volume values, that either goes with the "just about" solution or acts large following the "just in case" line of thinking. It does not include an analytic definition of the time-related spatial characteristics, it cannot facilitate spatial economy and moreover, it cannot tackle the impact upon the environment from over-population and extreme energy consumption. Along these lines, the paper targets an increased efficiency in space usage for an increased level in the quality of life.

The second goal emerged during the development of the proposed application and falls into the discussion that views the relationship between architects and computer engineers as a system, based on a mutual understanding that the world is changing and so is the way that people are connected to space. Clear definitions are not the characteristic of this ‘new’ world, where fields, practices and concepts merge and their borders become blurred. The notion of control seems not longer applicable, and is replaced by allowances, occurrences and instances. There is a vision of society and its dynamics held by the computer scientists where people have relationships, they try to communicate with any means possible and they understand, plan and design their activities; a faster, dynamically changing world. The phenomena to be described, while produced by the digital infiltration, are systemic. And computer scientists can easily identify systems. Architecture, on the other hand, seems hesitant to react to this approach as a whole. It selectively isolates some parts to eagerly engage with, embracing a role that seems better defined. So, how could architecture re-establish its role regulating and facilitating adaptation to the societal dynamics? The answer lies in its ability to transform and adapt.

Looking back into the history of transformability in architecture one can pinpoint a paradigm shift regarding its broader application. [1] Initially it was considered to be mainly a technologically-oriented subject. A deeper investigation though revealed that the feasibility of architectural transformability was related to the integration of its application into the societal matrix. It proved to be a bottom-up system problem, much more complicated than the top-down solutions produced with enthusiasm since the 60’s. [2] It required precision in setting the parameters involved, in defining relationships and in understanding system-operation through time. It was actually a diagrammatic problem that was rooted within the essential everyday factors. [3] Such a problem is better approached through a mental process, a logical articulation that follows space-time parameters, depicted in a storyboard routine with diagrams revealing the changes in spatial needs and desires. In this perspective, technology is very helpful but not necessary, while true understanding of the system as a matrix of relations that need to be addressed and implemented is essential. Like in the case of organ transplants, it is not the form, the shape, or the capacity that will help a donation to get accepted by the system. It is all a matter of connecting with the host. As in all dynamic systems, if it fails it is rejected.

The presented paper hopes to initiate a discussion around these two goals and the new way in which architecture can be produced by assigning the appropriate space in the right time.

2. TIME-SPACE CONTINUUM

The title of this chapter is a catch phrase; it says a lot and nothing at the same time. It describes a connected, inseparable entity that people live in/on. It is a cliché though. It is so omnipresent that it is nowhere to be seen separately and be perceived as such. Every now and then people get a glimpse of it under certain conditions, for example, when one gets detached from normal activity flow and sees space from a different perspective time-wise or when one becomes the spectator of events from a different dimension with the use of a mechanical medium, like a video in the fast-forward mode. In the

3  

first case, one can feel the slow change of space through time, while in the second, one can see the animated effect of a phenomenologically still landscape.

There is an additional observation, though, in these examples: the transition from activity to inactivity. Parts of the surrounding built environment seem to change their state as they become "alive" and then "inert" again, one after another. This brings us in front of an unavoidable series of questions. Do we need all this empty space when it is not used? How can we program better the use space? How can we provide the right amount of space right when needed? Is there a way to save space without reducing the qualities of a spacious place?

The answers exist in a more comprehensive method of describing people’s activity and creating a program in relation to space during time. This method should also include context-specific qualities along with the range within which they can vary, allowing for adjustments and variations in the nature of the chosen parameters. This is the core of an interactive process toward the creation of a fluctuating, dynamic building program. From all the diagrammatic processes examined during our research, the storyboard process employed in the film-making industry seemed the best fit and the most potent one to carry on the analogy:

- Storyboard process: Describe the basic setting, the affecting parameters, the time-frame, the qualities, sensations, the design principles, the morphology and the overall effects. - Final cut: Create a comprehensive representation of the final product and its behaviour.

3. PARAMETER MANAGEMENT AND EVALUATION

Every project requires a process of on-site analysis in order for the designer to identify the most prominent features of the area of intervention and include them in the solution. These features have a diverse origin, rooted in three basic fields: location, people, and environment. The features related to the environment usually describe the overall climate and other site-specific environmental characteristics. The features related to people derive from human activity within the area as well as from/to it. Finally, the location related features describe the interconnection of the site with the morphology of the surrounding area. The results of this identification process form the context of the proposal and lead to setting the goals of the project in order for it to succeed as a functional, social and aesthetically-pleasing architectural statement.

This is the usual "by-the-book" process in any given architectural problem. What is further needed in the investigation around the creation of an adaptive building is to repeat this process in different time-periods (the most crucial at least) and note all deviations, alterations, switches and emergencies that may occur (Table 1). Only this way the true nature of the critical characteristics will be revealed, along with all their fluctuations and their effects in the region. This is an advancement in the usual design approach, but more importantly it is a necessity in the design of a transformable structure as it highlights the proper areas of intervention. Along these lines, characteristics with intense fluctuations must be clearly described, both as identification and design intentions.

The next step is to set the relationships, first between the elements of the building and second between the building itself and the surrounding environment. In this step, the differences and deviations that occur in time must be noted, changing the matrix of relationships as time passes. The final step is the specification of connections, describing the desired active interventions between relationships and important elements of the region.

Table 1 The three steps in the analysis process. Time-related alterations should always be identified.

Local spatial IDs Relationships Connections Historical Spatial (visual, aural, kinetic) Between relationships

Topographical Operational (functional, social, aesthetic) Loops of operation Experiential Environmental (lighting, ventilation) Regional

Experiential (familiarity, inwardness) Networks (actual and virtual flows)

4  

This process does not only describe the necessary design steps but it can also be used as an evaluation tool that can follow up the design outcome and compare it with the initial objectives. Moreover, it can act as a guideline for checking whether things are on track. The dynamic nature of this process is evident through the time factor. All the diagrams are changing in relation to time, spatial characteristics and relationships.

The visualization of this process is of extreme importance for architects in order to better comprehend the context of their intervention and create a clear concept. It is also important for their communication with the clients for it supports their intentions, arguments and line of thinking in a visually intelligible way. The research team concluded in the use of the storyboard as the best diagrammatic example to tackle all the issues emerging from a complex and dynamic process. Its compatibility with architecture is evident through the fact that just like in movie-making, it aims to produce a materialized version of something immaterial (notion/idea/thought). Following this analogy, the script is the analogue for the architectural context while the director’s view is the analogue for the architect’s concept. The basic steps for creating a storyboard for the design of a transformable, adaptive structure are:

1. Highlight specific characteristics from the context, the most important ones to support the architect’s concept.

2. Clarify specific units and set the main relationships and connections. 3. Set the time flow and make a compilation of the identified components with their relationships

and connections. 4. As soon as the interrelations between activities and their required space emerge, the

storyboard begins to reveal the operation of the setting. This process should be repeated in a constant loop until all or most issues are resolved.

5. The storyboard process is finalized, giving way to materialization and evaluation during occupancy.

The most critical element in this process are the space-time diagrams as they indicate where, why and how kinetic elements should be incorporated in the design solution. It is evident that this process is heavily dependent in the mental process of setting the parameters, the components, the characteristics and the relations. If the ‘wrong’ elements are used then the final product will reveal many deficiencies. The first three steps are linked to the following diagrams and are the most crucial for describing the design intentions as well as for setting the stage for steps 4 and, consequently, 5.

There are four types of diagrams that describe all crucial parameters: 1. Basic Activity Operational Diagram The basic characteristics that affect directly the design of a building.

-­‐ Activities (range, not absolute numbers) o Spatial requirements – quantitative o Spatial requirements – qualitative o Intensity o Schedule of use

-­‐ Spaces (according to use) o Surface and Volume (operational) o Surface and volume (extended) o Lighting conditions o Ventilation conditions o Relative height (relation to other uses/spaces) o Private/Public o Outward/Inward o Familiar/Alienating o ‘Cool’/’Warm’ o Accessible/Restricted

-­‐ Relationships (with every space and surrounding environment) o Distance

5  

o Visual o Aural o Kinetic

2. Basic Planning and Integration Diagram Integration with the local system and the environmental conditions.

-­‐ Connection to existing Networks -­‐ Limits of the structure (definite – blurry) -­‐ Strategy of weaving in the urban or rural fabric -­‐ Impact of environmental imprint -­‐ Impact of societal imprint

3. Basic Morphology Diagram Principles that promote cohesion and integration of the project.

-­‐ Main morphological element -­‐ Materials and haptic qualities -­‐ Geometrical characteristics of the overall project (such as topological or Cartesian shapes)

4. Basic Structural Diagram Decisions that affect the materialization project and propagate to more detailed solutions

-­‐ Support structural system -­‐ Cladding system -­‐ Type of structure -­‐ Material and component assemblage -­‐ Fabrication method

As soon as the aforementioned list is properly completed, the architect has the necessary

overview and the tools to perform a more detailed analysis, as well as an evaluation of the overall progress. The diagrams must be continuously updated, including all new information and decisions made along the way. This repeating loop optimizes the goals and describes more accurately the means to achieve the desired outcome. The graphics simplify the overall process making it an invaluable tool for presenting the work-in-progress. Moreover, being a richer information acquisition process, it facilitates the identification of the true spatial requirements per activity and especially the time during which they are taking place. This ability allows for the spatial economy logic to evolve, as activities that do not occur simultaneously can be accommodated within the same fitting space. This has as a prerequisite the examination of each space/time/activity relationship separately, followed up by a design inquiry on the best possible way to move from one state to the other.

4. THE DYNAMIC BUILDING PROGRAM (DBP)

During the development of the DBP application there has been an effort to include as many of the issues described earlier as possible. The main objective was to create a useful tool with a generic operation that would not patronize the design process but rather leave the level of detail to the designer/user. At its current stage of development, the application includes all classes of the "Basic Activity Operational Diagram". The next three diagrams are still being tested. The logic of development is based on the fact that the whole process relies upon an activity-based design approach, and as a result activities are considered the cornerstone of the process. [4] The application can operate in two ways. In the first one, the user starts from scratch by inserting the activities to be performed in the proposed project in order to create a building program. The second one is applicable to existing buildings and the user inserts the activities that take place to evaluate the building’ s efficiency. Building program operation

-­‐ Define every activity. Activities get affected by distinctive factors, described in a range, that alter the spatial requirements and their characteristics.

6  

-­‐ Specify the number of people involved in these activities. This has a direct impact on the overall spatial requirements.

-­‐ Specify the age of people. This also affects the quantity and the quality of expected space. Some groups require very special conditions. In the proposed process, this characteristic is a random produced event.

-­‐ Define the connectivity relations between the activities and the spaces that accommodate them. This describes the feasibility and the characteristics of negotiation between spaces.

Evaluation operation In order to evaluate an existing design proposal, the process is reversed. This ability is provided

by first describing an existing space, as rigid limits of space accompanied by the characteristics it holds, and then run the activity program. The activities taking place can be either inserted manually or acquired automatically through the Google Calendar program. By visualizing the spatial requirements for every activity that takes place we facilitate the over-imposing of the results to the actual space and consequently comparisons. The deviations will reveal the rate and the severity of spatial inefficiencies. The benefit in connecting with an application such as Google Calendar or any other type of an organizer software is that details can be fed directly. In this way, the evaluation is more accurate and can be monitored anytime and for an indefinite period, allowing long-span evaluation even after renovations.

Regarding the development of the programming model of the application the activities were set as occurrences in a 'world' setting, a blank sheet where instances and occurrences happen to gradually give way to the emergence of complexity. The world was modelled in an object-oriented fashion, a natural approach for programmatic scenarios, which involve entities that interact with each other by sending messages and affecting both their own state as well as the global one. It is inhabited by instances of the Object class, such as spaces, people and so on, and is governed by a timeline and a series of global constant factors such as "a person of age 45 socializing occupies 2.5 meters of width". Moreover, instances of the Relationship class affect the function of Spaces by imposing visibility, audibility or movability constraints among them (Figures 1-4).

Figure 1: The class hierarchy of the application, which is important to understand the application execution flow.

7  

Figure 2: A typical snapshot of the proposed world, while the application is running.

Figure 3: A detailed view of the innards of each class, that is each class's attributes.

8  

Figure 4: The execution flow diagram of the proposed application.

9  

For the programming of the application we chose widespread Web technologies such as Javascript, JSON, HTML5 while all drawing is done on a Canvas. This deliberate choice has advantages such as the portability of the application and widespread understanding of its technology for future maintenance or feature expansion, but at the same time it created serious difficulties which emanate from the technologies themselves, such as the inherent performance disadvantages of Javascript and its inability to cope with multithreaded environments (most browsers will resent with the high "thinking" that goes behind this application and might think something has ran wild), or the impossibility to be certain of how the final graphics will appear to each user and device as every browser and browsing environment in general is heavily idiosyncratic.

Despite these disadvantages a decision was made to push the boundaries of web technologies as we firmly believe in applications that take advantage of running on the cloud and are portable. Such advantages for this application would be a future version, for example, that could enable one to track an individual’s daily activities and with this data to propose an array of possible transformations of the used architectural space that could enhance his/her life style, all through a mobile phone or tablet.

5. CONCLUSION

The development of a tool to create a Dynamic Building Program surfaced a variety of issues that proved quite interesting for further inquiry. The impetus to create such a tool came from previous research results within the domain of transformable architecture and was employed to investigate the reasons behind the limited application of transformable design. In the research behind this paper it became evident that such approaches lack a process of identifying, organizing and addressing the specific issues that involve flexibility and adaptability. They are usually dealt in intuitive ways, through the typical building program, missing the opportunity to explore the full potential of an active space.

The contemporary integration of mobile media into everyday life revealed the importance of connecting features of activity types with the development of applications that address them. Activity-based design seems as a promising practice in creating a framework that can act as a backbone for the creation of tools that can manage the complexity involved in transformable architecture. The identification of the fundamental issues that such an approach must address formed the core of a process where space is meant to facilitate an activity and not vice versa, meaning an activity has to be fitted in a given space.

During the development of the application some more intriguing issues emerged, relevant to the architect-computer scientist collaboration and communication platform. While most issues were related to the task at hand, they often led to discussions regarding the understanding of the world through two different perspectives. The main difference is situated in the initial perspective of the project. The architect, on the one hand, visualizes the end-product, the interface and the interaction with the end-user. The process of how the end-product can be utilized, how the data can be communicated, and, of course, the aesthetics around the whole endeavour. The computer scientist, on the other, visualizes the process, the modelling of the code and the protagonists that play the leading role with their values propagating to the tree as it develops and increasing complexity. Clarity, as a notion, meant different things. Cohesion, short learning curve and clear visualizations for the one, well defined relations, model hierarchy and clear set of rules for the other.

These differences proved a fertile field for a discourse regarding the common ground emerging from this close collaboration. The common ground was found in the fact that both practices are creative and begin to work in front of a ‘blank’ sheet of paper. Moreover, it was found in their nature, which tries to identify societal characteristics and create products that fit them best with the available tools at hand. In some ways, it became evident that transformable design, aiming to follow spatially the constant human activity transitions, can find a well-established analogy in the software development practice that shares the same view regarding its market. Gradually the two perspectives begun to merge in a broader view that can inform both disciplines and can act beneficially for both practices. This may be one of the most prominent discourses of the near future as people’s

10  

experience (and production) of space is increasingly affected by digital media and architecture should evolve to play a distinctive part in it.

This project aims to play also a part in this process, an evolution in architecture’s production methods, at a fundamental phase. The ability of computer scientists to break down macroscopic phenomena, which are difficult to handle, to manageable data systems that are compiled as matrices of relations can produce many different variations of processes for architecture to follow and address the dynamic conditions of life. The evolution of the presented application lies in the gradual integration of the "Basic Planning and Integration Diagram", the "Basic Morphology Diagram" and the "Basic Structural Diagram" in order to present information in more comprehensive visualizations of the all the issues set. There is also the potential of creating specialty kits of more detailed information regarding specific use types (specialty buildings), such as hospitals, schools, and so on. There are many possibilities opening for the continuation of this application and as it is an open-accessed platform, it will pass through many optimization processes to raise above the standards set at the initiation of its development.

REFERENCES

[1] Konstantinos-Alketas Oungrinis, (2012), Transformable Architecture: Kinesis, Adaptation, Flexibility, pp. 40-89, ION Publishers, Athens.

[2] Nicholas Negroponte, (1970), The Architectural Machine, pp. 119-121, The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

[3] Herman Hertzberger, (2000), "Time based buildings". In Bernard Leupen and René Heijne, (eds), (2005), Time Based Architecture, Rotterdam: 010 Publishers, pp. 82-91.

[4] Peter Bøgh Andersen, (2005), "Activity-based design", European Journal of Information Systems, 15, pp. 9-25.