How designers think

I recently finished reading ‘How Designers Think: The design process demystified’ by Bryan Lawson. It’s been part inspiring, part revealing, part frustrating, part disagreeable, and all thought provoking. Timely too, as I often reflect on my own design thinking process – for myself, and for my job. This post is the first part of my reflections on what I read, discovered and occasionally disagreed with.
I have been aware for a few years now of what I call, my ‘percolation’ technique (although it just ‘is’ rather than ‘is done’) – I captured this in a post-it in June 2009. I completely rely on and trust technique/process. After a career of designing, and a lifetime propensity towards creativity and creation I just know that if I need an answer or need to create something I will. It might not come to me immediately, but given the trigger it will be resolved. I don’t want to get all ‘The Secret’ and ‘The Force’ on you, but often the trigger attracts additional info when its needed. I trust in this too.
The section in the book about Gestalt thinking  and later on cognitive science  which “accepts that information is activity reorganized and reconstructed in memory rather than passively recorded and recalled” confirmed my ‘percolation’ as a psychologically valid thinking process. In particular the 2) section of my technique.
I was struck by how this articulated further my thinking awareness, and was delighted by the parallels and, if I’m honest, a bit disappointed that yet again I discover I am not unique

Architect at Work

            When I first heard this topic “Architect at Work”, I had the image of some skyscrapers and I totally agree with my teacher’s opinion when she said that we as architects design the building when someone says what is going to be built. And I think that I hit the nail in the head, because the work of architect is related to the spatial ability, designing and generating the form of the building and interior and exterior spaces of the building. When the architect starts to design a building and to bring it into life, there are some steps which are essential and need to be known: It starts with locational analysis (responsibility of town planners and geographers),  environmental control (specialist of building design), Judgment over matters of cost (quantity surveyor), interior design (skills of an artist).  One word is used for very different concepts such as functional architecture, data architecture, solution architecture or enterprise architecture. In addition, boundaries between architecture and design are unclear. Some say they are similar concepts. Others argue that they are complementary concepts with different levels of abstraction. To do so here are some ways generating 3 dimensional form:

1.      Pragmatic

2.      Iconic

3.      Analogic

4.      Canonic

PRAGMATIC Design

Design is about making stuff, we make stuff to test our hypotheses. The word pragmatic itself says: dealing with things sensibly and realistically in a way that is based on practical rather than theoretical considerations. This type of design is carried at the very first beginning of the work. In this case the architect sees the relationship between the climate that the nature offers and the need of the client. The building may affect the climate, as well as the climate can affect the building, which may be cultural, social, political, economic… All in all these refer ti CLIMATIC MODIFICATION. Do you guys remember all the stuff we are doing in the studio, that abstract house with given shapes? All we are doing is pragmatic design, because we are testing not only the material (because the material is defined), but also the linking in between in such a way to work. In other words TRIAL AND ERROR UNTIL A FORM EMERGES, just like the mammoth’s hunter’s tent. What drew my attention was the “inheritance” of such buildings, for different reasons. For example a group of people have their own tradition in building a house and they have kept it for several years, or they may transform it with some little changes, but the idea doesn’t change. When I first read this type of design, I took the answers of all the questions in my mind: How come that the igloos or tepees stay in that form? I think that these were the genesis of the design. Just like the fire, when primitives discovered it but didn’t know how to explain the discovery.  Now I have a question? Can you build an igloo in your country? It sounds like absurdity, because we have never seen an igloo out of blocks of ice been built in other countries, except Antarctic. I think that you clearly know that the climate there favors the form and design of an igloo. And like all the other things,

ICONIC DESIGN

These kind of designs are related to the history of a tribe or some legends. I am going to make a parallelism: When we say Alvar Aalto, in my mind comes the image of warm and curving buildings that were unlike the mechanistic, coolly geometrical, abstract designs of his European peers. This is the characteristic that helps us recognize the style of the architect.

Iconic design is related to pragmatic one, because firstly you have to deal with pragmatic design and then with iconic one, just like the building, the bricks are arranged in such a way to make the entire building.

ANALOGIC Design

Did you know that Lord Kelvin developed the mirror galvanometer from noticing sunlight reflecting from his monocle? The engineer Sir Marc Isambard Brunel invented the caisson from observing ships worms tunneling through wood. These examples show us how we can generate new forms only by concentrating and observing the “old” ones or better saying the known ones. When we first see a building, the first impact that strikes us is the visual attraction. So we try to make an analogy of the building with something that resembles with. But this doesn’t mean that only the exterior part of the building “obey” this rule. Probably you have seen a chair which looks like a shoe (especially nowadays), or a coach which implement the image of an animal or something taken by nature. But let’s take a look back at the history. Did you know that pyramids were tombs, called mastabas? All the functions of life and beyond life were carried into these pyramids. Analogic design, a method of generating new forms, is found. The use of new forms aroused by analogical processes are firstly seen in the funerary complex designed for King Djoser at Saqqara. Mastabas, the only kind of buildings in that time near Nile had an analogy with the heap of stones which burial shafts had come to be covered with- a pragmatic device to prevent the sand flow away.

CANONIC Design

Do you remember the phrase: “Use your own gridline… Follow the grid that lines offer you.” It is nothing but canonic design. I think that your best work is when you used the gridline that the object/figure or something like this offered you. You know why? Because this implies regularity, and not a chaos. We are talking about 2D design. You may think that it is impossible, but the canonic design can be used to generate 3D forms and indeed into architectural buildings. For example: from Plato we understand that a solid can be formed with triangles. But this is up to your choice. As well as you may choose your own gridline, such that of a human scale or your finger, elbow, leg and so on. In my opinion, canonic design is very useful and why not fundamental to architecture because it makes our work much more easier since we have this regulating grid system that helps us to continue our design.

To sum up: “It is not the beauty of a building you should look at; it is the construction of the foundation that will stand the test of time.” So pragmatic, iconic, analogic, canonic…not only these types of design, but all the other types of design are needed to generate three dimensional forms. Each one of them is unique, each one of them gives us special clues that lead us in designing and maintaining such magnificent and functional buildings. 

Solids and Cavities in Architecture

“Seeing” comes through as a two-sided process of picture forming and detailed observation, according to Rasmussen in his “Experiencing Architecture” book. Such a method resembles the principles of re-creation, especially when compared with painting, thus the spectator is not just taking the role of an observer but rather daring to interpret susceptibly. Of course when it comes to subjective observation people are more inclined to the familiar and comprehensible information, in this case expressed visually. Rasmussen compares this phenomenon to the activity of an actor on stage positioning himself closer to the role he is playing. He believes the same reaction can be witnessed with people trying to identify and relate to the piece of art they are observing or even to a commercial good.Architecture has its own way of making use of these visual observatory characteristics. The Classical architecture for instance is often associated with supporting and supported members, giving the impression of a heavy burden weighing down the column. The same personification rules have been applied to other domestic forms such as chairs, doors, automobiles etc. 
Dickens has proven to have use this method in analyzing the spirit behind every house standing on a street. However, when it comes to extremely geometrically regular neighborhoods even Dickens fails make such an interpretation, admitting to seeing shapes and no personalities. Nonetheless, shapes which manage to create a vivid illusion of space through repetition of elements which are familiar to the eye. The argument moves on the contrast between a picture and a real life visit to the place, where you are no more inclined to view the building from a certain angle but may now move around and sense the atmosphere around it. Rasmussen adds that there are also streets and plazas which are laid out deliberately to be viewed from a specific position.
In conclusion, I’d like to emphasize the importance of the solid-cavity relation in architecture. And in my opinion the best architects know how to relate to this relation.

From the past to the present 
Pierre Luigi Nervi was an italian architect engineer and builder of 20th century.This are some of the most famouse buildings that Luigi built :Municipal Stadium,Florence,Airplane Hangars and Unesco headquartes,Paris;Pirelli Office Building,Milan;Sport Arena,Rome;Port Authority Bus Terminal,New York City. With an amzing technique and way of building it these objects are still there even today. These means that luigi's technique was the right one to be used at that time.But.... Can we say that between Building technology and Architectural Aesthetics exist a relation?
If the designer is a good one he might find the way to combine both of them. Building technology means that the object is okay from the techinal view,but also it should have a good look too.Most of the people watch objects from the outside part not from the inside one.Here i thik i might do a little critic about the bus terminal that luigi built its not that it have a good look. When i see it from outside it doesnt give me any emotion.Good technology is necessary but not a sufficient condition for Good Architecture.For me as a future architecture i think that everything should be perfect i am totally agree but a large use of technology might do that your object to be totally destroyed by the time passes.
Building Correctly means:Stability,Durability,Function,Maximum Results with Minimum Means.I know that a architect to built needs at least to complete this conditions but i also think that if i wanna built correctly i should take for example the idea that the cost might be higher.The relationship between Building technology and Architectural Aesthetics is present even in nowdays.But its origins that this relationship has been from the past.And this thing shows very good the building from the past like the pyramids in Egypt or the ancient buildings in Rome or Greece.