G10 21882 Environmental Design and Architectural Expression Final

8/2/2019 G10 21882 Environmental Design and Architectural Expression Final

1/20

DESIGNPRINCIPLES& P R A C T I C E S

JOURNAL

A N I N T E R N A T I O N A L

www.Design-Journal.com

Volume 4, Number 3

Environmental Design and Architectural Expression:Towards an Inclusive Approach to Architectural

Form Generation

Michael McGlynn


2/20

DESIGN PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICES: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNALhttp://www.Design-Journal.com

First published in 2010 in Champaign, Illinois, USA by Common Ground Publishing LLCwww.CommonGroundPublishing.com.

2010 (individual papers), the author(s) 2010 (selection and editorial matter) Common Ground

Authors are responsible for the accuracy of citations, quotations, diagrams, tables andmaps.

All rights reserved. Apart from fair use for the purposes of study, research, criticism orreview as permitted under the Copyright Act (Australia), no part of this work may bereproduced without written permission from the publisher. For permissions and otherinquiries, please contact.

ISSN: 1833-1874Publisher Site: http://www.Design-Journal.com

DESIGN PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICES: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL is peer-reviewed, supported by rigorous processes of criterion-referenced article ranking andqualitative commentary, ensuring that only intellectual work of the greatest substanceand highest significance is published.

Typeset in Common Ground Markup Language using CGCreator multichanneltypesetting systemhttp://www.commongroundpublishing.com/software/


3/20


4/20

neutral building approaches. The importance of these approaches in regard to mitigating

climate change severity cannot be overestimated. In the United States alone, the built envir-

onment accounts for 48% of total greenhouse gas emissions and three-fourths of the building

stock will be either new or renovated by 2035 (Mazria 2008). A substantial reduction in the

overall production of greenhouse gas emissions could be achieved, then, if we were to reach

the point where standard building practice produced carbon neutral buildings. In purely en-

vironmental terms, this utilitarian approach focused on building energy conservation coupled

with remaining building energy demand derived from renewable energy sources appears to

hold great promise.

Yet, for architectural theorist Susannah Hagan and others, this is clearly insufcient to

achieving a transformative sustainable architecture, one eventually capable of supplanting

the consumer-driven status quo. In her book entitled Taking Shape: A New Contract between

Architecture and Nature, Hagan states, After all, the environment is more than just the

biosphere, into which we must now t or die. It is also the built environment, a cultural as

well as a physical entity (Hagan 2001). Echoing this sentiment, artist and architecturaltheorist James Wines states architecture is certainly the most visible and pervasive evidence

of human intervention in the environment, and, accordingly can function as a visible

demonstration of conservationist ideals (Wines 1993). It is quite clear that in order for

sustainable architecture, which tends to be ethically driven and utilitarian in approach, to be

embraced by the larger architectural community, it must ultimately engage in the self-con-

scious exploration of climatically inected architectures formal possibilities.

Ultimately, criteria of some sort become necessary to facilitate the development and as-

sessment of sustainable architecture, however narrowly or broadly dened it may be. A

number of quantitative methodologies now exist to assess the effectiveness of approaches

in improving building performance, the BRE Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM)

and the USGBC Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design Rating System (LEED)

being two of the more notable examples. These quantitative methodologies are useful to a

point, but provide an incomplete picture of a sustainable architecture, given that building

performance is but one aspect. Truly sustainable architectures demand mixed mode, qualit-

ative as well as quantitative, criteria for both generation and assessment.

In recent years, criteria have begun to emerge that attempt to take into consideration a

broader spectrum of concerns regarding the relationship between the built environment and

nature (Hagan 2001, Hawkes, McDonald & Steemers 2002, Williamson, Radford & Bennetts

2003, Buchanan 2005). In Taking Shape (Hagan 2001), Hagan proposes three such criteria,

symbiosis, differentiation, and visibility, as ...different kinds of architectural engage-

ment with an environmental agenda, from operation alone through to the representation ofthe signicance of that operation (Hagan 2001). The value of Hagans criteria lies in their

potential to overcome the limitations of low energy building approaches and bridge the divide

between performance-based environmental design and form-based architectural expression.

In order to determine the usefulness and limitations of Hagans criteria and situate low energy

building within the broader context of sustainable architecture, I apply Hagans criteria to

Pugh+Scarpa Architects Colorado Court (Santa Monica, CA, USA), an exemplar of low

energy building. Lastly, I speculate on an inclusive framework for architectural form gener-

ation in an effort to address the limitations uncovered regarding Hagans criteria.

282

DESIGN PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICES: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL


5/20

Levels of Engagement

Realizing that the discourse surrounding environmental architecture was too narrowly tech-

nical, Susannah Hagan undertook to expand the conversation in her bookTaking Shape: A

New Contract between Architecture and Nature (Hagan 2001). Her overarching intentionwas to situate environmental architecture (her preferred term for sustainable architecture)

within the historical and theoretical context of architecture in general. In part three, Hagan

explicitly lays out the previously mentioned criteria of symbiosis, differentiation, and

visibility, asserting that ...the three suggested criteria are intended to test the degree to

which the environmental agenda is actually incorporated into the work of architects claiming

environmental sustainability (Hagan 2001). So, in general, what does each criterion mean

and how do these three criteria relate to one another?

The term symbiosis is intended to describe a building in dynamic cooperation with the

natural environment (Hagan 2001). Building form and orientation are in tune with natural

rhythms. The emphasis here is on ...operation modeled as closely as possible on metabolic

processes (Hagan 2001). At this level, architectural form is largely an outgrowth of efcient

technological means and methods. Acting as the bridge between symbiosis and visibility,

differentiation begins to engage in what Hagan terms reexivity, in other words, self-

conscious architectural expression (Hagan 2001). This is where the distinction lies between

symbiosis and differentiation, if one exists at all. In the latter case, the resultant architec-

tural form is, to varying degrees, an intentional manifestation of a given climate and culture.

By intentional, I mean that low and high technologies, both passive and active, are employed

as much for what they represent as for their usefulness. Lastly, visibility, although tethered

to environmental concerns, reconceives architectural expression in light of complexity science.

Hagan (2001) argues that environmental designs conception of nature as linear and ordered

is dated, which leads to a deterministic approach to architectural form generation. At thelevel of visibility, the conceptual, rather than the operational, aspects of architectural form

become the dominant concern, the realization of a reexive environmental agenda (Hagan

2001).

283

MICHAEL MCGLYNN


6/20

Figure 1: Susannah Hagans Levels of Engagement with the Environmental Agenda, Illus-

tration Credit: Michael McGlynn and Diana Trushell

These levels of engagement with the environmental agenda (Hagan 2001) can be situated

within an expanding framework (Figure 1). The levels progress from an unreexive oper-ational approach at the level of symbiosis, through increasing degrees of reexivity with

resultant impacts upon architectural form at the level of differentiation, arriving at a highly

reexive conceptual approach to architectural form at the level of visibility. In addition

to operation and form, varying attitudes toward place and technology are expressed across

the spectrum.

Form + Operation

Prior to applying Hagans criteria to Colorado Court, I would like to touch upon the origin

of Hagans criteria and situate these criteria within a broader architectural context. As previ-

ously mentioned, Hagans intention in proposing these three criteria is to confront the dividebetween environmental design and architectural expression. In an earlier article written for

the Journal of Architecture entitled The Good, the Bad, and the Juggled: the New Ethics

of Building Materials (Hagan 1998), Hagan establishes the dialectical structure (Figure 2)

that becomes the basis for her argument in Taking Shape (2001).

284



7/20

Figure 2: Approaches to Environmental Architecture, Illustration Credit: Michael McGlynn

The dialectic describes two different architectures that both lay claim to sustainability. Therst she terms anti-modern environmentalism, which tends toward craft-based approaches

steeped in vernacular tradition. This approach is akin to the environmental design approach

discussed at length in Taking Shape (2001). Architectures within this school would likely

achieve symbiosis and, possibly, differentiation depending upon their degree of self-

conscious climatic and cultural adaptation. The second I have termed ecological high tech,

borrowing the term that she uses in Taking Shape (2001), which tends toward approaches

that make use of innovative materials and technologies. Here, architects are surely engaging

in climatic and cultural differentiation, while simultaneously pursuing a self-conscious

architectural expression. Ultimately, Hagans argument is that these two schools should be

synthesized into an inclusive approach to both form and operation (Hagan 1998). It is thisinclusive, or later what she terms hybrid (Hagan 2001), approach that becomes her

preferred strategy for achieving sustainable architecture.

The following diagram (Figure 3) situates both Hagans criteria and her preferred hybrid

approach in a broader context. Form, from low to high reexivity, is plotted along the

vertical axis while operation, from low to high performance, is plotted along the horizontal

axis. Hagans criteria are plotted vertically at the high performance end of the operation axis.

Of course, a focus on high performance remains constant across all levels or environmental

sustainability is not achieved. Various architectures can be plotted in three of the four

quadrants with the fourth quadrant containing buildings, but no architectures.

285

MICHAEL MCGLYNN


8/20

Figure 3: Form/Operation Quadrant Diagram, Illustration Credit: Michael McGlynn, Image

Credits (Clockwise from Upper Left): Eisenman Architects, Renzo Piano Building Workshop,

Bruno Amaral Pereira / www.noplug.org, used with Permission

An architecture of high performance and low reexivity is best exemplied by vernacular

architecture such as the traditional stilt house of Laos, Cambodia. Although by no means

absent cultural reference, the architectural form is necessarily a response to environmental

forces. Taken to the extreme, this approach would lead to an operational determinism. Onthe other end of the spectrum, Eisenman Architects City of Culture of Galicia in Santiago

de Compostela, Spain, represents an architecture of high reexivity and low performance.

With form largely inspired by the cultural (pilgrimage routes) and geophysical (topography),

formal manipulation takes precedence over environmental performance. Again, the extreme

position would result in a formal determinism. The nal quadrant, high performance and

high reexivity, is the hybrid approach favored by Hagan. The Jean-Marie Tjibaou Cultural

Centre in Noumea, New Caledonia, by Renzo Piano Building Workshop embodies this fusion,

for instance, with cases formally and materially inspired by the traditional Kanak hut that

also employ sophisticated, modern technology to act as environmental lters.

Colorado Court, Santa Monica, CA, USA, Pugh+Scarpa Architects

Located at the intersection of Colorado Ave and 5th Street in Santa Monica, CA, USA,

Colorado Court is one of the most energy efcient multifamily housing projects in the

country. The project, designed by Pugh+Scarpa Architects from 1999-2002 for the Community

Corporation of Santa Monica, provides 44 units of low-income housing in 5 stories intended

to replace 40 units demolished in 1987 to make way for an expansion of the Santa Monica

bus yard. After consultation with the Community Corporation of Santa Monica and the City

of Santa Monica, Pugh+Scarpa abandoned an earlier design in favor of developing a sustain-

able design demonstration project. A 2003 Rudy Bruner Award for Urban Excellence silver

286



9/20

medal winner, the following quote from the award publication provides a summary of the

architects intentions,

[Pugh+Scarpa], for their part, had long been interested both in affordable housing and

in sustainable building systems and saw Colorado Courtas an opportunity to push thegreen agenda, as well as to showcase the effective combination of green energy systems

with affordable housing and good architectural design. (Farbstein et al. 2003)

Rather than an exhaustive analysis of all aspects of the building, the following case of Col-

orado Courtis explored only insofar as it illuminates Hagans criteria and the place of low

energy building within the broad spectrum of sustainable architecture. Therefore, the focus

is placed squarely on the interplay between formal and operational inuences. Moving

through each level in turn, I begin by highlighting the particular qualities each of these cri-

teria possess that might prove useful in assessing sustainable architecture followed by the

application of the criteria to the specic case.

Symbiosis

Grounded in environmental performance, symbiosis is foundational to environmental ar-

chitecture. Hagan declares that it is ...the only necessary requirement for environmentally

sustainable architecture... (Hagan 2001). While the degree varies to which operation

manifests itself in architectural form, a focus on high performance building remains constant

across all levels or environmental sustainability is not achieved (Hagan 2001). When focused

primarily and unreexively on building performance, technology is viewed as instrumental,

resulting in what Hagan terms existing-architectures-made-more-environmentally-sustain-

able with the end result being ...this increasing quantication of environmental sustainab-ility... (Hagan 2001). The approach is one in which increasingly complex technology is

used to mitigate environmental circumstance allowing for climatically and culturally undif-

ferentiated form applicable to a global context. Low energy, net zero energy, and carbon

neutral building approaches, when focused exclusively or even primarily on energy issues,

are situated at this rather limited level of environmental architecture.

A net zero energy building can be generally dened as ...a building with greatly reduced

energy needs through efciency gains such that the balance of the energy needs can be

supplied by renewable technologies (Torcellini, Pless, Deru, & Crawley 2006). A low energy

building can be dened similarly, the key difference between the two being that low energy

buildings strive to meet remaining building energy demand with renewable energy sources

while net zero energy buildings actually achieve the goal. In turn, a carbon neutral building

produces at least as much emissions-free renewable energy as it uses from emissions-pro-

ducing energy sources (Torcellini et al. 2006).

Colorado Court can be considered a low energy building in that it introduces a number

of energy efciency measures to reduce loads and meets 30 percent of the buildings power

demand with renewable energy supplied by a photovoltaic array. The remaining 70 percent

is met by a rooftop natural gas red microturbine. According to Torcellini et al., Colorado

Courtdoes not qualify as a net zero energy building given that the microturbine transform[s]

purchased fossil fuels into heat and electricity rather than generates energy (Torcellini et

al. 2006). The building cannot be considered carbon neutral, either, given that renewable

287

MICHAEL MCGLYNN


10/20

energy production does not entirely offset the fossil fuel produced electricity. However, at

a fundamental level, the degree to which Colorado Courtmeets the criterion of symbiosis

is the degree to which active and passive building technologies are implemented to improve

environmental performance, regardless of whether it meets the denitions of net zero energy

or carbon neutral building.

In terms of active systems, the aforementioned photovoltaic array and microturbine were

designed to work in concert to substantially improve energy efciency. The microturbine is

a co-generation system that converts natural gas into electricity to meet the majority of the

buildings power demands, while using the excess heat to produce hot water for domestic

use and space heating. This distributed power and heat generation system has a conversion

efciency of over 70 percent as compared to the less than 30 percent conversion efciency

of electricity drawn from the grid (Bullivant 2003). The photovoltaic array, composed of

199 panels, partially offsets the load placed on the microturbine. Through a hard-fought net

metering agreement with Southern California Edison, electricity is either used immediately

to meet the buildings power demand or sent to the grid for a credit. In concept, this couldresult in zero electricity charges (Farbstein et al. 2003).

One example of both the increasing quantication of symbiosis that Hagan (2001) wrote

about and an indication of the success of Colorado Courtat achieving it is the measure of

overall energy efciency dened in the USGBC LEED Rating System. Colorado Courtre-

ceived a LEED v2.1 Gold rating, scoring 10 points in the Energy & Atmosphere category

for a 60% reduction in design energy cost compared to the energy cost budget for energy

systems regulated by ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-1999 (USGBC 2008). Of course,

the implementation of passive strategies for load reduction was key to achieving such a

signicant reduction.

Pugh+Scarpa focused on measures to control solar gain and maximize daylighting and

natural ventilation. The majority of the windows are located on the southeast and northwest

elevations, with exterior egress balconies extensively shading the southeast-facing windows.

The natural ventilation strategy is shown in Figures 4 and 5. Shallow unit plans with openings

to the exterior at either end facilitate airow.

288



11/20

Figure 4: Unit Plan and Section Diagram Illustrating Shading and Natural Ventilation Strategy,

Illustration Credit: Pugh+Scarpa Architects, used with Permission

Figure 5: Plan Diagram Illustrating Shading and Natural Ventilation Strategy, Illustration

Credit: Pugh+Scarpa Architects, used with Permission

If Pugh+Scarpa were simply engaging in some kind of environmental functionalism, pur-

suing an operational goal in the most functionally efcient way possible (Hagan 2001),

then they could have stopped at this point content that they had greened the troublesome

multifamily housing building type. Upon further examination, though, this is obviously not

the case. Pugh+Scarpa are clearly engaging in cultural as well as climatic differentiation.

289

MICHAEL MCGLYNN


12/20

Differentiation

Arguably, differentiation begins to occur the moment that a given culture and/or particular

climate are consciously considered in the generation of architectural form. Of the three main

strategies mentioned by Hagan for relating a building to its environment (one being the previously mentioned ecological high tech), ...passive environmental design... and

...opting for a hybrid both/and strategy which uses both passive and active systems... are

the two most closely associated with differentiation (Hagan 2001). Hagan states, ...a

whole range of differentiations can emerge even within industrialized architecture, if it makes

itself open to pre-industrial techniques, as hybrid environmental architecture does (Hagan

2001). Hagan goes on to describe a type of technological appropriation in which revived

vernacular techniques have the potential for multiple meanings depending upon the context:

When applied in the culture where they were developed, these vernacular techniques

will provide a degree of formal inection towards that culture. When applied elsewhere,

their cultural baggage will be left behind, to accumulate new, more general associations

around the environmental. (Hagan 2001)

Local materials are also essential to visible differentiation in that ...they place the

building in the history of the site... in addition to reducing the amount of embodied energy

inherent to the structure (Hagan 2001).

Engaging in what Lawrence Scarpa terms global regionalism (Zeiger 2002),

Pugh+Scarpas architecture is in dialogue with the tradition of California Modernism while

employing technologies that are not of any particular place. Inuenced by the work of

Rudolph Schindler and Richard Neutra, the rms work is materially and formally inventive,

composed of interlocking volumes and shifting planes that often disengage from the massof the building. This approach leads to a high degree of permeability between indoor and

outdoor spaces, an appropriate strategy considering the benign Southern California climate.

Given the typically tight budget of a low-income housing project and the inevitable cost-

shifting necessary to procure alternative technologies, Pugh+Scarpa were more constrained

materially and spatially than on previous high-end single family residences. However, this

did not preclude them from engaging in formal manipulation for visual and spatial effect,

in addition to climatic adaptation.

For instance, the plan is subdivided into three bars of varying dimension woven together

by an exterior egress balcony (Figure 5). This serves to break up what could have otherwise

been an undifferentiated block, dening a southwest-facing communal courtyard on the

second oor while orienting the building to capture the prevailing winds. This is not themost functionally efcient layout, considering the single-loaded exterior egress balconies,

but that was not the point. Instead, climatic differentiation was achieved through an integ-

rated process that considered both architectural form and environmental performance.

290



13/20

Figure 6: Northwest Elevation with Interlocking Volumes and Windows Placed for Visual

Effect, Image Credit: Michael McGlynn

The compositional devices employed on the exterior elevations, clearly not derived from

functional considerations, further strengthen the buildings regional connection to the Cali-

fornia Modernism of the 1920s. Each bar appears to be composed of interlocking volumes

with a variety of window types placed primarily for visual effect (Figure 6). This serves to

avoid the monotony that would have occurred had the exterior elevations simply been an

outgrowth of an endlessly repeated unit plan tuned to optimize daylighting and natural

ventilation. Varying window type and placement for exterior effect has the added benet of

lending variety to the unit interiors, as well.

Figure 7: Photovoltaic Panels used as Planar, Interlocking Faade Elements, Image Credit:

Michael McGlynn

291

MICHAEL MCGLYNN


14/20

Figure 8: View of Northwest and Southwest Elevations showing Photovoltaic Arrays used

as Screens for Exterior Exit Stairways, Image Credit: Michael McGlynn

The most visible elements of the entire project and emblematic of a global environmentalagenda are the photovoltaic arrays. Hung vertically and, in one instance, wrapping over the

top of the building, the photovoltaic arrays are the only elements to disengage from the

building mass and are either used as planar, interlocking faade elements or as screens for

the exterior exit stairways (Figures 7 and 8). Pugh+Scarpa exploit the material quality of the

photovoltaic arrays, using it as much for its translucency as for its technological capacity.

In fact, the vertical arrays are 10 percent less efcient than the horizontal array on the roof

(Farbstein et al. 2003). Again, optimization of performance was not the overriding concern,

but rather a visible differentiation that speaks to both a regional and global culture.

VisibilityThe nal criterion, visibility, marks the point at which environmental architecture ...has

crossed a threshold beyond which form is deliberately manipulated to re-present, as well as

present, environmental sustainability (Hagan 2001). Currently, visibility resides squarely

in the realm of theory, as there are few, if any, built examples of Hagans proposition. Given

this, its potential lies primarily in generating future environmental architectures rather than

analyzing existing ones. Of the examples cited by Hagan, the provocative work of SITE

comes closest to embodying all aspects of this level of environmental architecture. James

Wines of SITE states:

The key to a truly sustainable art of architecture for the new millennium will dependon the creation of bridges that unite conservation technology with an Earth-centric

philosophy and the capacity of designers to transform these integrated forces into a new

visual language. (Wines 2000)

Environmental architecture at the level of visibility holds the potential to ...produce a

new material relation between architecture and site... (Hagan 2001).

Although formally interesting, Colorado Courtdoes not engage in the radical re-concep-

tualization of architecture in relation to the environment, la SITE. As previously stated,

Hagans level of visibility lies mainly in the theoretical. Instead, Pugh+Scarpa developed

a contextually and climatically responsive modernism, employing a strategy that Hagan

292



15/20

terms inclusive, not just in the use of high and low technologies, but in all aspects of envir-

onmental design, using some local techniques and some universal ones, some locally

available natural materials [stucco] and some synthetic ones (Hagan 2001).

Conclusion

Primarily intended to foreground discussions regarding the relationship between ethically

driven environmental design and aesthetically driven architectural culture, Hagans criteria

have proven useful in broadening what is taken into consideration in regard to sustainable

architecture. Low energy, net zero energy, and carbon neutral building approaches, although

incomplete in and of themselves, are essential to environmental architecture. Without such

measures, the impacts of global climate change will not be mitigated. Yet, There is no

reason why environmental designs science-based enquiry and architectures traditional

concern with form should not co-exist... (Hagan 2001). Just such a dialogue enriches

Pugh+Scarpas Colorado Court, resulting in a climatically and culturally differentiated en-vironmental aesthetic.

Hagans criteria are not without limitations, though. Ultimately, I nd symbiosis to be

problematic. An architecture in alignment with Hagans initial, and quite compelling,

denition of a building in dynamic cooperation with the natural environment (Hagan 2001)

would quickly lead to at least climatic differentiation, rendering the former criterion unne-

cessary. If the denition is limited, as previously described, to a formally deterministic focus

on building performance, symbiosis becomes a misnomer, as it is less a harmonious rela-

tionship with the natural environment and more a grafting of sustainable technologies to

existing architectures.

Differentiation, particularly when implemented with climatic and cultural distinctions,

is certainly the most useful criterion of the three. Primarily focused on external aesthetic and

technological issues, cultural differentiation lacks a humanistic, social dimension, though.

To the degree that Hagan considers the social, it tends to be in relation to building operations

rather than, for instance, architectures capacity to foster a sense of community. As a case

in point, while discussing the role of the user in the operation of hybrid environmental sys-

tems, Hagan notes, As important in decisions about the level of technology to use is the

ability of the buildings occupants to operate any system successfully...If the architect or the

environmental engineer does not explain the system clearly enough, the user can inadvertently

sabotage its effectiveness (Hagan 2001). Although social considerations are of secondary

importance to Hagan, they are of primary concern to Pugh+Scarpa and this social engagement

has an effect on architectural form. As such, the social is as much a part of reexive differ-entiation as any of the previously mentioned approaches. For instance, given that the units

are only 300-375 square feet, the exterior egress balconies and second oor terrace are inten-

ded to serve the dual function of climate control device and communal extension of living

space.

Lastly, in so much as the three criteria are an elaboration of Hagans form + operation

dialectic (Figures 2 and 3), what emerges is a bottom-up/top-down process. One can either

move from operationally oriented symbiosis through differentiation to formally oriented

visibility or vice versa (Figure 1). Yet, this is not an accurate reection of the iterative

design process. In any given design, certain formal or operational aspects may predominate,

293

MICHAEL MCGLYNN


16/20

but a mature design process is cyclical in nature, leading to an integrated solution to myriad

issues drawn from a broad spectrum.

So, how might these limitations be addressed? To begin, I propose a framework that

overlaps and extends Hagans criteria (Figure 9). The framework is composed of three con-

texts, each located at the corner of a triangle. These contexts are held in reciprocal relationship

to one another as represented by the multi-directional arrows. The result of maintaining these

reciprocal relationships throughout the design process is a responsively cohesive architectural

form as noted in the center of the triangle. If one context were to dominate, it would result

in a related nave approach to architectural form as noted around the periphery of the triangle.

Figure 9: Inclusive Framework for Architectural Form Generation, Illustration Credit: Michael

McGlynn

The framework adapts environmental ethicist Warwick Foxs theory of responsive cohesion

(Fox 2000). Fox sets out three contexts, in order of priority, to which any built environment

must respond: ecological, social, and built (Fox 2000). Each is nested within the context that...generated and continues to support... it (Fox 2000), hence the order of priority. Referring

to Foxs theory, Williamson et al. state:

...the term responsive cohesion is used to describe a state in which the various elements

of a thing (design work, community, creature) or process (design, construction, etc.)

exhibit a reciprocal interaction between elements that constitute it, and the context in

which it is located. (Williamson et al. 2003)

If, as Fox (2000) asserts, responsive cohesion is the fundamental evaluative principle, then

by extension it can be used in judgments regarding architectural form. Hence, I have adopted

294



17/20

his terminology as well as his general process for what I term an inclusive framework for

architectural form generation.

The ecological and built contexts mirror Hagans form + operation dialectic (Figures 2

and 3) and encompass her three criteria (Figure 1). Focusing exclusively on the ecological

context is akin to only addressing the level of symbiosis resulting in an unreexive,

operationally determined form. Similarly, an exclusive focus on the built context would

result in a formal determinism. In other words, the result would be an architectural form

absent appropriate ecological response. If these two contexts are mutually accommodated,

then the designer is engaging in Hagans preferred hybrid approach to form and operation.

The degree to which building performance is self-consciously manifested in architectural

form, then, is the degree to which differentiation and visibility are achieved. The

framework is also an extension of Hagans criteria in that it places equal emphasis in the

design process on the social context. Hagans cultural considerations, tied up as they are in

the aesthetic implications of environmental performance, are largely external. While still

encompassing these considerations, the social context also allows for architectural form tobe inuenced from within, by the way in which we inhabit the place.

Equal in importance to the extension of Hagans criteria is the revision of Hagans linear

process. Each of the three contexts is bounded, yet taken together, form an integral whole.

To myopically focus on one context is to erode and eventually destroy the integrity of the

whole. Each context is held in tension with the other two through an iterative, or cyclical,

design process. This is not about compromise. Rather, a responsively cohesive architectural

form is the inclusive result of fully considering the relationships among the ecological, social,

and built contexts. However, if for some reason circumstances disallow an inclusive solution,

then design process decisions always defer to the generative and supportive context as pre-

viously mentioned. By overlapping and extending Hagans criteria and tying approach to

process, this inclusive framework overcomes both the limitations of Hagans criteria and

those posed by any single, nave approach.

References

Buchanan, P. 2005, Ten shades of green: architecture and the natural world, Architectural League of

New York: Distributed by W.W. Norton, New York, NY.

Bullivant, L. 2003, [Home front: new developments in housing] - introduction,Architectural design,

vol. 73, no. 4, pp. 5-10.

Farbstein, J., Axelrod, E., Shibley, R. & Wener, R. 2003, Creative community building: 2003 rudy

bruner award for urban excellence, Bruner Foundation, Inc., Cambridge, MA.

Fox, W. 2000, Towards an ethics (or at least a value theory) of the built environment in Ethics andthe built environment, ed. W. Fox, Routledge, London; New York, pp. 207-221.

Hagan, S. 2001, Taking shape: a new contract between architecture and nature, Architectural Press,

Oxford; Boston.

Hagan, S. 1998, The good, the bad and the juggled: the new ethics of building materials, Journal of

architecture, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 107-115.

Hawkes, D., McDonald, J. & Steemers, K. 2002, The selective environment, Spon Press, London; New

York.

Mazria, E. 2008, Architecture 2030 [Homepage of Architecture 2030], [Online]. Available: www.ar-

chitecture2030.org [2009, 11/15].

Torcellini, P., Pless, S., Deru, M. & Crawley, D. 2006, Zero energy buildings: a critical look at the

denition,Proceedings of the 2006 ACEEE Summer Study on Energy Efciency in Buildings.

295

MICHAEL MCGLYNN


18/20

USGBC: U.S. Green Building Council. [Homepage of U.S. Green Building Council], [Online].

Available: www.usgbc.org [2009, 1/19].

Williamson, T.J., Radford, A. & Bennetts, H. 2003, Understanding sustainable architecture, Spon

Press, London; New York.

Wines, J. 2000, The art of architecture in the age of ecology in Sustainable architecture white papers,ed. D.E. Brown, Earth Pledge Foundation, New York, NY, pp. 12-18.

Wines, J. 1993, Architecture in the age of ecology, The amicus journal, vol. 15, pp. 22-23.

Zeiger, M. 2002, Solar air, Dwell, vol. 2, no. 6, pp. 30-32.

About the Author

Michael McGlynnMichael McGlynn, RA, LEED AP, is an assistant professor of architecture at Kansas State

University in Manhattan, KS.

296



19/20

EDITORS

Bill Cope, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, USA.Mary Kalantzis, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, USA.

EDITORIALADVISORYBOARDGenevieve Bell Intel Corporation, Santa Clara, USA.Michael Biggs University of Hertfordshire, Hertfordshire, UK.Thomas Binder Royal Danish Academy of Fine Arts, Copenhagen, Denmark.Jeanette Blomberg IBM Almaden Research Center, San Jose, USA.Eva Brandt Danmark Designskole, Copenhagen, Denmark.Peter Burrows RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia.Monika Bscher Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK.Bill Cope University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, USAPatrick Dillon Exeter University, Exeter, UK.Kees Dorst TUe, The Netherlands; UTS, Australia.Michael Gibson, University of North Texas, Denton, USA.Judith Gregory IIT Institute of Design, Chicago, USA; University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.Clive Holtham City of London University, London, UK.

Hiroshi Ishii MIT Media Lab, Cambridge, USA.Gianni Jacucci University of Trento, Trento, Italy.Mary Kalantzis University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, USA.Klaus Krippendorff University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, USA.Terence Love Curtin University, Perth, Australia.Bill Lucas, MAYA Fellow, MAYA Design, Inc., Pittsburgh, USA.Ezio Manzini Politecnico of Milano, Milan, Italy.Mario Minichiello, Birmingham Institute of Art and Design, Birmingham, UK.Julian Orr Work Practice & Technology Associates, Pescadero, USA.Mahendra Patel Leaf Design, Mumbai, India.Toni Robertson University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, Australia.Terry Rosenberg Goldsmiths, University of London, London, UK.

Keith Russell University of Newcastle, Callaghan, Australia.Liz Sanders Make Tools, USA.Maria Cecilia Loschiavo dos Santos University of So Paulo, So Paulo, Brazil.Lucy Suchman Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK.Ina Wagner Technical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.

Please visit the Journal website at http://www.Design-Journal.comfor further information about the Journal or to subscribe.


20/20

THE UNIVERSITY PRESS JOURNALS

www.Arts-Journal.com www.Book-Journal.com

www.Climate-Journal.com www.ConstructedEnvironment.com

www.Design-Journal.com www.Diversity-Journal.com

www.GlobalStudiesJournal.com www.Humanities-Journal.com

www.OnTheImage.com www.Learning-Journal.com

www.Management-Journal.com www.Museum-Journal.com

www.ReligionInSociety.com www.Science-Society.com

http://www.SocialSciences-Journal.com www.SpacesAndFlows.com

www.SportAndSociety.com www.Sustainability-Journal.com

www.Technology-Journal.com www.ULJournal.com

www.Universities-Journal.com

FOR SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION, PLEASE [email protected]

Documents

G10 21882 Environmental Design and Architectural Expression Final