Login | Register

We gain a lot… but what are we losing?: A critical exploration of the implications of digital design technologies on sustainable architecture

Title:

We gain a lot… but what are we losing?: A critical exploration of the implications of digital design technologies on sustainable architecture

Soulikias, A., Cucuzzella, Carmela ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4677-8518, Nizar, Firdous ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4297-671X, Hazbei, M. and Goubran, Sherif ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2365-0351 (2021) We gain a lot… but what are we losing?: A critical exploration of the implications of digital design technologies on sustainable architecture. 9th International Conference of the Arab Society for Computer Aided Architectural Design .

[img]
Preview
Text (application/pdf)
D1P2S3-45.pdf - Published Version
Available under License Spectrum Terms of Access.
371kB

Abstract

In the field of architecture, new technologies are enabling us to promptly simulate, quantify, and compare multitudes of design alternatives and consider an ever more expanding list of environmental and economic parameters within the early design phases of projects. However, architecture today veers further towards non-neutral technologies, changing our culture, introducing new values, and (re)shaping our social ideals. The change of media, from the manual to the digital, has deeply transformed architecture and city design. There is undoubtedly progress, but what are we losing in this automation, virtualization and over-digitalization? Are architects—creators of space, human experience, and cultural capital—starting to occupy the role of technicians? Sustainable architecture is a field that is already experiencing tensions between the quantitative and the qualitative, the optimum and the ethical, and the parametric and haptic methods. Yet the rapidly evolving CAAD technologies overlook many of the non-quantifiable values of these binaries. Gains in speed and efficiency in the design process with the help of parametric design may be challenging the designer’s reflection-in-action process required for critical architecture while ethical, cultural, and human dimensions can hardly be modelled algorithmically. Similarly, computational thinking and digitalization in architectural education, have yet to come to terms ‫‪with‬‬ ‫‪the‬‬ ‫‪loss‬‬ ‫‪of‬‬ ‫‪analogue‬‬ ‫‪ways‬‬ ‫‪of‬‬ ‫‪learning‬‬ ‫‪that‬‬ ‫‪favour‬‬ ‫‪a‬‬ ‫‪more‬‬ ‫‪diverse‬‬ ‫‪and‬‬ ‫‪inclusive‬‬ ‫‪classroom‬‬ ‫‪environment.‬‬ ‫‪Instead‬‬ ‫‪of‬‬ ‫‪keeping‬‬ ‫‪the‬‬ ‫‪analogue‬‬ ‫‪and‬‬ ‫‪the‬‬ ‫‪haptic‬‬ ‫‪practices‬‬ ‫‪away‬‬ ‫‪from‬‬ ‫‪the‬‬ ‫‪immaculate‬‬ ‫‪realm‬‬ ‫‪of‬‬ ‫‪CAAD,‬‬ ‫‪this‬‬ ‫‪paper‬‬ ‫‪argues‬‬ ‫‪for‬‬ ‫‪hybrid‬‬ ‫‪technologies‬‬ ‫‪that‬‬ ‫‪recognize‬‬ ‫‪these‬‬ ‫‪practices‬‬ ‫‪and‬‬ ‫‪their‬‬ ‫‪value‬‬ ‫‪in‬‬ ‫‪sustainable‬‬ ‫‪design‬‬ ‫‪and‬‬ ‫‪incorporate‬‬ ‫‪them.‬‬ ‫‪Film‬‬ ‫‪animation,‬‬ ‫‪as‬‬ ‫‪a‬‬ ‫‪branch‬‬ ‫‪of‬‬ ‫‪architecture’s‬‬ ‫‪most‬‬ ‫‪expressive‬‬ ‫‪means,‬‬ ‫‪film,‬‬ ‫‪can‬‬ ‫‪serve‬‬ ‫‪as‬‬ ‫‪a‬‬ ‫‪paradigm‬‬ ‫‪of‬‬ ‫‪a‬‬ ‫‪feasible‬‬ ‫‪disruptive‬‬ ‫‪technology,‬‬ ‫‪but‬‬ ‫‪most‬‬ ‫‪importantly,‬‬ ‫‪as‬‬ ‫‪an‬‬ ‫‪indicator‬‬ ‫‪of‬‬ ‫‪the‬‬ ‫‪hybridity‬‬ ‫‪between‬‬ ‫‪the‬‬ ‫‪handmade‬‬ ‫‪and‬‬ ‫‪the‬‬ ‫‪digital‬‬ ‫‪and‬‬ ‫‪its‬‬ ‫‪effectiveness‬‬ ‫‪in‬‬ ‫‪expressing‬‬ ‫‪vital‬‬ ‫‪elements‬‬ ‫‪of‬‬ ‫‪sustainability‬‬ ‫‪that‬‬ ‫‪are‬‬ ‫‪otherwise‬‬ ‫‪dismissed.‬‬

Divisions:Concordia University > School of Graduate Studies > Individualized Program
Item Type:Article
Refereed:Yes
Authors:Soulikias, A. and Cucuzzella, Carmela and Nizar, Firdous and Hazbei, M. and Goubran, Sherif
Journal or Publication:9th International Conference of the Arab Society for Computer Aided Architectural Design
Date:2021
ID Code:988041
Deposited By: SHERIF NADER AL GOUBRAN
Deposited On:19 Mar 2021 20:17
Last Modified:19 Mar 2021 20:17

References:

AL-QAWASMI, J., 2005. Digital media in architectural design education: reflections on the estudio pedagogy. Art, Design and Communication in Higher Education. 4, 205-222.

ALLEN, S., 2009. Practice: architecture, technique + representation. London: Routledge.

BARRIOS HERNANDEZ, C. R., 2006. Thinking parametric design: introducing parametric Gaudi. Design Studies. 27, 309-324.

BEDER, S., 1994. The role of technology in sustainable development. IEEE Technology and society magazine, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 14–19.

BRUNO, G., 2014. Surface. London: University of Chicago Press.

BUCHANAN, P., 2012. Whats wrong with architectural education? Almost everything. The Architectural Review. URL https://www.architectural-review.com/today/1989-july-whatswrong-with-architectural-education-almost-everything (accessed 11.5.20).

BURRY, M., 2013. Scripting cultures: architectural design and programming. Somerset: Wiley.

CESCHIN, F. AND GAZIULUSOY, I., 2016. “Evolution of design for sustainability: From Product design to design for system innovations and transitions. Design Studies, Elsevier Ltd, Vol. 47, pp. 118–163.

CUCUZZELLA, C. AND GOUBRAN, S., 2020. Caught between measurement and meaning. In Cucuzzella, C. and Goubran, S. Eds. Sustainable architecture – between measurement and meaning. Wilmington, Delaware: Vernon Press, pp. 1–13.

DINO, I., 2012. Creative design exploration by parametric generative systems in architecture.

METU Journal of Faculty of Architecture, 29(1), 207–224.

EHRENFELD, J., 2009. Sustainability by design: a subversive strategy for transforming our consumer culture. New Haven. Conn.: London: Yale University Press.

EISENSTEIN, S. M., BOIS, Y.-A., AND GLENNY, M., 1989. Montage and architecture. Assemblage (10), 111-131.

FARMER, G. AND GUY, S., 2004. Hybrid environments: the spaces of sustainable design. In Guy, S. and Moore, S.A. (Eds.), Sustainable architectures: critical explorations of green building practice in Europe and North America. 1st ed. New York: Spon Press Taylor & Francis Group, pp. 15–30.

FARMER, G. AND GUY, S., 2005. Reflection and engagement: towards pluralist practices of sustainable architecture. In Guy, S. and Moore, S.A. Eds. Sustainable architectures: critical explorations of green building practice in Europe and North America. 1st ed. New York: Spon Press Taylor & Francis Group.

GERO, J. S., 1996. Creativity, emergence and evolution in design. Knowledge-Based Systems, 9(7), 435–448.

GOUBRAN, S., 2019. Sustainability in architectural design projects – a semiotic understanding. Social Semiotics. Taylor & Francis, Vol. 0 No. 0, pp. 1–27.

GRAHAM, E. M., 2003. Studio design critique: student and faculty expectations and reality. Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College.

GROBMAN, Y. J. AND NEUMAN, E., 2012. Performalism: Form and Performance in Digital Architecture, London: Routledge.

GROSS, M., Do, E., 1999. Integrating digital media in design studio: Six paradigms. In: Proceedings of the American College Schools of Architecture Conference. Minneapolis.

GUY, S. AND FARMER, G., 2000. Contested Constructions: The competing logics of green buildings and ethics. In Fox, W. Ed. Ethics and The Built Environment. London: Routledge pp. 73–87.

GUY, S. AND FARMER, G., 2001. Reinterpreting sustainable architecture: the place of technology. Journal of Architectural Education. Vol. 54 No. 3, pp. 140–148.

HAJER, M.A., 1995. The politics of environmental discourse. New York: Oxford University Press.

HAZBEI, M. AND CUCUZZELLA, C., xxxx. Coherence of interior and exterior formal qualities in parametrically designed buildings. Int. J. Design Engineering, Vol. X, No. Y, pp.xxx–xxx.

HOLLAND, N., 2012. Inform form perform. Spaces & Flows: An International Journal of Urban & Extra Urban Studies, 2(2), 177–190.

HOSEA, B. 2019. Made by hand. In: RUDDELL CAROLINE , W. P. (ed.) The crafty animator. Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan.

KARLE, D., AND KELLY, B., 2011. Parametric thinking. Proceedings of ACADIA Regional 2011 Conference, 109–113.

KAVOUSI, S., MILLER, P. A., AND ALEXANDER, P. A., 2019. Modeling metacognition in design thinking and design making. International Journal of Technology and Design Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-019-09521-9. Last Dance on the Main, 2014. Directed by SOULIKIAS, A. [Film Animation]. Montreal: Mel Hoppenheim School of Cinema. https://vimeo.com/99011728

LAWSON, B., 2002. CAD and creativity: does the computer really help? Leonardo. 35, 327-331.

LIU, Y.-T., AND LIM, C.-K., 2006. New tectonics: a preliminary framework involving classic and digital thinking. Design Studies. 27, 267-307.

LORENZO-EIROA, P. AND SPRECHER, A., 2013. Architecture in formation: on the nature of information in digital architecture. London: Taylor & Francis Ltd.

MAHGOUB, Y., 2007. Architecture and the expression of cultural identity in Kuwait. The Journal of Architecture. 12, 165-182.

MARKS, L. U., 2000. The skin of the film: intercultural cinema, embodiment, and the senses. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

MCMINN, J. AND POLO, M. 2005. Sustainable Architecture as a Cultural Project. The 2005 World Sustainable Building Conference. Tokyo. pp. 4537–4544.

MIESSEN, M., 2016. Crossbenching: Toward participation as critical spatial practice. Berlin: Sternberg Press.

MOOI, A. 2014. What will the architect be doing next? how is the profession of the architect evolving as the focus of society shifts from sustainability to resilience or reactivist-driven design demands? Footprint. No. 14, pp. 119–128.

OXMAN, R. AND GU, N., 2015. Theories and models of parametric design thinking. Education and Research in Computer Aided Architectural Design in Europe (eCAAe), Vol. 33, Vienna, Austria, pp. 477–482.

PALLASMAA, J., 2001. The Architecture of image: existential space in cinema. Helsinki: Rakennustieto.

PALLASMAA, J., 2009. The thinking hand: existential and embodied wisdom in architecture. Chichester, U.K.: Wiley.

PARKS, C. F., 2020. Fluid frames: experimental animation with sand, clay, paint, and pixels. Routledge.

POLANYI, M., 2009. The tacit dimension. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

POOLE, M. AND SHVARTZBERG, M., 2015. The politics of parametricism: digital technologies in architecture. London: Bloomsbury Academic.

PYLA, P., 2008. Counter-histories of sustainability. Archis. April, pp. 1–13.

SCHÖN, D. A., 1987. Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco,:Jossey-Bass A Wiley Imprint.

SCHÖN, D. A., 1991. The reflective practitioner: how professionals think in action. Vol. 5126. Aldershot: Avebury Ashgate.

SCHUMACHER, P., 2008. Parametricism as style: parametricist manifesto. http://www.patrikschumacher.com/Texts/Parametricism as Style.htm

SCHUMACHER, P. AND LEACH, N., 2009. Parametricism: a new global style for architecture and urban design. Architectural Design. 79, 14-23.

TARKHAN, N. (2020), Technological trajectories: assessing the role of sensing in design. In Cucuzzella, C. and Goubran, S. Eds. Sustainable architecture – between measurement and meaning. Wilmington, Delaware: Vernon Press. pp. 46–69.

VANDEVYVERE, H. and HEYNEN, H., 2014. Sustainable development, architecture and Modernism: aspects of an ongoing controversy. Arts. Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 350–366.

WALKER, S., 2006, Sustainable by design: exploration in theory and practice. Earthscan Publications, London.

WALKER, S., 2015, Designing sustainability: making radical changes in a material world. First Edit., Routledge, New York, NY.

WOODBURY, R. F., 2010. Elements of parametric design. London: Routledge.
All items in Spectrum are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved. The use of items is governed by Spectrum's terms of access.

Repository Staff Only: item control page

Downloads per month over past year

Research related to the current document (at the CORE website)
- Research related to the current document (at the CORE website)
Back to top Back to top